More attacks on Free Speech in the UK

[icehorse]

I have been giving examples.

You've given examples of places where horrible things have happened. But you haven't given examples of the misinformation that led to these violent acts...

 

[Shadow Wolf]

@icehorse
Rohingya genocide - Wikipedia

The chairman of the U.N. Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on Myanmar stated that Facebook played a "determining role" in the Rohingya genocide.[244] Facebook has been accused of enabling the spread of Islamophobic content which targets the Rohingya people.[245] The United Nations Human Rights Council has called the platform "a useful instrument for those seeking to spread hate".[246] The internet.org initiative was brought to Myanmar in 2015. Myanmar's relatively recent democratic transition did not provide the country with substantial time to form professional and reliable media outlets free from government intervention. Furthermore, approximately 1% of Myanmar's residents had internet access before internet.org. As a result, Facebook was the primary source of information and without verifiable professional media options, Facebook became a breeding ground for hate speech and disinformation. "Rumors circulating among family or friends' networks on Facebook were perceived as indistinguishable from verified news by its users."[247] Frequent anti-Rohingya sentiments included high Muslim birthrates, increasing economic influence, and plans to takeover the country. Myanmar's Facebook community was also nearly completely unmonitored by Facebook, who at the time only had two Burmese-speaking employees. In response, Facebook removed accounts which were owned by the Myanmar Armed Forces because they had previously used Facebook to incite hatred against the Rohingya people,[248][249][250] and they were currently "engaging in coordinated inauthentic behavior."[251] In February 2021, Facebook banned the Myanmar military from its platform and set up rules to ban Tatmadaw-linked businesses.[252][253] The Myanmar military was not the only account found to have incited violence. In a review undertaken by Facebook in 2018, Facebook "banned accounts and pages associated with Myanmar military personnel that were indicated by the UN as being directly responsible for the ethnic cleansing in Rakhine. The banned accounts had a widespread reach in the country, as they were followed by nearly 12 million accounts, which is about half of all Myanmar's Facebook users."[247]

Heres an entire page abkut the abuses Facebook allows.

Facebook content management controversies - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[Secret Chief]

I'm not agreeing with any of this, but can you give a few examples, perhaps you can change my mind?

Read The Chaos Machine by Max Fisher.

 

[icehorse]

@icehorse
Rohingya genocide - Wikipedia

Heres an entire page abkut the abuses Facebook allows.

Facebook content management controversies - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Okay, well the UN Human rights council has long been captured by Islam, so its conclusion of "Islamophobia" is suspect.
In the wiki article, it also discusses how journalists were censored.

Let's be clear, I'm not supporting any violence. I'm appalled by what happened to the Rohingya.

But I stand firm that the answer to this kind of situation is not censorship. Let's assume Facebook knew what was going on. I think the far, far better answer is to say that Facebook would have to add footnotes and refutations and such to the "inciting" posts. Not to delete them! If these posts were deleted, then the ability to fight against them would be hampered.

We fight bad speech with good speech, not with censorship.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

You aren't understanding my point. It's not social media directly causing them, such as a starving mom stealing food to feed her kids, but it's enabling and flaming them by promoting misinformation that is saturated in emotional wording that flairs senses of moral outrage, giving super charged voices to violent minorities who otherwise would have went unnoticed and heavily scrutinized. But the way social media is set up it's actually been noted in research time and time again to making the average attention span shorter and shorter. It's designed to discouraging thinking and instead encourage people to like and share and move on to the next item. Amd what's next? More of what you liked and shared, but increasingly insulated, one sided, many algorithm rabit holes lead to extremist content. It's this extremists content that is built on misinformation that we have seen as a catalyst in violence time and time again because these social media companies are no different than RJ Reynolds or the NFL in knowing there are dangers to their stuff but doing nothing about it.

So you are criticizing it as a conduit perhaps, that can move information quicker, and with more potential dilution than was perhaps present in previous times? While this is concerning, I also find a lack of human training to be concerning, regarding how social media is to be consumed. Is a disciplined individual a sufficient control point, or not? If you cannot dismiss false information as an individual, it is difficult to presuppose social media as the most fundamental variable in the problem, no?

 

[icehorse]

Read The Chaos Machine by Max Fisher.

And what conclusions did Max fisher arrive at?

 

[blü 2]

I agree that there are currently limits on free speech. I do not think those should be further abridged.

As for acts of mobs, again, you're shifting the goalposts, we're talking about speech.

You're cool with hate speech then? You think it benefits society?

I fear our respective views are separated by a wide gulf.

And the mob and hate speech have a long history of acting in unison in the US, right through to the sacking of the Capitol.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Is a disciplined individual a sufficient control point, or not? If you cannot dismiss false information as an individual, it is difficult to presuppose social media as the most fundamental variable in the problem, no?

The issue is having to keep at bay hundreds of thousands of years of evolutionary behavior that gets exploited by these algorithms. Doesn't matter who, we're still people and even Einstein needed time to realize what he called his biggest blunder (rejecting newer and better evidence in front of him).
Also, we.just don't see these fantasies of discipline and willpower and other similar ideas ever really explaining the world in ways that are better than others. Such as group thought and pressure to conform which has been observed, noted anf study to typically come before logical thought. It's just who amd what we are as a species.

 

[icehorse]

You're cool with hate speech then? You think it benefits society?

I fear our respective views are separated by a wide gulf.

And the mob and hate speech have a long history of acting in unison in the US, right through to the sacking of the Capitol.

If you're not going to read my posts, I won't respond further to you.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Okay, well the UN Human rights council has long been captured by Islam, so its conclusion of "Islamophobia" is suspect.
In the wiki article, it also discusses how journalists were censored.

Let's be clear, I'm not supporting any violence. I'm appalled by what happened to the Rohingya.

But I stand firm that the answer to this kind of situation is not censorship. Let's assume Facebook knew what was going on. I think the far, far better answer is to say that Facebook would have to add footnotes and refutations and such to the "inciting" posts. Not to delete them! If these posts were deleted, then the ability to fight against them would be hampered.

We fight bad speech with good speech, not with censorship.

Just to clarify, you think it's better they allow groups who encourage rape, child abuse and anorexia and they should allow content that leads to genocide?

 

[icehorse]

Just to clarify, you think it's better they allow groups who encourage rape, child abuse and anorexia and they should allow content that leads to genocide?

The long standing test is whether speech is likely to cause IMMINENT violence. Seems like a good test.

If some speech is not that, then no matter how horrific, I think the best policy is to allow the speech and simultaneously condemn it. It is important for people understand where the bad guys stand.

 

[blü 2]

If you're not going to read my posts, I won't respond further to you.

Did I misread you? If so, my apologies.

But we disagree about the relevance of "imminence".

 

[Shadow Wolf]

The long standing test is whether speech is likely to cause IMMINENT violence. Seems like a good test.

It's it imminent, it has caused it. It already happened and is happening.

If some speech is not that, then no matter how horrific, I think the best policy is to allow the speech and simultaneously condemn it. It is important for people understand where the bad guys stand.

So why ignore the topic? Why dodge my questions? We established long ago we are not talking about speech that merely offends but speech that leads to homes being set on fire amd people.burning alive, people chased onto land mines, women raped and summarily executed with the men and babies (alive) being thrown into a fire.
People have been condemning it and it is not enough. The violence continues, including rape and genocide, because of the speech you somehow think these heinous things should live in light of day because they should be discussed. What's there to discuss when a group is accusing another of sneaking infertility drugs into food and water? Emotions take over and logical, peaceful minds are known for getting labeled as a traitor who supports the object of hate.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

The issue is having to keep at bay hundreds of thousands of years of evolutionary behavior that gets exploited by these algorithms. Doesn't matter who, we're still people and even Einstein needed time to realize what he called his biggest blunder (rejecting newer and better evidence in front of him).
Also, we.just don't see these fantasies of discipline and willpower and other similar ideas ever really explaining the world in ways that are better than others. Such as group thought and pressure to conform which has been observed, noted anf study to typically come before logical thought. It's just who amd what we are as a species.

I wasn't saying it was way of explaining the world, if I understand myself correctly, I was wondering if it was a way of dealing with a world that is now apparently increasing its resolution of communication tech, although I don't know how much farther they can upgrade it from here. (maybe they'll eventually breed designer telepaths or something in 100 years, I don't know. Forget that idea, it's dumb) But even before the internet, I'm sure there were certain instances in the world where hate was spread via radio, or via books. And sure, some things shouldn't be said, but do we agree that perhaps the highest form of democracy might end with individual choice? By repelling the bad ideas of others on the individual level, that is some sense the most effective form of voting in which an individual partakes, right?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I wasn't saying it was way of explaining the world, if I understand myself correctly, I was wondering if it was a way of dealing with a world that is now apparently increasing its resolution of communication tech, although I don't know how much farther they can upgrade it from here. (maybe they'll eventually breed designer telepaths or something in 100 years, I don't know. Forget that idea, it's dumb) But even before the internet, I'm sure there were certain instances in the world where hate was spread via radio, or via books. And sure, some things shouldn't be said, but do we agree that perhaps the highest form of democracy might end with individual choice? By repelling the bad ideas of others on the individual level, that is some sense the most effective form of voting in which an individual partakes, right?

You had to wait weeks for your magazine, pour through library catalogs looking for leads to order that tape amd search newspaper and magazine classifieds to find groups you had to drive through.
It wasn't instant, it wasn't widespread, it wasn't easy to find and it was significantly harder to organize large movements and events.

 

[Secret Chief]

And what conclusions did Max fisher arrive at?

Social media plays a key role in initiating and spreading violence in society.

 

[icehorse]

It's it imminent, it has caused it. It already happened and is happening.

So why ignore the topic? Why dodge my questions? We established long ago we are not talking about speech that merely offends but speech that leads to homes being set on fire amd people.burning alive, people chased onto land mines, women raped and summarily executed with the men and babies (alive) being thrown into a fire.
People have been condemning it and it is not enough. The violence continues, including rape and genocide, because of the speech you somehow think these heinous things should live in light of day because they should be discussed. What's there to discuss when a group is accusing another of sneaking infertility drugs into food and water? Emotions take over and logical, peaceful minds are known for getting labeled as a traitor who supports the object of hate.

I'm ignoring nothing, I'm disagreeing.
I'm not dodging, I'm disagreeing.
"We" have established no such thing. You claimed it, I think your claim would be darned hard to prove.

I don't "somehow think" what you think I do.

I'm not surprised that condemnation is insufficient.
Again, you haven't proven that without this speech things would be different.

I'm not talking about having discussions with these thugs, ffs. I'm talking about good people being able to listen to what these thugs say so that these thugs can be better understood and dealt with. You know the old saying "know your enemy". That's all I'm talking about.

 

[icehorse]

Social media plays a key role in initiating and spreading violence in society.

Again, that seems like a darned hard thing to prove. And again, I'm no fan of social media.

 

[Secret Chief]

Again, that seems like a darned hard thing to prove.

Again, read the book.

"From a New York Times investigative reporter, this “authoritative and devastating account of the impacts of social media” (New York Times Book Review) tracks the high-stakes inside story of how Big Tech’s breakneck race to drive engagement—and profits—at all costs fractured the world. The Chaos Machine is “an essential book for our times” (Ezra Klein).

We all have a vague sense that social media is bad for our minds, for our children, and for our democracies. But the truth is that its reach and impact run far deeper than we have understood. Building on years of international reporting, Max Fisher tells the gripping and galling inside story of how Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and other social network preyed on psychological frailties to create the algorithms that drive everyday users to extreme opinions and, increasingly, extreme actions. As Fisher demonstrates, the companies’ founding tenets, combined with a blinkered focus on maximizing engagement, have led to a destabilized world for everyone.

Traversing the planet, Fisher tracks the ubiquity of hate speech and its spillover into violence, ills that first festered in far-off locales, to their dark culmination in America during the pandemic, the 2020 election, and the Capitol Insurrection. Through it all, the social-media giants refused to intervene in any meaningful way, claiming to champion free speech when in fact what they most prized were limitless profits. The result, as Fisher shows, is a cultural shift toward a world in which people are polarized not by beliefs based on facts, but by misinformation, outrage, and fear."

- https://www.amazon.com/Chaos-Machine-Inside-Social-Rewired/dp/031670332X

 

[icehorse]

Again, read the book.

"From a New York Times investigative reporter, this “authoritative and devastating account of the impacts of social media” (New York Times Book Review) tracks the high-stakes inside story of how Big Tech’s breakneck race to drive engagement—and profits—at all costs fractured the world. The Chaos Machine is “an essential book for our times” (Ezra Klein).

We all have a vague sense that social media is bad for our minds, for our children, and for our democracies. But the truth is that its reach and impact run far deeper than we have understood. Building on years of international reporting, Max Fisher tells the gripping and galling inside story of how Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and other social network preyed on psychological frailties to create the algorithms that drive everyday users to extreme opinions and, increasingly, extreme actions. As Fisher demonstrates, the companies’ founding tenets, combined with a blinkered focus on maximizing engagement, have led to a destabilized world for everyone.

Traversing the planet, Fisher tracks the ubiquity of hate speech and its spillover into violence, ills that first festered in far-off locales, to their dark culmination in America during the pandemic, the 2020 election, and the Capitol Insurrection. Through it all, the social-media giants refused to intervene in any meaningful way, claiming to champion free speech when in fact what they most prized were limitless profits. The result, as Fisher shows, is a cultural shift toward a world in which people are polarized not by beliefs based on facts, but by misinformation, outrage, and fear."

- https://www.amazon.com/Chaos-Machine-Inside-Social-Rewired/dp/031670332X

"Fisher tracks the ubiquity of hate speech and its spillover into violence."

No doubt that the SM giants are horrible, no argument there.

But just using common sense and understanding a bit about complexity, I would say that the "spilloever into violence" conclusion would be extremely hard to establish. Is SM a factor, most likely. But how big a factor seems hugely complex to determine.

So SM and misinformation are huge problems, I agree. But censorship is not the solution.