I don't cast free speech in absolute terms, I take issue with those that do since it isn't a spectrum.
No one wants "true" free speech anyway. an age of social media + deepfakes means true free speech is legalizing slander/libel. And we know the lies will persist much longer than it deserves.
As well as inciting violence. We don't even need to reach "hate speech" on the spectrum in order to talk about intolerable speech everyone agrees should be punished on.
I take issue with any law that limits speech, including libel, regardless of who says it. Such laws remove agency, and therefore a level of responsibility, from those who hear the speech and choose to act on it.
In the same way that I strongly disagree with laying any blame on a woman for dressing a certain way before being attacked, I don't blame a person for saying something before another person takes an action we've deemed illegal.
Right, like everywhere on the planet, hence why I ask if you're saying it doesn't exist. It sounds like your answer is yes.
I could care less if someone wants to say they're going to hurt me. My beef is when they actually try to do it.
Words aren't terrorism or violent. That doesn't mean people can't interpret them that way and feel harm, but a word alone can't harm anyone.
Because words carry weight based on who says them. Which is based on power/privileged. The president making an announcement about MedBeds would cause a much bigger conversation than a crackpot conspiracy group on Facebook. And that's sadly not belittling the FB group (give who I've seen fall for it), that's demonstrating how much more authority the president's words have.
>but a word alone can't harm anyone.
In the same way a pebble can't harm you, but it can be holding back a rockslide that can cause mass damage.
That analogy doesn't hold. For one thing a pebble can in fact hurt you by itself. For another, the words still wouldn't be what harmed you, the actions people took later are what harmed you and those are what would be illegal.
Where does that put someone calling out a public hit? It is just words after all.
> I could care less if someone wants to say they're going to hurt me. My beef is when they actually try to do it.
They say there’s no atheists in foxholes.
Vaguely saying "someone should" is very different from offering a bounty or plotting to do it yourself.
My point wasn't that money had to change hands or be offered, I was responding to an earlier comment. A person directly taking part in plotting to commit murder I'd also likely breaking the law and likely to lose a jury trial if they are actively plotting a murder whether money I'd involved or not. Saying "someone should" simply isn't a plot.
Your distinction that money has to be offered seems completely arbitrary. It implies people only do things for money and are otherwise impervious to influence. You really underestimate the level of stan culture America has.
When you believe that is okay and libel is also okay, by your standards, I can tell the world my neighbor is a pedophile who assaulted me as a child, and ask people to decapitate his whole family. And as long as I don't offer money, that's fine.
But, strictly speaking, neither of those are threats. In English law, they'd be more likely to be prosecuted as Soliciting to Murder or Conspiracy to Murder - I imagine there are similar offences in America.
Don't forget that we also learned in the 20th century that millions can support and die for genocide while only a few dozen will be charged while the rest returned home. We also learned that the winner of said conflict can wipe out entire cities and go home the victor without consequence.
Both? It’s not hard to share the blame.
However there is a difference. A balance of free speech on social media could look like
1. Anyone can say anything they want
2. The algorithms are simplified such that they are chronological and your direct network, rather than the anxiety boosting, "editorial" choice in promoting or limiting the speech of others, especially with how reposts and quote tweets amplify a given post.
We need to rethink and regulate algorithms while we are working on Ai regulation. Let's not let the tech companies that brought us the mess we are in slip by in this moment of seemingly bipartisan cooperation.
Let us also make targeted advertising illegal to remove the incentives that make the "anxiety algorithms" so profitable. Go back to a world of context based advertising like magazines.
We can debate where the line on regulation should fall, but that isn't a free speech debate.
They have been abusing their power, something has to change
I haven't seen anyone show that here yet, though the Twitter files did show that for example.
We have considered algorithms to be a form of speech, because it is an "editorial" process, but this does not seem to be what they actually do. Similar to how Ai output is not copyrightable, social media feed algorithms that work on big data should not be considered an "editorial" process. There is no human involved in making decisions, just like Ai. Thus, if we regulate algorithms, we are not regulating speech, we are regulating a process, albeit a digital one with less case law.
Much simpler would be to clarify that algorithmically curated feeds of user content do not fall under the protections shielding the hosting company from liability. It seems reasonable to me that the intent of said protections was was to avoid scenarios where the website is in no way directly involved in the content creation itself, once the company decides what and how to show it that seems outside the original intent.
Perhaps instead of putting bounds (through laws) on what they cannot do, perhaps we list only what they are allowed to do (for algorithmic feeds), eg. can only show content from direct connections in chronological order. I do expect many people (currently believe) they like being able to discover new content outside of their network.
Whatever we come up with, which would benefit the people, I suspect will have big impacts on their profits. At the same time, if they do not have to spend vast resources to understand our nuances and target ads specifically to use, their cost centers would also be impacted.
I'm a growing proponent of ending targeted advertising. If we start with that, much of the incentives for our current algorithms (social, search, news) would seem to be removed from the equations.
huh, but everywhere in the world where they put value on having free speech, the situation is "somewhere in between"
There is always a balance, always a line. Every priority exists in the "in between".
Nothing has 100.00..% priority.
Reality forces choices. Choices force legal, structural, cultural and (last, but unavoidable) contextual prioritization.
I personally don't think hate speech should be illegal. If someone feels that way I'd rather know it and act accordingly than them keep it to themselves.
Others may well disagree with my view there and that's totally fine, but they do want limits to what one can say which means they don't want free speech.