[ziroshima]

No doubt, these censors and would-be censors have the best of intentions. But you've really got your head up your own ass if you convince yourself that you are protecting people by deciding the information that is appropriate for them to be exposed to. I just don't understand the shortsightedness, the naivete, or the willingness to discard the principle of free speech.

[throwawaygh]

The status quo is a messy conflagration where initial beliefs were the brush, a combination of mental health issues and social frustration were the trees, and the perverse incentives of engagement metrics provided the high winds.

So I'm in the awkward middle ground of believing it's counter-productive to try to shelter people from ideas but also believing that lots of people are very easy to manipulate, even so easy to manipulate that it can happen en masse and entirely by accident.

(I'm not arguing against the argument against censorship... it's just that I think the censorship issue is mostly a massive red herring when it comes to the issues that are discussed in the article.)

[ksdale]

The silver lining of this awkward middle ground is the certainty that censorship is the wrong way to go. We may be doomed if people remain so easy to manipulate, but if you really believe that censorship is counter-productive, then education is the only path out.

[throwoutway]

We’ll also be doomed if this is just a trial run that just enables authoritarianism in another decade. If people roll over on this now, the government won’t care to subdue the populace more & more in the future.

[throwawaygh]

Ugh, no! I mean, yes, but also, stop getting sucked into this stupid debate. It's a red herring.

[ksdale]

And I guess to expand on my position, I don't think this debate is stupid. The way through, in my mind, as naive as it may seem, is to be basically like substack, and acknowledge that providing a platform is a big responsibility, one they don't take lightly, that the goal is increased trust overall, and that that goal is primarily served by being as content agnostic as possible. Acting in good faith with no expectation that people will return the favor is the way to build trust.

[throwawaygh]

> by being as content agnostic as possible.

This is not congruent with profit motive, so they will fail. Either as a company or as at this goal. Almost certainly the latter.

Google set out to not be evil and Zuckerberg set out to connect the world. Both, I'm sure, sincere.

[ksdale]

Haha I can sense your frustration! What is the real debate, in your mind?

[throwawaygh]

Factored out into a separate thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30093413

[canadaduane]

I would love to hear more of your thoughts on this.

One thought experiment that has helped me get my mind around the problem is "why is it necessary that parents shield children from some information?"

I think free speech might have a context that is invisible to us. Something like a prior, or trained neural net, in which free speech and no censorship is absolutely the right thing. And then there might be other contexts where it is wrong, and harmful.

In other words, "dangerous ideas" may be the wrong way of thinking about free speech--it might be "dangerous contexts" of our minds--such as childhood. If so, what then?

[zpeti]

There is a difference between a child and an adult. We make that distinction for a reason, and we act differently for a reason.

A great analogy is to think of an eggshell with a chick inside. The eggshell provides protection for a long time but is also restrictive. When the chick is strong enough it will break free. But if it breaks free too early it won’t be strong enough to survive in the world.

[judahmeek]

Do you have any statistical studies that show that adults are less likely to be manipulated than children?

If so, how was "manipulation" defined exactly?

[tekknik]

Do you actually need studies? Adults for the most part are more educated, children are not. Therefore it’s easier to tell a child a lie than an adult. You can use basic logic.

[canadaduane]

I like your analogy, as I appreciate thinking about it. Some thoughts:

Breaking an eggshell requires effort, and seems kind of like a "test" to me. But in most human societies, it's possible to simply let time pass and you will reach the "age of majority" (usually 18 or 19 years old). I wonder if we're doing a disservice by allowing children to cross that boundary without any "eggshell test".

[water8]

To rephrase, your argument: Why lying is ok in small doses. It’s still a morally dubious and supremely arrogant position

[robotresearcher]

Insisting on free speech means that lying is OK in arbitrary doses.

I'm strongly for free speech. But it logically entails allowing people to lie as much as they want.

[yanderekko]

>One thought experiment that has helped me get my mind around the problem is "why is it necessary that parents shield children from some information?"

I'd argue that paternalism is particularly justified in relationships that are literally paternalistic.

The issue is that the justification for my neighbor paternalistically dictating how I should live my life is much weaker a parent dictating to their child. We shouldn't deeply have to delve into why this is the case.

[canadaduane]

Philosophy is often the tool I reach for when trying to deeply understand complex issues.

[kolanos]

> So I'm in the awkward middle ground of believing it's counter-productive to try to shelter people from ideas but also believing that lots of people are very easy to manipulate, even so easy to manipulate that it can happen en masse and entirely by accident.

Don't think it is an accident. The ruling class has set this stage by design. There is little to no critical thinking being taught in K-12. Create a malleable population, then push censorship to protect them from themselves.

[lliamander]

You can't teach critical thinking. There are techniques you can learn, but critical thinking is fundamentally an attitude. It's the attitude of never taking anything you read or hear at face value.

And while it can be quite important, it's also super exhausting. I think people's tolerance for that kind of work exists along a spectrum (probably with at least some biological component) but that no one can really do it all the time.

[Chris2048]

You can teach the principles, and example of why it's important to create motivation.

any subject requires a motivated attitude to succeed. Critical thinking also requires an attitude to value the topic IRL - but arguable that ought to be the case for all topics.

> It's the attitude of never taking anything you read or hear at face value.

A class in philosophy (or history) of science will teach you all the ways in which people where wrong before the process was established, and will make you see the value of science. CT is the same thing applied to everything, not just formal physical studies.

> it's also super exhausting

Only because most things are written to manipulate. If publications actually suffered for their reputation b/c of poor articles the whole thing would be easier. Also, if journalists set out to prove their claims, and properly source them - arguably something like Wikipedia is a group effort to do what is hard for the individual (I think it fails, btw, by leaning too much on published material).

[matthewdgreen]

“Never taking anything you read or hear at face value” makes it impossible to operate in a functioning society. This is particularly the case in a society where some people are happy to fill your information channels with conflicting information. Even if you do your research and reject some of the bad data, the effort will paralyze you (and others like you) which is almost as good from a malicious perspective.

Or to think about it from an information security perspective, once you adopt a specific defense mechanism, someone will look for ways to exploit it. This one is particularly easy to exploit.

[zozbot234]

Newsflash, there is little of anything being taught in K12. Public schooling is a sad joke in the US.

[BeFlatXIII]

It’s why I was so unconcerned with the school shutdowns early in the pandemic. Even an entire semester lost wouldn’t noticeably impede the nonexistent learning of US students. However, now that’s it’s been two years of on and off online school, that’s well past the point when detrimental effects would show, even in the US education system.

[soco]

Did we ever have a less malleable population? Was critical thinking ever taught? If this is by design, I'd argue the design was there since the dawn of civilization. (Note: no I'm not offering any solution, just making an observation)

[epgui]

Imagine you have free speech. Yay! Now what? Why was this so important again?

Free speech is not an end goal. It's a tool that serves a purpose. In the relationship between a powerful government and a collection of individually vulnerable citizens, it pushes the power balance farther toward the individual.

Is the goal to give all the power to the individual? No, that's not the goal. The goal is to have some sort of equilibrium between the powers of the government and the powers of individuals. The point of equilibrium is fuzzy and ill-defined, but it's characterized by an increase in stability.

The point is that free speech is not a sacred irreducible holy thing. It's an important thing that serves a purpose. It's not absolute. It's possible for something in a given situation to be more important than free speech.

[inglor_cz]

This is a very utilitarian point of view. I cannot say that I disagree hard, but free speech is more than just a tool.

It is part of human dignity, at least for some people: not to be muzzled by somebody else on the account that (s)he is of a) nobler birth, b) dominant religion, gender or race, c) physically stronger, d) elected to decorate some office etc.

This is an intangible, but very important human asset. So many people live in countries where they would like to walk free and criticize what they do not like, but must cast down their eyes in fear of every uniform. The feeling of liberation when such a regime falls down is indescribable.

I saw the Czechoslovak Velvet Revolution unfolding. It wasn't just a technical adjustment; for the first time in years people could (verbally or literally) spit on their former tyrants and walk free.

[epgui]

I fully agree that the utilitarian dimension is probably not the full picture. I really just find it a useful (ha!) idea, and I hope it’s given someone some difficult questions to think about. shrug

[goblin89]

Free speech is never unconditional free speech. The reality is more along the lines “allowed speech = everything except set X” construct, where X tends to grow indefinitely as more and more unacceptable things come in focus.

As an example, in both Czech Republic and Slovakia denying Holocaust is a crime. I’m sure new examples will come in future, though I hope we will not have to endure another mass horror and/or loss of life for that.

So, how about as a thought experiment we invert the aforementioned construct “allowed = everything except set X” and think of it as “allowed = one giant set Y”. Looks like we believe we must allow only certain things for humanity to exist and progress—so what is the criteria shared by speech in set Y? Random idea; what if it has less to do with what is said but the intent of it? However, the intent can never be communicated perfectly or proven, so it doesn’t seem feasible to restrict based on it, and we have to resort to substance banning instead.

Another thought, if we eliminate all mental issues and insecurities that cause people to attack (and agitate others to join) a group or generally behave in a way that is detrimental to others for personal gain, would we still need to restrict freedom of speech? Or is that an unrealistic scenario generally?

[naasking]

> Imagine you have free speech. Yay! Now what? Why was this so important again?

It's important because it's a human right.

> Free speech is not an end goal. It's a tool that serves a purpose.

No, it's a human right. Thinking that "human rights" are tools to serve a purpose is authoritarian thinking, where we grant people fictitious "rights" only if they serve some greater social purpose, but if that social purpose is threatened by those rights, we reserve the right to oppress them.

That said, I agree that recognizing free speech is a right doesn't mean it must be unrestricted. Other rights exist too after all.

[thephyber]

"because it's a human right" isn't exactly a useful argument.

Someone decided to add it to the list of human rights. They did it because it is a useful tool (and likely because humans without it are somehow less than humans with it).

I don't think your answer is as useful as perhaps an explanation of why it is a human right.

[raxxorrax]

I disagree that it is a tool. A silenced individual becomes a slave at some point. Not the individual challenges government power, other state institutions do that, so there is no compromise needed at all. Many people believe those control mechanisms are failing as they get more and more politicized. It is normal by now that government breaks the law. It is not allowed to put people under surveillance. Yet it does constantly. People responsible for that should be in prison. For a very long time. The problem would be solved since the next one would think hard of repeating the mistake. Yet many states are dysfunctional here.

So people are wise to insist on their right to make live hard for government. Until it repents this will not change.

[logicchains]

>Is the goal to give all the power to the individual? No, that's not the goal. The goal is to have some sort of equilibrium between the powers of the government and the powers of individuals.

The government is "individuals"! Every bit of power you take from the individuals in society, you give to the individuals in government. And historically the vast majority of these people have been corrupt and self-serving, because such kinds of people are attracted to positions of power, and most voters can't tell the difference between a good person and a skilled liar. Government attracts narcissists, as it requires a certain kind of narcisissm to go about telling people that they should live their lives how you want, not how they want.

[epgui]

In the context of my post, the meaning of "government" is basically Hobbes' Leviathan, or a more modern version of it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leviathan_(Hobbes_book)#Part_I...

[colordrops]

Free speech by our definition in the US is a sacred and mostly irreducible "holy" thing, as being the very first amendment of the constitution. There is no true democracy without free speech. Free speech is a fundamental atom of a healthy and fair democracy. There is almost never a case where restriction of speech isn't abused to give one individual or group political advantage over another.

[jrimbault]

> very first amendment

So, it's not, it's just the first change to an already existing document. The first article of your constitution describes the legislatives institutions. I (vaguely) know that, I'm not even American.

[amendenment]

It is precisely because it is the first amendment in the bill of rights, that demonstrates how highly the value is held. Any other "change" could have been first, but freedom of speech was chosen. The founders were not going to otherwise ratify the constitution without the bill of rights. I find it a bit pointless to say you are not American and vaguely know something in order to demonstrate that you understand the constitution better despite not being so, if you vaguely don't know that the constitution was not ratified without the bill of rights.

[thephyber]

Both you and the parent comment are correct.

Some states (Delaware, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Georgia, and Connecticut) ratified the Constitution before the Bill of Rights was formally drafted[1] and initially without requiring the Bill of Rights. The Massachusetts Compromise was an agreement that the Bill of Rights would be packaged with the new Constitution (with the BoR being active at ratification, before the Constitution) and was required before some of the remaining states would ratify the Constitution.

It's worth pointing out that the Bill of Rights was ratified 2.0 years after the first elections for national office and 1.5 years after the constitution was finally ratified. [1]

[1] https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/blog...

[epgui]

It is not atomic and irreducible, even in the United States. How could it be atomic and irreducible if there were exceptions to it? What justifies the exceptions? [1] Please don't be afraid to dig just a little bit deeper. I promise you that your respect for free speech will not be diminished: you'll just be a little bit less wrong in your logic.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exce...

[tempestn]

I agree with you, but to me this comment came across as a bit patronizing.

[epgui]

Apologies— not the intention, sincerely!

[tempestn]

Ha, happens to us all! Ironically my reply attracted downvotes, as it appears some felt the same way about my tone policing.

[UncleMeat]

There are numerous legal restrictions on speech, including against false advertising and slander. Further, free speech has not been considered "holy" in private spaces for the history of the US. This modern discussion of social media and moderation is completely novel and cannot draw from past feelings on free speech as a principle.

[thephyber]

Yes. I feel like too many people are making the argument that social media spaces are the "town square" (legal concept) despite the fact that it has never been established. It's much closer to individuals sending in their opinions to a newspaper in hops of being printed in the OpEd section.

[cjfd]

Actually, free speech is an end goal. It is a human right. As such only grave reasons are valid to infringe upon it.

[epgui]

So if I ask you "why do we have or need human rights", would you say "there is no reason, the analysis stops there"?

[perryizgr8]

I saw a video in which Richard Feynman was asked to explain why magnets repel. He went on a long tirade but finally the answer was "magnets repel, because they do". Asking for a deeper explanation does not make sense unless you want to study theoretical physics for the rest of your life.

I feel this question about human rights falls into a similar category. They are required. If you want to go deeper into the reasons, you need to spend a lifetime studying philosophy and ethics and whatnot.

[thephyber]

"Because they do" is really vague, but a more useful way of saying the same thing is "repulsion is an observed property of some physical objects due to the force of magnetism" is a better answer. Feynman was creative and coy with some of his answers. That doesn't mean we all have to be.

The "Human Rights" discussion is different from a law of physics. It is a human-curated list of rights and they all have restrictions and exclusions, which is core to the "censorship by private companies on their properties" discussion.

It's helpful to discussions of "Human Rights" or "Natural Rights" to point to a written document that disambigautes the terms and enumerates the specific rights, so we know we are discussing the same thing.

The UN Declaration of Human Rights Article 19 says

> Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.[1]

[1] https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-huma...

[SketchySeaBeast]

> They are required.

Why are they required and what are they required for? Countries exist that don't have the exact same human rights, so clearly those rights don't need to exist for a nation or an individual to successfully exist.

[tekknik]

Did you not read the post? The answer as to why is a very deep discussion. Sure North Korea exists, do you want to live there? Maybe start with personal feelings?

[cjfd]

After that one gets into philosophical ethics rather quickly. In practice people not having human rights degrades into much suffering quickly. You said something not-so-nice about the government? Now we throw you in jail! So, why is that wrong? I am sure one can talk pretty endlessly in a philosophy course but in practice there does not seem to be much point. Also, we should keep history in mind. In fact, there is reason for severe trauma surrounding this area. Horrible events in history like nazism and communism, both with a body count in the 100 millions are a reason to hold some principles sacred to the point of refusing to discuss them.

[Pyramus]

Let me ask the question differently: Who would protect human rights?

Extrapolating from your examples it seems that only democracies (and the hypothetical benevolent dictator) grant individuals human rights. The question is: What comes first, democracy or human rights?

[cjfd]

Human rights are a precondition to democracy. The key idea is that in a democracy people can get laws changed if they can get enough others behind the idea. To do this one needs, at the very least, to tell other people about this idea that one has about this law that needs to be changed. If such speech is prohibited then democracy stops at square one. Your hypothetical benevolent dictator already points in this direction. A benevolent dictator could in principle respect all human rights but he would still write all laws so it would not be a democracy. It could even be allowed to say that the dictator situation sucks but it would just be impossible to change. So human rights precede democracy logically speaking, but perhaps not practically speaking.

[epgui]

I may not have all the answers, but personally, I think the question is rather important. I am really uncomfortable with the idea of certain things being sacred for no reason. Sometimes I get the impression that a lot of people are fighting for the right things, but by accident. My worry is that I don’t know what then prevents people from fighting for the wrong things by similar accident (eg.: nazism).

[cjfd]

Another thing one might ask is what is the goal of having a society in the first place or what should be the goal of having a society. I would say that providing its members with their human rights is pretty high up there as the goal. But maybe we can do a bit better. What about every person being able to strive for what they themselves consider valuable? I think that as such already presupposes human rights. Another thing to think about in this context is economic prosperity. When talking about nazism, I don't think you can see this as separate from the economic situation at the time it came up. If there is enough economic hardship people will follow the great leader who promises better and they will be vulnerable to the suggestion that some outgroup or etnicity is harming them.

[jimkleiber]

I really appreciated reading your post. So much of what I read online and then come to even believe myself pushes me towards one extreme or the other. I almost argue I need to do A or B. Again and again, something nudges me back to realizing it's a balance, an oscillation between the two sides, never fully settled, always with a little bounce and overshooting.

Reading your post helped me feel calm and at ease, nudging me back towards this realization. So thank you.

[loughnane]

I rank free speech very highly, certainly more than just a tool. My reasoning is this:

1. Some things are good in themselves, some for the sake of other things, some both.

2. Thus there must be an ultimate good that is good only in itself

3. “Happiness” seems to be to be that ultimate good.

4. “What is happiness” takes more than a sentence, but my money is that it’s closely related to things that are unique to humans.

5. That rules out much, but “reasoning”, particularly to the degree that we do it, is clearly unique.

6. I therefore identify the ability to reason as a core aspect of the happiness.

7. Given that we are naturally social creatures, it’s a short step to say that communicating our reasoning to others is a necessary consequence of the reasoning itself.

The result is that I see free speech as one of the top goods in a society. One in the neighborhood of the ultimate good and so indispensable in living a complete life.

To enshrine it in law for everyone rather than let individual power dictate who gets de facto FOS is to state that everyone deserves a full human life.

It’s not a mere tool or means to some other minor end.

[Sykander]

> 1. Some things are good in themselves, some for the sake of other things, some both.

Some people may agree or disagree with this sentiment, that an action can be inherently right or wrong. Afterall, context makes all the difference.

> 3 “Happiness” seems to be to be that ultimate good.

Unfortunately, we know that this isn't the case. Even is an absolute morality exists (meaning that a thing could inherently right without relying on some other authority), we know that happiness is not it's ideal, because then Utilitarianism would be fundamentally right in all scenarios, and it just isn't.

Furthermore, if we characterise happiness as an absolute goal, then why not just hook your brain directly up to a Seratonin IV for the rest of your life?

=====

Free Speech is important because just having someone tell you something is true isn't enough. There needs to ALWAYS be an open forum for disagreement, of anything. Even if you think something is right, it shouldn't be free from criticism.

If an idea isn't strong enough to stand in a free speech debate then it isn't worth holding onto.

[epgui]

Why do you think something serving as a tool, or having a utility, makes something less important?

You could see lungs as a tool to breathe, it doesn’t mean they aren’t essential.

[jlokier]

(For context, I'm not from the US and I'm not coming from a background of belief in the US system particularly.)

> Free speech is not an end goal. It's a tool that serves a purpose.

You seem to hold that view that each legal right granted to people is a tool for a purpose. But some things are held, by some, to be worthwhile for their own sake. They are regarded as intrinsically worthwhile.

Consider:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed [...]"

That famous text talks about noble ideas such as life, freedom and justice as intrinsically worthwhile. They are not being granted as tools to provide some other social utility. They are the goals themselves.

It doesn't say life is protected because it makes society better, or that freedom is granted because it makes society more efficient or something.

It's the other way around. Within that framework for thinking about values, society and government are the tools; and life, freedom and happiness are the worthy goals.

Is it such a stretch to consider that free speech is part of personal freedom itself, therefore free speech is an intrinsically worthwhile goal to protect in and of itself?

If you do believe free speech is intrinsically worth protecting as part of life, freedom and happiness, you will surely butt up against the hard reality that it causes injustice and misery in some contexts by its effects. Speech has effects which deprive other people of these same intrinsically worthwhile things, including depriving other people of meaningful free speech. Ethical dilemmas do exist around free speech. Nonetheless, if you believe that it's intrinsically worthwhile because freedom is, you will surely make every effort to resolve ethical dilemmas in a way that keeps free speech as an elevated, worthwhile goal in and of itself, without it needing to be justified as a tool for any other purpose.

[bondarchuk]

Free speech is a tool that serves a purpose. The purpose is a stable society. To have a stable society requires censorship. Very clever lmao.

[epgui]

That's... Not at all what I'm saying.

[bondarchuk]

Where did I go wrong in my analysis?

You say free speech is a tool that serves a purpose. Then you imply that the purpose of the tool is to push the balance of power toward the individual. The goal in pushing the balance of power to the individual is to have an equilibrium between the individuals' and the government's power. This equilibrium is characterized by an increase in stability. It seems fair to summarize this as "free speech is a tool that serves the purpose of increasing stability".

You conclude: "It's possible for something in a given situation to be more important than free speech." I think it's implied here that this "something" is (an increase in) stability. If stability is more important than free speech, it implies free speech should be restricted in order to achieve stability. In other words, censorship should be applied in order to achieve more stability.

[Pyramus]

You are making a false equivalence here: Restriction of free speech != censorship.

Every single Western democracy on this planet restricts free speech in exactly the way parent described - as a trade-off between the rights of the individuals and the rights of the souvereign [1]. Even the US has a long list of restrictions to free speech.

The question is not whether to restrict free speech, the question is where to draw the line.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_by_country

[giantrobot]

> Restriction of free speech != censorship.

You're making a false assertion that attaching consequences to some speech is censorship. No one can prevent you from yelling "fire!" in a crowded theater. There are however post hoc consequences for doing so falsely, as doing so is very dangerous to others.

Even then you have the opportunity to defend yourself in a court of law. You may have been thought there was a fire in the theater but simply been mistaken. That's why laws include clauses of intent.

Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences of that speech.

[bondarchuk]

>"Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information."[1]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship

[epgui]

The “something” in question was not referring to the increase in stability, though it might lead to it. Also, and most crucially, I did not say, or intend to suggest, that “censorship improves stability”.

Free speech and stability are not in competition with each other. They’re different categories of things.

Please help me out a little and try really hard to not interpret what I said in the worst possible way.

[bondarchuk]

Well, you said one of the things that could be more important than free speech is stability. You did not directly say "censorship improves stability", but if you say that stability is one of the things that can be more important than free speech, it strongly implies free speech can sometimes be restricted (i.e. censorship) to reach the goal of stability.

I don't feel like I'm interpreting your posts in a particularly negative way. I'm just trying to be explicit about the kind of tradeoff you're proposing. If you find yourself flipping your stance once the flowery rhetoric is translated into basic, actionable language, someone is getting fooled and it's not me.

[AnimalMuppet]

But if we let people decide for themselves, they might decide wrong! And our position is clearly and obviously right! But people are stupid and will listen to lies, so we have to remove the possibility of them being exposed to those lies!

/s, in case it wasn't obvious...

People are more certain of their own position than is warranted. This is true in politics (as C. S. Lewis said, in practice no policy can be more than probably correct). It was true with Covid ("trust the science" when not enough science had been done yet; people talked as if the correct course was obvious and certain, and they were often wrong in hindsight). And it will be true again, and again, and again.

And from that false certainty, people regard contrary opinions/interpretations of the data as not just false, but morally wrong. And then they regard people believing the "obviously wrong" position as a sign that people are stupid and not to be trusted with the facts. (Unlike themselves, of course, who clearly can be trusted with the facts, because they reached the right answers!)

And people don't see the dichotomy between "people are stupid and evil, and can't be trusted with the truth" and "we (who are also people!) can decide what is true, and can be trusted to only tell them the truth". When you point a finger at someone, four finger point back at you...

[Nursie]

The issue with that approach to me is you end up saying every piece of information is as valid as any other.

We know some things are wrong, we have evidence that they're wrong, and believing in some of those things can cause people to take actions which endanger and even kill others.

So what do you do? I'm not advocating censorship as a solution, but simply throwing up your hands and saying "who are you to judge?" isn't really working either.

[cf141q5325]

>We know some things are wrong, we have evidence that they're wrong, and believing in some of those things can cause people to take actions which endanger and even kill others.

That concerns you as well. Thats the whole issue. There is no "reasonable default" to fall back on. That you have identified some rather obnoxious idiots doesnt mean you are suddenly smart enough to tell the rest of the world what to do. Especially since chances are you have fallen for sock puppets aimed at creating a reaction in you to get you to accept and call for authoritarian solutions.

Authoritarian solutions dont work. Just wanting them to work doesnt work, a short look into history shows that. Reality in the end is really complex. Too complex to just force other people around no matter how smart somebody feels on the topic. Because thats how stupid people always think of themselves, "smart enough" to understand the implications of forced actions just this one time.

edit: All of this not to mention that it always create a reaction in people. Which leaves us with conflict on topics we should be able to find a consensus.

[michaelmrose]

The is no single default but there are entire hosts of different defaults that will work across different communities and some norms that ought to exist across all communities. Hacker News wont let me abuse you verbally and if I make a credible threats of violence against you most places OUGHT to lock me up in order to prevent you from being murdered. Turns out there are TONS of reasonable defaults, some of which we can arrive at by simple logic others which we can arrive at by trial and error.

It would be shocking if communication was literally the only area of human endeavor which couldn't or shouldn't be regulated. Stranger yet to pose the idea on a moderated forum. Turns out authoritarian solutions do work.

[cf141q5325]

All of which have implications independent of the motivation. Implications which are really intransparent. Which might very well have more downsides then the initial problem, even before you look at the reaction you create.

Regulating communication is one of the most dangerous kinds of regulation, as it regulates what people think. And once you limit on your ability to think its very likely that you are about to crash into something, seeing as stupidity boils down to being unaware of another perspective. Its akin to blindfolding drivers of cars so they dont get distracted to reduce crashs.

[Nursie]

By your logic, we should never try to establish facts and "I didn't do it" should always be a valid defence for murder, as reality is really complex and making a determination of truth or facts is impossible. What's more in decreeing one version of events to be factual, and imposing a prison sentence on someone for 'murder', the state is acting as an authoritatiran arbiter of reality.

Just to add - I specifically said I didn't advocate censorship, and asked what actions might be taken. Do you have any ideas in that direction? Or is the idea of taking any action, however small (for instance better education in evaluating information) offensive to you in an axiomatic way?

[deadpannini]

It's not that we should never try to establish facts. Rather, we should never prevent people from challenging them.

[cf141q5325]

I agreed with you, i am just pointing out that you missed a perspective. When you say that the problems is idiots that would just need to be told what to do its a fetching argument. The problem is to identify actual smart people to do the telling. Being smart would entails understanding not just the facts but the consequences of actions. If you would understand them, and could communicate them, you wouldnt need to force people. If you need to force people chances are very good you are just overlooking a perspective that they see and you dont. Which doesnt make them right or smart, but a working solution never the less likely requires all the perspectives. Which means you understood the problem but missunderstood that that stupid person might be you. Thats why that doesnt work. Seeing as nobody thinks they are the stupid one. Figuring that out is the hard part and it doesnt seem to be solvable through force to me. Force doesnt select for stupidity but for power. Which just means chances are high you end up giving power to stupid people since they are more willing to boss others around.

Differently put, you are looking for somebody smart to fix the situation for you. I looked around and there dont seem to be any to spare so we will have to do with us idiots. And once idiots start forcing other idiots around, those idiots push back. Which leaves us with a lot of pushing and pulling in a worse situation all together.

>Do you have any ideas in that direction?

Most idiots seem to mean well so lets see if we cant agree on a consensus about the state of reality and our criteria for acceptable solutions till some smart aliens show up to run this shitshow for us. We wont find a solution for everything but i am confident we could get really far by just agreeing on a reasonable minimum.

I think the problem stems from the lofty goal of finding actual solutions that arent horrible and applicable everywhere. Which we dont have now. Best we can do is look at existing solutions for specific problems and see if we cant agree on improvements. Being motivated by understanding the cost and risk of authoritarian solutions. Which we can communicate. Which just requires a willingness to communicate which goes out of the window once you create a conflict.

tldr: Trying to dictate what people think was tried and failed multiple times before. Its a really really bad idea. Wanting it to work doesnt change that, since you can explain why it fails reliably. Its the same reason that makes the idea so tempting in the first place.

[Nursie]

I think we must be talking at cross purposes, I didn't say anything about "stupid people", or forcing people to have any particular viewpoint.

You seem to be lost in a sea of relative opinion, and of all viewpoints being equally valid/stupid. That's far from always the case.

Again, by this logic, we should never address crime because by it's very nature a court case is trying to establish what are or are not real facts about a case in the face of conflicting opinion. Are we too stupid to have courts?

If not, then we're not too stupid to evaluate reality. That doesn't mean censorship. I'm not advocating censorship. I just don't think we're on such a foundation of sand as your comments assert.

Edit: I am rate limited so can’t respond below, but I wanted to say in response - I disagree that we don’t have the ability to say some things are counterfactual, and I also disagree that admitting this implies censorship or other authoritarian action is either good or necessary. I further disagree that communication is sufficient on its own when propagation of counterfactual information costs lives. Is there another solution? I don’t know, but I do think better education has to form part of it.

Does scientific knowledge “dictate facts”? It tells us some things are wrong, while leaving open the possibility of further learning.

[rdtsc]

> We know some things are wrong, we have evidence that they're wrong, and believing in some of those things can cause people to take actions which endanger and even kill others.

It depends on the specific issue. But since we agreed we didn’t want censorship, we err on the side of caution present our evidence with hopefully better and more thorough research supporting it.

[Nursie]

And when that doesn’t work because either political or profit-driven mudslingers undermine it at every turn?

Again, please don’t interpret this as “we need censorship”, that’s not what I’m getting at.

The notional “marketplace of ideas” is clearly not functioning in the presence of a lot of people who are not interested in whether their ideas stand up or not, and a whole boatload of motivated mudslingers. I don’t know a good answer, but “present your arguments better and hope” doesn’t seem to be one.

[BeefWellington]

Here's what I don't understand about this argument: Why do slander and libel laws exist?

There's already limitations on free speech in place.

The article's broader point is that trust is low in a lot of institutions (for good reasons and bad) and thus the focus shouldn't be on censorship but on improving that trust. I agree with this approach.

However I think it is also important to recognize that propaganda has only become a more effective tool with the advent of social media. I don't think outright censorship is the correct path but I also don't believe slapping a "misleading" or similar tag on things actually qualifies as censorship.

[piaste]

> Here's what I don't understand about this argument: Why do slander and libel laws exist?

I would be interested in abolishing both, in fact. I suspect society might adapt well.

Currently, when someone makes an unsubstantiated statement towards someone, it still carries _some_ weight precisely because the audience thinks that the slanderer wouldn't risk punishment for no reason. Especially if the slander is written and signed.

(And we've carried over this mentality even in the age of the Internet where anonymous slander is largely risk-free. For some reason, when @Goku69420 tweets 'Everybody knows that Joe Blow is a goat-botherer!', our brains treats it more like a fellow citizen writing a letter to the editor, rather than as the digital version of toilet-wall graffiti.)

Imagine if we let a generation or two of legalized slander and libel pass. I suspect we might become used to the idea that even the nicest people will occasionally have random strangers claiming awful things about them, and slander not backed up by evidence or at least substantial credibility will become a non-issue.

Then again, I might be too optimistic. In the heyday of the 'yellow press', did most ordinary people treat their bylines with skepticism and amusement, like most people do nowadays with e.g. the Weekly World News? Or did they have a large audience of long-term believers, like even the most partisan talk shows do nowadays?

[nradov]

There are no US federal criminal laws against slander and libel. Those are civil issues and don't represent a limit on free speech.

[steelstraw]

There is something miserable in the figure who enjoyed in their youth the freedom of speech, but from the comfort of age seeks to deny it to others; some deformity of the soul. -Edward Snowden

[Fricken]

In my youth there was no internet and no one was complaining that they couldn't use it.

Now propaganda and conspiracy theories spread like wildfire. There's no need to censor anything because few can tell fact from fiction anyhow.

[ameminator]

I doubt that, in a decent number of cases, these censors have the best of intentions.

[SQueeeeeL]

>that is appropriate for them to be exposed to.

Once the idea of dangerous speech becomes aknowledged, censorship just becomes a game of degrees.

[throwawaygh]

This isn't at all true. Many free speech absolutists will happily concede the existence of dangerous speech and dangerous ideas.

[double_nan]

But should these ideas be censored though?

[throwawaygh]

Red herring.

[double_nan]

I got your point, but what is the hill we should die on? I'd say censorship is the one.

[throwawaygh]

> what is the hill we should die on?

Substack's incentives are even worse than YouTube or Facebook.

If you think YT and FB were good for western democracy, then I guess you can die on that hill.

Otherwise, die on the hill of "fuck those profiteers and the very specific capitalists very much among us right now in this exact setting that enable them, who should probably know better by now"

[unityByFreedom]

Without any curation, everyone would have to wade through tons of spam.

[epgui]

Exactly this. When it comes to your health, you are what you eat. Why do people think their brains are completely unaffected by their training set? You think what you read/hear.

We're just meat computers, and information hygiene (or the lack thereof) actually matters and has a big impact.

[slibhb]

Lovely, and who gets to determine which information is "hygienic"?

I don't think it's a coincidence that people who support censorship think of humans as "meat computers". I suggest that if someone says "we are meat computers," we start treating them like one, i.e. ignoring them.

[epgui]

I’m not saying this is easy.

[Vinnl]

> But you've really got your head up your own ass if you convince yourself that you are protecting people by deciding the information that is appropriate for them to be exposed to.

The main point, from my POV, is that it's already being decided which information is appropriate for people to be exposed to, by "the algorithm" guessing which posts are most likely to get people to engage, and exposes them to those.

I don't particularly think censorship is the option. Unfortunately, the European Parliament just rejected a proposal to ban personalised algorithms in general, but I wouldn't be surprised if we'd need something like that to deal with this.

[mike_hock]

> No doubt, these censors and would-be censors have the best of intentions.

[citation needed]

[Rebelgecko]

Even if you don't understand their motivations, nearly everyone believes that they're doing the right thing. As I've internalized that, it becomes a lot easier to empathize with people who have different viewpoints: instead of being a bunch of cackling fascists, maybe they are just well-intentioned people with different values than I hold (or perhaps even the same values, just weighted differently)

[EarlKing]

> best of intentions

.......what does Marcellus Wallace look like?

[yaboy]

a bitch?

[prehistoricdog]

wh-what?

[numtel]

> No doubt, these censors and would-be censors have the best of intentions.

I would contend that profit is at least partially the intention of these actors, largely indirectly by people who are invested in stock markets.

Capitalism is a symptom of power and information asymmetries. A few years ago, Zuckerberg said that all problems would be solved if everybody told the truth all the time. It's not that simple though. There's a Greg Egan story about a couple that undergoes a procedure to experience all the thoughts and feelings of each other for a period of time, which ultimately results in their breakup.

[throwawaygh]

I think this is absolutely right, and wish that discussions on this topic would focus more on the externalities of profit-seeking platforms than free speech principles.

Free speech absolutists tend to jump to the defense of free speech and in the process ignore a real problem. Pro-censorship/content moderation folks tend to jump to the defense of censorship/moderation. In the process, the debate gets framed around "speech vs. censorship" instead of the serious issues with our political commons being dominated by sophisticated profit-seeking entities.

[GekkePrutser]

> A few years ago, Zuckerberg said that all problems would be solved if everybody told the truth all the time.

Everyone 'going transparent' in other words

The circle is looking more and more like the 1984 of our time

[autokad]

> Capitalism is a symptom of power and information asymmetries

if you want to talk about power and information asymmetries, I suggest you look at Communist regimes.

[nickff]

>"I would contend that profit is at least partially the intention of these actors, largely indirectly by people who are invested in stock markets."

Profit is definitely one motivation for censorship, but there has been plenty of censorship in non-profit-centric situations. Communist countries and other government actors have been leaders in censorship, with no obvious profit motive.

[throwawaygh]

OP is clearly referring to censorship in the "admin bans you from their website if you say things they don't like" sense, not the "government throws you in jail if you say wrong thing" sense. These conversations tend to become unproductive and devolve when folks conflate these two senses of the word censorship.

IMO, we should use "content moderation" for the former and "censorship" for the latter, congruent with historical usage. But people who are against content moderation will claim I'm being biased, even though I view the whole debate as a bit of red herring that distracts from the real issues. So I'd settle for "private-sector censorship" and "government censorship".

But in any case it's almost always counter-productive to conflate the two, to the point that it's a logical fallacy which should be named.

[Chris2048]

> will claim I'm being biased, even though I view the whole debate as a bit of red herring that distracts from the real issues

This implies you don't think "content moderation" is a "real" problem, which suggests to me you are biased. Also, "moderation" to me suggests mere moderation (consistent with fair, stated guideline) versus moderation "if you say things they don't like".

This kind of fight happens all over the place (e.g. what counts as hate/rape/murder etc), but I feel "moderation" is fairly neutral sounding without the implication of injustice befitting the act of being deprived of a a voice on omnipresent and monopolising platforms. It's also clear to me that some publications use comments sections as a way to manipulate public opinion, so cherry-picking/censoring them is an exercise in PR if (and only if) it isn't clear that result are being manipulated.

[throwawaygh]

Dude... I literally said we can call it whatever you want. What are you on about?

[Chris2048]

Where did you say that? I directly quoted what I'm responding to.

[cf141q5325]

It makes misunderstandings more likely, however i am not so sure if the distinction still exists when every conversation online is covered by private-sector censorship. Seeing as in the end the private sector always has governments influencing their moderation policy. And be it just through liability.

[throwawaygh]

My point was more abut misunderstandings, which is why at the end I say "whatever, as long as we're all on the same page, others can pick the names."

> i am not so sure if the distinction still exists when every conversation online is covered by private-sector censorship

That's certainly fair, and I think a particularly prescient observation in favor of the conclusion that it's time to severely restrict legal protections for social media platforms.

[numtel]

Thanks for the clarification. The article was talking about shutting down Facebook so that is the source of the reference.

[paulpauper]

The argument I sometimes see is that censorship is justified to prevent indirect harm of misinformation. If you want to be unvaccinated, that is your choice, but posting anti-vax content may have externalities , such as convincing other ppl to not be vaxed.

[OrvalWintermute]

> posting anti-vax content may have externalities , such as convincing other ppl to not be vaxed.

Oh erudite student of history, what then will stop the toxic vaccines and unethical medical studies from being halted then?

Such as:

The Cutter Incident [1] , The SV40 Contamination [2] , The Swine Flu Vaccine Debacle [3], The Vaccine Contamination disaster [4] , The Tuskegee Syphilis Study [5] , just to name a few.

We should be skeptical about the pros and cons of medical interventions, and also, non-interventions too.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cutter_Laboratories

[2] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC452549/

[3] https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20200918-the-fiasco-of-th...

[4] https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/11/us/politics/johnson-covid...

[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskegee_Syphilis_Study

[water8]

Well there’s been an astronomical number of breakthrough cases on the vaccine so maybe the problem is people like you talking in such a definitive terms over something that is clearly not 100% effective

[Nursie]

Can you site claims of 100% effectiveness? Did they come from medical authorities?

As far as I'm aware, even early on in the cycle, realistic claims of effectiveness were being made, with some quibbling over data transparency that were resolved.

As we now have variants to contend with, that effectiveness in preventing infection has dropped precipitously. However the effectiveness at preventing hospitalisation and death is still pretty high.

If it was sold to you as 100% effective you were lied to. But if you were told that there were claims of 100% effectiveness which were clearly a lie, by someone trying to put you off vaccination, then you've been given false information there too.

[water8]

The general assumption at first was that vaccinated people couldn't spread the virus which turned out to be false. We still vilify the unvaccinated when both are susceptible to transmission.

[Nursie]

>> We still vilify the unvaccinated when both are susceptible to transmission.

They are still more likely to be infectious for longer, they are still more likely to clog up the hospital system, occupy ICU beds, and indirectly harm others who would usually be able to be treated but now can't.

And they're still dumbasses.

[usernomdeguerre]

Except that it works. In fact it works for a population of 5 times our size (China). So it seems to me that the only people who have their heads up their asses are us, who seem to think that censorship is a childs model for maintaining power and influence. In our technological society censorship can work better than ever before.

Frankly, imo, in the absence of effective accountability for ones' words or deeds, censorship becomes one of the only few remaining tools for stability.

[emptysongglass]

It is a child's model. Look at how it is used by the ruling party. As a child with their toys. Look at the childish displays of outrage when we tell them you can't sexually abuse (and then disappear) your tennis players without consequences. Who even does that? "Oh, that toy said something mean to me so I threw it away." Adults don't do that, children do.

When we condemn slave labor it's more childish tantrums. That's what wolf warrior diplomacy is really.

It's a state of more than a billion under its care yet on the political stage it's a huge Akira-sized baby with a big toy baton smash-smash-smashing any who dare discipline it.

[ksdale]

I think it's far too early to pass judgment on whether it works in China. Lots of very oppressive states have lasted for decades, apparently successfully, until they implode spectacularly.

Less than a century ago, many in the West sang the praises of communism as (unkown to them) a million people died in the Gulag. Things aren't always as they appear.

[adolph]

Preference falsification is the act of communicating a preference that differs from one's true preference. The public frequently conveys, especially to researchers or pollsters, preferences that differ from what they truly want, often because they believe the conveyed preference is more acceptable socially. The idea of preference falsification was put forth by the social scientist Timur Kuran in his 1995 book Private Truths, Public Lies as part of his theory of how people's stated preferences are responsive to social influences. It laid the foundation for his theory of why unanticipated revolutions can occur. The concept is related to ideas of social proof as well as choice blindness.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preference_falsification

More about Kuran:

https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2010/11/wh...

Podcast: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/4-timur-kuran-economic...