Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by jessaustin 1747 days ago
Taibbi didn't cite any specific examples, so it's unclear how any examples could have been confused. He just wrote that a particular discussion program should have featured a wider range of opinions.

How are we to differentiate speaking one's mind freely from spreading misinformation? No human possesses perfect information.
1 comments
belltaco 1747 days ago
Spreading third party misinformation is different from creating said misinformation. You could ask them where they got the misinformation and go up the chain till you find who knowingly made it up and don't have someone else to blame.
link
jessaustin 1747 days ago
Whose speech are you going to outlaw: the creator or the repeater? Who decides what is "misinformation"?
link
belltaco 1747 days ago
Again, you're using the term 'speech' to describe fake news, to frame the discussion. Why is that term not used when people commit fraud or scams?

Also the word 'outlaw'. What if tech companies don't amplify the fake news of both creators and repeaters?

As far as the law is concerned a narrow and carefully crafted law can written, a repeater does not get in trouble unless it can be proven without a doubt that they knew it was fake news yet chose to spread it. As far as who decides it(in the legal system), we already have a system that works fairly decently, the court system. Maybe just civil sanctions, like a $500 fine. The accused will have a chance to explain to the court and the public their rationale behind what they wrote/said.

We already have libel and other laws that restrict free speech. E.g https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_advertising#United_State...

This law wouldn't affect opinions in the slightest. Saying "x gender should stay home", "y race people are terrible" would still not violate law.

Again, this is something that I just threw together, I am sure there are many smarter people than me who can refine it so we can protect true free speech while restricting fake news.

link
jessaustin 1747 days ago
We seem to have drifted from the seemingly impossible task of determining truth to the definitely impossible task of determining what someone believed at the moment of speech. Authoritarianism is terrible for humans. Pray you never have to answer in court for this thread.
link
belltaco 1747 days ago
>We seem to have drifted from the seemingly impossible task of determining truth

So I guess it's time for the courts to pack up and shut down and go home.

>to the definitely impossible task of determining what someone believed at the moment of speech

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intention_(criminal_law)

Yes, the courts should definitely turn off the lights right away.

>Pray you never have to answer in court for this thread.

Even if I was somehow successfully prosecuted it'd only be a civil fine. I am not worried.

Maybe these people are worried?

https://www.wired.com/2017/02/veles-macedonia-fake-news/

link
jessaustin 1747 days ago
The courts have a hard enough time with important truths like whether somebody killed somebody else. They're already busy; why should we load them up with trivial questions like whether COVID-19 was manufactured in a lab or not, and doubly trivial questions like who believed in particular answers to those already-trivial questions and when?
link