[HN Gopher] Dismantle the Censorship-Industrial Complex: The Wes... ___________________________________________________________________ Dismantle the Censorship-Industrial Complex: The Westminster Declaration Author : ed-209 Score : 77 points Date : 2023-10-22 22:53 UTC (10 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.racket.news) (TXT) w3m dump (www.racket.news) | jfengel wrote: | I would have a lot more respect for this if they at least tried | to recognize that the genuine concerns about unlimited free | speech. Almost every government recognizes threats as not being | protected. Libel and slander are also generally not allowed. Some | kinds of pornography are considered by large numbers as beyond | the pale. | | Making universal declarations is easy but not very useful. Real | work is done by grappling with the actual limitations. I'd have a | lot more respect for a maximalist position that at least | understood why some people legitimately reject that position, and | not just because they're stinky meanie snowflake boo-boos. | | Without that I expect governments to say "thank you for your | unrealistic statement, we'll now ignore it and implement whatever | we feel like because you're not saying anything to engage with." | toyg wrote: | You still need some maximalism to signpost an Overton window | wide enough for a fair compromise to emerge. Otherwise all | you're doing is hopeless damage limitation, with the window | sliding further and further towards the _opposite maximalist | position_ until it 's the law of the land. | crooked-v wrote: | This nonsense attitude of "the good result is always in the | middle of the two arguments" is one the worst failings of | modern political attitudes. | uoaei wrote: | It is largely a product of Americo-centric modes of | reasoning about politics, especially since an overwhelming | part of Americans' engagement with political issues is | predicated on how the Ds and Rs act and react to each | other. | inglor_cz wrote: | "This nonsense attitude of "the good result is always in | the middle of the two arguments" is one the worst failings | of modern political attitudes." | | I don't read this in the previous argument. I read an | appeal not to narrow the Overton window too much. | | Accidentally, what do you mean when you talk about a "good | result"? Good from which perspective? Conforming to a | certain ladder of values, or achievable without bloodshed | or further deepening of already bad polarization? | | Precisely because the society cannot usually unify on what | counts as "good", compromises are, at least, somewhat | useful in placating the worst conflicts. | toyg wrote: | I didn't say "good", I said "fair"; and by that, I mean | fair to the majority of people. Whether that's "good" or | not, depends largely on one's view of the world. | nonrandomstring wrote: | _With or without_ that I expect governments to say "thank you | for your unrealistic statement, we'll now ignore it and | implement whatever we feel like. | | The standard of debate and progress of the UK Online Safety | Bill offered ample evidence of an era in which complex, | reasonable and nuanced debate, and appeal to the reasonability | of governments, is over. | | Which is what this is all about really. | | Post classical democracy it's all about power, and who shouts | the loudest. The voices in this impressive list of academics | extolling the noble fight for Truth through free-speech seem | like "the wind in dry grass". | | they, and yourself, are appealing to modes of argument and | disputation the enemy no longer recognises. | | Already "censorship" seems too narrow a take of what's | happening. It's about shaping the narrative, about shutting up | _your_ voice, and making sure the "right" ones get heard. The | digital technological landscape is the battleground for this | new epistemology. | | Truth, if it has a future, will either have to find a way | outside the digital realm, or learn to celebrate its | illegitimacy within it. | shadowgovt wrote: | > Post classical democracy it's all about power, and who | shouts the loudest. | | As opposed to previous eras of democracy? | OfSanguineFire wrote: | Previous eras of democracy often had some limitations on | suffrage, and no round-the-clock media cycle that reached | into every household. Under those circumstances, political | debate was less sensitive to the loudness of the mob, and | more sensitive to longform argument published and read | among intellectuals. If you look at nascent American or | European democracy, it is remarkable how much its tensions | were negotiated by texts that seem emotionally balanced and | complex indeed in the modern era of television, radio, and | internet. | cedilla wrote: | Yeah, no. There was a lot of political violence in proto- | democracies, especially around the topic of suffrage. If | we just look at "limitation" of women's right to vote - | Suffragettes would be called domestic terrorists today. | | It's not much more than nostalgia to think that in the | good old times pens were mightier than sword. The nascent | American democracy fought two wars to settle its tensions | despite all the wise prose the elite wrote. | Tainnor wrote: | And in Weimar Germany, there were violent street clashes | between Nazis, Communists and the Police, as well as | assassinations, attempted coups, etc. | nonrandomstring wrote: | > in Weimar Germany, there were violent street clashes | between Nazis, Communists and the Police, as well as | assassinations, attempted coups, etc. | | Thanks for amplifying my point for me. | | When democracy broke down in those days you needed to | pick up sticks, rocks and Molotov cocktails to silence | those that disagree with you.. | | Today you just need to delete their DNS records. | """ The most violent element in society is ignorance | -- Emma Goldman """ | | It's not that there was a "golden age" of democracy, just | that ways of disrupting the best efforts of reasonable | people have changed. | | Censorship laws directed against "hate speech" and | "disinformation" are just new manifestations of | ignorance. They are a retreat from rationality. Truth | must be fought for with more words, not less, tooth and | nail every day, and it's very costly. | marcosdumay wrote: | Well, as opposed to any time when it wasn't dying... | because this is exactly how it dies. | | Democracy actually works with small causes and stable | rules. Not at all with radicalism. | shadowgovt wrote: | How do we define radicalism in this context? | marcosdumay wrote: | Radicalism doesn't do this: | | > complex, reasonable and nuanced debate, and appeal to | the reasonability | shadowgovt wrote: | In that case, American politics has been dominated by | radicalism at least since the time we let one of our own | vessels blowing up due to lax maintenance drag us into | the Spanish-American War, if not longer. Politics is | _usually_ more about feelings than facts. The rational | voter is a myth. We don 't imagine Americans were mulling | the issue of slavery by reading the great thinkers of the | day in an era when 1 in 10 white men couldn't read, do | we? | drewcoo wrote: | I would expect "classical democracy" to be ancient Greece. | | It's a strange redefining of terms. In a discussion about | terminological abuse and language control, no less! | mcpackieh wrote: | You can prosecute people for criminal threats without creating | technical apparatuses for shaping and controlling narratives. | Prosecuting people for speech that's illegal isn't incompatible | with forums that allow people to speak their minds freely and | unfiltered. | | For instance, the US Postal System does not run my mail through | content classifiers and filters to determine whether my mail | should be suppressed or passed through. If I mail a death | threat, the postal system will dutifully deliver it. Despite | this, the government may still prosecute me for it. The | government's ability to prosecute me for mailing illegal things | is not contingent on the postal system having some nanny AI | that reads my mail and shadow-bans me when it disapproves. | Having laws that restrict speech does not necessitate creating | automatic censorship systems. And _"..but with computers "_ | doesn't change this. | pdonis wrote: | _> Almost every government recognizes threats as not being | protected. Libel and slander are also generally not allowed._ | | And the common factor in all of these is that the problem with | them is not speech. It's something going beyond speech. A | threat is a threat--it's not protected because it's a threat of | harm, not because it expresses something someone disagrees with | or thinks is "misinformation". Libel and slander aren't | protected because of the effects of false information on | someone's reputation and ability to make a living, not because | they don't meet someone's fact-checking standards. | | In other words, these are not problems with "unlimited free | speech". They are problems with particular acts that, in | _addition_ to being "speech", are also something else, and | it's the "something else" that is the problem. | | What this declaration is against, OTOH, is limiting speech that | is just speech--it doesn't fall into any of the categories | described above (or other exceptions like "yelling fire in a | crowded theater" that have the same issues)--but happens to | express opinions or views that some people disagree with or | find offensive. That kind of speech _should_ be unlimited. | jmye wrote: | Isn't this just shifting the issue? I like your reasoning | w/r/t threats of violence. But let's say we're talking about, | I dunno, polio vaccinations. John posts that the vaccine is | dangerous and will turn your children into frogs. Jane thinks | that posts that decrease the chances all children will | receive a vaccination that shows provable efficacy in | preventing polio are, in essence, threatening society (say, | by putting people unable to receive the vaccine at hugely | greater risk). | | You might argue that John's speech isn't a direct issue and | is a matter of political opinion and should be unlimited. | Jane might argue that the speech is directly dangerous. | | Your framing doesn't solve this issue - it just adjusts the | point at which we adjudicate it, doesn't it? | inglor_cz wrote: | One of the practical problems you run into is that not even | China or Iran can efficiently suppress unwanted speech. | Taboo topics still get discussed, only somewhere out of | sight. | | Anti-vax ideology needs to be fought with better arguments, | not with sheer suppression, which will only drive some | distrustful people towards the "hey, why are THEY trying to | ban this information" position. | | At the end of the day, the problem is one of trust, and you | don't gain any trust by treating other people's opinions | heavy-handedly. | vivekd wrote: | Did you get the idea they were maximalists, the article seemed | to restrict itself to talking about political speech which I | understand is supposed to have the highest levels of | constitutional protections because it seems obviously important | to democracy | | They are asking for gov to abide by UDHR which is limited to | politically motivated censorship | acheong08 wrote: | I trust Matt Taibbi a lot less after he appeared on the Gutfeld | show (Fox News) | WD40forRust wrote: | ... and I trust him more now knowing this! | mcpackieh wrote: | Governments asking or suggesting that media companies suppress a | story, with the companies choosing to comply of their own free | will, is nothing new. This is how most media censorship in the US | and UK worked during WW2. Governments would explain to a | newspaper or broadcast company that suppressing a story was in | earnest best interest of the nation and the media company would | usually comply voluntarily because they felt it was the right | thing to do. There's a good argument to be made that this kind of | thing _really is_ good and proper; the government asking | newspapers to stay quiet about D-Day preparations, and newspapers | voluntarily complying, probably saved _many_ lives. | | But I'm worried. I fear that governments flexing this kind of | soft power over media companies now in recent years is a sign of | the times. I am afraid that governments see major wars on the | horizon and that's why they're dusting off their old bag of | tricks and asking the new tech sort of media companies to get | ready to respond to censorship requests when the time comes. So | it's not the wartime suppression of information that worries me | the most, but rather the upcoming war it hints at. | | Edit: If anybody can talk me down from this fear, I would | sincerely appreciate it. | em-bee wrote: | it isn't secret plans for war that are the concern but civil | unrest. the problem is that you can't legislate peaceful | coexistence. you have to actively encourage it through open | conversation between the different groups. | | we need more interreligious and interpolitical dialogue at | every level of society. we need to actively encourage everyone | to listen to the concerns of others. this doesn't happen by | itself. it requires the creation of offline spaces and forums | open to everyone where people can meet and interact and are | invited and encouraged to do so without prejudice. | SenAnder wrote: | > Governments asking or suggesting that media companies | suppress a story, with the companies choosing to comply of | their own free will, is nothing new. | | What _is_ new is that "media companies" now includes social | media. I.e. what used to be real-life gossip has moved online, | and been subjected to censorship. I should caution that it's | not only government interference to fear - we don't want our | public sphere to be moderated by giant corporations either. | shadowgovt wrote: | > The US First Amendment is a strong example of how the right to | freedom of speech, of the press, and of conscience can be firmly | protected under the law. | | That amendment includes the right to freedom of association as | well as the aforementioned freedom of the press, which are | _precisely_ the freedoms platforms use to choose who is on them. | The freedom to speak one 's mind and Reddit's freedom to not | transit that speech are the same amendment. | drewrv wrote: | It actually chuckled when they mentioned "labeling | misinformation" or "manipulating search results". Those are | forms of speech! They are doing the thing they're complaining | about. | | Either this is being done in bad faith by peddlers of BS, or | it's just intellectually lazy. Judging from the list of | signatories, probably some of both. | SenAnder wrote: | Don't confuse the letter and the spirit of the law. It is | unlikely the writers of the US constitution intended for | private corporations to become mediators, and subsequently | censors, of so much speech. They would not just throw their | hands up and say "it's not the government so it's okay" | macintux wrote: | > Free speech is our best defence against disinformation. | | Do we know that to be true, or do we _hope_ that to be true? | kbelder wrote: | The irony of writing that question... | inglor_cz wrote: | This is not mathematics, you can't expect a QED here. | | Free speech is certainly pretty good against government-backed | disinformation. Governments have a lot of power to push their | POV anyway; add the ability to prosecute dissent to the mix and | the system loses necessary feedback. | 8bitsrule wrote: | There's a difference between 'etiquette' and being threatened | with being banned from a site for not using 'sensitive topic' | features ...particularly for factual statements. | | Are social media sites part of the CIC? To what extent should we | choose to censor ourselves 'out of consideration' to others? | Today seems like a timely time to have this discussion. | vivekd wrote: | I choose to censor myself all the time out of consideration. My | issue is when the law mandates and controls political speech | | If you are American you are safe because political speech has a | high level of protection in the US. | | If like me you are non American - even if you are from a G8 | nation, you are watching your right to criticize the government | slowly errode. But even if you are American, can you really go | to court over a social media post. | | There should be something that at least restricts government | action to the limits set out in the constitution | vivekd wrote: | The article complains about misinformation,' 'disinformation,' | and other ill-defined terms being used to censor speech. | | The opposition to this and the indifference of the population | generally suggests the age of free speech is over. | | These conversations get mired in debate over free speech | maximalism or what is disinformation. I think that's besides the | point. | | Perhaps a better question would be when is it okay to suppress | speech. On what basis do we measure and catalog harmful speech or | disinformation. | | I can see some, like speech calling for violence against certain | groups. But that's already illegal. What about when government | goes outside established frameworks to also protect 'truth' from | disinformation or catalogs some opinions as harmful. | | I'm religious, I believe in ultimate truths, so I have ideas of | misinformation and disinformation. | | But our governments today are secular. They don't believe in | ultimate truths - so on what basis can they claim something is | disinfo or misinformation and suppress it? | | When we say harmful info or discourse - harmful to who. I haven't | been hurt, I don't know anyone who has. I do however see | governments and corporations being harmed by speech online. | | Isn't the real issue that there is a new medium the internet that | lets ordinary people speak freely and this is very uncomfortable | for the political and business elites and they wish to suppress | that. | | Isn't the question not really about free speech but more about | how much control can States exercise over channels of public | communications before they can reasonably be called tyrannical? ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2023-10-23 09:01 UTC)