8 ms·

If one cannot utilize more speech to counter criticism, and instead requires censorship to do so, the time to examine one’s actions has arrived.

9dev 2y ago
Adding ever more people with megaphones to a discussion will not necessarily make it a more nuanced one.
- tourmalinetaco 2y ago
  And removing that speech will? Because that’s worked in the past, right? Ya know, demonizing speech, demonizing those who practice said speech, culling them (either literally or metaphorically), ostracizing them. All of that has done wonders in history.
jkrems 2y ago
So you don't use a spam filter in your inbox? You just subscribe to more emails that you _do_ want to drown out the spam? It's easy to say "just counter with more speech!" but it's harder to see how that works at the scale of a global network with nation state actors, bots, and extreme imbalances of power (100 people dogpiling onto 1 person).
- tourmalinetaco 2y ago
  Refusing to listen to one’s opinion, which is a valid form of self-expression, is in no way comparable to actively removing one’s right to speech as censorship entails.
johnea 2y ago
Speaking one's actual opinion should certainly be protected, but intentionally spreading disinformation is not free speach, it's fraud. There isn't and should not be protection to commit fraud, although interpretation of many free speach laws in modern times are also used to protect fraudulent misinformation.
atmavatar 2y ago
I think you underestimate the effectiveness of techniques like the Gish Gallop and Firehose of Falsehood. It is far easier to spew a bunch of lies and half-truths in pursuit of a particular talking point than it is to refute, even in the best of conditions. Even worse: people tend to latch on to anything that validates their own biases, and often times, they'll dig in their heels when presented with facts that refute their views. Social media makes this even worse by largely steering people so they remain within echo chambers. Heavy-handed curtailment of speech seems like a cure that's worse than the disease, for sure, but the current state of affairs is starting to resemble the Tacoma Narrows Bridge. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firehose_of_falsehood https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firehose_of_falsehood
- derektank 2y ago
  I suppose it's a question of what you care about. If your only concern is keeping other people from believing "the wrong thing", sure censors can effectively prevent the spread of any single "bad" idea. But bad ideas, as you point out, have habit of growing like weeds. You can't expect censors to be able to effectively manage and filter the flood of new ideas generated every day, evaluating how much truth vs fiction they contain. They must necessarily use blunt instruments which restrict the spread of true information as well. So, if you care about having as many true facts available to yourself as possible however, you can't trust censors to provide it for you. The truth (or the closest thing we have to the truth, as many truths aren't even available to us, either because we lack the tools to determine them or because they simply haven't been thought up yet) will always surface in an unconstrained information ecosystem because truths have the benefit of accurately describing reality, something people are inherently interested in. The truth might not always be the most popular or accessible idea, but it is incredibly resilient
  - jfengel 2y ago
    I care about not being murdered. Yeah, yeah, I know that "let's murder jfengel" is wrongthink, and I'm a terrible bigot for trying to suppress the free speech. I should be out there making the case to not murder me. But I take it personally.

9dev 2y ago

Adding ever more people with megaphones to a discussion will not necessarily make it a more nuanced one.

tourmalinetaco 2y ago
And removing that speech will? Because that’s worked in the past, right? Ya know, demonizing speech, demonizing those who practice said speech, culling them (either literally or metaphorically), ostracizing them. All of that has done wonders in history.

jkrems 2y ago

So you don't use a spam filter in your inbox? You just subscribe to more emails that you _do_ want to drown out the spam? It's easy to say "just counter with more speech!" but it's harder to see how that works at the scale of a global network with nation state actors, bots, and extreme imbalances of power (100 people dogpiling onto 1 person).

tourmalinetaco 2y ago
Refusing to listen to one’s opinion, which is a valid form of self-expression, is in no way comparable to actively removing one’s right to speech as censorship entails.

johnea 2y ago

Speaking one's actual opinion should certainly be protected, but intentionally spreading disinformation is not free speach, it's fraud. There isn't and should not be protection to commit fraud, although interpretation of many free speach laws in modern times are also used to protect fraudulent misinformation.

atmavatar 2y ago

I think you underestimate the effectiveness of techniques like the Gish Gallop and Firehose of Falsehood. It is far easier to spew a bunch of lies and half-truths in pursuit of a particular talking point than it is to refute, even in the best of conditions. Even worse: people tend to latch on to anything that validates their own biases, and often times, they'll dig in their heels when presented with facts that refute their views. Social media makes this even worse by largely steering people so they remain within echo chambers. Heavy-handed curtailment of speech seems like a cure that's worse than the disease, for sure, but the current state of affairs is starting to resemble the Tacoma Narrows Bridge. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firehose_of_falsehood https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firehose_of_falsehood

derektank 2y ago
I suppose it's a question of what you care about. If your only concern is keeping other people from believing "the wrong thing", sure censors can effectively prevent the spread of any single "bad" idea. But bad ideas, as you point out, have habit of growing like weeds. You can't expect censors to be able to effectively manage and filter the flood of new ideas generated every day, evaluating how much truth vs fiction they contain. They must necessarily use blunt instruments which restrict the spread of true information as well. So, if you care about having as many true facts available to yourself as possible however, you can't trust censors to provide it for you. The truth (or the closest thing we have to the truth, as many truths aren't even available to us, either because we lack the tools to determine them or because they simply haven't been thought up yet) will always surface in an unconstrained information ecosystem because truths have the benefit of accurately describing reality, something people are inherently interested in. The truth might not always be the most popular or accessible idea, but it is incredibly resilient
- jfengel 2y ago
  I care about not being murdered. Yeah, yeah, I know that "let's murder jfengel" is wrongthink, and I'm a terrible bigot for trying to suppress the free speech. I should be out there making the case to not murder me. But I take it personally.