I've written about freedom of speech extensively in all manner of forums, but the one thing that has become clear to me lately, is that people are genuinely uninterested in the philosophical underpinnings of freedom of speech. Today they would rather quote an XKCD comic, than John Stuart Mill's seminar work On Liberty.
Because of this, I've decided to try to reframe the original notion of freedom of speech, into a term I coined: Open Ideas.
Open Ideas is nothing more than what freedom of speech has always been historically: a philosophical declaration that the open contestation of ideas is the engine of progress that keeps moving society forward.
Today the tyranny of the majority believes freedom of speech is anything but that. They believe that "freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences", despite the fact that such term came from nowhere, has no author, and in addition all great free speech thinkers argued precisely the opposite. The great thinkers argued that if people are afraid of expressing unpopular opinions, that is functionally the same as government censorship: ideas are suppressed, society stagnates, and progress is halted.
So far I have not yet heard any sound refutation of any of these ideas. All people do is repeat the aforementioned dogmatic slogan with zero philosophical foundation, or mention First Amendment details, which obviously is not equal to freedom of speech.
How is anything I've stated in any way an inaccurate assessment of what is happening?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
If social media algorithms are made to filter certain ideas, you have censorship. And that's not how the algorithms are meant to be used in the first place. Algorithms are supposed to personalize your feed so that content you're interested in is shown to you. The argument you're using here is often used to promote censorship, and it's often combined with the argument "Freedom of speech is only a protection against government censorship", and here I'd say the same thing as OP - that it's a poisoned version of the actual concept, and poorly thought out.
Of course, this leaves some ambiguity in the definition of free speech, but I think those can be fixed if we borrow the concept of positive vs negative rights
This is obviously wishful thinking. We don’t own the algorithms. The tech companies that own the platforms own the algorithms. Companies operate in service of shareholder value. Therefore algorithms are constructed for the set of events, circumstances and behaviours that creates most shareholder value. Definitely not for you or me, no matter how many “For You” tabs you see.
The point stands. You can say whatever you want. No media / social media company is obliged to take that and bring it to one or a hundred or a million other people.
Also – and this is the most important point of all - having the freedom to say whatever you want is good, because you might win someone (or a whole society) over to your way of thinking. But if the opposite happens, and someone or society decides you’re a crackpot and they don’t want to hear from you ever again, that’s okay too. The one who listens has as much freedom as the one who speaks.
I think you're missing the point. If you wanted to talk to your mother, would I be okay with deciding what you were allowed to say? Would Google? The government? As far as I'm concerned, nobody has the right to hinder communication between anyone else. The fact that Google can even read my emails is already a disaster, and I'm quite sure reading your physical mail is highly illegal, and that the reasons behind this decision aren't invalid for digital mails.
This sounds like the freedom of association? I like that concept. What I dislike is when companies try to decide who I can associate with, as well as who can associate with me.
The internet didn't work like this before the fallacy of association began. The form of the fallacy is "If illegal content ends up on Google, Google is guilty" or "If a person writes a slur in your game chat, your game is guilty", "If you're friends with a sexist, you're likely a sexist yourself", etc. You might have heard other versions of it, like "Roblox is guilty because pedophiles use it" and "Guns should be illegal because criminals use them". The idea is sometimes mocked as "Hitler drank water once, therefore you're a nazi for enjoying water". I believe that a large chunk of all conflict in the world, and the biggest reason that ideological bubbles have become such a problem, is this very fallacy.
No I’m not missing the point. The freedom of speech people are not talking about you talking to your mother. They’re talking about being throttled or “censored” so their content doesn’t go as far as they would like it to.
You been to London? There’s a place called Speaker’s Corner in Hyde Park. I can go there, get up on a wooden box, and speak about whatever I want. If what I’m saying is well constructed and delivered, a small crowd will inevitably gather round. If not, or I’m crazy, no one will listen to me.
It seems like a ridiculous analogy, but the freedom of speech brigade think Hyde Park should usher in a hundred people and encourage them to stand there and listen to me.
In London, random people will decide if you're worth listening to or not. On social media sites, random people will never get to decide if the algorithm simply blacklists things containing words which align with specific ideologies. The algorithm doesn't even know who I am, nor has the algorithm learned that people do not want to hear what I'm saying, it's simply manually coded to prevent people from talking about certain ideas, even between people who both like said idea.
The mechanism you're describing is an algorithm which favors the content that people enjoy the most, and filters away the content that people enjoy this least, but this is not how social media algorithms work. If a website implements a neutral algorithm, and simply step back and let things take care of themselves, then they'll get in big trouble. Maybe porn will be on the frontpage, maybe one of Hitlers speeches will blow up because it's interesting, maybe bots will successfully game it, whatever. Every algorithm which exists today is carefully engineered to do specific things, and it's not true that your online following is a function of the ratio of people who want to associate with you and hear your ideas. They manually "correct" it every time content that the owners don't like become popular. I'd not dislike such an algorithm much, as it would technically be fair for all users
But
in order to get your idea in front of other people who might line your idea, it has to distribute your message to a proportion of available people who might like it. My point is, this distribution, if it happens, is a bonus. You, or nobody, is entitled to this distribution. People who complain that their reach is getting throttled are complaining that they’re not getting wider distribution, and then complain that their freedom of speech is getting unlawfully restricted. It’s not, because they are not entitled to that distribution in the first place.
The difference between talking outside and online, is that real spaces aren't moderated or owner by other people. The supermarket cannot stop other people from hearing your voice, your local park cannot make you invisible to other people. Your destribution is only hindered by the laws of physics. Imagine if, in real life, you were told "You aren't entitled to use the sidewalk", or "If nobody lets you use your local bridge, maybe you should reflect on your behaviour", or perhaps "Your local water company can refuse to sell you water if your political views do not align with theirs". This is the important difference, which it feels like you're brushing over or not noticing
If you gave a speech in the liquor isle about the dangers of alcohol, you’d be removed. You’ll also be removed for causing a disturbance. It happens all the time. Homeless people yelling at the voices in their head get kicked out quite often.
But that's because they're being a nuisance. If they spoke about the wonders of alcohol, they'd be removed all the same, so they're not kicked out for being anti-alcohol. I guess we can define "freedom of speech" as unbiased moderation, in short, it's "neutrality". So even with freedom of speech, spam is not allowed, but you can advocate in favor of any ideology as long as you do it in the proper manner.
Another important thing to note is that rights are limited when and only when they conflict with another persons rights. There's a hiarchy of importance, so certain rights overwrite others in certain contexts. This makes it appear as if precise definitions aren't possible with human-related problems like rights, but I still think it is
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link