Well and empirically demonstrated in the 80's by Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky.
There is a huge difference.
If someone is bullshitting you in real life, you don't give them a giant microphone so they can reach millions of people. You ignore them, or politely engage in conversation with them, or maybe even try to help them see the errors of their ways.
Why should Facebook be obligated to amplify deceptive messages? I don't see a reason.
For example, Trump has spread so many falsehoods but people still attend his events.
Yes, and the fact that they are free to buy a printing press doesn't mean that the New York Times is obligated to print their material on the Times’ press alongsode content that meets the Times’ editorial standards.
What happened to the traditional liberal distrust of big corporations?
What about if Facebook decides discussion of privacy violations online is "fake news?"
Anyone that runs a business has the responsibility to consider the ethical ramifications of their business activities, and to respond in a way that aligns with their ethical values.
FYI –– Y Combinator does exactly this on Hacker News: "selectively censoring (or at least hindering) communication it disagrees with"
I also don't use facebook at all.
It would worry me if an ISP or other group that should be a common carrier were censoring things. Or if the government censored things. But people on facebook are willingly buying into whatever facebook is providing.
What BS specifically do you disagree with? Do you realize your own bias with that statement?
Knowing the tactics of people behind fake news, it's good that Facebook is responding accordingly to punish and get rid of bad actors on their platform.
It's once again showing that we can't have pure anarcho decentralization. It would be a haven for bad actors that goes unpunished.
We can absolutely set definition for what is bad and what isn't bad. What is clearly bad is writing fake news about certain group of ethnic group you hate and manipulating others into believing your twisted idiosyncratic views about Jews, Hindus and Moors.
edit: there is some heavy downvote brigading going on here. I've alerted the mods.
trying to manipulate the naive herd of sheep who blindly follows whatever people like on Facebook
I realise you genuinely do believe that there are vast numbers of people who are literally programmable through their Facebook news feeds as if they were a television set, and that your own vastly superior intellect would ensure that this never happens to your good self, but it's a fantastically offensive, trollish and flame-o-riffic position to take ... every bit as awful as outright racism/sexism/whatever (except your views of intellectual and moral superiority are a lot more common than actual racism or sexism in the HN community). Moreover you provide no actual evidence that such people exist in vast herd-like numbers.
When your entire contribution to the debate is "the world is full of sheep and Facebook must herd them for their own good" are you really surprised that this is considered not particularly helpful? It's like starting an argument with "people with low IQ should be affixed with ankle bracelets to ensure they don't wander around and cause trouble".
Your faux outrage is irritating. You're really going to debate that fake news on FB and elsewhere has had a real impact shaping beliefs and attitudes?
If quoquoquo had supported their viewpoint with something other than his own enormous contempt, perhaps studies or statistics on the extent to which people are sheep like I'd have let it be or maybe even voted it up. But they didn't.
You're really going to debate that fake news on FB and elsewhere has had a real impact shaping beliefs and attitudes?
"Real impact" is meaningless beyond meaning "an impact more than zero". It's surely had more than zero. Is it significant in scale compared to other sources of manipulation, like what ordinary newspapers routinely engage in? Does it have huge impact on individuals or trivial impact? That's absolutely debatable and worth debating.
Again I'd like to ask, what's the free speech answer to nazis and white supremacists raising their fists to my friends and loved ones? How do we free-speech our way out of the violence that's already coming?
I'd love to be a free-speech absolutist but, right now, I can't square it with the suffering and violence being brought down on the most vulnerable.
You realise - I hope! - that seeing large populations of other people as weak, inferior, morally defective, mentally limited and generally in need of being controlled or removed from public life is exactly the attitude that led to the Nazi horrors, don't you? It wasn't an excess of free speech that led to the concentration camps, which were secret inside Germany and their existence did not leak to the allies until troops actually found them. It was a set of beliefs that de-humanized entire chunks of the population. Those considered immoral or stupid by the Nazis were sent to the gas chambers ... but only after years of much lighter harassment and suppression.
Especially note that a key part of Hitler's rise was the belief that Germany's defeat in WW1 was somehow partly the result of some sort of conspiracy by people with Jewish beliefs.
So now what do we see? A strong conviction by some parts of society that other parts are mentally weak, that their belief systems are morally defective, yet that people with these beliefs are organised and dangerous and thus they must be suppressed.
The risk here is NOT coming from "free speech absolutists", as you put it, but rather people like yourself who look around and see a world full of people who cannot ever be persuaded or redeemed because they're just too stupid or evil, and thus must be prevented from organising. In the exceptionally rare case that genuine, actual Nazis do "raise their fists" the solution is the same as when anyone does: arrest them and send them to trial.
It's impossible to respond to such a rebuttal without using the N-word and I specifically said at the start I was doing so only because of that argument.
I understand why people bring up Hitler in discussions about free speech. Some people do believe that Nazis are some sort of harmful side effect of free speech and if only people with views tending in that direction are prevented from speaking, there will never be a re-occurrence. That's a reasonable view to hold, but one that many people believe to be wrong (I didn't see Congress delete the first amendment post-WW2 after all).
Now if someone is going to take a position of "I'd love to support X but it leads to Hitler", a rebuttal of the form "actually it's not X that led to these bad things, it's the opposite of X" is a completely reasonable response. If you really believe that's sophistry I'd be interested to know how you'd argue that free speech is the solution to and not the cause of Nazi evil, if you genuinely did believe that, without it being sophistry?
OP: People are susceptible to manipulation. We should think carefully about the ways our institutions allow violent and intolerant ideologies to spread.
You: You know who else thought people were susceptible to manipulation? The Nazis.
A hypothetical non-sophist: Our institutions are indeed helping to spread violent and intolerant ideologies, but any attempt to prevent their spread will only make things worse, because #{reasons}.
One, you respond to violence with violence, but that's not what we're talking about. And two, the best way to hurry along the violence you think is coming is to close down other people's free speech. Speech is the substitute for violence - what do you think will happen when you take speech away from people who feel marginalized?
>I'd love to be a free-speech absolutist but, right now, I can't square it with the suffering and violence being brought down on the most vulnerable.
Sure, "I support free speech but...". You'd love to be a free speech absolutist, as long as the people talking agree with you.
I'd love to be a free speech absolutist but where that's been taking us, my friends and loved ones are at the receiving end of fists, guns, and cars.
So... just to clarify, you're telling me I should be a free speech absolutist and say, "yes, let's just talk that car out of plowing into us"?
Serious, honest question. The violence is already here. Is that--more talking in the face of violence against vulnerable communities--where you see free speech absolutism leading us? Is that the place we, as a society, want to be headed?
(If it's easy for you to say, "yes," then I'm assuming you feel safe knowing you'd never be at the receiving end of a car plowing through a crowd.)
Is a moving car "speech"? You seem to keep trying to blur the line between speech and violence. Why is that? Is it that you don't recognize the difference, or is it that you realize there hasn't actually been much violence, and most of it's coming from your "friends and loved ones" on the left?
>Serious, honest question. The violence is already here. Is that--more talking in the face of violence against vulnerable communities--where you see free speech absolutism leading us? Is that the place we, as a society, want to be headed?
Who are you talking about when you say "vulnerable communities"? The communities with all the institutional protection, from colleges to employers to the state?
And it's not free speech that's turning up the antagonism, but rather the opposite, as more and more pressure is put on people to refrain from, you know, speaking their mind.
>(If it's easy for you to say, "yes," then I'm assuming you feel safe knowing you'd never be at the receiving end of a car plowing through a crowd.)
Again, that was one incident. One. By a guy who'd most likely just been assaulted by communists. To make policy based on what one person does is idiotic.
But if that's what we're going to do, shouldn't we look into yanking MSNBC's broadcast license? I mean, the guy who shot Scalise was a big Maddow fan.
If there's a difference it's akin to the change from animal power to internal combustion: a difference of degree and mechanic, not the fundamental operation being carried out. But like the change to internal combustion, this change can be pretty revolutionary all the same.
(inb4 1st amendment is only for the gov - that is a selective truth. the principles of free speech exist outside of government.)
People couldn't manipulate millions of others as easily. You couldn't even REACH millions of people easily. And you had to be an actual authority figure to be given that power (perhaps a corrupt practice but still).
The communications landscape is quite different from 2000, remarkably different from 1980, extremely different from 1960, a world away from 1920, and bares very little resemblance to 1820.
How do things in the 1500s and 1600s say that thins aren't different?
You said thousands of years, how do the lessons of 2000 BC show us things haven't changed?
1) No strong sense of "norms" in the culture
2) Manipulation of "Free Speech" into "Equal Speech"
3) Manipulation of a populist movement entirely built on nostalgia, the-jews-backstabbed-the-kaiser mythology, and "Germany First" so that they were far enough from Hitler that he could claim to not control them directly, but everyone else feared touching him would start a nationwide riot.
4) Political violence was normalized
5) Everything (churches, tennis clubs) had political party variants (ex: the socialist democrat Protestant church vs a communist one)
6) Terrorist attack on the Reichstag was a huge opportunity and turning point
There's a world of difference between the Internet of 2017 and Germany of 1932 that I really do suggest keeping them apart, and pick up the book.
I'd love to see examples of unfettered free speech from the 1600s or much MUCH easier.
399BC - Socrates speaks to jury at his trial: 'If you offered to let me off this time on condition I am not any longer to speak my mind... I should say to you, "Men of Athens, I shall obey the Gods rather than you."'
1516 - The Education of a Christian Prince by Erasmus. 'In a free state, tongues too should be free.'
In the 1600s, Galileo was executed for mere speech.
Based on the post I was expecting examples of where free speech overcame the kind of 'there are my kind of lies so they must be true you liar' stuff we're seeing now.
Totalitarianism has emerged in societies lacking free speech as well. it's usually a lot more complicated than that.
Regulating free speech is indeed a slippery slope. But it might need to be regulated, I don't have no idea to be honest. A free market works best for the common good when it's regulated though, and I could see it being the same way for free speech. But a slippery slope it is.
But it clearly has. Only in the past 5 year did it become possible for one guy in Romania to pose as a small town Ohio news agency (or 4) and spread nonsense to millions of people.
Do you feel that academic journals violate the principle of free speech? If not, why is what facebook is doing any different?
And to be clear, what we mean by "fake news" are stories that are demonstrably false with incorrect information that's never corrected even when it's revealed to be false. We're _not_ talking about what Trump calls "fake news," by which he means any narrative that doesn't paint him in a positive light.
Irrelevant. Limiting speech doesn't solve that contradiction, it only guarantees the worse outcome. More speech solves your proposed "contradiction" just fine.
If so then yes I agree. Government censorship is unacceptable. But that's not really comparable to private entities censoring on their own private whims.
In what way is Facebook at all comparable to a government? Is there some social contract that all people are entered into with Facebook? If so, what are the rights and responsibilities of that contract? And do note here, I'm talking about an implied social contract, not an actual contract (like an EULA).
What large portion of the internet do they "govern"? As best as I can tell you're arguing that any sufficiently large entity is essentially a government. That's ridiculous. So please, please explain what you do mean.
They have written community rules (don't know the exact name) that members are expected to comply with.
> What large portion of the internet do they "govern"?
The Facebook website (duh). Which, for a surprising amount of people, is literally "the internet" (or at least the part of it that they most interact with).
> As best as I can tell you're arguing that any sufficiently large entity is essentially a government.
No. For instance, Toyota is not a government because it does not set rules under which I can use their cars. Facebook does set rules under which I can use their platform, and it enforces them (which is the entire point of the submission). Setting rules and enforcing them is governance.
In fact, every moderator on any public forum is in the governance business. Since Facebook is so large, I find it reasonable to liken it to a government in terms of influence of its governance.
Just to be clear, this definition also makes Walmart the government of all Walmart stores, and me the government of my bedroom. Neither of those are in any way related to how the President is (a part of) the government of the United States.
[1] Edit: Within the boundaries of the law. But if that were a problem with your definition of "governance", then state governments (which operate within the boundaries of federal law) would not be governing either.
Except they don't. You should have said "inb4 John Stuart Mill", one of the founders of free speech philosophy who said that that the harm principle trumps freedom of speech (i.e. if an expression causes harm, then that expression can be silenced).
This idea of freedom of speech "as a principle" being a blank check to express whatever you want without consequences, is a new development.
I know the 1st amendment protects Americans from the government but today's free speech advocates, warriors, or whatever they are called look a bunch of angry men.
But that's besides the point. Freedom of speech has always been an imperfect principle. At anytime we are and have been censored in any society. In the west we probably have fewer censorships, but still we censor child porn, financial cheating / insider trading as well as "hate speech". And that is good. Other societies such as china do exactly the same just that the goal post has shifted a little more.
The point is this: freedom of speech is a relative term and has changed between societies and in time. It's never been free in absolute terms.
It's also recently not revealed the truth and made us less just, which is what it's only real purpose is.
The goalpost needs changing to make it achieve that again.
'Origins of freedom of speech and expression' section found here suggests otherwise (unless you want to be particular about the term 'constitution', rather than what it represents):
Socrates was sentenced to death for "corrupting the youth" - an act of speech. Considered by some to be a final nail for ancient athens - who had adored free speech before so much as to name a warship after the concept.
The principle of free speech is that actors who are not exercising the monopoly, coercive power of government are free to choose which views to express or relay, and that persuasion not obligation (legal, moral, or otherwise) of some actors to neutrality will determine the success of ideas in spreading.
The concept of free speech does not involve some private actors being entitled to other private actors’ resources.
(There is a legitimate issue with some “private” actors being really public actors where the structure of property rights and natural features of the market for certain infrastructure creates monopolies or oligopolies on essential mechanisms of communication.)
You say this as if it isn't a perfectly valid point. You have the right guaranteed by law to express an opinion. No one, no matter what size corporation or platform, is expected to give you a podium from which to do so.
More to the point, freedom of speech has never been an absolute, not in the way most extremist activists would have you believe. There has always been exceptions, but the common theme of them is incitement, either incitement of panic that endangers safety (yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre), incitement of hatred against a group of people, or incitement of a riot, on and on. There are all kinds of ways the Government limits your speech.
Since your use of Facebook is effectively using their network to promote your speech, Facebook is basically speaking for you to a certain degree, that means Facebook has a vested interest to not speak hateful nonsense so it by itself does not become the subject of either lawsuits from the Government or public outcry, the latter of which has already happened, the former entirely in the scope of possibilities if they continue to act like the typical tech bro and try not to take sides in the name of "Free Speech" a.k.a maximum audience numbers.
Please read up on this concept. It does not mean what you think, and is so frequently voiced as part of a case advocating restrictions on speech, it's become something of a hot-button topic.
https://www.popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-ha...
Money quote:
After Holmes' opinions in the Schenck trilogy, the law of the United States
was this: you could be convicted and sentenced to prison under the Espionage
Act if you criticized the war, or conscription, in a way that "obstructed"
conscription, which might mean as little as convincing people to write and
march and petition against it. This is the context of the "fire in a theater"
quote that people so love to brandish to justify censorship.
You might even want to reconsider your position.
The intersection of people arguing that ISPs are common carriers and also that corporations can deny you a platform.
I definitely accept the need for that intersection for the USA at this point.
Facebook can absolutely kick out people who don't behave on their platform. Playing the freedom of speech card doesn't work when you actively try to oppress other's freedom of speech through tactical manipulation.
Punishing individuals and groups who willfully and knowingly engage in spreading information containing false facts concocted to support their intolerant views is absolutely necessary to protect freedom of speech.
Punishing people for spreading information you don't like in the name of protecting free speech is double speak
Thinking a group of people is lesser than you because of the arrangement of their skin color pigmentation, and crying freedom of speech is being attacked, is not going to get you a lot of sympathy, especially when you now try to actively shut people up who are calling you out on it.
> freedom of speech means freedom to mislead
sure, but don't get all up and mighty when you get called out and shut down.
If this is the world we're headed into, by treating free speech as an absolute and inviolate, then I'm not sure it's a world I want to live in.
When nazis start inciting riots against my friends and loved ones, and quislings defend that speech as ok to disseminate because free speech, is this the world I want to live in?
I'm lucky, I don't look like anyone who's a target for white supremacists. Most of my friends and loved ones aren't that lucky.
I have a little bit of a different perspective because of that--the violence is already coming to our door and no amount of talking is going to cool white supremacist or nazi heads when they're out there.
So, universal, absolute free speech...is this building a world I want to inhabit? Increasingly, no. And proponents of an absolute and inviolate principle of free speech have no answer to the violence that's coming.
I'd love to be able to say I supported that principle that thoroughly, so if you've got one besides "just talk them out of attacking your friends and loved ones," I'm all ears.
They're talking about social media and the definition of "fake news". As I've come to experience in my life a lot of people don't even realize how biased their points of view are.
Data and statistics can be manipulated to support certain points of view. Lots of fallacies are regularly exploited by articles of all types on both sides of the spectrum. If you leave a group of conservatives to define what is fake news and what is not, you'll get quite a different list than if you left a group of liberals to do the same.
There's a real slippery slope here. Free speech is as much a social convention as it is legal protection from the government. Facebook has a near monopoly on social media. Google has the same for search. If Facebook and Google get to be the arbiter of truth, then free speech is lost.
You'll likely attract down votes with this edit regardless of whether members agree with the sentiment, as it's counter to the guidelines:
> Please don't comment about the voting on comments. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading.
however, tattling to the mods because you are being downvoted and dont like it? good lord
I hope hn has some anti state player routines in place...
After all they care only about profit and keeping the users in their walled garden. So when you are talking about manipulation, do you consider that Facebooks actions as a company are very manipulative?
Can you defend Trump? As near as I can tell he doesn't have any actual stances. He contradicts himself constantly. He acts like a child instead either a politician or a statesman. He turns down expert briefings. He appears to be embezzling money by having his security stay at his properties. He takes far too much vacation. He has a curiously large amoutn of ties to Russia and appears to have at least some unsavory ties with Russia. Anyone supporting this idiot is not qualified to pick a leader. I say that having voted for democrats an republicans.
So they retreat into philosophical arguments about how you can't deny Nazi's free speech, because that's unamerican and a slippery slope. While Republicans continue their decades of voter suppression in plain view, which is apparently cool. What about "I may not agree with your vote but I'll fight to the death to ensure it gets cast and counted"?
No, they know they need the votes of Nazis and racists, they know they need to suppress minority votes. They know they need to tell horrible lies to get angry rubes to vote against their own interests. They know they need to demonise minorities. And they're slowly coming to terms with the fact that "their side" could never win without all this. But they still feel dissonance so they down-vote and try to think of a way to spin it so they have the moral high ground. As if Trump isn't going to remind us they don't, every single day.
I am cool with nazis voting and I even think nazis should have freedom of speech. What is not OK is calls to violence and any other form of speech that directly hurts people (doxing, revenge porn, etc...). This is already illegal in this country and is in no way a slippery slope. We just need to enforce existing rules and laws.
You demand that we "kill all XXX" go to jail, end of story. That is not censorship, that is how you build a society.
This is not a partisan issue, when you start down the road of handing the keys to shaping public thought to a powerful party, you're there when the power changes too.
This is no different than being able to tell when someone is bullshitting just as you walk through every day life, and thinking we need to shield the poor naive populace from harmful ideas is borderline stereotypical paternalism.
This is all obviously a big deal to old media, who have made an art not out of sharing incorrect truths, but of very selectively sharing truths, to the point that what emerges does not really represent the truth at all. They didn't lie, but they aggressively shaped. Of course democratic access to the pieces they'd rather suppress (on both sides) threatens that model. They'd love us to toss out this particular bath water.