The Problem of Free Speech in an Age of Disinformation (Published 2020)
How a torrent of propaganda, lies and conspiracy theories has weaponized the First Amendment.
Like I know people like a summary for these things but.... fucking what?
What? Are you fucking kidding me? New York Times posts an article advocating against free speech.
- Thread starter Specter Von Baren
- Start date
Like I know people like a summary for these things but.... fucking what?
This looks like a pro-Free Speech adThe Problem of Free Speech in an Age of Disinformation (Published 2020)
How a torrent of propaganda, lies and conspiracy theories has weaponized the First Amendment.www.nytimes.com
Like I know people like a summary for these things but.... fucking what?
Edit: Sorry, my iPad had a heart attack trying to open this. Please ignore
Last edited:
For people who want a TL;DR version:
"Free speech is complicated, other countries handle it differently and it works for them, the truth doesn't magically win out over lies, there's a big problem here"
The NYT is not advocating against free speech here. I know, I totally wasn't shocked either.
"Free speech is complicated, other countries handle it differently and it works for them, the truth doesn't magically win out over lies, there's a big problem here"
The NYT is not advocating against free speech here. I know, I totally wasn't shocked either.
Last edited:
USA
Spreading lies =\= free speech.The Problem of Free Speech in an Age of Disinformation (Published 2020)
How a torrent of propaganda, lies and conspiracy theories has weaponized the First Amendment.
Like I know people like a summary for these things but.... fucking what?
Fraud, Libel and slander, stolen Valor ect are all different ways they prosecute lying, so it already isn't default protected speech. Expanding on that to spreading false news, or constantly making up stuff about people online, especially if you are in an official capacity or a media company should be even worse.
A) free speech doesn't exist in America. There's already limits. Slander, libel, threats are all restricted forms of speech.
B) the American idea of free speech doesn't exist outside of america apart from very stupid people who think American politics is their politics.
B) the American idea of free speech doesn't exist outside of america apart from very stupid people who think American politics is their politics.
Okay.
Let's take a hypothetical that free speech is weaponised against your country (or simply runs out of control), where a rash of mass disinformation threatens to send your country spiralling into chaos and failure. Should you stick with it?
I would argue that the primary function of societal rules is to make society run as smoothly and beneficially for its people as possible. If the rules fail to do so and become excessively detrimental, they need to be changed. Even things we consider incredibly important, rules that we have elevated to special status and called "rights", need to be changed if they end up doing substantially more harm than good. Don't get me wrong, it would be a very dark and sad day if freedom of speech were abused to the point where it had to be canned for the preservation of society, but canning it would be the right thing to do. On the bright side, the wheels turn, things change, and it would almost certainly eventually come back.
Let's take a hypothetical that free speech is weaponised against your country (or simply runs out of control), where a rash of mass disinformation threatens to send your country spiralling into chaos and failure. Should you stick with it?
I would argue that the primary function of societal rules is to make society run as smoothly and beneficially for its people as possible. If the rules fail to do so and become excessively detrimental, they need to be changed. Even things we consider incredibly important, rules that we have elevated to special status and called "rights", need to be changed if they end up doing substantially more harm than good. Don't get me wrong, it would be a very dark and sad day if freedom of speech were abused to the point where it had to be canned for the preservation of society, but canning it would be the right thing to do. On the bright side, the wheels turn, things change, and it would almost certainly eventually come back.
Once rights are revoked they definitely don't come back and you can wonder what is worth preserving about 'society' at that point. I don't believe in this 'for the greater good'. Cooperation worked the best in hunterer gatherer societies where everyone had to do their part and one could not cheat the system because everyone knew eachother. You either cooperated or you were banished from the group and well good luck surviving on your own on the savannah. This is where our social instincts and behavior comes from but in contemporary society where people are anonymous and just a number or cog in the machine they are almost disadventageuos when the most egotistical and self-centered reap the biggest benefits. In other words, it doesn't pay to be good. This is modern society's biggest flaw. It leads to people trying to exploit the benefits in welfare states, abuse their 'rights' to grief others, spread misinformation to further their own interests, exploit people through artificial scarcity necessary to survive in modern society etc. This fundamental truth to human nature is why absolutely every sociopolitical theory fails.
When society becomes more complex and grows into ever increasing numbers the degree of discontent and resentment increases proportionally. That is because of that juxtaposition between those who are able to succesfully manipulate that system of random hierarchical orders for their own benefit and those that can not. The outcome of meritocratic competition is then subjected to the kind of social stratification that neatly categorizes people into their 'worth' all the while the system continues to be further exploited and abused by invisible power layers or on the micro level people that live in anonimity without social accountability.
It's an insidious system but none the less preferable over an authoritarian one where the common man's rights are revoked and the mere suggestion of responsibility to the people is upended. It is impossible for millions of people to live in anonimity and maintain a level of social cohesion that make people feel personally responsible for their fellow man. It cannot be done. That is why the next phase of authoritarian leadership after revoking people's rights is always finding a 'common enemy'. It's the same slippery slope. Only hunterer gatherer societies had the kind of corrections on social behavior necessary to keep people in line. Nowadays you have a corporate fat cat or corrupt politician who doesn't even know you exist. It's an almost existential struggle for validation many people seem engaged in with political and social themes as proxy. It's no surprise the internet and particularly social media amplifies this behavior because this ofcourse epitomizes human nature in anonimity without social accountability.
Saying 'you can't say this or that anymore' is only going to make it worse.
People lost the right to praise the Nazis in lots of places in the late 30s/early 40s, and I don't have a problem with that.
Nowdays you can walk around the US waving your guns and swastikas, anyway.
This is plainly not true: all factors of society fluctuate over time. You might need generations and a revolution to change them, mind.
Society is really just people interacting, so as long as people interact with each other there is a society. In that sense, society cannot be destroyed, only changed. But what matters is people. If society is not acting in the welfare of its people, it is a failure and must be changed - or "destroyed in its current form" - if you like.
We would broadly agree that free speech is beneficial in our societies as is. But I would suggest that it might not always be so, and should circumstances change that way, free speech will be blown away or that society will decline. The people of that time and place will need to look at their circumstances, not ours.
Let's say I want to influence people to vote the way I want them to.
So the first thing I do is I found a "news organisation". We don't have any actual facilities or ability to do any journalism, it's just a website, a youtube and twitter account, but we call it something like "Truthful News". Maybe make it Latin so that it sounds really fancy and sophisticated.
So the next thing I do is, I find an issue which is divisive, and I make up a lie which makes the position I want people to adopt seem reasonable. Let's say I want people to vote for a candidate who has a hard anti-immigration stance. I could lie and say that there is currently nothing to stop anyone crossing the US-Mexico border. Maybe I could videotape myself outside somewhere in a spooky mask and then claim I'm crossing the US-Mexico border even though I'm not, then post that video with SCARY MUSIC.
Then maybe that video gets shared and reacted to millions of times, and maybe the candidate I'm supporting uses their own social media to spread it to their followers.
And then, to avoid legal consequences, what I do is I issue an extremely soft retraction buried somewhere on my website saying "oh no, we got a few things wrong and this entertainment video didn't meet our rigorous journalistic standards". Obviously, that retraction isn't shared or publicized by any of the millions of people who shared the original claim, so the vast, vast majority of people who were exposed to that deliberate lie never saw me admit that it was untrue.
And then I do the same thing again... and again.. and again.. because again this is an intentional scam.
Is this the intended functioning of free speech? Did the troops risk their inexplicably important and precious lives so that I could be free to scam people into voting against their own interests?
So the first thing I do is I found a "news organisation". We don't have any actual facilities or ability to do any journalism, it's just a website, a youtube and twitter account, but we call it something like "Truthful News". Maybe make it Latin so that it sounds really fancy and sophisticated.
So the next thing I do is, I find an issue which is divisive, and I make up a lie which makes the position I want people to adopt seem reasonable. Let's say I want people to vote for a candidate who has a hard anti-immigration stance. I could lie and say that there is currently nothing to stop anyone crossing the US-Mexico border. Maybe I could videotape myself outside somewhere in a spooky mask and then claim I'm crossing the US-Mexico border even though I'm not, then post that video with SCARY MUSIC.
Then maybe that video gets shared and reacted to millions of times, and maybe the candidate I'm supporting uses their own social media to spread it to their followers.
And then, to avoid legal consequences, what I do is I issue an extremely soft retraction buried somewhere on my website saying "oh no, we got a few things wrong and this entertainment video didn't meet our rigorous journalistic standards". Obviously, that retraction isn't shared or publicized by any of the millions of people who shared the original claim, so the vast, vast majority of people who were exposed to that deliberate lie never saw me admit that it was untrue.
And then I do the same thing again... and again.. and again.. because again this is an intentional scam.
Is this the intended functioning of free speech? Did the troops risk their inexplicably important and precious lives so that I could be free to scam people into voting against their own interests?
A free speech warrior overreacts to an article he only skimmed and didn't bother to really think about. Color me shocked. Free speech is and always has been a double-edged sword. How we deal with it changes over time with technology and culture and there is no easy solution.
Last edited:
The answer to this is to censored social media communications from Venezuela, Iran, Russia, and China.
As for what disinformation US entities write, that's protected by the US constitution. As long as they are not shouting fire in a crowded theater they can write that Trump or Biden is the spawn of satan or whatever.
But if they incite a civil war, on either side, on they shouldn't get to do so.
As for what disinformation US entities write, that's protected by the US constitution. As long as they are not shouting fire in a crowded theater they can write that Trump or Biden is the spawn of satan or whatever.
But if they incite a civil war, on either side, on they shouldn't get to do so.
Only if you can convince the social media networks to willingly cut off business. Though I doubt it has been tried congress doesn't seem allowed to block speech from entering servers by law. Heck with the term in the first amendment being "people" instead of "citizens" it is actually questionable whether or not the US government is allowed to impose restrictions on speech anywhere in the world, for anyone.
The core values don't change. Separation of powers, equality under law, free speech etc these aren't interchangeable values. It's either this or, at best, enlightened despotism. It's either liberal democracy or something like China.
That sounds like a contradictio in terminis to me. If society is just 'people interacting' there would not be a need for an abstract organizational principle which is exactly what a 'society' is. A common history, shared values and most of all an implicit social contract. The ones introduced by Renaissance philosophers like Rousseau and Locke are now centuries old. The enlightenment philosophy behind modern society is unraveling at the seams and like I said I really don't know what is worth preserving if even one of it's core values is open for discussion. That the social contract is now broken can't be corrected through political authority. It only aggrevates the existing problem of society's artificial concept where people live in anonimity and no one feels responsible. You can't enforce that otherwise it's simply tyranny.
Perhaps so, but it will end liberal democracy and it's enlightenment ideals. You can wonder what is worth saving at that point.
They have changed in the past, in the US and the UK and other places. There are options other than we see now, and we've seen some of them in living memory.
Of course, as a general rule, we'd not want to see them again unless the alternative was impressively bad, but it's hardly the case that things cannot change without it being a total disaster.
There are reasons why not many advocate changes to the constitution. Ofcourse there is a fine line between free speech and inciting to violence or hate. The latter could, and should, be disallowed. But that is up to the courts not the legislator.
Undoubtedly some of the angst about free speech is about a relative lack of elite control over it; the existence of well-funded and far-reaching misinformation by obvious bullshitters is a great way to justify shutting up everyone else.
This also achieves the goals of those pushing the misinformation; well-funded misinformation in a capitalist society is meant to divert political energy away from effective political thought and toward convincing people to pin their political identities on falsehoods. Well-funded and curated information, on the other hand, tends to be about the rationalization of being nasty toward some other set of relatively powerless people-- examples include how the media frames immigration, poverty, crime, or even Russiagate. If well-funded misinformation can justify forcibly shutting up poorly funded voices-- because after all, they aren't the 'credible' media either-- then the latter is all that remains and the ultimate goal of the misinformers is achieved: protecting the existing social hierarchy.
This also achieves the goals of those pushing the misinformation; well-funded misinformation in a capitalist society is meant to divert political energy away from effective political thought and toward convincing people to pin their political identities on falsehoods. Well-funded and curated information, on the other hand, tends to be about the rationalization of being nasty toward some other set of relatively powerless people-- examples include how the media frames immigration, poverty, crime, or even Russiagate. If well-funded misinformation can justify forcibly shutting up poorly funded voices-- because after all, they aren't the 'credible' media either-- then the latter is all that remains and the ultimate goal of the misinformers is achieved: protecting the existing social hierarchy.
So if " disinformation" is protected by the constitution, why is fraud, libel, slander and stolen valor a thing? Why did the courts order Alex Jones a cease and desist on his pizzzagate and sandy hook BS? Freedom of speech =\= freedom to lie and mislead the public.