Comment by akira2501 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by akira2501 | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> On the other hand, I'm aware that certain influential figures explicitly manipulate their speech in order to primarily amass personal power regardless of any second-order effects. E.g. cults are horrible, even though people are freely congregating, they just feel like they can't leave because of the emotional abuse these influential figures are heaping via their speech.

If they're that influential, then what chance do laws limiting free speech have at curtailing their efforts? The solution seems to be pass laws that only effect the average citizen and ignore the obvious differences in scale with these flagged "problem cases."

> the loved one of a politician was severely injured because of someone who believes the incorrect speech of influential figures

Is there actual evidence of that? I mean, which exact "influential figures" lead to this crime? What writing of theirs were the most provocative to this individual? What should we be considering when examining this situation? Is there anything other than vague accusations?

> So what's to be done about the actual, real harm being done, while also protecting free speech? I don't want to assume that assaulting people is just the cost of free speech.

It seems to me that's exactly what you're doing.. and you've not made the connection between free speech and generalized harm in anything but a casual way. This makes people exceptionally uneasy, you're suggesting that a defined right should be curtailed simply because there's an implication in one particular notable situation.

And why is this _one_ newsworthy situation being used to spark this debate? Doesn't this raise questions of inappropriate "influence" itself? Again, we know nothing about this individual, yet all kinds of motivations are being ascribed to his actions all in service of suggesting that "a little too much free speech" might be responsible here.

This entire line of thinking makes my uneasy.

"Is there actual evidence of that? I mean, which exact "influential figures" lead to this crime?"

To the former, I imagine this was brought up as an example. Whether you think it's the strongest example seems immaterial unless you're saying there is no example at all in the history of the world?

To the latter, that seems to be the exact purpose of courts and lawmaking, no? To take the murky uncertainty of life and create a reasonable line of evidence that binds two points together. That we, in American society, have decided not to draw the line between those two points to see if they intersect the same victim is our choice. Unless you believe no ones words are influential in any context?

> To the former, I imagine this was brought up as an example.

So we're to argue with your imagination?

> Whether you think it's the strongest example seems immaterial unless you're saying there is no example at all in the history of the world?

I'm saying you're implying things without any proof. I think you should have proof before you consider depriving people of their rights.

> To the latter, that seems to be the exact purpose of courts and lawmaking, no?

Precisely. If you break the law, you are charged with a crime. If you were incited to do so, that person will be charged with a crime. So.. what reason is there to restrain free speech?

> Unless you believe no ones words are influential in any context?

I don't believe prior restraint will solve your problem, and other than these vague assertions, you've provided no concrete argument as to how they will.

"So we're to argue with your imagination?"

To be clear, not my imagination as i'm not the original poster. Nor anyone's imagination since the act of violence did, in fact, occur. A poor choice of words, on my part.

> Nor anyone's imagination since the act of violence did, in fact, occur.

And the open question, still, is "was the violence precipitated by too much free speech? Is there literally any evidence of that?"

This whole thread is based on this assumption, and people are happy to argue a point because they "imagine" the evidence for it exists. If this is actually the case, this is absolutely stunning.

Its not the free speech. Its the free reach that creates the issue.

What are you proposing exactly? I'm trying to steelman your position, but the best I can come up with is "Only the rich should be able to spread their opinions (which are obviously correct, since they are successful)" and "You can have your free speech in your designated free speech zone (which has bars on the outside, and is surrounded by armed guards)".

This is a clear false dichotomy. The platforms that monetize outrage and disinformation by rewarding it with free reach are at issue here. As to solutions - The only way to filter the volume of information reaching us into meaningful, useful, true narratives is through trusted filters that prioritize attempting to be truthful and operate in good faith over time. Fact checking creates a history of this which should feature into algorithms. This is not to say that people are prevented from speaking, but amplification should come with responsibility.

Trust in the facts of reality can only really be established as a chain - this is how the sciences work. That’s why independent experimental verification of results is so important. In the information ecosystem, fact checkers perform this function. We should establish structural means of support for these functions.

> Fact checking creates a history of this which should feature into algorithms.

At first glance, it looks like you've just re-defined the problem from "platforms should decide which posts are true" to "fact checkers should decide which posts are true", but actually I think you might be onto something.

Platforms could use their existing user-reporting features, and measures of audience size, to inform fact checkers about which posts are the most controversial; then different fact checkers could (reactively) investigate the claims and offer rulings that would appear as a banner over the relevant post.

The missing pieces of the puzzle are that individual users should be able to opt in to one or more fact checker, and platforms should give users a default set of fact checkers, and the fact checkers should be funded by a 1% tax on platforms' revenue (split in proportion to the popularity of those fact checkers among users).

This could actually be a valuable and viable system, and maybe the sciences could also benefit from a system like this for flagging suspect papers and paying for researchers to attempt to reproduce results. It could even be gamified, with researchers winning "points" for correctly guessing which studies have non-reproducible results (as long as these points didn't have financial incentives attached which could corrupt them).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com