Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Philosophy Club

[Fried Egg]

It seems to be particularly pertinent at this time to discuss the rights and wrongs of the censorship of "misinformation".

Most people would agree, even ardent supporters of free speech, that there should be some limits on free speech. Everyone knows the example of shouting "fire!" in a crowded theatre. And I think that much of the acceptance and support for the silencing of "misinformation" in current times arises from the belief that misinformation can be dangerous and potentially cause a lot of harm if it is believed and/or acted upon.

"Spreading misleading information about the ongoing global COVID-19 pandemic and downplaying the importance of continued mitigation practices" (to quote an actual moderation policy of an on-line platform that will remain anonymous) is the kind of thing that will get you censored/banned all over the place right now.

But I have real concerns about this that I shall elaborate on here.

• How do you precisely classify what misinformation and who gets to decide what it is (and whether it is dangerous enough to warrant censorship)?
• Censoring misinformation is used by authoritarian regimes as a justification/smokescreen for clamping down on dissent. Can any government or corporate entities be trusted not to abuse this power?
• Will the quest to stamp out misinformation inevitably become something that protects orthodoxy and opposes heterodoxy? Aren't all new ideas heterodox to start with?
• When a subject has become politicized, is it inevitable "misinformation" from one side of the debate becomes more rigorously clamped down on than the other?
• Is there a danger that silencing, cancelling, de-platforming, demonetizing, (etc.) people that convey misinformation (rather than confronting and engaging with them) going to fuel support for conspiracy theories?
• Is there a difference between government and corporate/private censorship? Should private companies (including social media platforms, online payment platforms) be free to censor and ban people for whatever reasons they like?

What are your thoughts on the subject?

[Sy Borg]

My own thoughts as a moderator (note, I never wanted to moderate anything - I preferred being a free rebel - but fell into the role because no one else was available), is that a forum is private property and can reasonably be treated as such.

Thus, if someone enters your physical property, you feel entitled to set behavioural boundaries. Likewise, when people enter Scott's virtual property, which he paid for with his money, energy and ideas, they ideally respect his rules and, if they don't, then it is reasonable for his delegates to take proportional action.

Also, systems have a way of cutting one's options. For instance, during COVID, it was dangerous for outlets to permit misinformation, which could potentially lead to lawsuits or prosecution. So it was fair and reasonable for outlets to reduce their exposure to legal jeopardy.

But, as you say, the risk of abuse is significant. Look at what happens to Russians who speak truthfully about their country's invasion of Ukraine. Look at what happens to those in China who point out flaws in Xi's regime.

Ultimately, what's needed is for all parties to operate in good faith and censor speech as little as possible, which is sadly about as realistic as recommending world peace.

[heracleitos]

What are your thoughts on the subject?

In "arbitrary information" or general censorship, the messages being dropped are potentially of any nature.

In financial censorship, the messages being dropped are structured, actionable, formal payment instructions.

In my opinion, users are not necessarily willing to pay particularly much for solving the problem of general censorship. That is why relatively few people are currently working on the problem.

For defeating financial censorship, on the other hand, users are clearly willing to pay much more. Therefore, black markets to defeat capital controls are interesting and highly lucrative software platforms to work on.

For example, now that financial messages of the Russian Federation are being systematically dropped from the SWIFT network, there is a hell of a lot of money to be made in facilitating these messages to move in and out of Russia, regardless of so-called "sanctions". The Russians are obviously willing to handsomely pay for such efforts. Another example. The United Nations are currently insisting on the creation of numerous new black markets:

United Nations recommendations

The report recommends a programme of reforms in developing economies to ... constrain capital moving ... ("to exploit tax loopholes") ... UNCTAD urges ... price controls (and "windfall taxes") ...

So, am I against censorship?

Not necessarily, because censorship often represents fantastic business opportunities. The worse the new rules, and the more impactful they are, the more likely that there are users willing to pay for circumventing them. So, worse is better.

We can conclude that if you do not like general censorship, that you may ask yourself the question how much you are willing to pay to defeat all of that? If you are not willing to pay, then the incentive structure says that nothing much is going to happen either.

[Samana Johann]

What's misinformation, especially in relation to intention? And how trace either rightly? So better to, if feeling the need, censure wrong speech, yet "not guilty as long as not really clear" is well adopted as well. In all cases very risky to play judge if neither able to really know own minds qualities not to speak of that of others.

"If you can't control your mouth, there's no way you can hope to control your mind.' This is why right speech is so important in day-to-day practice.

Right speech, explained in negative terms, means avoiding four types of harmful speech: lies (words spoken with the intent of misrepresenting the truth); divisive speech (spoken with the intent of creating rifts between people); harsh speech (spoken with the intent of hurting another person's feelings); and idle chatter (spoken with no purposeful intent at all).

Right judging requires to stand outside, being not involved or attached. One who takes on the task of control will always harm others for the sake of his.

[Fried Egg]

My own thoughts as a moderator (note, I never wanted to moderate anything - I preferred being a free rebel - but fell into the role because no one else was available), is that a forum is private property and can reasonably be treated as such.

Thus, if someone enters your physical property, you feel entitled to set behavioural boundaries. Likewise, when people enter Scott's virtual property, which he paid for with his money, energy and ideas, they ideally respect his rules and, if they don't, then it is reasonable for his delegates to take proportional action.

A small internet forum like this is one thing but is there a limit to the "it's a private company" defense?

What about a ubiquitous social media platform like twitter, facebook or youtube?

How about having your account closed by an online payment firm like paypal because you shared allegedly "misinformation" that wasn't even on any website owned by paypal?

Is it okay if your bank decides to close your account without warning because of something you've said?

They are all private companies and so should be free to censor, de-platform or demonetize whoever they like? Somewhere along that scale I start getting uncomfortable.

Also I think it is generally concerning when internet platforms take "editorial" policies on political issues as they drive out the other side of the debate which leads to a ghettoisation of the internet, dividing people into their respective echo chambers where their pre-existing beliefs are only ever re-enforced and never challenged. I don't really think that is a good thing.

[Pattern-chaser]

It seems to be particularly pertinent at this time to discuss the rights and wrongs of the censorship of "misinformation".

Most people would agree, even ardent supporters of free speech, that there should be some limits on free speech. Everyone knows the example of shouting "fire!" in a crowded theatre. And I think that much of the acceptance and support for the silencing of "misinformation" in current times arises from the belief that misinformation can be dangerous and potentially cause a lot of harm if it is believed and/or acted upon.

What are your thoughts on the subject?

In these days of 'alt-truth', I think there is likely to be some difficulty in agreeing what is misinformation and what is not. Nowadays, truth is created by statement and repetition alone, and such 'truths' are strengthened in the face of criticism or contrary evidence. Facts have nothing to do with it any more.

We believe and assert our opinions, whatever they might be. Our right to have an opinion has been somehow transformed into a right for that opinion to be correct, and accepted as so by all.

How do we navigate such a minefield as this?

[heracleitos]

How do you precisely classify what misinformation and who gets to decide what it is (and whether it is dangerous enough to warrant censorship)?

Simple! It is "obvious".

For example, "everyone knows that" gender is not even a social construct, since gender is just an illusion. Gender does not even exist. It is merely a biological misconception debunked over and over again by scientific research. There are no men and women. That view insists on arbitrarily discriminating between people in order to facilitate oppression by the patriarchy. It is the result of toxic masculinity, which by the way, does not even exist, because masculinity is an imaginary notion. Anybody who argues otherwise, is "spreading misinformation" and needs to be cancelled.

Furthermore, the Biden administration urgently needs to allocate an additional $25 billion to hit this point home, and to globally eradicate all the misinformation that exists on this matter.

[Samana Johann]

How do you precisely classify what misinformation and who gets to decide what it is (and whether it is dangerous enough to warrant censorship)?

Simple! It is "obvious".

For example, "everyone knows that" gender is not even a social construct, since gender is just an illusion. Gender does not even exist. It is merely a biological misconception debunked over and over again by scientific research. There are no men and women. That view insists on arbitrarily discriminating between people in order to facilitate oppression by the patriarchy. It is the result of toxic masculinity, which by the way, does not even exist, because masculinity is an imaginary notion. Anybody who argues otherwise, is "spreading misinformation" and needs to be cancelled.

Furthermore, the Biden administration urgently needs to allocate an additional $25 billion to hit this point home, and to globally eradicate all the misinformation that exists on this matter.

Beings come together, gather together, again and again, on an element. Virtuous with virtuose, unvituose with unvirtuose, those not killing with those not killing, not stealing... not lying... after war with those after war... rejoicing in sexual misconduct, with those rejoicing on sexual misconduct... relaying on same entertaining, food, depending on each other for desired way of living, trade.

Nobody can help them. How one perceives (likes to perceive, capable to...) so one thinks, how one thinks, so one speaks, so one acts.

Some see "equal" as the way out of incapacity, and wish to cut down all to the lowest common attributes, expecting to be than at peace, expecting it as a gain.

Only when one changes ancestorship, "gone wise", one simply leaves them behind, related then to the Noble Ones, knows that hard to even get oneself under right control.

That's personal attaining, can't be forced by anybody else. Yet natural to keep right or just unwished ideas, views, out of their community. Blessed if not in relation with fools, blessed if gained existence where right view florishes, doesn't decay, isn't disappeared, good householder.

[Sy Borg]

My own thoughts as a moderator (note, I never wanted to moderate anything - I preferred being a free rebel - but fell into the role because no one else was available), is that a forum is private property and can reasonably be treated as such.

Thus, if someone enters your physical property, you feel entitled to set behavioural boundaries. Likewise, when people enter Scott's virtual property, which he paid for with his money, energy and ideas, they ideally respect his rules and, if they don't, then it is reasonable for his delegates to take proportional action.

A small internet forum like this is one thing but is there a limit to the "it's a private company" defense?

What about a ubiquitous social media platform like twitter, facebook or youtube?

How about having your account closed by an online payment firm like paypal because you shared allegedly "misinformation" that wasn't even on any website owned by paypal?

Is it okay if your bank decides to close your account without warning because of something you've said?

They are all private companies and so should be free to censor, de-platform or demonetize whoever they like? Somewhere along that scale I start getting uncomfortable.

Also I think it is generally concerning when internet platforms take "editorial" policies on political issues as they drive out the other side of the debate which leads to a ghettoisation of the internet, dividing people into their respective echo chambers where their pre-existing beliefs are only ever re-enforced and never challenged. I don't really think that is a good thing.

Compared with those things, an online forum is small potatoes. Your first examples seem like the kinds of measures one expects in China.

Put it this way, if you had a business, would you want to be able to set the rules for how it engages with the public and other businesses? There are limits to those rules already, though, eg. a restaurant can't legally refuse service on the basis or race or gender. There's all manner of commercial and employment laws, including privacy laws (the latter have been neutered significantly, alas).

As for internet platforms, it depends. A monopoly or duopoly needs to be more inclusive than small specialised forums, where users can choose viable alternatives.

Whatever, how do you control the actions of a trillion-dollar corporation? Only by going the way of Xi and Putin, and they have facilitated a huge brain drain by driving entrepreneurs and prominent businesses out of their countries through their capricious ways. Businesses value reliability,

[Fried Egg]

I don't think corporations care about "misinformation" in the slightest (or any of the other of the "right on" issues they like to associate with). They simply respond to public clamour and want to be seen to be doing the right thing.

It wasn't too long ago there was a public clamour for big tech companies to clamp down on "misinformation" and so this is what some of them are doing. If the public clamour for them to stand up for free speech, they will likely change their policies.

However, maybe there does need to be some basic legal protections in place in some cases. In this drive towards a cashless society, people need some rights to protect themselves against being suddenly and unexpectedly cut off from their incomes (and with very little explanation, or any kind of appeal process).

[Samana Johann]

Just because nobody would tell and nobody else at broad able to tell, since not far off of dependecy:

Public has, and will, neither (have) interest on right information nor would payed ever provide such, since people at large are interested in food (identification) and do not dislike more then disenchantment.

Western medias, others as western might believe, has gone far awary from even ethical journalism, is total based on bias, opinion-transport and hardly ever transports any right reflection, avoids every praise of praise-worthy and draws a total wrong picture.

Ironical those who think that they are more free, more liberal, are actually in the total contrary position, while the other side simply knows and respects red lines while enjoying much more liberality then those thinking they are slaves of tyranny.

That's simply the outcome of demo-crazy, far off of real facts, sober reports and focus on good encouragement. An all around hungry, greedy, demanding, caught in pseudo liberalism, yet total attached to everything (just not his duties), is by nature bond to not only be unfree, slave, but also increase debts and bonds, meaning also even lesser seeing through the net, not to speak of gained exit.

Public call naturally means large public disaster. Why? Because common and public are by nature not wise so how could majority and their likes be of any orientation at large?

Media that isn't at least exclusively fond by leaders or government or moral bond institutions (say religion leader) is by nature incapable to serve for a good at least for they own community, not to speak about at large.

But it is to "fear" that this times are gone for the most and wildness and fear naturally increases, swifting more and more from one extreme to the other.

The thing is that today praised opposing, rebelling, disregarding of one's leaders of communities, next to parents, teacher, holly, leads not only to total destruction and split of what ever community but is also gross bad action, leading to low states.

One is of course free to censure this "political incorrect" (not for trade and gains purposed) account, and nothing to fear that the author wouldn't understand (which does not mean approve) biases of many kinds.

[Sculptor1]

It seems to be particularly pertinent at this time to discuss the rights and wrongs of the censorship of "misinformation".

Most people would agree, even ardent supporters of free speech, that there should be some limits on free speech. Everyone knows the example of shouting "fire!" in a crowded theatre. And I think that much of the acceptance and support for the silencing of "misinformation" in current times arises from the belief that misinformation can be dangerous and potentially cause a lot of harm if it is believed and/or acted upon.

"Spreading misleading information about the ongoing global COVID-19 pandemic and downplaying the importance of continued mitigation practices" (to quote an actual moderation policy of an on-line platform that will remain anonymous) is the kind of thing that will get you censored/banned all over the place right now.

But I have real concerns about this that I shall elaborate on here.

• How do you precisely classify what misinformation and who gets to decide what it is (and whether it is dangerous enough to warrant censorship)?
• Censoring misinformation is used by authoritarian regimes as a justification/smokescreen for clamping down on dissent. Can any government or corporate entities be trusted not to abuse this power?
• Will the quest to stamp out misinformation inevitably become something that protects orthodoxy and opposes heterodoxy? Aren't all new ideas heterodox to start with?
• When a subject has become politicized, is it inevitable "misinformation" from one side of the debate becomes more rigorously clamped down on than the other?
• Is there a danger that silencing, cancelling, de-platforming, demonetizing, (etc.) people that convey misinformation (rather than confronting and engaging with them) going to fuel support for conspiracy theories?
• Is there a difference between government and corporate/private censorship? Should private companies (including social media platforms, online payment platforms) be free to censor and ban people for whatever reasons they like?

What are your thoughts on the subject?

I think we are a very log way off so much as restricting some of the worst and most dangerous lies and disinformation out there.
The recent case of Alex Jones is a case in point. It has taken years to bring him to book on the most ridiculous and hurtful claims he has made about the facts of the Sandy Hook shootings.
This together with many other claims such as "pizzagate", and claiming covid 19 is a hoax have done serious harm, yet he is still at liberty.
Freedom of speech is one thing but freedom from the consequences of free speech are something else.

However most of the findings against Jones have led, not to any serious consequence, but have ended in nothing more than an admission of his lies and an apology. (Pizzagate claims, Chobani yogurt claims and false flag accusations from the Charlottesville car attack).

He has finally been asked to pay damages to the parents of Sandy Hook, circa $900,000,000. We have yet to see any money change hands.

[Fried Egg]

[q]I think we are a very log way off so much as restricting some of the worst and most dangerous lies and disinformation out there.[/quote]
I'm certainly not disagreeing that there is much "misinformation" out there and some of it is probably quite harmful. Yet I feel that attempts to clamp down on it often go too far and/or misfire in other ways.

How you balance the scales is a perennial problem that's not going away any time soon but personally I feel that free speech is sometimes held as sacrosanct as it should be.

[Good_Egg]

Most people would agree, even ardent supporters of free speech, that there should be some limits on free speech. Everyone knows the example of shouting "fire!" in a crowded theatre. And I think that much of the acceptance and support for the silencing of "misinformation" in current times arises from the belief that misinformation can be dangerous and potentially cause a lot of harm if it is believed and/or acted upon.

First, we should distinguish "limits on free speech" that relate to defamation, to attacks on the good name of a person, from the topic at hand. Which is whether there are limits that relate to advocating or encouraging risky behaviour, I.e. behaviour that is likely to result in harm if large numbers of people do it. One can believe in one limit without believing in the other.

Secondly, is it not the case that shouting "Fire!" In a theatre is what one is supposed to do if one has a well-founded belief that there is in fact a fire ? If the alternative is quietly slipping away and leaving others to burn ?

Clearly it is wrong if done mischievously. But the wrong is thus a wrong intent rather than an inherently-wrong action.

Are not those who believe their own "misinformation" innocent ?

[Sy Borg]

If you have something wrong with you are you keep imagining seeing fires at the local cinema and shout "Fire!' on a regular basis, I expect you would be banned by the cinema, innocent or otherwise.