It can be simultaneously true that FB moving away from fact checkers is overall objectively positive for free speech AND Zuckerberg's political/profit motivations cause him to kowtow to Trump.
That's true. We can also take the position that we're glad he did the right thing, and the specific motivations don't matter much. Of course that begs the question of what happens if the Democrat Left re-takes the White House in 2026.
The cure for incorrect information isn’t censorship, it’s more information explaining why it was wrong. If you can’t produce convincing evidence that something is wrong, perhaps it isn’t really wrong.
Many times challenging ideas on FB is seen as "punching down", depending on the demographics of the person posting a meme, etc. that needs challenging in pursuit of the truth, as well as the person making the challenge. FB Community Notes will improve that dynamic.
Nothing has changed the fact that sunlight is the best disinfectant.
The fact that the "truth arbiters" made some doozy, laughable decisions with serious real-world consequences has really hurt their cause.
The big question ignored in this piece is whether Meta's move will be compliant with the EU's DSA. If the censorious busybodies in Brussels disagree, then Meta is still in a world of trouble (unless it shuts down in the EU or is willing to pay huge fines).
I am fairly sure that the police were investigating Allison Pearson for a crime (hate speech of some sort), not a “non-crime hate incident.” The Academy of Ideas podcast for 22 Nov interviewed her lawyer, Luke Gittos, and he was very clear about that. He also explained why the confusion arose. The discussion is near the beginning.
I think this writer forget how mean the mob is- to reveal embedded bias on the side of peace, civility and albeit ever- evolving scientific consensus seems like a better alternative than a shoot out at the dufus coral. Disregard for factual truth or at least strength of evidence weaponizes stupidity and worse debased public discourse. If you doubt the strength of the mob’s inclination to punch down, just look at Trump’s unabashed deployment of this principle as a political tool in his fear and hate mongering against trans people in the election. Worked like a charm. The persistence of systems of laws arising in human societies suggests that we need some structures for civility to reign in our worst tendencies. Fact- checking is difficult work that requires patience, due diligence and critical thinking. Not really the mob’s favorite . Be thoughtful , kind. I will take well intentioned, educated pretty good over perfectly mean every time.
This is all very interesting. Thank you for sharing. We should all be alarmed by these incidents in the UK and Europe. Free speech is free speech. It isn't about agreement. If I disagree, I get to speak my piece, not silence the opposition.
Except this isn’t a “freeing” of speech. It’s just switching the preferences and restricting certain disliked speech. According its new Community Standards people can’t insult the mental capacity of people - like calling someone stupid. But you can insult the mental capacity of someone because they’re homosexual.
I am a full-throated advocate for free speech and have appreciated so much of Greg’s work over the years. However, I feel like this post is (I say this respectfully) uncharacteristically naive. Community notes is better than fact checkers, but the folks the Radically Eternal Idea are very intelligent. Surely you see how supporters of the incoming administration are weaponizing “free speech” for their own political purposes.
As for the difference — the article you sent me mostly highlights propaganda and manufactured consent from the government, where I believe Trump’s administration is poising themselves to actively suppress and punish voices who speak out against them. There’s a marked difference! Where, in the name of “protecting free speech”, real censorship and shutdown of dissidence occurs.
I have mixed feelings about it - I'm not a free speech absolutist, and the comments about 2 in 10 content removals being wrong misses the point that 8 in 10 were successfully removed. Also, I don't see crowdsourcing and fact checking as an either-or proposition. I think Community Notes was a great move, but not sure the model fits Facebook (Instagram and Threads fit better). More thoughts on that here:
I'd be interested to hear what you think about the idea of The Canonical Debate: fully transparent, fully crowdsourced, de-duped, de-biased, censorship-free repository for claims of fact. It doesn't exist (yet), but assuming it did, it seems to me it would be the necessary bridge between "absolute free speech" and "constructive discourse":
It can be simultaneously true that FB moving away from fact checkers is overall objectively positive for free speech AND Zuckerberg's political/profit motivations cause him to kowtow to Trump.
That's true. We can also take the position that we're glad he did the right thing, and the specific motivations don't matter much. Of course that begs the question of what happens if the Democrat Left re-takes the White House in 2026.
Sorry to persnickety but I assume you either mean the Ds take The House of Representatives in 2026 or the White House in 2028.
The cure for incorrect information isn’t censorship, it’s more information explaining why it was wrong. If you can’t produce convincing evidence that something is wrong, perhaps it isn’t really wrong.
Seems like fact-checking is best left to free markets rather than central planners too.
Many times challenging ideas on FB is seen as "punching down", depending on the demographics of the person posting a meme, etc. that needs challenging in pursuit of the truth, as well as the person making the challenge. FB Community Notes will improve that dynamic.
Nothing has changed the fact that sunlight is the best disinfectant.
The fact that the "truth arbiters" made some doozy, laughable decisions with serious real-world consequences has really hurt their cause.
The big question ignored in this piece is whether Meta's move will be compliant with the EU's DSA. If the censorious busybodies in Brussels disagree, then Meta is still in a world of trouble (unless it shuts down in the EU or is willing to pay huge fines).
Facebook’s hermetically sealed nature is likely something that allowed so much bad info to spread there for so long. This is a great idea, for sure.
I am fairly sure that the police were investigating Allison Pearson for a crime (hate speech of some sort), not a “non-crime hate incident.” The Academy of Ideas podcast for 22 Nov interviewed her lawyer, Luke Gittos, and he was very clear about that. He also explained why the confusion arose. The discussion is near the beginning.
https://open.spotify.com/episode/1f75BjKzgEj5XBVCxD26Vr
I think this writer forget how mean the mob is- to reveal embedded bias on the side of peace, civility and albeit ever- evolving scientific consensus seems like a better alternative than a shoot out at the dufus coral. Disregard for factual truth or at least strength of evidence weaponizes stupidity and worse debased public discourse. If you doubt the strength of the mob’s inclination to punch down, just look at Trump’s unabashed deployment of this principle as a political tool in his fear and hate mongering against trans people in the election. Worked like a charm. The persistence of systems of laws arising in human societies suggests that we need some structures for civility to reign in our worst tendencies. Fact- checking is difficult work that requires patience, due diligence and critical thinking. Not really the mob’s favorite . Be thoughtful , kind. I will take well intentioned, educated pretty good over perfectly mean every time.
Fact checkers can have a bias toward their own ‘facts’.
This is all very interesting. Thank you for sharing. We should all be alarmed by these incidents in the UK and Europe. Free speech is free speech. It isn't about agreement. If I disagree, I get to speak my piece, not silence the opposition.
Except this isn’t a “freeing” of speech. It’s just switching the preferences and restricting certain disliked speech. According its new Community Standards people can’t insult the mental capacity of people - like calling someone stupid. But you can insult the mental capacity of someone because they’re homosexual.
I am a full-throated advocate for free speech and have appreciated so much of Greg’s work over the years. However, I feel like this post is (I say this respectfully) uncharacteristically naive. Community notes is better than fact checkers, but the folks the Radically Eternal Idea are very intelligent. Surely you see how supporters of the incoming administration are weaponizing “free speech” for their own political purposes.
Sure. But how is this different than what is happening now? Or 10 years ago? Or a century ago?
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/how-woodrow-wilsons-propaganda-machine-changed-american-journalism-180963082/
This was an enjoyable read, thank you!
As for the difference — the article you sent me mostly highlights propaganda and manufactured consent from the government, where I believe Trump’s administration is poising themselves to actively suppress and punish voices who speak out against them. There’s a marked difference! Where, in the name of “protecting free speech”, real censorship and shutdown of dissidence occurs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedition_Act_of_1918?wprov=sfti1
I have mixed feelings about it - I'm not a free speech absolutist, and the comments about 2 in 10 content removals being wrong misses the point that 8 in 10 were successfully removed. Also, I don't see crowdsourcing and fact checking as an either-or proposition. I think Community Notes was a great move, but not sure the model fits Facebook (Instagram and Threads fit better). More thoughts on that here:
https://medium.com/@bigokro/meta-dumps-fact-checking-is-that-good-or-bad-e40848ea9940
I'd be interested to hear what you think about the idea of The Canonical Debate: fully transparent, fully crowdsourced, de-duped, de-biased, censorship-free repository for claims of fact. It doesn't exist (yet), but assuming it did, it seems to me it would be the necessary bridge between "absolute free speech" and "constructive discourse":
https://github.com/canonical-debate-lab/paper/blob/master/README.mediawiki
And he will change them right back when the Blues the majority.