Comment by ergothus | Hacker News Reader

Comment by ergothus | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

As someone that has grown to have a more moderate view over free speech over time, I think morals clauses truly do have two sides.

There are behaviors that most everyone finds reprehensible, and when someone commits them we want to be able to shun them, to remove our connection.

There are many times in the past when this shunning has been abused to censor or otherwise oppress others.

Generally people feel like they believe the latter part is the most important part...until something occurs in the former part.

As a solution to this dilemma, some advocate strong "non-moral" stances (ala "free speech") where everyone can do as they want, unrestricted. That used to be my answer. But I've come around to believing that if society doesn't apply a means of guidance/restriction/social repercussions the void will be filled with emergent results (i.e. ugliness). Abused rules are abusive, but a lack of a set of rules doesn't lead to peace, it leads to warlords and those least willing to restrain their own actions in the name of empathy gaining the most power.

I don't have the right answers, but I'm confident that walking away from the questions is not the right answer.

>As a solution to this dilemma, some advocate strong "non-moral" stances (ala "free speech") where everyone can do as they want, unrestricted

Since when is that the definition of free speech? Free speech has nothing to do with a lack of repercussions to what you say, and especially do, it's about having the right to say things, even if disagreeable, without systemic silencing or punishment from a higher authority. It doesn't mean you can't shun the crap out of people saying dumb shit though.

The 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects free speech from government regulation, but that does not mean it is free speech.

Free speech as a concept absolutely does mean an absence of consequences for, or at least a relative tolerance of, speech that people in society may generally disagree with.

It stems from the belief that the truth can sometimes be unpopular, and that in order for us to benefit from the truth we must give people some latitude to be unpopular.

The 1st Amendment does not enforce free speech in the social sphere merely because that is not the purview of the Constitution.

I'm not sure I'd have put this quite as emphatically as you, but there's a very important point here about the principle of free speech as compared with government suppression of speech.

While nodding towards quite real problems involving, let's say for example vaccines, I don't think any of that troubles the principle of free speech in the slightest. Practically applying it is difficult and as error-prone as is anything else, but the principle is enlightening in that task.

There does exist a principle of free speech that is not the same thing as the various legal principles, constitutional rules, laws, or rules of thumb that say government suppression of speech is worse than other kinds. Crucially important though those have been, it's still true that suppression of speech itself is uniquely bad: Fundamentally, knowledge is not infallible, all problems are caused by lack of knowledge, and speech is the means of correcting all other mistakes. Practically, we find it all too easy to socially suppress good ideas. It's hard to see the true extent of that because it's impossible to see the upside that hasn't happened as a result of that suppression.

I hardly need to refer explicitly to some of the specific ideas of the not-distant past about social control that we have since learned, though they were certainly obviously good, were not good.

Practically, it's hard to escape the idea that taking seriously the millennia-long stream of historical failures of ideas -- and their replacement with better ones -- does entail treating ideas that are obviously wrong with considerably more flexibility and humility than is tempting.

I recommend David Deutsch's book The Beginning of Infinity to shake up anybody's ideas about this, no matter where you start from.

Here's the trick: Higher powers are how society applies repercussions.

Note: I'm aware U.S. Govt 1st amendment doesn't restrict anything but the govt. I think we're both talking about the general concept of free speech, not that particular example.

Let's take the example of twitter. People swamp twitter with misinformation and toxic behavior. As individuals, we're all free to ignore/block the annoying/misleading people, and the company (the higher power) does not interfere. Ideal, right?

Except that the toxic people drive the others away. White supremacists attack and threaten people of color. Toxic bros attack and threaten women. Misinformation swamps the good information, and only the people that are already experts can tell the difference (and the misleading people will claim to be experts, so...).

If your response to above is "threats are illegal", you've not paid attention to how threats can made sufficiently arguable to be legal, but still clear enough to threaten.

Putting the burden on each individual to filter everyone is NOT taking "no" stance, it's taking the stance that those most willing to "speak" (which includes expressive actions) are given power. When the talking is for good things, that's great. But the people least willing to consider other people, the people lacking empathy, will have no restraint on what they say (or do, expressively) unless imposed. Long before they suffer any personal social repercussions they care about, they will have inflicted their harm upon a lot of people.

Preventing our "higher authorities" from taking action is reducing the power of collective people to take action. Sometimes collective people are wrong, but sometimes they are right, and that's why I say the topic isn't simple.

Sure, so the current US admin used it's "higher power" to force the EPA to remove all references to climate change.

It legally can not use that power for non-government entities, including those mirroring that content.

And you're suggesting it should be able to?

> Except that the toxic people drive the others away

And who gets to decide who is toxic? I've seen a user have a meltdown because someone compared democratic socialism to communism, and claimed everyone who disagreed with them was toxic. Should they get to be the judge?

> threats can made sufficiently arguable to be legal, but still clear enough to threaten.

Let's be clear - a threat in and of itself is _not_ illegal. A threat must be a direct, actionable call to violence to be illegal. Someone telling you they're going to make fun of you, post embaressing things or otherwise "threaten" you isn't illegal.

> Putting the burden on each individual to filter everyone

Is a recognition that humans are free agents and get to make their own choices in life. No man or woman is fit to play the censor.

> they will have inflicted their harm upon a lot of people.

What harm? Mean words on the internet? That pales in comparison for a regulatory agency, say the NSC, to suppress true information, say about a major pandemic, by abusing it's powers of censorship.

> > Putting the burden on each individual to filter everyone

> Is a recognition that humans are free agents and get to make their own choices in life.

And also puts the biggest burden upon those in the minority, even if the majority thinks they shouldn't have that burden.

> No man or woman is fit to play the censor.

But apparently they can drive other men and women away. It's defacto censorship, just of another source.

> What harm? Mean words on the internet?

Yes. Pointing out (and sharing) where you live, perhaps some details about your kids, and discussing the tragic consequences of families that lose children is just one example of "mean words on the internet". And maybe, per the above, the govt shouldn't be able to do anything about that. But saying that we, as society, just need to get thick skinned about that and suck it up as individuals is naive as to whom we are empowering and whom we are harming. We have more options than just dealing with things as individuals.

I'm not likely to respond further - my goal was not to debate the topic, but to share that there are some nuanced views on the topic of companies practicing some level of limitations on the free speech of others - anything more is well past the penumbra of the article. You clearly disagree with my views, and you clearly aren't alone, but I feel I've expressed my view well enough.

> "Putting the burden on each individual to filter everyone is NOT taking "no" stance, it's taking the stance that those most willing to "speak" (which includes expressive actions) are given power. When the talking is for good things, that's great. But the people least willing to consider other people, the people lacking empathy, will have no restraint on what they say (or do, expressively) unless imposed. Long before they suffer any personal social repercussions they care about, they will have inflicted their harm upon a lot of people."

While phrased as being benevolent, this is incredibly Orwellian. It is tantamount to saying "The adult voting public cannot be trusted to identify 'wrong' beliefs themselves; they must be protected from hearing these dangerous thoughts and only permitted to hear 'correct' beliefs (which conveniently happen to coincide with my own)."

"Beware of those who would deny you access to information for, in their hearts, they dream themselves your masters." Though this quote's origin is in fiction, it turned out to be terrifyingly prescient.

> It is tantamount to saying "The adult voting public cannot be trusted to identify 'wrong' beliefs themselves;

The issue isn't "identify", nor "trust". It's effort. The adult voting public are the ones that should be picking (and auditing!) those that are taking on the effort, as well as drawing the line as to where the effort is worth handing off and where it is worth keeping in personal hand.

Requiring everyone to be an expert on everything in order to evaluate it is a problem. I'm not saying they CAN'T be experts, I'm saying we have the right to choose that we don't HAVE to be. As a group. And pick whom we empower to deal with that. And pick what limitations and reviews it has to go through.

Again, I'm not saying restricting speech is free of problems. It has tons. But so does unrestricted speech. That's why it is complicated and hard, and pretending that everyone is a rational and well-intentioned actor is not a good idea. (Pretending power structures don't have problems is also not a good idea, but I've already admitted that)

> The issue isn't "identify", nor "trust". It's effort.

This is merely shifting the goalpost in the game of censorship.

How is

>"The adult voting public cannot be trusted to _invest sufficient effort_ to identify 'wrong' beliefs themselves"

functionally different from

"The adult voting public cannot be trusted to identify 'wrong' beliefs themselves"

?

The particular reasons for someone believing that the public cannot be trusted to identify 'wrong' beliefs still assumes that the public cannot be trusted to identify 'wrong' beliefs and puts us right back where we started. Not to mention, how is that a better argument than any other qualification for the same idea? Why not education as opposed to effort? Or experience?

The ultimate issue is that any way you spin it, it leads to a centralized authority being entrusted with the task of determining what is and isn't wrong and that is a fundamental non starter if we are to try and preserve free speech in a meaningful way. No one entity can be trusted to be the arbiter of morality for everyone.

> How is "The adult voting public cannot be trusted to _invest sufficient effort_ to identify 'wrong' beliefs themselves" > functionally different from "The adult voting public cannot be trusted to identify 'wrong' beliefs themselves"

You've inserted the word "trust" in there - I was saying we all shouldn't HAVE to.

Let me insert "trust" into your argument, not to be troll-ey, but to show how that's biasing the argument needlessly, and I'll also answer your question.

I recognize my limitation to not be an expert in everything, including distinguishing experts in all fields from those that falsely claim to be.

I recognize that others are ALSO so limited. If you want to call that not trusting people, feel free, and let's adjust this argument to be "there are other people who feel as I do" - the conclusions will be the same.

We (myself and these like-minded others) wish to select those we do trust to filter out the worst abuses. We'll set up rules to say on what basis these decisions are made.

Of course, any system is prone to abuse, but we judge that our ability to monitor this group is better than our ability to monitor literally everyone.

You aren't trusting us to do that.

> it leads to a centralized authority being entrusted with the task of determining what is and isn't wrong and that is a fundamental non starter if we are to try and preserve free speech in a meaningful way

Considering my position here that absolute free speech turns out to be harmful, this feels like a tautology.

Humans have been filtering and evaluating words from others throughout history. Often poorly, even without a centralized authority involved. Often a centralized authority filters words poorly. Yet in the face of both of these words have been heard, progress is made. Perhaps the more important aspect is that we individuals value hearing the words of others, even words we don't like, and push back against excessive filtering, without requiring that no filtering be done.

You aren't trusting us to be able to do that.

There are already many forms of speech that have limited or no protection in the United State: perjury, defamation, incitement, threats, obsceneties, fighting words, commercial speech, and copy-written works.

I have yet to see a proposal for additional classes of unprotected speech that materially benefit the social discourse.

Are you referring to the govt or more broadly?

Because (in relation to the article) we're talking about companies and social groups making decisions, not just the govt. Notably, I think the US 1st amendment is basically based around the idea that we, collectively, will take social action above the personal level. If you remove that ability, my defense of the 1st amendment reduces notably.

I see the social discourse primarily being improved by the general awareness that it CAN be harmed. To think it's immune from harm outside of censorship is the key problem.

What categories of speech outside of the categories I've listed would be valuable for private entities to restrict?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com