Free Speech
Posted: Sun Dec 20, 2020 9:55 pm
The motivation for free speech is either one of two things, or a combination of both. When promoting free speech, a person should be clear about what that motivation is. (And I'm not talking about possible ulterior motives that people have when making arguments for or against free speech)
1) Free speech is an inherent right that should be upheld independent of the consequences.
2) Free speech is a market approach to ideas and should be upheld because of the consequences. The more unfettered the market, the greater it optimizes.
Dr. Exiled claims regularly that the solution to disinformation is more free speech, not less. We know he believes (2), but what about (1)? It's certainly possible to believe in both, but if the conversation generally revolves around (2), then what do you do if there is good evidence that free speech doesn't optimize? Suppose, hypothetically, free speech will send us to civil war and economic ruin. Well, if we believe (1), then we must shrug and say, let it happen, because we can't violate a natural right. And so if you believe (1), then (2) is moot. Sure, you can be sneaky and find in-between positions, such as, Charles Mason hasn't had his right to free speech taken away because he's free to spread his ideas in jail. Or non-felons only have the right. Or we try to believe (1) as much as possible as long is (2) doesn't screw us too badly. For the sake of this thread, I mainly want to point out the difference so that a) we understand the nature of the offense from folks like subs who feel they've been denied free speech. To what extent are we denying a God-given right, and to what extent are we intervening in the market with policy that affects people disproportionally? b) to avoid sub-consciously moving the goal posts: If we believe free speech optimizes, but then suddenly there's reason to believe it doesn't, we don't slip into, "well everybody has this important natural right!".
I think it's pretty obvious that science, even with all its institutional flaws, would never work if it was an anarchy of ideas, rather than a mixed economy. Social Media isn't the source of all problems of misinformation -- yellow journalism preceded social media, attention-seeking proceeded social media, pseudoscience preceded social media, etc., but it introduces a new spin on these problems, that work even harder against the assumption that unfettered free-speech on social media will optimize.
Facebook and Twitter becoming draconian isn't happening in a liberal vacuum where Facebook and Twitter want to limit free speech because they are liberal, because these limitations ultimately cost them money. They are responding to a backlash of reasonable suggestions that Facebook and Twitter are largely themselves, the very source of the misinformation problem, and it's not necessarily all about subs and Ajax having the inability to reason properly.
Those who haven't seen the social Delimma need to watch it, to understand the motives for censorship.
I think the documentary overreaches, however, the basic material I'm sure is sound. Google, Yahoo, Youtube, and all of these venues track you, and they run your browsing history against Artificial Intelligence --- which is basically an algorithmic black box, where the A.I. gets increasingly good at reaching a goal -- in this case link monetization, without the programmers knowing how the algorithms actually work. DuckDuckGo obviously has its own algorithms, even though it doesn't track individuals, it still tracks site popularity and regional interests.
The basic problem: truth doesn't necessarily mean entertainment, far from it, and so users who are entertained by misinformation get fed new sources of misinformation in their recommendations and searches, and it's not just personal bias, but regional bias. A West Virginia coal miner, in addition to his real-world social reinforcements, will literally have the uphill battle online getting good information, because the A.I. wants the coal miner glued to the screen and clicking on paid links.
A mission president I had who had been a career car salesman used to point out all the time that nothing motivates a team like a common enemy. It's really no wonder that AIs have figured out that a divided nation will maximize link monetization. Even though CNN is factually better by leaps and bounds than Fox, it still plays the monetization game, and it makes money the madder the justifiably infuriated left get over the antics of Trump.
I don't have time right now, but I'll search for the link later, where a hedge fund manager who falsely predicted Trump would win, did make an interesting observation that China is nipping at our heels, and maybe, democracy doesn't really work as well as we think it does? China is totalitarian, but try finding an American investor who hasn't been obsessed with Chinese stocks. How does that work? How can China be totalitarian and have a booming economy that will eventually take first place, above the United States?
And so, I leave this with the contrary possibility to the long-held assumption that freedom and free speech optimize economically in the long term, to the possibility that capitalism + human nature + A.I. exploiting every foible of human nature of a nation of Internet addicts for the short term interests of its designer, may lead to the civil war that Ajax so loudly vents for. Maybe a great deal of censorship, even if not totalitarian levels, is needed to patch up what is essentially a market failure.
The point being: Don't just assume free speech will optimize. There is plenty of evidence that it won't, and that position will need to be argued for.
1) Free speech is an inherent right that should be upheld independent of the consequences.
2) Free speech is a market approach to ideas and should be upheld because of the consequences. The more unfettered the market, the greater it optimizes.
Dr. Exiled claims regularly that the solution to disinformation is more free speech, not less. We know he believes (2), but what about (1)? It's certainly possible to believe in both, but if the conversation generally revolves around (2), then what do you do if there is good evidence that free speech doesn't optimize? Suppose, hypothetically, free speech will send us to civil war and economic ruin. Well, if we believe (1), then we must shrug and say, let it happen, because we can't violate a natural right. And so if you believe (1), then (2) is moot. Sure, you can be sneaky and find in-between positions, such as, Charles Mason hasn't had his right to free speech taken away because he's free to spread his ideas in jail. Or non-felons only have the right. Or we try to believe (1) as much as possible as long is (2) doesn't screw us too badly. For the sake of this thread, I mainly want to point out the difference so that a) we understand the nature of the offense from folks like subs who feel they've been denied free speech. To what extent are we denying a God-given right, and to what extent are we intervening in the market with policy that affects people disproportionally? b) to avoid sub-consciously moving the goal posts: If we believe free speech optimizes, but then suddenly there's reason to believe it doesn't, we don't slip into, "well everybody has this important natural right!".
I think it's pretty obvious that science, even with all its institutional flaws, would never work if it was an anarchy of ideas, rather than a mixed economy. Social Media isn't the source of all problems of misinformation -- yellow journalism preceded social media, attention-seeking proceeded social media, pseudoscience preceded social media, etc., but it introduces a new spin on these problems, that work even harder against the assumption that unfettered free-speech on social media will optimize.
Facebook and Twitter becoming draconian isn't happening in a liberal vacuum where Facebook and Twitter want to limit free speech because they are liberal, because these limitations ultimately cost them money. They are responding to a backlash of reasonable suggestions that Facebook and Twitter are largely themselves, the very source of the misinformation problem, and it's not necessarily all about subs and Ajax having the inability to reason properly.
Those who haven't seen the social Delimma need to watch it, to understand the motives for censorship.
I think the documentary overreaches, however, the basic material I'm sure is sound. Google, Yahoo, Youtube, and all of these venues track you, and they run your browsing history against Artificial Intelligence --- which is basically an algorithmic black box, where the A.I. gets increasingly good at reaching a goal -- in this case link monetization, without the programmers knowing how the algorithms actually work. DuckDuckGo obviously has its own algorithms, even though it doesn't track individuals, it still tracks site popularity and regional interests.
The basic problem: truth doesn't necessarily mean entertainment, far from it, and so users who are entertained by misinformation get fed new sources of misinformation in their recommendations and searches, and it's not just personal bias, but regional bias. A West Virginia coal miner, in addition to his real-world social reinforcements, will literally have the uphill battle online getting good information, because the A.I. wants the coal miner glued to the screen and clicking on paid links.
A mission president I had who had been a career car salesman used to point out all the time that nothing motivates a team like a common enemy. It's really no wonder that AIs have figured out that a divided nation will maximize link monetization. Even though CNN is factually better by leaps and bounds than Fox, it still plays the monetization game, and it makes money the madder the justifiably infuriated left get over the antics of Trump.
I don't have time right now, but I'll search for the link later, where a hedge fund manager who falsely predicted Trump would win, did make an interesting observation that China is nipping at our heels, and maybe, democracy doesn't really work as well as we think it does? China is totalitarian, but try finding an American investor who hasn't been obsessed with Chinese stocks. How does that work? How can China be totalitarian and have a booming economy that will eventually take first place, above the United States?
And so, I leave this with the contrary possibility to the long-held assumption that freedom and free speech optimize economically in the long term, to the possibility that capitalism + human nature + A.I. exploiting every foible of human nature of a nation of Internet addicts for the short term interests of its designer, may lead to the civil war that Ajax so loudly vents for. Maybe a great deal of censorship, even if not totalitarian levels, is needed to patch up what is essentially a market failure.
The point being: Don't just assume free speech will optimize. There is plenty of evidence that it won't, and that position will need to be argued for.