5 ms·

"When men have realized that time has upset many fighting faiths... We've been wrong before, and we're likely going to be wrong again...That the ultimate good d

"When men have realized that time has upset many fighting faiths... We've been wrong before, and we're likely going to be wrong again...That the ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade and ideas. In light of that knowledge that we may be wrong, the best course of action, the safest course of action, is to go ahead and listen to the ideas on the other side. The best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market. Those are the ideas that we can safely act upon. Every year, if not every day, we have to wager our salvation upon some prophecy based on imperfect knowledge. That, at any rate, is the theory of our Constitution. It is an experiment, as all life is an experiment." - Oliver Wendell Homes on the marketplace of ideas. Unknown to most people, our modern idea of free speech was not founded by the constitution but by a judge of the name Oliver Wendell Homes. The history and story of how our modern concept of free speech came to be what is today is very relevant to the free speech problems faced by the ACLU. If you're interested I recommend this podcast episode: https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/radiolab/articles/what-holmes https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/radiolab/articles/what-.... Really relevant and really interesting.

anigbrowl 5y ago
I think it's worth supplementing this experimental approach with some data on how the marketplace of ideas actually operates: https://science.sciencemag.org/content/359/6380/1146 https://science.sciencemag.org/content/359/6380/1146 https://epjdatascience.springeropen.com/articles/10.1140/epjds/s13688-020-00224-z https://epjdatascience.springeropen.com/articles/10.1140/epj... https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/information-overload-helps-fake-news-spread-and-social-media-knows-it/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/information-overl... In a nutshell, there are only 24 hours in a day and humans have limited cognitive capacity; news and factual assertions tend to propagate fastest based on perceived significance and urgency, and it's easy to fake those qualities. Informally, consider the existence of tabloid newspapers and clickbait advertising on most news sites. I'm sure you're familiar with companies like Taboola and Outbrain that put up ads with iconic imagery and headlines like 'cure unwanted medical condition with this one weird trick' or 'Insider secret revealed: professionals hate him' etc. etc. Now, you can block ads with the help of an extension if you're technically competent, but let's face it, the web is awash in fake content. If you go to a popular news site without any adblocking software, it's absolute hot garbage, and sadly you can easily find a correlation between particular ideological tendencies and the incidence of garbage. The bottom line here is that that dishonesty is profitable and in marketplace of ideas terms that means it's easier to sell a defective product than a reliable one, because people prioritize emotional activation over truth. So picture the marketplace of ideas a a bunch of ideologues shouting out their thoughts on everything from the right end from which to eat an egg to what humanity's overall priorities should be. Now picture that the more successful ideologues purchase megaphones, platforms, and eventually gian sound systems. A naive consumer entering this marketplace is naturally going to accord the greatest weight to the loudest signals because it requires a tremendous amount of work to do otherwise.
- neonological 5y ago
  The podcast addresses what you bring up along with the science. From your response I know you didn't listen to it, so I highly recommend it. How do we maintain free speech while eliminating false information and how do we do this without implementing censorship? This is the problem with free speech as we enter the information age and false information becomes rampant and easily spread by social platforms. It's an open question and the podcast concludes by posing that question to the listener. Again I recommend the podcast to you. Everyone is well aware of the contemporary problem of false information but it is important to be aware of the ideal we are trying to preserve and not lose sight of the ideal when we're in the process of stamping out false information.
  - anigbrowl 5y ago
    I'm already very familiar with both the good and the bad about Oliver Wendell Holmes, thanks. I don't need to hear the ideal articulated again, and to be frank I think clinging to pretty ideals in the face of data that shows their limitations is a kind of nostalgia. You are correct that I did not listen to it, but only because I don't listen to any podcasts, ever. If it's worth communicating it's worth doing so in written form.
    - neonological 5y ago
      What a rude fucking reply. Either be more polite or leave. >You are correct that I did not listen to it, but only because I don't listen to any podcasts, ever. If it's worth communicating it's worth doing so in written form. Basically my post contained nothing except a recommendation to listen to a podcast. How you came up with that huge of a response to a podcast you didn't even listen to is beyond me. But you know what there's a transcript of the ENTIRE podcast on that site. I'm willing to bet that you won't even read it, >I'm already very familiar with both the good and the bad about Oliver Wendell Holmes, thanks. I don't need to hear the ideal articulated again, and to be frank I think clinging to pretty ideals in the face of data that shows their limitations is a kind of nostalgia. First off the podcast contained a shitload of data and science that is INLINE with the data you presented. Second, You don't know much about Oliver Wendell Holmes. I'm pretty sure you're lying here. Oliver Wendell Holmes was a supporter of the type of free speech espoused by your "data." He was an ardent supporter of not allowing speech to be completely free such that anyone can spread false information or incite conflict. The man pretty much put people in jail for saying things that was against the grain. If that version of Oliver was alive today and still a Judge, Trump would absolutely be in jail for his tweets. The quote by Oliver came later. After much internal conflict and after seeing a close friend get put down and censored for talking about his ideas, Oliver made a choice for what he thought was the greater good. This is after much deliberation and a complete 360 degree turn from his original hard stance. This is the important part. Because he wasn't an extremist and he didn't declare one ideal as completely wrong and the other as completely correct. He acknowledge the benefits and flaws of both and he chose what he thought at the time was the better choice. Perhaps at the time it was the better choice, but times change and the world is so much more complicated that it's no longer clear which is better. The Story of Olivers' eternal struggle shaped the way we interpret free speech today and it is the same eternal struggle we continue to face. The story of Oliver is not a story "clinging to an ideal" it is a story of a on-going journey to find the true meaning of that ideal. What do we mean when we say "free speech"? Is trump being censored by facebook to prevent a riot a violation of free speech? Is feminism being censored by facebook a violation of free speech? THIS is the story that the podcast presents ALONG with Scientific DATA that illustrates your point. That's what pisses me off so much about your post. The podcast LITERALLY is talking about the same thing you're talking about BUT with far more nuance. Looking at your profile. It looks like your gay. Well guess what? If it wasn't for Oliver, there would be no way in hell homosexuality is as widely accepted as it is today. Freedom of speech allowed for the normalism of homosexuality to be introduced to the market place of ideas and eventually become reality. You know what? Don't listen to the fucking podcast. There's no point. And don't reply either. I don't want to talk to someone who is rude and didn't even read/listen to the main fucking point of my post. No seriously don't bother replying just read and leave. Or don't read at all just go away.

anigbrowl 5y ago

I think it's worth supplementing this experimental approach with some data on how the marketplace of ideas actually operates: https://science.sciencemag.org/content/359/6380/1146 https://science.sciencemag.org/content/359/6380/1146 https://epjdatascience.springeropen.com/articles/10.1140/epjds/s13688-020-00224-z https://epjdatascience.springeropen.com/articles/10.1140/epj... https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/information-overload-helps-fake-news-spread-and-social-media-knows-it/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/information-overl... In a nutshell, there are only 24 hours in a day and humans have limited cognitive capacity; news and factual assertions tend to propagate fastest based on perceived significance and urgency, and it's easy to fake those qualities. Informally, consider the existence of tabloid newspapers and clickbait advertising on most news sites. I'm sure you're familiar with companies like Taboola and Outbrain that put up ads with iconic imagery and headlines like 'cure unwanted medical condition with this one weird trick' or 'Insider secret revealed: professionals hate him' etc. etc. Now, you can block ads with the help of an extension if you're technically competent, but let's face it, the web is awash in fake content. If you go to a popular news site without any adblocking software, it's absolute hot garbage, and sadly you can easily find a correlation between particular ideological tendencies and the incidence of garbage. The bottom line here is that that dishonesty is profitable and in marketplace of ideas terms that means it's easier to sell a defective product than a reliable one, because people prioritize emotional activation over truth. So picture the marketplace of ideas a a bunch of ideologues shouting out their thoughts on everything from the right end from which to eat an egg to what humanity's overall priorities should be. Now picture that the more successful ideologues purchase megaphones, platforms, and eventually gian sound systems. A naive consumer entering this marketplace is naturally going to accord the greatest weight to the loudest signals because it requires a tremendous amount of work to do otherwise.

neonological 5y ago
The podcast addresses what you bring up along with the science. From your response I know you didn't listen to it, so I highly recommend it. How do we maintain free speech while eliminating false information and how do we do this without implementing censorship? This is the problem with free speech as we enter the information age and false information becomes rampant and easily spread by social platforms. It's an open question and the podcast concludes by posing that question to the listener. Again I recommend the podcast to you. Everyone is well aware of the contemporary problem of false information but it is important to be aware of the ideal we are trying to preserve and not lose sight of the ideal when we're in the process of stamping out false information.
- anigbrowl 5y ago
  I'm already very familiar with both the good and the bad about Oliver Wendell Holmes, thanks. I don't need to hear the ideal articulated again, and to be frank I think clinging to pretty ideals in the face of data that shows their limitations is a kind of nostalgia. You are correct that I did not listen to it, but only because I don't listen to any podcasts, ever. If it's worth communicating it's worth doing so in written form.
  - neonological 5y ago
    What a rude fucking reply. Either be more polite or leave. >You are correct that I did not listen to it, but only because I don't listen to any podcasts, ever. If it's worth communicating it's worth doing so in written form. Basically my post contained nothing except a recommendation to listen to a podcast. How you came up with that huge of a response to a podcast you didn't even listen to is beyond me. But you know what there's a transcript of the ENTIRE podcast on that site. I'm willing to bet that you won't even read it, >I'm already very familiar with both the good and the bad about Oliver Wendell Holmes, thanks. I don't need to hear the ideal articulated again, and to be frank I think clinging to pretty ideals in the face of data that shows their limitations is a kind of nostalgia. First off the podcast contained a shitload of data and science that is INLINE with the data you presented. Second, You don't know much about Oliver Wendell Holmes. I'm pretty sure you're lying here. Oliver Wendell Holmes was a supporter of the type of free speech espoused by your "data." He was an ardent supporter of not allowing speech to be completely free such that anyone can spread false information or incite conflict. The man pretty much put people in jail for saying things that was against the grain. If that version of Oliver was alive today and still a Judge, Trump would absolutely be in jail for his tweets. The quote by Oliver came later. After much internal conflict and after seeing a close friend get put down and censored for talking about his ideas, Oliver made a choice for what he thought was the greater good. This is after much deliberation and a complete 360 degree turn from his original hard stance. This is the important part. Because he wasn't an extremist and he didn't declare one ideal as completely wrong and the other as completely correct. He acknowledge the benefits and flaws of both and he chose what he thought at the time was the better choice. Perhaps at the time it was the better choice, but times change and the world is so much more complicated that it's no longer clear which is better. The Story of Olivers' eternal struggle shaped the way we interpret free speech today and it is the same eternal struggle we continue to face. The story of Oliver is not a story "clinging to an ideal" it is a story of a on-going journey to find the true meaning of that ideal. What do we mean when we say "free speech"? Is trump being censored by facebook to prevent a riot a violation of free speech? Is feminism being censored by facebook a violation of free speech? THIS is the story that the podcast presents ALONG with Scientific DATA that illustrates your point. That's what pisses me off so much about your post. The podcast LITERALLY is talking about the same thing you're talking about BUT with far more nuance. Looking at your profile. It looks like your gay. Well guess what? If it wasn't for Oliver, there would be no way in hell homosexuality is as widely accepted as it is today. Freedom of speech allowed for the normalism of homosexuality to be introduced to the market place of ideas and eventually become reality. You know what? Don't listen to the fucking podcast. There's no point. And don't reply either. I don't want to talk to someone who is rude and didn't even read/listen to the main fucking point of my post. No seriously don't bother replying just read and leave. Or don't read at all just go away.