Trump misunderstands concept of free speech

[lil devils x]

Yeah, that sort of thing was really annoying. I would get a ton of "recommended" videos on YouTube from US alt-right talking heads despite not being American, right wing, or watching that sort of thing to see what those mouth-breathers were on about. Thank god they fixed it.

Me being in Texas, I have had the same thing happen on Facebook, That BS is being spread like wildfire among local groups in Texas, so that if you join a group to be able to buy and sell things locally, you also get bombard by this nonsense non stop. The people here sadly often believe this and spread it further. It takes all the restraint I can muster to convince myself it just isn't worth it and ignore it, as those that have tried to argue and stop it just get booted instead of anything being done to stop the misinformation being spread, I try to avoid those groups, but sometimes it is the only way to effectively get rid of an old bed or dishwasher due to local charities not accepting certain items.

 

[Agema]

I don't think there are currently any laws against manipulating public discourse.

No, exactly. In other words, it's not that they're not playing by the rules, it's that there are no rules. If we install rules, though, the government controls information, and that's a hazard. This is the basic concept behind why we don't let the government regulate the press: eventually, someone in government starts telling the press what it can and cannot say.

But then, I mean, there are people working out how to game trending systems and search engines. They pay to boost their followers and seem more important than they are. They make fake accounts, sock puppets, etc.

Seems pretty unethical though.

Well, kind of. But it's like the whole of history, ever. There are information channels, and people with agendas manipulate them at any and all levels where they can.

 

[Houseman]

If we install rules, though, the government controls information,

I would hope that any such rule would be something along the lines of "platforms cannot influence public discourse by targeting and hiding, censoring, subverting, or surpressing a certain viewpoint, ideology or argument."

Basically, a platform shouldn't have a voice. It shouldn't say "Twitter supports Hillary/Trump" or "BLM is wrong" or "MLK was a violent domestic terrorist".

But of course, IANAL, so I don't know how to word these things and make laws.

Something like this doesn't give the government control over anything, does it? It'd be like anti-discrimination laws, but for ideas.

Maybe that means that a company can't hide antivaxx stuff from the trending tab, or from search results. I think that's a fair price to pay for also forbidding companies from trying to hide what they disagree with.

 

[lil devils x]

I would hope that any such rule would be something along the lines of "platforms cannot influence public discourse by targeting and hiding, censoring, subverting, or surpressing a certain viewpoint, ideology or argument."

Basically, a platform shouldn't have a voice. It shouldn't say "Twitter supports Hillary/Trump" or "BLM is wrong" or "MLK was a violent domestic terrorist".

But of course, IANAL, so I don't know how to word these things and make laws.

Something like this doesn't give the government control over anything, does it? It'd be like anti-discrimination laws, but for ideas.

Maybe that means that a company can't hide antivaxx stuff from the trending tab, or from search results. I think that's a fair price to pay for also forbidding companies from trying to hide what they disagree with.

Yea, I completely disagree, with all of this. They should be able to remove people for posting hate speech, violence incitements, anti vaxxer BS, and other misinformation at will and ban the users for posting it. No one should be obligated to host that vitriol in the first place and it should be considered speech that has no value to society, as the fighting words doctrine used as it's reasoning for determining fighting words not being protected speech. Spreading misinformation has proven to be damaging to society and since we can prove this to be harmful there is no reason why it should be protected. Telling people to inject disinfectants, tormenting families who had their children massacred with Sandy Hook Conspiracies and promoting false information that causes others harm has no place in society and only exists to inflict harm. Bad ideas are policed all the time, and for good reason.

 

[Houseman]

They should be able to remove people for posting hate speech, violence incitements, anti vaxxer BS, and other misinformation at will and ban the users for posting it.

If they can ban "them" for "their" viewpoints, they can also ban you for your viewpoints.

You seem to think that this power would only used against those who are "bad". The anti-vaxxers, the Nazis, the racists, and that it'd never be used against you for any reason.

That's naive.

Ask MLK. He was part of a disinformation campaign that tried to paint him as a violent, immoral terrorist. We was demonized and then the demonization was used to justify removing him. That was Hoover's plan, at least.

If they need justification to remove you, they'll just fabricate it, and then you'll be removed by the very process that you're in favor of.

 

[lil devils x]

If they can ban "them" for "their" viewpoints, they can also ban you for your viewpoints.

You seem to think that this power would only used against those who are "bad". The anti-vaxxers, the Nazis, the racists, and that it'd never be used against you for any reason.

That's naive.

Ask MLK. He was part of a disinformation campaign that tried to paint him as a violent, immoral terrorist. We was demonized and then the demonization was used to justify removing him.

Sure, if my viewpoints caused harm, they should ban me for them. The same criteria used to determine if those posts cause harm should be applied universally. It is not a matter of what " group" you belong to, it is a matter of whether or not you can prove harm. You seem to think this means you can change the rules to be whatever you want, that isn't what is being said here. Provable harm. People die due to antivaxxers spreading lies. people inventing and spreading Pizza gate caused a shooting at a pizza place. People actually injected disinfectant trying to "kill the virus".. Causing harm can be proven here, it is not just determined on a whim as you suggest.

 

[Houseman]

Sure, if my viewpoints caused harm,

I don't think you're hearing what I'm saying.

Did MLK's viewpoints cause harm? Did he preach violence? Yet Hoover's FBI still sought to remove him.

It doesn't matter what the truth is about your viewpoints and whether or not they cause harm. Because, guess what? You've handed the power of "the truth" over to someone else. They determine whether or not your viewpoints are dangerous. They determine the "truth".

So all they have to do is claim that your viewpoints cause harm, and poof, it's suddenly true.

 

[lil devils x]

I don't think you're hearing what I'm saying.

Did MLK's viewpoints cause harm? Did he preach violence? Yet Hoover's FBI still sought to remove him.

It doesn't matter what the truth is about your viewpoints and whether or not they cause harm. Because, guess what? You've handed that power over to someone else. They determine whether or not your viewpoints are dangerous. They determine the "truth".

So all they have to do is claim that your viewpoints cause harm, and poof, it's suddenly true.

It does matter what the truth is about viewpoints, claiming harm does not prove harm. You seem to think that simply because Trump says " alternative facts" that means they are then facts. They're not. That isn't how facts work. You have to have actual evidence here. Facts do not appear in a "poof!" The only people who seem to think that is how facts work are the people who do not understand what facts actually are here. Trump does not understand facts and he does not get to choose what is fact and what is not. If it cannot be proven true with evidence, it is not a fact. Hoover's abuse of power is a separate issue, it still does not change fact vs fiction.

 

[Houseman]

You have to have actual evidence here

The FBI had actual evidence against leaders of the civil rights movement. They just fabricated it. They placed wiretaps, they had officers give perjured testimony, they conducted illegal break-ins to find or plant stuff. They created biased documentaries and false newspapers. They forged correspondence and disguised themselves as members.

If they need evidence, they'll get evidence, even if they have to invent it.

But you think you'd be immune to this?

It was a "fact" that this was a page from a coloring book distributed by the Black Panthers. This book was used to teach children to read, and also to hate cops. The FBI said it was a fact.

Except it's not, because this book was actually written by the FBI themselves. By the time the truth came out, it was too late. People were killed. Racism grew. The damage was done. The fact-checkers had spoken. The truth was irrelevant.

Could the lies told in order to destabilize the civil rights movement trickle down to our day, where they contribute to the attitude that cops have towards people of color, and vice versa? Could those lies have partly contributed to the death of George Flynn, and the riots/protests that are happening right now? It's interesting to think about what happens when the people in charge of "facts" abuse their power.

 

[Agema]

I would hope that any such rule would be something along the lines of "platforms cannot influence public discourse by targeting and hiding, censoring, subverting, or surpressing a certain viewpoint, ideology or argument."

I think a platform should feel perfectly free to do this - in concept.

However, a platform requires a user base to make money. As it prunes its user base by removing verboten ideologies, it reduces its user base. Even worse, as those users go elsewhere, it also directly spurs the growth of its rivals. In that sense, I trust it because in the long run, it either breaks down large companies into middling ones with more limited power that will each cater to various echo chambers viewpoints, or forces them to remain broadly permissive.

I think this is a big improvement on the government banhammer. As you're pointing out with the FBI, Hoover and MLK, that is exactly why we don't want the government deciding what's ideologically acceptable. Realistically it will to some extent: I can't see the government accepting overt recruitment to stuff like Islamofascist terrorism, and kind of fair enough. But the government has scary teeth and the potential for authoritarian abuse that newspapers and social media companies do not.

 

[Buyetyen]

It does matter what the truth is about viewpoints, claiming harm does not prove harm. You seem to think that simply because Trump says " alternative facts" that means they are then facts. They're not. That isn't how facts work. You have to have actual evidence here. Facts do not appear in a "poof!" The only people who seem to think that is how facts work are the people who do not understand what facts actually are here. Trump does not understand facts and he does not get to choose what is fact and what is not. If it cannot be proven true with evidence, it is not a fact. Hoover's abuse of power is a separate issue, it still does not change fact vs fiction.

The Hoover argument is really weird. It basically plays out like this: "Authority figures have abused the power of government in the past. They can and will do it again. That's why we need to make free speech so absolutist that it becomes a transgression if not a crime to fact check somebody. Yes, some liars will get away with it as a result. In fact, lying authority figures with a history of or inclination toward abusing power will have an easier time of things under this system. But it's a small price to pay to protect us from authority figures abusing their power."

 

[Houseman]

However, a platform requires a user base to make money. As it prunes its user base by removing verboten ideologies, it reduces its user base. Even worse, as those users go elsewhere, it also directly spurs the growth of its rivals. In that sense, I trust it because in the long run, it either breaks down large companies into middling ones with more limited power that will each cater to various echo chambers viewpoints, or forces them to remain broadly permissive.

In theory, I agree. In practice, this should have already happened. But we see that twitter-alternates are demonized as hives of scum and villainy, as bunkers for the alt-right, nazis, pedophiles, etc. Are they really? It would certainly be in Twitter's best interest if the answer to that question is "yes". The tactic is "Kill competition by demonizing it". Have some people go over to that other service and plant evidence that you can use against them, if you need to.

I wonder how many organizations out there would hate it if Twitter were actually broken up. I wonder if they'd be willing to do favors for Twitter in order to keep it around. But that would never happen, that's just a conspiracy theory that only nutjobs and crackpots would believe, right?

 

[lil devils x]

The FBI had actual evidence against leaders of the civil rights movement. They just fabricated it. They placed wiretaps, they had officers give perjured testimony, they conducted illegal break-ins to find or plant stuff. They created biased documentaries and false newspapers. They forged correspondence and disguised themselves as members.

If they need evidence, they'll get evidence, even if they have to invent it.

But you think you'd be immune to this?

It was a "fact" that this was a page from a coloring book distributed by the Black Panthers. This book was used to teach children to read, and also to hate cops. The FBI said it was a fact.

Except it's not, because this book was actually written by the FBI themselves. By the time the truth came out, it was too late. People were killed. Racism grew. The damage was done. The fact-checkers had spoken. The truth was irrelevant.

Could the lies told in order to destabilize the civil rights movement trickle down to our day, where they contribute to the attitude that cops have towards people of color, and vice versa? Could those lies have partly contributed to the death of George Flynn, and the riots/protests that are happening right now? It's interesting to think about what happens when the people in charge of "facts" abuse their power.

They already do this and social media platforms banning people for spreading lies that can provably cause harm have zero impact on that.
You are conflating government with social media. Allowing or banning harmful content does not impact a failed abuse of power operation. What the FBI is allowed and not allowed to do is overseen by our US congress and department of justice. If the people elect a corrupt congress, a corrupt president, this can be allowed to happen regardless. Regardless of what the FBI tried to do, the people still knew the truth. None of these events make a case for social media platforms banning provably harmful content.

 

[lil devils x]

The Hoover argument is really weird. It basically plays out like this: "Authority figures have abused the power of government in the past. They can and will do it again. That's why we need to make free speech so absolutist that it becomes a transgression if not a crime to fact check somebody. Yes, some liars will get away with it as a result. In fact, lying authority figures with a history of or inclination toward abusing power will have an easier time of things under this system. But it's a small price to pay to protect us from authority figures abusing their power."

Isn't it ironic though that ONLY those who want to be able to abuse power have a problem with fact checking? Not fact checking is what allows them to accomplish their goals to misinform here. Trump is pissed he can't lie to the people without people calling out his lies and is throwing a fit about it. If he was telling the truth he would have nothing to worry about here. The claim that addressing the misinformation somehow leads to abuse of power is honestly absurd at this point considering what we have dealt with in the past and present.

 

[Houseman]

They already do this and social media platforms banning people for spreading lies that can provably cause harm have zero impact on that.

The issue is that you think you'd be immune to this because your viewpoints don't "provably cause harm".

I'm saying that evidence can be fabricated against you so that all the "facts" will point to your viewpoints "provably causing harm".

You are conflating government with social media.

I'm using the example of the government's counter-intelligence program to show you how "facts" can be fabricated. You don't think they can be. You think that the truth is your ally and it will keep you safe. It won't.

Allowing or banning harmful content

You're doing it again. You're assuming words like "harmful", "true", "misleading" mean something. You've given the power of defining all those things to the fact-checkers. They decide what those words mean, not you. If they decide that MLK is a violent, subversive radical, then that becomes the truth.

Next time, before you use one of those words, put "what fact-checkers have determined is..." before it. So "harmful" becomes "what fact-checkers have determined is harmful", and "misleading" becomes "what fact-checkers have determined is harmful".

the people still knew the truth

*gestures at the riots in the streets*.

Did they? Did they really know the truth? Is that why everything is currently on fire? Because both cops and black people saw through the lies spread by the FBI and learned that they weren't really out to get each-other?

 

[Houseman]

Isn't it ironic though that ONLY those who want to be able to abuse power have a problem with fact checking?

If I were an evil super-villain dictator, the first thing I'd do is create a Ministry of Truth designed to fact-check everything. Anything that was subversive to my reign would be declared false and censored. Kind of like how Nazis, China, Russia, and the DPRK do it.

All those governments are afraid of fact-checking... WHEN THEY AREN'T THE ONES IN CONTROL OF IT! Otherwise it's their tool for controlling thought and discourse.

It's a weapon. Whoever is wielding it determines who it is used against.

 

[lil devils x]

If I were an evil super-villain dictator, the first thing I'd do is create a Ministry of Truth designed to fact-check everything. Anything that was subversive to my reign would be declared false and censored. Kind of like how Nazis, China, Russia, and the DPRK do it.

All those governments are afraid of fact-checking... WHEN THEY AREN'T THE ONES IN CONTROL OF IT! Otherwise it's their tool for controlling thought and discourse.

It's a weapon. Whoever is wielding it determines who it is used against.

That is why we have actual methods for fact checking and when something is inaccurate, even among fact checkers, it gets corrected. The entire premise that people can " just invent facts at whim" goes against what a fact actually is. That is why those things are not facts in the first place. " alternative facts just equates to lies, not actual other facts. Facts can be checked and verified. China burying anything that they do not like does not suddenly change the facts here. You are suggesting they do.

 

[lil devils x]

The issue is that you think you'd be immune to this because your viewpoints don't "provably cause harm".

I'm saying that evidence can be fabricated against you so that all the "facts" will point to your viewpoints "provably causing harm".



I'm using the example of the government's counter-intelligence program to show you how "facts" can be fabricated. You don't think they can be. You think that the truth is your ally and it will keep you safe. It won't.



You're doing it again. You're assuming words like "harmful", "true", "misleading" mean something. You've given the power of defining all those things to the fact-checkers. They decide what those words mean, not you. If they decide that MLK is a violent, subversive radical, then that becomes the truth.

Next time, before you use one of those words, put "what fact-checkers have determined is..." before it. So "harmful" becomes "what fact-checkers have determined is harmful", and "misleading" becomes "what fact-checkers have determined is harmful".



*gestures at the riots in the streets*.

Did they? Did they really know the truth? Is that why everything is currently on fire? Because both cops and black people saw through the lies spread by the FBI and learned that they weren't really out to get each-other?

Everything being on fire now is not because people believe MLK was a terrorist. It is because racism is still rampant in the US and being intentionally ignored. Even racists know that MLK was not a terrorist. Racism would have persisted regardless of whether or not the FBI made up lies about MLK. You act as if though that had any major impact here. What the cops have done prior to that and after had nothing to do with the FBI scheme, it has to do with long entrenched systemic racism. The FBI was not the ones causing the KKK infiltration of the police department, Causing the rampant abuse, that was happening long before and after their scheme. Trying to use what the FBI did there is a scapegoat at this point as they had little if any impact on both the short term and long term impact on this issue that has plagued the US for hundreds of years now.

 

[Worgen]

It was a "fact" that this was a page from a coloring book distributed by the Black Panthers. This book was used to teach children to read, and also to hate cops. The FBI said it was a fact.

Except it's not, because this book was actually written by the FBI themselves. By the time the truth came out, it was too late. People were killed. Racism grew. The damage was done. The fact-checkers had spoken. The truth was irrelevant.

Ahh, ok, so you don't understand the difference between fact checking and propaganda. That actually makes a lot of sense based on your arguments. What you list here, this is propaganda, fact checking would be identifying the source as the FBI.

 

[Houseman]

That is why we have actual methods for fact checking and when something is inaccurate, even among fact checkers, it gets corrected.

How many corrections did twitter make in their misleading fact-check? Zero, but that doesn't matter, because no, there aren't "actual methods" for fact-checking. Anybody can be a "fact-checker" and nobody can say otherwise because there's no standard. You don't go to fact-checking college and get certified as a fact-checker by the independent, non-governmental, Fact-Checkers Organization because none of that exists.

The entire premise that people can " just invent facts at whim" goes against what a fact actually is

What "fact actually is", is defined by the fact-checkers, not you or anyone else. See? See the problem with that?

Everything being on fire now is not because people believe MLK was a terrorist.

You're right. It has more to do with Hoover's FBI stoking the fire of racism by convincing everyone (through lie like that fake coloring book), that the black panthers hated cops and were raising their (black) children to hate them, embiggening the "us vs them" divide that continues down to this day.

You seem to think that everybody called their bluff on day one. We didn't find out about this for DECADES!

But I transitioned from using MLK as an example to the Black Panthers as an example around the time I posted the page from that coloring book. COININTELPRO was really just an example of how, even by playing by the rules of the game, you can still lose. It just proves that even being on the side of the 'actual real truth' will not protect you against fabricated evidence and lies.

Ahh, ok, so you don't understand the difference between fact checking and propaganda. That actually makes a lot of sense based on your arguments. What you list here, this is propaganda, fact checking would be identifying the source as the FBI.

How do you determine what is "fact-checking" and what is "propaganda"? Simple, ask the fact-checkers. They'll tell you! Honest!

But seriously. You, like lil devils, seem to think that "fact-checking" is an actual thing. It isn't really. A journalist doesn't simply ascend to a higher moral plane by calling himself a "fact-checker". He didn't get a special fact-checking diploma. It's just a made-up title that people give to themselves.

Fact-checkers are people who call themselves fact-checkers.

I bet the FBI called themselves, or paid off, 'fact-checkers' when they were busy assassinating the character of (or just straight-up assassinating) leaders of the civil rights movement.

Just like how 1984's Ministry of Truth was totally, 100% concerned with the real actual truth, and they follow the actual, real processes to determine what is or isn't the actual real truth. And everybody agreed and lived happily ever after except for the ones who never existed.