Submitted by Sorin61 t3_z7qa8l in technology
anonymousviewer112 t1_iy9s2aq wrote
Reply to comment by MiaowaraShiro in UK waters down internet rules plan after free speech outcry by Sorin61
I think you describe it at a high level but where I think this breaks down is on literally the exact logic or criteria that would be used to deem something "hate" or "false and damaging". Basically where the rubber meets the road.
When you actually think about ok how do I describe this, it becomes very hard to do consistently and without casting too wide a net.
Leaving it up to companies to just "use there best judgement" based on high level goals from the government is not good for a variety of reasons. It's too subjective and would be coerced.
It's very hard to clearly define different types of speech to consistently and clearly dictate what is acceptable and what is not.
In anyone who I eve have talked to on this subject have ever been able to in detail describe "the rules" and instead it's very broad goals that would be way to subjective and overly prevent speech which is exatwhat happened in the UK when it was implemented...
MiaowaraShiro t1_iy9ujm0 wrote
> I think you describe it at a high level but where I think this breaks down is on literally the exact logic or criteria that would be used to deem something "hate" or "false and damaging". Basically where the rubber meets the road.
I would bet we could come up with something good enough. Could you give some examples of speech that you think would be difficult to classify?
> When you actually think about ok how do I describe this, it becomes very hard to do consistently and without casting too wide a net.
Why?
> Leaving it up to companies to just "use there best judgement" based on high level goals from the government is not good for a variety of reasons. It's too subjective and would be coerced.
Why? The government already advises on what it sees as disinformation. It's not binding nor coercive. (That would be a violation of constitutional free speech so it's not on the table.) There's no carrot or stick. It's just information.
> It's very hard to clearly define different types of speech to consistently and clearly dictate what is acceptable and what is not.
So we shouldn't try to do hard things? Or do you mean impossible?
> In anyone who I eve have talked to on this subject have ever been able to in detail describe "the rules" and instead it's very broad goals that would be way to subjective and overly prevent speech which is exatwhat happened in the UK when it was implemented...
That's an inherently flawed expectation though. We're just laypeople, we're not going to have detailed policy at the ready. We only have broad goals. We're not the ones responsible for the minutiae.
You seem to think that it's either too hard or not possible to write rules to police content. I disagree and can point to thousands of sites that do it everyday with varying levels of success. (Also, maybe, if your site is so big that you can't properly keep it safe you shouldn't have let it get so big without the proper expansion of infrastructure...)
anonymousviewer112 t1_iya13u9 wrote
I mean, look, what you are describing was tried in the UK per this post. Lots of people spent a lot of time and money on it and it failed (hurt freedom and backfired).
Speech censorship has been tried and is tried throughout history and it has always significantly negatively impacted democracy and freedom.
Just saying "we just haven't figured it out yet" isn't a valid response to then take away freedoms yet again.
Saying "we need to do something" is dangerous in that it ignores the fact that the government and laws are not able to solve every problem in existence. The question should be instead "what effective tools do we have to limit hate speech?"
"We need to do something " is an emotional argument to solve a logical problem. Wanting to solve it does not mean it's solvable.
I have lots of bugs in my yard, I can limit them a number of ways but I can't eradicate them unfortunately. By your logic I should "do something" like burn down my and my neighbors yards to try and permanently get rid of them. Or I can conversely understand that we live in a world with real constraints.
You can't legislate away complex problems. Think about it, if we could effectively legislate away problems we would have done it by now.
Throwing shit at the wall is bad for society especially when it's at the cost of our freedom.
I'm not willing to give up my freedom because you want to "do something", especially when it has never proven to be effective. In contrast "doing something" results in making things worse.
Check out the cobra effect. It gives examples of legislation that simply makes problems worse.
MiaowaraShiro t1_iya3ptj wrote
> I mean, look, what you are describing was tried in the UK per this post. Lots of people spent a lot of time and money on it and it failed (hurt freedom and backfired).
Um, that's emphatically not what the article says. It says the plan was never implemented due to public distaste. We never got to see if it worked.
> Speech censorship has been tried and is tried throughout history and it has always significantly negatively impacted democracy and freedom.
Bullshit. We censor all the damn time! It keeps children safe. It keeps forums civil. You just don't see it because it's working. Not to say it's perfect but to say that censorship always fails is... I'm sorry... just ridiculous.
> Just saying "we just haven't figured it out yet" isn't a valid response to then take away freedoms yet again.
I'm not saying that. Plenty of people and organizations use censorship for good purposes effectively. It's figured out. I'm just not an expert so I can't give you the details.
> Saying "we need to do something" is dangerous in that it ignores the fact that the government and laws are not able to solve every problem in existence. The question should be instead "what effective tools do we have to limit hate speech?"
>"We need to do something " is an emotional argument to solve a logical problem. Wanting to solve it does not mean it's solvable.
I'm really not sure what your point is here. You seem to take it as settled fact that "censorship cannot be done effectively or precisely" and I keep pointing out that we already do it... constantly.
> You can't legislate away complex problems. Think about it, if we could effectively legislate away problems we would have done it by now.
This simply doesn't follow. Failure doesn't imply no solution. It simply means THAT method was a failure. You're smarter than this, you've shown me.
> Throwing shit at the wall isn't bad for society especially when it's at the cost of our freedom.
I mean... shit causes disease? You sure that's the metaphor you want?
> I'm not willing to give up my freedom because you want to "do something", especially when it has never proven to be effective. In contrast "doing something" results in making things worse.
Curious... what views do you hold that you think would run afoul of these rules? I'm really only talking about bigotry and harmful disinformation. Do you spread those often?
What value do we preserve by allowing bigotry and harmful disinformation? Cuz I don't buy that we cannot reliably identify it. Since we do it already.
anonymousviewer112 t1_iya8c2c wrote
Go through my examples and tell me which you would deem illegal.
anonymousviewer112 t1_iya3216 wrote
Here are some examples:
"It's going to rain tomorrow" and it does not actually rain tomorrow making this a false statement.
"Black people commit the most crime" which is statistically true but mean spirited and borderline racist.
"Bill gates is an asshole" this is a matter of opinion but mean.
"Hilary Clinton is a slut" this is mean but how do you prove one way or another?
"There was election fraud" said by someone who was told this by someone else at a bar they frequent. do people need to site sources for what they believe to be true statement?
"I will smack the next guy who says pineapple on pizza is good". Threats of violence?
"I hate mexicans" mean spirited but are people allowed to dislike other groups or is that punishable?
"Donald Trump slapped me in 3rd grade" how do you disprove this?
No try sorting these types of things out for millions of messages a day everyday.
MiaowaraShiro t1_iyac77i wrote
You don't remember me saying that the statement has to be false and harmful? You don't remember me telling you that the only one of those that would run afoul is the "There was election fraud" one? The others aren't even close and would easily pass a "reasonable person" test in court of law.
In the case of the election fraud one that's a literal documented piece of disinformation. It's literally called "The Big Lie". We know it's an intentional lie with the intent to cause harm. If you're so credulous that you can't identify that one I'm not sure what to tell you?
I would imagine these deliberations would run very similar to defamation, slander or libel cases, but instead of a single person being libeled, it's a whole category. If I say "Kill Bob", that's incitement to violence. If I say "Kill all Bobs" how is that not worse?
Instances on private websites would of course be mediated by private websites.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments