And in those days people were open about their identities, you knew who they were, they were real. Now much of the debate on Twitter is from people with no verifiable identity, who may not even exist, and who aren’t prepared to be accountable though they demand that of others. Seems unfair to me. You want to demand that I am fired I should know who you are too.
Open letter denouncing the "restriction of debate".
- Thread starter Joe Hutch
- Start date
Seeker_UK
Feelin' nearly faded as my jeans
Joe Hutch
Mate of the bloke
Another aspect of the free speech debate is the extent to which the dissemination of harmful and/or false information should be allowed. For example, AN Other forum owner frequently posts anti-vax You Tube videos, which assert that coronavirus is not a serious danger to health, and that Bill Gates and Big Pharma are conspiring to inject everyone with something disguised as an anti-COVID19 vaccine which will eventually lead to mind control. (Kayne West has recently been spouting similar bollocks).
Such videos are easy enough to counter, as they tend to contain obvious falsehoods which undermine the whole basis of their argument. The problem is that they are viewed uncritically by millions of people, who swallow whole the idea that vaccinations are 'bad', and that government agencies and drug companies are 'the enemy'. The result has been a drop in take-up of existing vaccines, such as the MMR jab, which means that diseases such as measles are re-emerging, with possibly fatal results.
So, should such videos be banned? Should YouTube 'no platform' them? If you go down that path, however, what is to prevent wholesale government interference in online media, as has happened in China?
Such videos are easy enough to counter, as they tend to contain obvious falsehoods which undermine the whole basis of their argument. The problem is that they are viewed uncritically by millions of people, who swallow whole the idea that vaccinations are 'bad', and that government agencies and drug companies are 'the enemy'. The result has been a drop in take-up of existing vaccines, such as the MMR jab, which means that diseases such as measles are re-emerging, with possibly fatal results.
So, should such videos be banned? Should YouTube 'no platform' them? If you go down that path, however, what is to prevent wholesale government interference in online media, as has happened in China?
vuk
\o/ choose anarchy
it was not a particularly large body, but very small minority. your psychological speculation is completely wrong (not blaming you for that, most people are generally wrong about many, many things when it comes to this area). people will engage in irrational, group-based discrimination even when arbitraily assigned to groups (and, of course, knowing the assignment was arbitrary).
Tony L
Administrator
I think there is a key difference to be made between ‘the internet’, i.e. a random forum or blog being allowed to place its own flag wherever it wishes no matter how batshit crazy, vile or offensive that location, and a global corporation such as Google (YouTube) platforming dangerous stupidity. I view the former as genuine free-speech, but I would certainly expect YouTube to have an acceptable usage policy that should cover these things. The problem is the sheer scale of it, 300 hours of video are uploaded to YouTube every minute! How the hell do you moderate that?! The internet needs to exist above petty nationalism and state authoritarianism, but that doesn’t necessarily mean global corporations do. It’s a mind-bogglingly complex question, especially if, like me, you fundamentally mistrust nation states to act in the best interests and freedoms of their citizens and you greatly value a communication network above that level.
Joe Hutch
Mate of the bloke
I agree with your last point in particular. But if Google/YouTube are making so much money, they should be able to employ sufficient fact-checkers to, at the very least, flag up false or misleading information in the videos they host. If they can't or won't do that, maybe they should stick to music videos.
Seeker_UK
Feelin' nearly faded as my jeans
It's not so much a question of deciding on what gets posted or not but whether you can have the assurance that the Consumer of the information will treat it properly and do the 'right thing' (ie to not lazily buy it all in a frenzy of confirmation bias). I'm afraid that those who don't have the intellectual faculties, those who don't have the skills and training, those who don't have the time and those who really couldn't give a flying one to seek out the objective truth make up a pretty significant group (if not a majority). When does protecting become something more malign?
Seeker_UK
Feelin' nearly faded as my jeans
Sadly, the Objective Truth doesn't have a copyright that lawyers can chase to make money.
Tony L
Administrator
I’m with you on the former point, but I value the freedom to upload content in order to speak truth to power far more than the risk of having to deal with nutjobbery. As an example if they, quite understandably, didn’t have the ability or resources to moderate 300 hours of fresh content every minute 24/7 and just stuck to music videos we’d never have seen Putin/Assad barrel-bombing Aleppo into dust, a policeman slowly murdering George Floyd etc etc etc. YouTube is an absolutely essential platform in an increasingly authoritarian and brutal world. It has brought us footage of so many world-shaping events in recent decades. Things that those who govern us would have buried. We need to value that.
vuk
\o/ choose anarchy
Joe Hutch
Mate of the bloke
Indeed, and that's at the heart of the libertarian dilemma. I guess the crucial point is, does this harm an individual, who can decide for him/herself, or might there be a wider societal damage (if, for example, millions of parents decide not to have their children vaccinated, on the basis of false information). John Stuart Mill goes into this question in 'On Liberty'. His view is that, if an adult decides to drink himself to death, the State should not seek to prevent him doing so, but if in so doing he places his family in danger (from poverty, for example), the State can and should intervene by taking his children into care. In Mill's words:
'[T]he sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinions of others, to do so would be wise, or even right. These are good reasons for remonstrating with him, or reasoning with him, or persuading him, or entreating him, but not for compelling him, or visiting him with any evil in case he do otherwise. To justify that, the conduct from which it is desired to deter him must be calculated to produce evil to some one else.'
mansr
Objectionist
That's the problem. It's easy to instinctively want to ban various kinds of vile speech, and the world would surely be a better place if some things were never said. However, once you go that route, you have to decide who gets be the arbiter of truth or acceptability. In a free society, nobody should have that power. Not the government, not the church, and not an angry Twitter mob either.
Tony L
Administrator
You appear to be confusing authority structures with public engagement. If you don’t want public scrutiny or feedback best not post on Twitter, as that is its purpose!
vuk
\o/ choose anarchy
sorry about that. if i understood correctly, you are suggesting that some class/group of people should be making decisions about whether another class/group is mentally or psychologically fit to consume information -- all for their own good of course. actually, this is almost precisely what edward bernays (father of public relations) had concluded way back, so you are quite up there in stratum ;-)
vuk
\o/ choose anarchy
i believe the issue is about twitter mob influencing/intimidating authority structures, not twitter per se.
Sue Pertwee-Tyr
Accuphase all the way down
I think the broad principles of Article 10 of the HRA get it about right. The right of freedom of expression can only be restricted by Authority to the extent that is 'necessary' and 'proportionate' in a democratic society. So, you can restrict actual calls to violence, etc, or hate speech where the intent and the likelihood is that bad stuff will happen to others as a result, but dickheads mouthing off or showing off just get ignored. The right to free speech includes the right to let people see for themselves what an utter **** you* are.
*not you, mansr, FTAOD.
Seeker_UK
Feelin' nearly faded as my jeans
I used a clumsy way to describe it; allow me to try it a different way. There are a lot of people out there who consume information from various sources on the Internet. Many either can't or won't make an objective view on that information. We could, and should, do more as a society to encourage and enable people to be more objective. That means giving them the tools to do so; some are educational but some is technological but does that include controlling access to information and if it does, what are the limits?
It is a dilemma I struggle with. I'm an engineer so I prefer right answers over ambiguity and uncertainty.
I used a clumsy way to describe it; allow me to try it a different way. There are a lot of people out there who consume information from various sources on the Internet. Many either can't or won't make an objective view on that information. We could, and should, do more as a society to encourage and enable people to be more objective. That means giving them the tools to do so; some are educational but some is technological but does that include controlling access to information and if it does, what are the limits?
It is a dilemma I struggle with. I'm an engineer so I prefer right answers over ambiguity and uncertainty.
Like teaching critical thinking skills?
