Page 11 of 11 FirstFirst ... 91011
Results 101 to 105 of 105

Thread: A demonstrative discussion about free speech

  1. #101
    Senior Member Guess Who's Avatar
    Type
    INTP
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    1,719
    Quote Originally Posted by Hephaestus View Post
    This is the only idea in your post I have a bone to pick with. These two ideas "freedom of speech" and "awareness of the truth", are not strongly correlated. The former is not required for the latter, though the lack of the former has been indicted as enabling a lack of the latter, in truth, the freer speech is, the easier it is to lie. A lack of freedom of speech simply restricts what is spoken of. It's possible fettered speech can produce a more accurate picture of reality if that is the goal of the powers restricting speech, and they have access to that information. However, the nature of people pretty much guarantees that that would be a very temporary state. I think we can all agree that such a scenario is more likely to standardize the falsehood. Instead, we gamble on a state of unstandardized falsehood and hope people will sort truth from fiction in such a way as to make truth more profitable and therefore more desirable to publish--that's really the underlying hope of freedom of the press in capitalism: that people will be sufficiently interested in truthful reporting and discussion to incentivise it. That hasn't proved out. Pretty much the opposite appears to be true.
    As news becomes less profitable, we are seeing more philanthropic news outlets and philanthropic support of journalism. https://www.alliancemagazine.org/fea...py-space-2017/

    Removing commercial pressure doesn't seem to make any difference - not for profit journalism is still ideological indoctrination and emotional manipulation.

    Interestingly, Huffington Post, the left-wing news site, was co-founded by Andrew Breitbart.
    Big change is coming

  2. #102
    No Thank You Blorg's Avatar
    Type
    INFP
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    near Lidl
    Posts
    4,238
    Quote Originally Posted by Sloth View Post
    It's unnerving. I'm all for creativity and art, but when you start presenting something as true when you full well know that it isn't, that's something ugly. I'm no lawyer so I'm not sure how we should go about updating our laws, but there's something scary about the idea that the people who are supposedly claiming they will be responsible about bringing the truth about the world to us are just lying to get better ratings. How free is our speech if the only things we think to talk about aren't actually happening remotely the way we think they are?
    Did everyone see the deepfake videos?



    A free market system works well when the incentives of profit are lined up with the good your product provides to the people using it, this is a situation where the incentives probably don't line up very well (another example of this problem would be health care since there is more profit in keeping us sick than curing us, hence why our health care system is kind of busted right now).
    This is a different topic that I hadn't expressed an opinion on (seriously - wtf is wrong with this thread. It's like the democratic primaries or something).

    Just because I don't see evidence that Google is hindering conservatives for being conservative - which my post was about - doesn't mean I think Google is operating functionally. It's an interesting topic though. I think certain parts of Google should be broken up just like in the case of facebook - as in, youtube and all the extra shit sectioned away. Not sure how I'd actualize the de-eviling of the search engine function, or all the far-reaching surveillance tentacles that make it so effective. Public utility? I don't know.

    But yeah, just a matter of time before all those observations gathered by Google turn into weapons. Its surveillance empire is the reason I'm not so gung-ho about a potential government takeover as I would be in other arenas, but it's not like the current state of Google is remotely good either.

    edit: there's a philosopher my bf mentioned, someone he disagrees with but finds interesting - thinks that China is taking the only rational approach to technology, and that the nature of technology at its most sophisticated is diametrically opposed to democracy. idk the philosopher's name though - maybe someone here does? creepy stuff, maybe true, but I hope not.
    Last edited by Blorg; 07-08-2019 at 08:14 PM.

  3. #103
    know nothing pensive_pilgrim's Avatar
    Type
    INTP
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    4,843
    I had a whole post typed up the other day and then I accidentally closed the tab.

    I think it's a mistake to analyze the potential problem-ness of this by looking at conservatives. They are the second most popular social group in the country. Conservatives who are censored will get the most attention but they are far from the most vulnerable. The people who are attacked most severely will be the people who threaten the power structure.

    In other countries, the power structure is centralized in government, and these companies work closely with oppressive governments to develop censorship technology. In China Google censors anything related to democracy. In Europe it's racism and anti-semitism. In India, Pakistan, Thailand, it's everything from sex education to LGBT history to controversial religious statements. In the USA it's whatever the media companies care about, which is why the DMCA is such a big thing. It's why targeted advertiser campaigns have been so successful in censoring unpopular personalities like Alex Jones and Milo whateverpolis.

    I just don't think Disney should be deciding what speech is free.

    Here's what Google is helping China do right now:

  4. #104
    Faster. Than. Ever. Sloth's Avatar
    Type
    INTP
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Somewhere, I'm sure.
    Posts
    2,523
    Quote Originally Posted by Blorg View Post
    Did everyone see the deepfake videos?
    Oh yeah that stuff is insane, I can't even imagine what kinds of things we're going to see in 5-10 years.


    This is a different topic that I hadn't expressed an opinion on (seriously - wtf is wrong with this thread. It's like the democratic primaries or something).

    Just because I don't see evidence that Google is hindering conservatives for being conservative - which my post was about - doesn't mean I think Google is operating functionally.
    But that's just my point, I think it's because google isn't operating functionally that *is* the evidence that they are hindering conservatives more so than they ought to be (I don't know how extreme that hindering is, my point is that it exists to some degree, and it's possible it's accidental).

    Also: I can't speak for anyone else, but to me this is an "interdisciplinary" problem so what I bring up might not line up 1:1 with what you've said, but don't take that to mean I assume you agree or disagree with the new part I meander into, it's just how I see the issue being tangled up. I also think it's possible everyone in this thread might be talking past each other at this point though. So there's that too.


    It's an interesting topic though. I think certain parts of Google should be broken up just like in the case of facebook - as in, youtube and all the extra shit sectioned away. Not sure how I'd actualize the de-eviling of the search engine function, or all the far-reaching surveillance tentacles that make it so effective. Public utility? I don't know.

    But yeah, just a matter of time before all those observations gathered by Google turn into weapons. Its surveillance empire is the reason I'm not so gung-ho about a potential government takeover as I would be in other arenas, but it's not like the current state of Google is remotely good either.
    I worry that we could be in a scenario where google is currently like a kid running around with scissors. It isn't meant to be a weapon, but that same object can be a weapon if used thoughtlessly. Even if they mean no harm, I'm not sure they've had enough years on the planet yet to know for sure that they aren't accidentally running into people with those scissors all the time, and so much is kept away from us we don't have any distinct ways of being able to tell either.

    ^ eh that's not all that substantive of a response but I think it sounds nice and does describe my line of thinking about it.

    I don't know enough about how their algorithms work or how cookies are stored (or not stored) so I'm not able to get into much deeper than that. My arguments are speculative, and I recognize there are some "ifs" that need to be for my "then" statements to work. I'm just hoping I'm off about some of my 'if-ing'.

  5. #105
    Amen P-O's Avatar
    Type
    INTP
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    825
    I think it is very obviously a bad thing that google, facebook, twitter etc have SO MUCH control over our ability to communicate with eachother in the US (and maybe the world). I think it's fine to frame it as a freedom of speech issue, but I think it would be better to simply frame it as a monopoly issue (As P_P has found out, framing it as a freespeech issue brings in a lot of noise into the argument). It's well documented that these social media companies can distort the perception of reality that its users have. And I'm sure with a little practice, they will be able to easily swing an election whatever way they want to.

    Just as a practical matter, we don't want a handful of people to control our lines of communication. I think it's totally reasonable for the government to act against these companies as a matter of national security.... And regulate them, or dismantle them or whatever needs to be done to dilute this power.
    Violence is never the right answer, unless used against heathens and monsters.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •