The state deciding on speech is a red line yes but that’s not even on the table here. This is about social media moderation.
Blamemeta@lemm.ee 10 months ago
Part of the problem is who decides what is misinformation. As soon as the state gets to decide what is and isn’t true, and thus what can and cannot be said, you no longer have free speech.
scarabic@lemmy.world 10 months ago
bamboo@lemm.ee 10 months ago
Centralized for-profit companies policing speech doesn’t really solve free speech concerns. It doesn’t violate the US first amendment, but corporate-approved speech isn’t really free speech either. No person or organization is really suitable to be the arbiter of truth, but at the same time unmoderated misinformation presents its own problems.
scarabic@lemmy.world 10 months ago
Yes it solves it. Companies are not required to carry your voice around the world, which is what their platforms do. Stop equating guaranteed amplification with your freedom of speech. It’s wrong and dumb. I’ve lived in countries that actually restrict speech and whatever the Facebook mod did to you is NOTHING. The only reason Americans even fall into this stupid way of thinking is because their speech is so free. When your speech has never truly been restricted you have no idea what that freedom even means.
bamboo@lemm.ee 10 months ago
I’m not necessarily in favor of “guaranteed amplification”, as you put it. Anyone is free to yell whatever ideas they have on a street corner. Barring some specific exceptions, that is free speech. I understand why a for-profit company might not want to amplify any means everything someone decides to spew out. We’ve designed an un-free capitalist system though where some people do have guaranteed amplifiers, and others do not. That’s the problem I’m more interested in solving. It’s not forcing any one company to be forced to amplify any specific idea, but rather to make sure that centralized authorities, be they governments, social media companies, etc can’t in unison stamp out those ideas. I think decentralized platforms like this are somewhat key to that goal, even with individual instances having full moderation and federation control.
Dkarma@lemmy.world 10 months ago
You don’t have free speech.
Pxtl@lemmy.ca 10 months ago
No person or organization is really suitable to be the arbiter of truth
Courtrooms are arbiters of truth literally all the time. There are plenty of laws for which truth is a defence, and dishonesty is punished.
When battling misinformation, the problem is not that lying on the internet is legal - it is still actionable. Fraud is still illegal. False or misleading advertisements are still illegal. Defamation is still illegal. Perjury is illegal in the criminal law sense, not just torts. Ask Martha Stewart who the “arbiter of truth” is.
The problem is that it’s functionally impossible to enforce on the scale of social media. If 50,000 people call you a pedophile because it became a meme even though it was completely untrue, and this costs you your job and you start getting death threats, what are you going to do about that? Sue them all?
So we throw up our hands and let corporations handle it through abuse policies, because the actual law is unworkable - it’s “this is illegal but enforcing it is so impractical that it’s legal”. Twitter and Facebook don’t have to deal with that crap so we let them do a vague implementation of the law but without the whole “due process” thing and all the justice they can mete out is bans.
If you disagree, then I’ve got a Nigerian prince who’d like to get your banking info, and also you’re all cannibals.
echo64@lemmy.world 10 months ago
You do not have free speech today.
The state does not have to be the one to decide these things, nor is it a case of “deciding” what is true, we have a long history of using proofs to solidify something as fact, or propaganda, or somewhere in between. This is functionally what history studies are about.
Blamemeta@lemm.ee 10 months ago
That brings up another thing. At what point does it become a “public space”?
Theres an old supreme court case on a company town that claimed someone was trespassing on a sidewalk. The supreme court ruled it was a public space, and thus they could pass out leaflets.
firstamendment.mtsu.edu/…/marsh-v-alabama-1946/
Imo, a lot of big sites have gotten to that stage, and should be treated as such.
Lith@lemmy.sdf.org 10 months ago
I think this is an underrated point. A lot of people are quick to say “private companies aren’t covered by free speech”, but I’m sure everyone agrees legal ≠ moral. We rely on these platforms so much that they’ve effectively become our public squares. Our government even uses them in official capacities, e.g. the president announcing things on Twitter.
When being censored on a private platform is effectively social and informational murder, I think it’s time for us to revisit our centuries-old definitions. Whether you agree or disagree that these instances should be covered by free speech laws, this is becoming an important discussion that I never see brought up, but instead I keep seeing the same bad faith argument that companies are allowed to do this because they’re allowed to do it.
gregorum@lemm.ee 10 months ago
This is an argument for a publicly-funded “digital public square”, not an argument for stripping private companies of their rights.
TrickDacy@lemmy.world 10 months ago
bad faith argument that companies are allowed to do this because they’re allowed to do it.
So let’s get this straight, it’s “bad faith” to point out facts but “good faith” to support bigotry and hatred like you’re “accidentally” doing with your argument?
ChairmanMeow@programming.dev 10 months ago
It’s different because the company built and maintains the space. Same goes for a concert hall, a pub, etc…
Nobody believes that someone being thrown out of a pub for spouting Nazistic hate speech is their “free speech being trampled”. Why should it be any different if it’s a website?
You rarely see the discussion, because there’s rarely a good argument here. It boils down to “it’s a big website, so I should be allowed to post whatever I want there”, which makes little to no sense and opens up a massive quagmire of legal issues.
SexyTimeSasquatch@lemmy.world 10 months ago
There is a key difference here. Social media companies have some liability with what gets shared on the platform. They also have a financial interest in what gets said and how it gets promoted by algorithms. The fact is, these are not public spaces. These are not streets. They’re more akin to newspapers, or really the people printing and publishing leaflets. The Internet itself is the street in your analogy.
BellaDonna@mujico.org 10 months ago
Companies probably shouldn’t be liable then for what individuals share / post then, instead the individuals should. Social media constantly controls their push / promotion of posts currently using algorithms to decide what should be shown / shared and when.
I hate this so much. I want real, linear feeds from all my friends I’m following, not a personally curated style sanitized feed to consider my interests and sensibilities.
puppy@lemmy.world 10 months ago
Your analogy about Newspapers isn’t accurate either. The writers of a newspaper are paid by the company and everyone knows that writers execute the newspaper’s agenda. Nothing gets published without review and everything aligns with the company’s vision. Information is one way and readers buy it to consume information. They don’t expect their voice to be heard and the newspaper don’t pretend that the readers have that ability either. This isn’t comparable to a social media site at all.
shalafi@lemmy.world 10 months ago
The Supreme Court is visiting such issues this month. Second block of text:
Dkarma@lemmy.world 10 months ago
Private company servers are never public space no matter how many people they serve.
What is wrong with you?
Sidewalks are literally out in public.
TrickDacy@lemmy.world 10 months ago
So we should make a law that says Facebook allows neo Nazi hatred then? Not sure I follow what you’re getting at if you wouldn’t say yes to this question
Blamemeta@lemm.ee 10 months ago
I don’t trust facebook to decide what is hate speech and what isn’t, if thats what you’re saying.
Corgana@startrek.website 10 months ago
Nobody (besides maybe extreme conservatives) is advocating for “the state” to decide what “is and isn’t true”. That’s not what this is about.
Furthermore, “misinformation” and “disinformation” refer to things that can be true! Propogansists don’t always need to invent false facts for them to be used in deceptive ways. To suggest that the goverment should stay out of the matter unless they utilze a perfectly foolproof fact-o-meter is IMO, shortsighted. “The state” makes policy decisions all the time with imperfect facts.
Blamemeta@lemm.ee 10 months ago
If you want to deal with misinformation, at some point someone has to say what misinformation is. Someone has to make a judgement on every fact, every event, every story.
And holy fuck my dude! “Furthermore, “misinformation” and “disinformation” refer to things that can be true!”
Thats some shit straight out of 1984. Censoring true facts? Wtf is wrong with you?
GeneralVincent@lemmy.world 10 months ago
propagandists don’t always need to invent false facts to use them in deceptive ways
Doing some subtle straw man arguments there, huh? Or just missed the rest of the comment?
If I use a true fact and blatantly ignore other facts and context to try to start an ethnic cleansing, should I be censored or not? The most dangerous lies are the ones that have bits of truth in them to gloss over the bad bits.
Don’t pretend that intent isn’t important, or that the world is black and white. Ignoring nuance is the most egregious underlying issue with conservatives.
TrickDacy@lemmy.world 10 months ago
Oh weird, you coincidentally are a conservative mod lol
Gee so surprising you’re mad about cEnSoRsHiP
Blamemeta@lemm.ee 10 months ago
Well yeah, did you read the article?
Fucking tankies thinking inalienable rights are bad things.
dhork@lemmy.world 10 months ago
Except there have always been limits on speech, centered mainly on truth. Your freedom of speech doesn’t extend to yelling “Fire” in a crowded theater when there is no fire, for instance.
But we live in an age of alternative facts now, where science isn’t trusted if it comes up with conclusions that conflict with your world view. Do you get a pass if you are yelling “Fire” because you are certain there are cell phone jammers in the theater that are setting your brain on fire because you got the COVID shot and now the 5G nanoparticles can’t transmit back to Fauci’s mind control lair?
FireTower@lemmy.world 10 months ago
Do you get a pass if you are yelling “Fire” because you are certain there are cell phone jammers in the theater that are setting your brain on fire
Yes. Anyone in good faith attempting to warn others of any potential harm that they believe to be true to the best of their abilities should have their speech protected.
dhork@lemmy.world 10 months ago
Anyone in good faith attempting to warn others of any potential harm that they believe to be true to the best of their abilities
But what if their beliefs are verifiably false? I don’t mean that in a sense of a religious belief, which cannot be proven and must be taken on faith. I mean that the facts are clear that there are no 5G nanoparticles in the vaccine for cell phone jammers to interfere with in the first place. That isn’t even a thing.
It’s one thing to allow for tolerance of different opinions in public. It’s another thing entirely to misrepent things that can be objectively disproven as true, just because you’ve tied it to a political movement.
I_Has_A_Hat@startrek.website 10 months ago
But where do you draw the line? Sure, microchips in vaccines is one thing, but what about simply warning people the vaccine doesn’t stop the spread of disease? During the pandemic, that would get you crucified, except now it turns out it really isn’t very effective at stopping transmission.
I was and am pro vax. It saves lives. But I’m also not going to pretend there wasn’t a weird animosity towards anyone saying anything contrary to the official, government sponsored, talking points during the pandemic. People were vilified for suggesting the virus came from a lab. Or that masks weren’t as effective as we were making it out to be. Or that the tests were producing false results.
It’s all well and good to say people shouldn’t spread falsehoods, but sometimes the lines of what’s true are blurred through the lens of hindsight when they seemed so clear in the moment.
FireTower@lemmy.world 10 months ago
But what if their beliefs are verifiably false?
Yes. Because those with perverse incentives in power will falsify the truth to punish critics.
grabyourmotherskeys@lemmy.world 10 months ago
I wrote a comment about this earlier today. People who have been brainwashed to believe total nonsense often act in ways that are rational to them, but irrational to people who see the world through different eyes.
That’s fine until it’s violent action.
The alcoholic who thinks he’s “fine to drive” believes he’s perfectly rational. He’s drunk all the time and no accidents. That’s wonderful until he kills a family some night.
Blamemeta@lemm.ee 10 months ago
Technically, it’s causing a panic that’s illegal. Yelling fire is not. law.stackexchange.com/…/is-it-illegal-to-yell-fir…
Different states have different laws, of course, and I am not a lawyer, I just googled if it was actually illegal. Don’t actually go yelling fire in a crowded theater.
dhork@lemmy.world 10 months ago
Right, it’s perfectly fine to alert people to a fire if there actually is one. Yelling “fire” when there isn’t one will be generally interpreted as causing a panic.
Pxtl@lemmy.ca 10 months ago
Uh, you know that happens regularly in courtrooms right? Like, almost every court battle hinges on what’s true and what’s not. And courts are an arm of the state.
In some cases it’s directly about the truth of speech. Fraud, defamation, perjury, filing a false report, etc. are all cases where a court will be deciding whether a statement made publicly is true and punishing a party if it was not. Ask a CEO involved in a merger how much “free speech” they have.
scarabic@lemmy.world 10 months ago
Well, here’s how that was framed for participants of this study:
identified as misinformation based on a bipartisan fact check
And even with this, Republicans didn’t care if it was true or not.
We’re actually past the point of anyone being able to be considered truthful by Republicans. It either tickles their feelings right or it doesn’t and that is all.
tastysnacks@programming.dev 10 months ago
Section 230 gets the state involved from the get go. Remove liability protections from the state and everything else will shake out. Make little tweaks from there as necessary. The broad protection of 230 is causing this issue.
cheese_greater@lemmy.world 10 months ago
Isnt a grand jury enough to deal with this kinda thing? Like before damage is done but I don’t see why that mechanism can’t be useful here too?
Blamemeta@lemm.ee 10 months ago
Imo, not really. Juries are still problematic, in much the same way
Syl@jlai.lu 10 months ago
Education is key. Destroying education and critical thinking is the problem.
TrickDacy@lemmy.world 10 months ago
Don’t worry, the person you responded to is conservative so they’re doing their damnedest to finish off education
Blamemeta@lemm.ee 10 months ago
What makes you say that I, specifically, am against education?
TrickDacy@lemmy.world 10 months ago
You’re a conservative. Your ilk has fought for many years tooth and nail against education. You’re aware it’s destructive to your ability to spread lies.
Hobbes@startrek.website 10 months ago
The same reason we know you are racist.
Korkki@lemmy.world 10 months ago
And who decides what is being taught if this is to be solved with education? That still just falls into the same dogma enforcement that presupposes objective truth especially in political matters. it just turns from censorship to indoctrination of some kind. There can be no real discussion about political matters if it’s presupposed that there is such thing as objective truth in some hard science sense in political discourse, because then every side in an argument from a position of objective truth and there is no way to compromise or approach the other side when everybody are either heretics or believers to your side.
not_woody_shaw@lemmy.world 10 months ago
T E A C H C R I T I C A L T H I N K I N G
Blamemeta@lemm.ee 10 months ago
If we did that, there wouldn’t be any communists left, because they’d realize it has a number of unsolvable problems.
My personal favorite is theres no mechanism to go from the “tyranny of the proles” stage to the “true communism” stage.
bitcrafter@lemmy.sdf.org 10 months ago
Teaching critical thinking has absolutely nothing to do with presupposing the existence of objective truth in political matters.
Burn_The_Right@lemmy.world 10 months ago
Never in history has a conservative entered a compromise negotiation in good faith.There is simply no such thing as a conservative who is genuinely interested in compromise.
Every word uttered by a conservative is deception or manipulation. Every word.