Ok, let me see just how far off the same page we are: would you argue that the state should not, for example, regulate truth-in-advertising?
I think you'll need to provide examples; I don't see that happening in the internet era.
I'm not advocating that the State should be able to make certain speech illegal for a private citizen, but rather to regulate speech in certain circumstances (with its areas of authority being strictly enumerated). We already regulate advertising (less than we should, imho); I'd also suggest, for example, that any entity calling itself "news" should be regulated for truth-content -- basically an extension of truth-in-advertising: "news" implies true information, so if you're advertising yourself as purveying "news" it had better be truthful (or clearly labelled as something else).
3b. You're not wrong about the dangers -- but I don't think we can say "it's a difficult problem, so let's not even consider trying to solve it". I think we have to figure out how to solve it if we're going to survive this era.
I think maybe you're placing certain kinds of truth / understanding on one side of a sharp line, and certain kinds on another -- but I don't think the line is as sharp as you seem to think.
1) Ok, so we're talking about the principle of free speech, not the implementation. Your position makes more sense to me in that light.
I could nitpick that there's still some gray area around edge-cases, but that's a much lower order of disagreement than where I thought we were.
1b) Just because a thing can become political doesn't negate the need to do it. Is there anything -- any function of government -- for which this is not true?
2) That logic only works if the government's social network is (or becomes) the only social network. If that was the case, then I'd tend to agree with you -- but I don't think it necessarily is... especially if the social network in question is itself a node on the fediverse.
3) If I make a contract with a large entity, wherein I agree to provide goods or services in exchange for payment, with most of the payment to be provided only after I have done my end of the bargain, and then the entity in question decides not to pay me because they don't have to...
...and the government refuses to step in, because the entity says the contract didn't actually say they had to pay me (or I didn't provide the good/service as required, or some other arbitrary condition was not met -- whether or not the contract actually says what they say it says) -- how is that contract valid anymore?
3b) Science is not a governance method, but governance would do a much better job if it were driven by scientific methodology rather than being the spectator sport that it is now.
You're putting the cart before the horse: the State should not define how science determines the truth, agreed. I'm saying that science should determine how the State determines the truth.
"how do you give me p-significant data that your findings MUST lead to censorship?" -- which particular findings are you referring to?
"At what point would a state censor then update their censorship guidelines on that particular topic?" How do we update encyclopedias when we discover new things, or learn that things we thought were true are in fact wrong (or incomplete) in some way?
@Sustainable2050 Trump is like the Oceangate of morality: always going far lower than any reasonable person would recommend, and eventually imploding.
I only hope he follows the pattern and takes a bunch of billionaires with him too.
(1) That's clearer, at least... but are you truly suggesting that free speech is always perfectly enforced, if it's enforced at all?
(1b) You are arguing that there is no such thing as objectively harmful speech?
(2) So if a government ran a social network, then there's no freedom of speech in that jurisdiction?
(3) Yes this is a sticky wicket -- but if you go to the opposite extreme, then basically there's no regulation at all, including of basic libertarian institutions like contracts; society becomes rule by the strongest.
(Some people are apparently fine with that, but I don't think it is compatible with the ever-increasing power technology creates for abuse. There's room for discussion on this issue, but not a lot.)
I would argue that there need to be clearer rules by which truth is determined -- in short, the scientific method, but that needs to be spelled out in more detail. (This is directly up my alley.)
...but yeah, how to properly mediate the distribution of information (protecting people from disinformation and protecting the individual right to self-expression) is a HUGE problem now, and only getting larger. (imho)
when dwarf fortress had money for a very brief period (this was before I started playing it and back when you couldn't dig down at all), players ran into a problem: a functioning society does not require 100% of its members to be productive.
so you would end up with dwarves for whom there was no work available, but because there was no work available, they could not afford any of the abundant high quality food and clothing and other goods.
and from this starting scenario and essentially physics-mandated capitalism comes a logical solution found by players.
if dwarves must complete jobs in order to earn money that they can use to purchase comfort, but comfort is extremely abundant, the solution is to create jobs that don't produce anything
and because of how Dwarf Fortress works, "pull the lever" is a job.
so players found they could build a room full of levers, not attached to anything, and assign the task of pulling each lever on repeat to whoever was available.
dwarves who could not find work otherwise would walk into the room and flip their lever from side to side, accomplishing literally nothing, until they got bored or hungry or tired and left to use the money they had "earned" to rectify that.
Tarn Adams found it was a better solution to simply delete capitalism.
and that's the story of why Dwarf Fortress no longer has an economy.
Got myself a bunch of #Shelly Plugs. It's nice that while they do offer Cloud, I can just add a script that sends the meter data anywhere…
https://codeberg.org/michael-simons/pv/src/branch/main/bin/send_switch_status.js
Yes, I did vibe this together, no that does not mean I used #AI, I just read the docs. AND I happily wrote a #PHP script too on the receiving end.
The whole AI-fication of Google makes it however so hard to find the OG docs and some good quality examples.
Okay. So I'm not sure what you were originally objecting to. I was concerned that "free speech absolutists" (which are an identity that exists) would abuse EU "free speech" regulations somehow to spread misinformation within EU-operated social venues.
You said there was no such thing as "free speech absolutism" because freedom of speech is an absolute binary*... which doesn't address my concern at all, but suggests that when it comes to government-moderated venues, you'd prefer unfettered disinformation over any kind of (possibly arbitrary or politically-driven) moderation by government operatives.
If that's not what you meant, then I suspect we're not actually in disagreement -- but I don't know how else to interpret it.
(* which, to my mind, kinda definitionally means that you yourself are in fact a "free speech absolutist", but whatever; the applicability of such labels is a side-issue)
@thehomespundays Ha, we also saw/photographed a red-shouldered hawk today (in Durham)! (Your photo is much better than the ones we took, however.)
cc: @Harena
Reminder: a person in the RICHEST 0.1 percent causes more carbon pollution in one DAY than someone in the BOTTOM 50 percent does in a whole YEAR.
The high carbon lifestyles of the super rich are burning through the world’s remaining carbon budget and costing us our future.
@maho You're avoiding addressing the questions I asked, pretending I asked something else and then claiming that what you act as if I asked is irrelevant.
Try again. You're arguing that there is no "free speech absolutism" because all free speech advocacy is either absolute or meaningless; I'm saying no, that's a false dichotomy. You reiterated that you think it is.
I then asked some questions about how freedom of speech applies in certain narrow contexts. If you truly believe that freedom of speech is an all-or-nothing condition, then it should be easy for you to answer those questions in that manner (I.e. yes or no).
That said, your 3rd paragraph shows me that you do understand it's not all-or-nothing: it only applies to how the government treats the speech of individuals.
I suppose it's possible that you're truly not familiar with the "free speech absolutist" position which holds, for example, that:
(I'm probably spending way too much time steelmanning your words in the hope that you actually are somehow arguing in good faith, but I find it helpful sometimes to encourage a stated position like yours to roll all the way to its logical conclusion.)
@ElleGray With right-wingers, it's never about actual principles (or even reality); it's all about making the other side look bad, so their side can win.
"Just so happens": nope -- and I think you totally know that's not what I meant.
Please, tell me more about "uncensored by definition". Does it include the right to lie in all circumstances? Does it include the right for your speech to be heard by every intended recipient, regardless of consent? Does it include the right for speech to be free of consequences to the speaker?
(Aside to @xgebi : sometimes, I enjoy toying with my prey. A little fried sealion sounds yummy right now -- it's been a long day.)
🌈 Did You Know: While most media file-types are measured either in gigabytes (GB) or gibibytes (GiB), anime video files are measured in Ghiblibytes (GhiB). It's true! :verified_paw: #LowQualityFacts
The context here for anyone who's missed it https://hey.paris/posts/appleid
@babe I remember similar dynamics when Google+ suddenly banned kids under some-number-I-don't-remember. It was... such a dense thing to do. ...but I guess history is made for rich people to repeat. >.<
@suricrasia Agoraphobia Conversion Therapy! :blobcatupsidedown:
(Actually, wouldn't Agoraphobia mean "fear of the lack of gore"? I am smart and clever.)
