Very good article, Steve. I have struggled with articulating arguments about censorship vs free speech. How and draw the line between allowing Free Speech and suppressing dangerous propaganda and disinformation. What clear guidelines/tests can be used, and more importantly, how to enforce.
The violence and disruption caused by the very de…
Very good article, Steve. I have struggled with articulating arguments about censorship vs free speech. How and draw the line between allowing Free Speech and suppressing dangerous propaganda and disinformation. What clear guidelines/tests can be used, and more importantly, how to enforce.
The violence and disruption caused by the very deliberate lies from Trump and Vance about the Haitian immigrants in Springfield is just one example.
FEMA had diverted some of its funding to support of immigrants before the hurricane and now there is a shortfall, so we have the most common falsehood, the half truth.
If you are already inclined to believe that the Democrat Party is as crooked as a dog's hind leg it will be easy for that bias to let you accept the idea that FEMA is purposefully slow to have recovery that includes access to the poles for an election in a state that voted red in the last three elections. Of course that ignores the fact that the magnitude of the disaster makes quick recovery impossible and it takes no grand conspiracy to cause what is happening. Are the actual cases of non governmental help being turned away overzealous police and fire chiefs or grand conspiracy? Confirmation bias provides the answer. That is why disinformation, both official and unofficial, is so effective and people of course believe that their beliefs are the gold standard for truth.
This is the wrong pairing. Censorship is a bogeyman, the suppression of valid ideas and a tertiary considering in this matter.
The contrast that matters is not speech vs. censorship, it's speech vs. falsehood. The new tolerance for lying is the issue, promoted by that most soft-headed of arguments:
"If Trump wins the election, do you really want him deciding what you're allowed to say?"
The article isn't about anybody deciding what you can say. It's about deciding what's true. Shouldn't we all be interested in that?
I want as much true information out there as possible and as little false information out there as possible and the knee-jerk reaction always seems to be that it's impossible to figure out what's true or that there's no such thing as objectively dangerous speech designed to incite hatred or violence.
Like, just as an example, do you have a problem with a 200 million follower account boosting antisemitic conspiracy theories? Do you see how that's dangerous? Do you think it's possible to design policies that limit the ability of very large accounts to do things like that without somebody else deciding what you can say?
Many of these accounts have far bigger audiences than news organisation, which we DO regulate. Why does it concern you that we regulate these accounts too?
Yeah, I wasn't really arguing with you, Steve QJ, because I honestly don't know how I feel about a lot of your article. I love the idea of not letting people be intentionally dishonest, and I agree that there should be consequences if your lies hurt people. But in a day and age when people talk about "my truth" without batting an eye, and seeing how no one seems to be able to agree on anything (like something as simple as if masking is effective), I really don't see how we regulate any of this. So it's not that I disagree, exactly, I just don't know how anyone could set this up in a way that everyone could agree to. Chris Fox's comment (below) that who gets to decide is an evasion does not ring true to me. In fact, it feels to me like he's the one evading the point...?
(I have to say that I really appreciated you debunking the lie about not being able to yell "fire" in a crowded theater-- the persistence of that one has been driving me bonkers!)
Very good article, Steve. I have struggled with articulating arguments about censorship vs free speech. How and draw the line between allowing Free Speech and suppressing dangerous propaganda and disinformation. What clear guidelines/tests can be used, and more importantly, how to enforce.
The violence and disruption caused by the very deliberate lies from Trump and Vance about the Haitian immigrants in Springfield is just one example.
Another example of dangerous lies coming from the MAGA polticians is about FEMA response to Helene. In this case, at least there are several media outlets pushing back, but I doubt these voices be heard (or believed) by Trump acolytes. ref: https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2024/10/05/interested-parties-memo-fighting-hurricane-helene-falsehoods-with-facts/
I don't understand how they are allowed to spread disinformation that is causing very real harm, and face no repercussions.
The White House says that this is disinformation. An interview with a FEMA worker. Who do you believe and why? https://x.com/glennbeck/status/1842293685834416174
Some of the comments indicate a belief in conspiracy but it looks like typical government incomitance to me. Is the White Hose claim disinformation?
FEMA had diverted some of its funding to support of immigrants before the hurricane and now there is a shortfall, so we have the most common falsehood, the half truth.
If you are already inclined to believe that the Democrat Party is as crooked as a dog's hind leg it will be easy for that bias to let you accept the idea that FEMA is purposefully slow to have recovery that includes access to the poles for an election in a state that voted red in the last three elections. Of course that ignores the fact that the magnitude of the disaster makes quick recovery impossible and it takes no grand conspiracy to cause what is happening. Are the actual cases of non governmental help being turned away overzealous police and fire chiefs or grand conspiracy? Confirmation bias provides the answer. That is why disinformation, both official and unofficial, is so effective and people of course believe that their beliefs are the gold standard for truth.
"arguments about censorship vs free speech"
This is the wrong pairing. Censorship is a bogeyman, the suppression of valid ideas and a tertiary considering in this matter.
The contrast that matters is not speech vs. censorship, it's speech vs. falsehood. The new tolerance for lying is the issue, promoted by that most soft-headed of arguments:
"𝑊ℎ𝑜 𝑔𝑒𝑡𝑠 𝑡𝑜 𝑑𝑒𝑐𝑖𝑑𝑒?"
I don't understand why this is a soft-headed argument? If Trump wins the election, do you really want him deciding what you're allowed to say?
"If Trump wins the election, do you really want him deciding what you're allowed to say?"
The article isn't about anybody deciding what you can say. It's about deciding what's true. Shouldn't we all be interested in that?
I want as much true information out there as possible and as little false information out there as possible and the knee-jerk reaction always seems to be that it's impossible to figure out what's true or that there's no such thing as objectively dangerous speech designed to incite hatred or violence.
Like, just as an example, do you have a problem with a 200 million follower account boosting antisemitic conspiracy theories? Do you see how that's dangerous? Do you think it's possible to design policies that limit the ability of very large accounts to do things like that without somebody else deciding what you can say?
Many of these accounts have far bigger audiences than news organisation, which we DO regulate. Why does it concern you that we regulate these accounts too?
Yeah, I wasn't really arguing with you, Steve QJ, because I honestly don't know how I feel about a lot of your article. I love the idea of not letting people be intentionally dishonest, and I agree that there should be consequences if your lies hurt people. But in a day and age when people talk about "my truth" without batting an eye, and seeing how no one seems to be able to agree on anything (like something as simple as if masking is effective), I really don't see how we regulate any of this. So it's not that I disagree, exactly, I just don't know how anyone could set this up in a way that everyone could agree to. Chris Fox's comment (below) that who gets to decide is an evasion does not ring true to me. In fact, it feels to me like he's the one evading the point...?
(I have to say that I really appreciated you debunking the lie about not being able to yell "fire" in a crowded theater-- the persistence of that one has been driving me bonkers!)
"who gets to decide" isn't a point, it's an evasion. Always.