4 ms·

The "information wants to be free" discourse of just under 30 years ago feels so charmingly naive now that we've seen how lies are also information and can trav

by Pxtl 4mo ago

The "information wants to be free" discourse of just under 30 years ago feels so charmingly naive now that we've seen how lies are also information and can travel even better using the same flow.

_def 4mo ago
Truly something we still have to figure out. Attention budget is real and things can get buried. The really big problem of our time.
LudwigNagasena 4mo ago
What exactly is this "information wants to be free" discourse? The arguments for and against freedom of speech as a foundational social principle span at least 300 continuous years.
- latexr 4mo ago
  > What exactly is this "information wants to be free" discourse? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_wants_to_be_free https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_wants_to_be_free > The arguments for and against freedom of speech It’s not about freedom of speech but about access to information.
  - LudwigNagasena 4mo ago
    The discussions about intellectual property rights are quite recent, but the idea that "lies are also information and can travel even better using the same flow" was well-explored over 300 years of discussions about freedom of speech (and not only discussions, but also jailings, executions, witch hunts, etc).
    - latexr 4mo ago
      I think it should be pretty obvious that dissemination of information and lies today—when you can’t even know if the person on the other side is real or from your own country—is much different than 300 years ago. The “information wants to be free” motivation is much closer to the world of today than the one in your distant past. More importantly, I don’t understand why you’re so hung up on that. What difference does it make? If you agree with the conclusion, why are the dates of when the idea started so important? It doesn’t matter to the discussion, it’s only distracting from the point.
      - LudwigNagasena 4mo ago
        > I think it should be pretty obvious that dissemination of information and lies today much different than 300 years ago. Of course, so what? If your implication is that none of the arguments made over 300 years are relevant today, I would say it is pretty obviously completely wrong. > when you can’t even know if the person on the other side is real or from your own country Did people in England and France use to know the authors of seditious pamphlets that were produced in the Dutch Republic and smuggled into those countries? Most of them were anonymous. Not only they didn't know the authors, the authors 100% were enabled by foreign actors. > it’s only distracting from the point The point: we've seen recently how damaging the fast spread of lies is therefore only naive fools would be against information control. My rebuttal: we've seen how damaging lies are for 300 years, yet it is a deep ongoing debate that many great thinkers contributed to, therefore it is not just a matter of fools believing into something. Or do you see "the point" to be something different?
        latexr 4mo ago
        > If your implication is that none of the arguments made over 300 years are relevant today No, the point is that for the purposes of this discussion it is irrelevant when the arguments were first made. And reread the original: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48550066 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48550066 Nowhere does it say that “information wants to be free” was the originator of the idea. It’s merely anchoring it to something recent HN readers have a good likelihood of being acquainted with. It’s like someone used Avatar to discuss how colonialism is portrayed in media, and someone came along to say “Pocahontas did it way before”. Alright, but that doesn’t matter for the argument. We’re discussing the idea itself, its origins do not make a difference for the matter. I’ll ask again: > If you agree with the conclusion, why are the dates of when the idea started so important?
        LudwigNagasena 4mo ago
        > No, the point is that for the purposes of this discussion it is irrelevant when the arguments were first made. How is that irrelevant if the whole statement is literally about when the arguments were first made and supposedly disproven? > Nowhere does it say that “information wants to be free” was the originator of the idea. It literally says __now__ that we've seen how lies are also information and can travel even better using the same flow, as if it is something recent. > It’s like someone used Avatar to discuss how colonialism is portrayed in media, and someone came along to say “Pocahontas did it way before”. Alright, but that doesn’t matter for the argument. We’re discussing the idea itself, its origins do not make a difference for the matter. If someone says that our views on colonialism were naive before Avatar 2 changed our perception of Avatar, of course it is fair to mention Pocahontas and 300 years of nuanced discussions of colonialism.
- CalRobert 4mo ago
  popular refrain around the "Free Kevin" era ca. 1999 or so. See also "Boycott RIAA" etc. I shared its optimism and naivete :-(
pibaker 4mo ago
And who shall we appoint at the supreme arbitrator of what is lie and what is knowledge? Some of us remember when they assured us that the novel virus in china was not to be afraid of.
- chadgpt3 4mo ago
  Some of us remember when they assured us ivermectin could cure it.
  - Pxtl 4mo ago
    And hydroxychloroquine before that.
- Cthulhu_ 4mo ago
  And it wasn't, until it was. Before Covid-19 we had SARS and MERS, both of which were also watched closely but those didn't develop into a pandemic.
- Pxtl 4mo ago
  > And who shall we appoint at the supreme arbitrator of what is lie and what is knowledge? Ask the parents of the Sandy Hook children, they'll tell you.
akimbostrawman 4mo ago
Why do you assuming only true information is information. Information can be anything not to mention that the definition of truths and lies can change with time and location.
- Pxtl 4mo ago
  My point is that in the late '90s that was the prevailing assumption about the growth of the internet. We have learned that this assumption was wrong. > the definition of truths and lies can change with time and location This is moral relativism.
  - akimbostrawman 4mo ago
    >We have learned that this assumption was wrong. I don't see how the existence of wrong or disinformation somehow makes that assumption wrong. Considering the amounts of (true) information you can freely access with the internet right now that is being otherwise suppressed. >This is moral relativism. There exists change of truths outside of moral ones, science for example.

by Pxtl 4mo ago

The "information wants to be free" discourse of just under 30 years ago feels so charmingly naive now that we've seen how lies are also information and can travel even better using the same flow.

_def 4mo ago

Truly something we still have to figure out. Attention budget is real and things can get buried. The really big problem of our time.

LudwigNagasena 4mo ago

What exactly is this "information wants to be free" discourse? The arguments for and against freedom of speech as a foundational social principle span at least 300 continuous years.

latexr 4mo ago
> What exactly is this "information wants to be free" discourse? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_wants_to_be_free https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_wants_to_be_free > The arguments for and against freedom of speech It’s not about freedom of speech but about access to information.
- LudwigNagasena 4mo ago
  The discussions about intellectual property rights are quite recent, but the idea that "lies are also information and can travel even better using the same flow" was well-explored over 300 years of discussions about freedom of speech (and not only discussions, but also jailings, executions, witch hunts, etc).
  - latexr 4mo ago
    I think it should be pretty obvious that dissemination of information and lies today—when you can’t even know if the person on the other side is real or from your own country—is much different than 300 years ago. The “information wants to be free” motivation is much closer to the world of today than the one in your distant past. More importantly, I don’t understand why you’re so hung up on that. What difference does it make? If you agree with the conclusion, why are the dates of when the idea started so important? It doesn’t matter to the discussion, it’s only distracting from the point.
    - LudwigNagasena 4mo ago
      > I think it should be pretty obvious that dissemination of information and lies today much different than 300 years ago. Of course, so what? If your implication is that none of the arguments made over 300 years are relevant today, I would say it is pretty obviously completely wrong. > when you can’t even know if the person on the other side is real or from your own country Did people in England and France use to know the authors of seditious pamphlets that were produced in the Dutch Republic and smuggled into those countries? Most of them were anonymous. Not only they didn't know the authors, the authors 100% were enabled by foreign actors. > it’s only distracting from the point The point: we've seen recently how damaging the fast spread of lies is therefore only naive fools would be against information control. My rebuttal: we've seen how damaging lies are for 300 years, yet it is a deep ongoing debate that many great thinkers contributed to, therefore it is not just a matter of fools believing into something. Or do you see "the point" to be something different?
      - latexr 4mo ago
        > If your implication is that none of the arguments made over 300 years are relevant today No, the point is that for the purposes of this discussion it is irrelevant when the arguments were first made. And reread the original: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48550066 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48550066 Nowhere does it say that “information wants to be free” was the originator of the idea. It’s merely anchoring it to something recent HN readers have a good likelihood of being acquainted with. It’s like someone used Avatar to discuss how colonialism is portrayed in media, and someone came along to say “Pocahontas did it way before”. Alright, but that doesn’t matter for the argument. We’re discussing the idea itself, its origins do not make a difference for the matter. I’ll ask again: > If you agree with the conclusion, why are the dates of when the idea started so important?
        LudwigNagasena 4mo ago
        > No, the point is that for the purposes of this discussion it is irrelevant when the arguments were first made. How is that irrelevant if the whole statement is literally about when the arguments were first made and supposedly disproven? > Nowhere does it say that “information wants to be free” was the originator of the idea. It literally says __now__ that we've seen how lies are also information and can travel even better using the same flow, as if it is something recent. > It’s like someone used Avatar to discuss how colonialism is portrayed in media, and someone came along to say “Pocahontas did it way before”. Alright, but that doesn’t matter for the argument. We’re discussing the idea itself, its origins do not make a difference for the matter. If someone says that our views on colonialism were naive before Avatar 2 changed our perception of Avatar, of course it is fair to mention Pocahontas and 300 years of nuanced discussions of colonialism.
CalRobert 4mo ago
popular refrain around the "Free Kevin" era ca. 1999 or so. See also "Boycott RIAA" etc. I shared its optimism and naivete :-(

pibaker 4mo ago

And who shall we appoint at the supreme arbitrator of what is lie and what is knowledge? Some of us remember when they assured us that the novel virus in china was not to be afraid of.

chadgpt3 4mo ago
Some of us remember when they assured us ivermectin could cure it.
- Pxtl 4mo ago
  And hydroxychloroquine before that.
Cthulhu_ 4mo ago
And it wasn't, until it was. Before Covid-19 we had SARS and MERS, both of which were also watched closely but those didn't develop into a pandemic.
Pxtl 4mo ago
> And who shall we appoint at the supreme arbitrator of what is lie and what is knowledge? Ask the parents of the Sandy Hook children, they'll tell you.

akimbostrawman 4mo ago

Why do you assuming only true information is information. Information can be anything not to mention that the definition of truths and lies can change with time and location.

Pxtl 4mo ago
My point is that in the late '90s that was the prevailing assumption about the growth of the internet. We have learned that this assumption was wrong. > the definition of truths and lies can change with time and location This is moral relativism.
- akimbostrawman 4mo ago
  >We have learned that this assumption was wrong. I don't see how the existence of wrong or disinformation somehow makes that assumption wrong. Considering the amounts of (true) information you can freely access with the internet right now that is being otherwise suppressed. >This is moral relativism. There exists change of truths outside of moral ones, science for example.