You addressed nothing I said. You seem to be unable to think beyond "censorship bad".

No, you’ve addressed nothing I’ve said, while I’ve answered countless of your questions and tried to follow your logic in good faith.

But no. Care to try again?

It was just a question. Touchy subject, I’m sure.

So the speech, which caused the electrical signal that the software passed and interpreted, did not cause the lights to turn off? The software did? Or the electrical energy did?

If you are at someone's home, and say "Alexa, lights off" or whatever, and the host asks you why you turned off the lights, you answer "I didn't turn them off. The electrical energy did!"

Can you see why this is either a joke or sophomoric nonsense?

No, I don’t quibble much in everyday conversation. I would say, “yes, I turned the lights off”.

But then again everyday conversation doesn’t center much around metaphysics. Only if someone in this domain of discourse tells me my speech turned the lights off will I tell them they believe in sorcery. Your voice hasn’t moved a single switch in your whole life, but here you are acting like it does.

This is attempted gaslighting.

We can add to that the fact that you see yourself as being in a community of one and show no signs of having empathy for others.

Are you ready to take your best guess yet?

Attempted gaslighting...it is coming more and more evident that you're feeling like an abused girlfriend. Am I getting close?

Such deepfakes are unequivocally a lie, and it doesn't infringe on anyone's free speech. Identifying them for what they are benefits those of us who seek facts. So who's harmed by such a requirement? In what ways would we be better off by having these unequivocal lies compete with actual truth?

Fear and calls for censorship have always accompanied new advances in communication. The catholic church was against the printing press, for example. But while the printing press was used for nefarious purposes such as the spreading of false information, sowing confusion, and insulting established authority, it was also key to the enlightenment, progress, and liberation. I'd hate to see a church censor's watermark on a copy of Les Misérables, for instance.

The artist, those of us who look at it, and posterity are harmed by your actions, which amount to vandalism. It's not up to you to deface someone's work. Imagine the deepfake show "Sassy Justice", from the creators of Southpark, with your ugly watermark on it.

Why not just leave everyone alone instead of harming them and their work? It would be better for all of us.

Rather, as has been argued a few times, some talk is believed by some. It's common, daily.

Despite the passive voice, this is what I’ve been saying all along. Some people believe some talk. This statement is completely accurate and I agree because it describes an act committed by the guilty party.

Misinformation does not have the power and abilities to harm society. But the believers in it do. So we worry about the believers in misinformation.

Actually all air vibrations, including non-speech, are transduced into electrical energy in modern smart-home systems. In the case of speech recognition It is the software that filters out the speech from the non-speech sounds. So the speech has no more causal power than any other sound.

If I read the phrase “the earth is flat” one-hundred times, and after I’m done tell you the earth is in fact not flat, will that suffice as a demonstration?

I don’t know how I’m being evasive; I’m telling you everything I believe.

We agree on the necessary condition. We disagree that disinformation contributes to bad things occurring, and that it would be good to minimize it. Then for some reason you wanted me to explain why I was denying disinformation was a necessary condition for these acts to occur, right after I said I do not disagree with you. It's just confusing, is all.

That to me is a more interesting and balanced outlook, so thanks for writing it.

I like your idea that truth has trouble surviving in the modern media environment. No doubt that's true; but I think it's true of all media environments. The adage that "Falsehood flies and the Truth comes limping after it" is quite old.

One thing that is increasingly modern is the exponential growth in the sheer amount of information, true or false. None of us are equipped to deal with all of it, assess it this way or that at all times, because we couldn't read all of it in the first place. It isn't long before we start to receive it through less-than-reputable sources like Uncle John and Nancy Sinatra. I'm more on the hopeful side and believe we'll adapt, but it would be a shame if some would attempt to deny us this opportunity.

The last sentence in the quote was my question. "question "do you disagree?" You responded. "I do not".

That’s misinformation. You last sentence in the post to which I disagreed was “ So are you open to considering ways to limit the spread of disinformation, if it doesn't infringe on free speech rights?”

So you believe Edgar would have driven to the Pizza Parlor and shot it up even if he'd never heard the falsehood. That's irrational.

Nope. I believe it didn’t cause him to.

It seems that the obvious solution to the existence of misinformation is more free speech, not less of it.

Ideas should be exposed to criticism by default, not taken at face value by default. Question everything. It is those that don't question what they read and hear that end up causing more harm than those that do.

That’s right. And as John Milton argued, the censors deny themselves (and others) the opportunity to see falsity collide with truth. By giving the authorities the right to determine truth and historical fact, they push for the stupidity of mankind.

Well, it should have been clear because I linked to the post I was replying to, as I always do.

I agree that it was a necessary condition to the event. So is air, water, guns, and pizza. I disagree that it contributed to the event you mentioned and therefor ought to be minimized.

You know as well as I do that I was disagreeing with this claim:

So you agree that disinformation contributes to bad things occurring. It therefore follows that it would be good to minimize it.

You are trying to maximize rather than minimize misinformation. And still nothing bad has become of it. All of it reflects on your own behavior instead of threatening me and my safety.

I do not agree, and am not open to considering ways to limit the spread.

What is the point of your comments, really?

Yeah, that was kind of my point.

You must have a great understanding and empathy for others.

My theory is only that the disinformation is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for these acts to occur. Do you disagree?

I do not.

It's much more a condition of mass belief, or socially pressured acts. If everyone was in danger of being targeted as a witch it is possible I'd be much more likely to participate in finding witches as a survival mechanism.

That is a more interesting theory in my opinion.

All I know is, had they put that book to the flame for the fear that it caused people to kill others we wouldn’t have a chance to read it today. And the fact that it doesn’t cause people who read it today to kill others proves to me that something else caused them to kill others. Besides, I doubt many of them even knew how to read.

I don’t expect you to argue the point, because you have none. I’ve never said any person is his own universe, have never ignored human interaction, nor have I given any indication of my empathy.

Are you suggesting that Edgar Welch would have shot up Comet Ping Pong Pizzeria even if he had never read that Democrats were sex trafficking children? That's ludicrous.

No. Just note that many people read it and did nothing of the sort. So you have one instance of someone reading it and then later committing the crime. Compare that to the many others who did read it and then did nothing. If your theory is that those words cause people to commit harmful acts, you’ll likely need a greater sample of evidence to support it.

Would you commit the crime if you read it?

Simply because you don’t share your boss’ motor-cortex. You are responsible for what you do while your boss is responsible for what he does. It’s simple physics and biology.

Would The Malleus Maleficarium cause you to kill someone? I doubt it.

As I said: because people are harmed as a result. This is true EVEN IF there is nothing we can do about it.

Sure, but harmed as a result of someone’s choices, not as a result of the information. Post hoc ergo propter hoc.

I’m just saying the information never caused the harms you mentioned. The choices of those involved did. So why must I worry about the information?

Then how do we stop them, NOS?

The first step would be to stop acting like them, then win the argument.

Chomsky makes this case often:





False information cannot cause people to believe false information or act on false information. If you’d like to criminalize the cause of the harms you’d need to criminalize the act, for instance taking alternative medicine or refusing vaccines.

My advice if you really want to see what group dynamics is like, is lead a group in some way. Organize a trip with a few close friends, then organize a trip with 30. Its night and day. "Rules" are necessary. And that requires some type of enforcement mechanism or governance. Done right, it creates respect and greater freedom within the group. Done wrong its a power trip and abuse. But not done at all? Its unorganized chaos where little gets done.

I appreciate the story and advice. But is it any strange wonder that it involves children? A paternal outlook is a prerequisite to authority and undergirds the notion that other adults need to be governed as if they were kids.

The problem with collective action is well-enough known. There are too many conflicting interests among the individuals involved. But to insert a class of masters and institute coercive mechanisms in order to make it work is simply to put one or more persons interests over the others, and to exploit the rest in order to achieve those interests, which to me is immoral. Far better is it to find others with a common interest and coordinate and cooperate voluntarily.

A carefully crafted bill that penalizes peddling knowingly false information for profit would curtail some of the outright falsehoods that have taken off in the social media age. But I also agree with you 100% that it must be carefully crafted. While it would be simpler to dismiss the issue for fear that a lack of nuance would cause more harm, the law can handle nuance well if the right people are behind it.

That’s the problem. Who would you choose to decide what is true and false, and punish those who deviate from it?

I like it. But no scientific experiments needed; she’ll be sure to tell you all about it. But I am a little disappointed there is no accompanying Baden cartoon.

Interestingly, for Aristotle democracy is inherently unstable, especially in the direction of populism. So is a democracy that is safeguarded from "threats to democracy" still a democracy? Is democracy a threat to democracy?

The irony here is that calls for censorship meant to safeguard democracy from threats to democracy are themselves a threat to democracy, and this seems fairly uncontroversial. At the end of the day a kind of theocracy with science or some other truth-approach at the helm is not democracy.

It appears there are two-brands of "democracy" in conflict, the one that favors the power of the people, the other that favors the institutions that have arisen in representative democracies, for instance elections and parliaments and the credibility of those in power. It's an interesting conflict.

That isn't to say that freedom isn't worth fighting for, or even dying for, but freedom is a function of what we can allow ourselves in the absence of existential threats to our existence. If you value freedom, then consider if the United States were indeed run by verifiable fascists. We would undoubtedly have even less freedom than we might have had had we suppressed portions of the media to prevent such a takeover. Do you actually think that the fascists wouldn't come for those that are reporting on truth once taking power? Everything except the accepted propaganda would be suppressed for being disinformation. Are you so naive, NOS, that you think you, as a gay vampire, would be unaffected?

Of course the fascists would, so it makes no sense to afford them the power to do so. One of the best ways to avoid fascism is to not do what the fascists do, which in your idea is to suppress portions of the media to prevent such a takeover.

Their suppression is a gift to them. Note the Weimar fallacy, that had the Nazis been censored they wouldn’t have risen to power. The Nazis were routinely censored. Goebbels, Fritsch, and Julius Striecher were imprisoned for hate speech. Their publications were shut down (one hundred of them in Poland alone). Hitler himself was banned from speaking. Censorship did not help in the one instance where it should have. When Hitler debated Otto Wells regarding the Enabling Act he reminded Wells of how much he was censored, and this justified for him the passing of that law. They used these pre-existing laws to further suppress the opposition.

I wish this were the case, but its often not true. Especially when someone is in a powerful position and the law does not punish them for their transgressions. If it were so easy to punish such things, why would there be a call for the law? There is a call for the law because society is currently inadequate at addressing these issues alone. We don't touch things like comedy, parody, or opinions, because its clear these things are not meant to be authorities on information. But when someone pretends to be an authority on information, when they clearly know what they are peddling is false, we're seeing in real time that there is a minority majority of society that cannot handle it.

Well, we don’t have any say in the matter whether things like comedy, parody, and opinions are touched because we are not the authorities on such matters. So I think it’s a mistake to pretend that “we” in the grand sense, or society as a whole, have some sort of say.

I think the problem you often run into on these forums with your worldview NOS4A2 is your ideals are viewed through the lens of a very small community. Rules and massive societal regulations and laws come about as communities build. This is not a corruption, it is a necessary thing that must happen to assist with new community problems. It is actually natural for governments to form as societies grow. Show me a society of a several thousand people in a small living space without a government. It doesn't exist.

Your other problem is that you see that government can be corrupt, therefore it must be corrupt. Or that its corruption is beyond a minimal sense. Government is a tool, and like any social tool, if wielded right, it helps society. How do you think we're able to speak our minds without getting shot by our neighbors? A free society requires the management of resources and broad human conflicts.

I appreciate the critique. Thank you.

But in my defence the very small community I view it through is me. I only have one pair of eyes. The fact that you or anyone else are afflicted with the same limitation, and cannot view the world nor speak about it through anyone’s lens but your own, puts the very idea of a community lens into immediate doubt. I just don’t know enough people of any given community to see or speak for them, and I’m sure that is the case for most.

It’s just not true that rules and massive societal regulations and laws come about as communities build. They are imposed by very few individuals on the much wider society, and one can compare the amount of legislators at any given time to the amount of the rest of society in order to confirm this.

It is the history of states that leads me to believe governments are naturally corrupt. It’s an anti-social institution, an exploitative monopoly by its very nature and organization. As a rebuttal, I have a problem with the belief that as soon as a species of moral exemplars gain power, and use the government to help society and not themselves, it will no longer be. History attests to the opposite, and I would implore you to compare it against what I would call a dangerous hope.

Which is why you build a government with safe guards and anti-corruption measures. Free and frequent elections. Rights, etc. The problem is that the peddling of false facts is corruption of the free market of ideas. It has long been ruled that yelling "Fire!" falsely in a theater to cause a stampede for your own amusement is not defendable. Why then should people peddling false information for their own gain in other areas suddenly be off limits? Corruption does not just apply to government. It applies to every single person.

I’d love to get together with you and build safeguards and anti-corruption measures, but like the vast majority of human beings we do not have the power to do so. And it has long been overruled that falsely yelling “Fire!” in a crowded is indefensible, and was never a binding dictum in any law or otherwise. It’s just a popular analogy.

To that, do you see an issue with creating laws that prevent outright deception and lies to people on public platforms? Or should we allow people to deceive others without any risk? The law already forbids revenge, violence, and other forms of 'community regulation'. Can the community properly regulate purposefully deceptive facts with less harm then careful laws and the courts?

Yes, deception is terrible and immoral. It hurts being deceived, and further, to act on a false belief could lead to very real harm. More often or not this leads to some sort of penalty for the deceiver, for instance the loss of credibility, and as a result, the social and economical fruits that come with it.

Recall what Jaspers said. Both censorship and freedom will be abused. The question is, which abuse is preferable? Censorship leads to both the suppression of truth and its distortion, while freedom leads only to its distortion. Censorship is absolute, while distortion can be straightened out by freedom itself.

Misinformation is just false information. Under its heading falls satire, irony, fiction, exaggeration, miscalculation, and so on. The threat is not only too broad, but as it turns out, not that threatening at all. We’ve lived with some degree of it just fine for the entirety of human history, generally speaking.

But worse, the institutions commonly used to penalize misinformation have historically been the greatest progenitors of it.

That seems to me to be a stupid idea, not well thought out at all, because if lying is universal and comprehensive your authorities would be subject to lie. And that’s a common argument for free speech and against censorship that maybe someone who doesn’t understand it hasn’t pondered before: who decides and enforced what is true and what is false? Personally I can’t think of any people, alive or dead, fit for such a task.

But you’d be happy to know that the jailing of journalists is on the increase since such measures have been adopted.



https://www.cima.ned.org/publication/chilling-legislation/

Good points.

I note that many of the fears over misinformation mention the threat to some amorphous, ill-defined order. Both China and the EU have this in common. From the EU, “The risk of harm includes threats to democratic political processes, including integrity of elections, and to democratic values that shape public policies in a variety of sectors, such as health, science, finance and more.” Or for China it threatens to “undermine economic and social order”. It’s clear to me that it is a threat to the state. Therefor, digital authoritarianism and the control of information is required.

The dictum has long ago been overturned, and so is no longer binding or relevant to first amendment jurisprudence. “Immanent lawless action”, not “clear and present danger”, is the dictum used today.

It's not a mistake and your response is disingenuous. There is no freedom of speech beyond what protections government or other institutions provide. Are you suggesting there should be? Are you suggesting people shouldn't be held accountable for what they say? Are you suggesting there should be no consequences for libel or slander? Are you suggesting the government should get involved in protecting freedom of speech beyond what they already do? What exactly are you suggesting?

It is a huge mistake to equate an amendment to a constitution with the principle or right it is meant to protect. It’s nothing short of circular. The first amendment doesn’t protect the first amendment.

All I have suggested is that there should be no law to suppress misinformation. I thought that was obvious, since I’ve said as much.

As I asked before, are you suggesting that people shouldn't be accountable for what they say? That I shouldn't be able to sue you if you lie about me in a way that causes me harm? If that's what you mean, you should be clearer. It would involve a radical rewriting of civil law in the US and every other country in the world. Is that what you think is needed?

They should be held accountable, and the best way to
do so is to counter their falsity with truth. The history of censorship and free speech attests that censorship is not the answer.

Another false statement. The article you linked to identifies no country in North and South America or western Europe except France and Italy that have potentially significant restrictions. Indications of people being put in jail are primarily located in authoritarian countries in Africa and Asia. Is that it? You're worried about press freedom in Burkina Faso?

You've just made up this whole issue so you can paint your preferred right-wing political cohort as unjustly persecuted.

It has Canada, Mexico, and Brazil in there. But see I don’t need to counter your misinformation with censorship. More information suffices. But yes, I worry that free speech is being stamped out worldwide. If you don’t, that’s fine.

Gavin Newsome just passed a law combatting deepfakes.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/17/technology/california-deepfakes-law-social-media-newsom.html

Societal structures these days stipulate that the land is owned by the state. Concepts such as jurisdiction, eminent domain, national sovereignty, and so on, indicate this ownership. So in a way the system is more manorial and feudal than legal.

I gravitate towards a more Lockean theory of property, that resources and land are an extension of the body and life. Given that man needs both resources and land in order to survive, he is therefor entitled to have some, so long as everyone else is entitled to the same. It’s not clear how this should be determined, but if a man works on land and resources, and in a way mixes himself with it, it ought to be his.

I agree. "Misinformation", by definition, is tantamount to falsity. But in practical use it is used to counter information those in power do not like. Any argument from any Western philosopher, like JS Mill or Bertrand Russel should suffice to refute such nonsense, but here we are.

For science.

Whenever this subject comes up, someone points out that freedom of speech, the First Amendment here in the US, only applies to government action. It doesn't limit what individuals, corporations, or institutions can do about your or my speech. It's not against the law to fire someone or ask them to leave your house if you don't like what they say. Certain kinds of speech, e.g. slander and libel, can also be addressed under civil law. If I sue you for something you said, that's not a violation of free speech as it is usually manifested. Here in the US, slander and libel are not crimes.

So... I don't see anything wrong with what the authors of the article wrote, at least as you've described it.

Freedom of speech is not the same as the first amendment, I'm afraid, so its a mistake to equate the two. That's fine, it's a common error.

I've described what's wrong with the argument further along in the post.

In the US, there are no "legislative prohibitions" against defamation and so-called hate speech. I'm not familiar with the laws regarding false advertising. I assume it is considered a type of fraud. As far as I know, it is still addressed in civil rather than criminal proceedings.

The US isn't the only country in the world. At any rate, this isn't about the United States and its legal system.

Actions, including speech, have consequences. If those consequences harm someone, it may be appropriate for the harmed party to take the speaker to court. Do you have a problem with that?

I do have a problem with that. The consequences of speech, for instance, is air and sound coming out of the mouth. To be fair, I'm willing to subject myself to a test if you wish to promote your harm theory. Let's see which injuries you can inflict on me with your speech.

Do you have specific examples in mind of "authorities" putting the kibosh on someone's politically incorrect speech? If not, what's your kvetch? How about that - "kibosh" and "kvetch" in the same response.

I put a link in the original post. It's old, so it may be out of date, but it shows how people and journalists around the world are being placed in jail on the premisses you advocate. I'll place the link below.

Poynter- A Guide to Anti-misinformation Actions Around the World.