Slashdot Mirror
Ask Slashdot: Is Deliberately Misleading People On the Internet Free Speech?
Slashdot reader dryriver writes:
Before anyone cries "free speech must always be free," let me qualify the question. Under a myriad of different internet sites and blogs are these click-through adverts that promise quick "miracle cures" for everything from toenail fungus to hair loss to tinnitus to age-related skin wrinkles to cancer. A lot of the ads begin with copy that reads "This one weird trick cures....." Most of the "cures" on offer are complete and utter crap designed to lift a few dollars from the credit cards of hundreds of thousands of gullible internet users. The IQ boosting pills that supposedly give you "amazing mental focus after just 2 weeks" don't work at all. Neither do any of the anti-ageing or anti-wrinkle creams, regardless of which "miracle berry" extract they put in them this year. And if you try to cure your cancer with an Internet remedy rather than seeing a doctor, you may actually wind up dead.
So the question -- is peddling this stuff online really "free speech"? You are promising something grandiose in exchange for hard cash that you know doesn't deliver any benefits at all.
Long-time Slashdot reader apraetor counters, "But how do you determine what is 'true'?" And Slashdot reader ToTheStars argues "It's already established that making claims about medicine is subject to scrutiny by the FDA (or the relevant authority in your jurisdiction)." But are other things the equivalent of yelling "fire" in a crowded movie theatre? Leave your best thoughts in the comments. Is deliberately misleading people on the internet free speech?
So the question -- is peddling this stuff online really "free speech"? You are promising something grandiose in exchange for hard cash that you know doesn't deliver any benefits at all.
Long-time Slashdot reader apraetor counters, "But how do you determine what is 'true'?" And Slashdot reader ToTheStars argues "It's already established that making claims about medicine is subject to scrutiny by the FDA (or the relevant authority in your jurisdiction)." But are other things the equivalent of yelling "fire" in a crowded movie theatre? Leave your best thoughts in the comments. Is deliberately misleading people on the internet free speech?
I'm taking the conservative approach: If it's legal it's free speech. Otherwise the advertisers wouldn't risk posting said info.
I can't accept that "if it's free speech it's legal" approach. Otherwise speech promoting violence and hatred would be legal.
Ad's do not fall under free speech protection (at least in most countries). Most countries have legal frameworks for what is and is not acceptable advertising. For instance here in Australia most of those Ads are actually completely illegal as they fall under false advertising... good luck pursuing them on that though given most are not based in country.
"on the internet" matters when it's an issue of Bob lying to sell a widget on Amazon. If Bob was in a store selling widgets, the fraud is clear. If Bob is effectively anonymous and Amazon is the seller, with Bob's referral code, once the product arrives and the fraud is detected, taking action against Bob is almost impossible.
It's not about "legal" but "enforceable". They are different, but related.
Learn to love Alaska
... then in effect are asking for a definition of "free speech" after the fact. Logically, this doesn't make much sense. However, if you *do* start from the axiom "free speech is good" you need to either find or construct a definition that is consistent with that axiom. In the meantime assuming that axiom does allow you to examine whether individual cases can be covered as "free speech".
If you start with the axiom that free speech is *always* good, then unless you think selling fraudulent medicine is good then your definition of "free speech" needs to exclude that.
If you start with the axiom that free speech is only *sometimes* good, then your definition can encompass selling fraudulent medicine; however that also raises the possibility that you should *sometimes* oppose free speech.
There are some people who clearly believe that free speech entails complete freedom from legal consequences -- including for libel, or deliberate misinformation that predictably harms or even kills someone. However I suspect there's an element of sloppy thinking there. We've all been raised to regard "free speech" as inviolable, so adopting a broader concept of "free speech" is a handy way of sneaking other things into the tent.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
community moderation when it comes to free speech is the absolute WORST system, it engenders reader bias and the site pretty much becomes as you mentioned an echo chamber for views supported by the majority. you only have to look at comments called out as shills or downvoted to oblivion for when they legitimately comment something that differs from the group think (and by differ I mean a legitimate opinion or view not the scumbag trolls and real company shills).
you have clearly highlighted the problem by providing your own FUD about Microsoft which pretty much guarentees you will be modded up regardless of how infactual much of it is.
"The real tragedy of the poor is the poverty of their aspirations."
- Adam Smith
lucm, indeed.
Actually, I can observe the exact opposite.
In the US (and other areas where information is free and available), I can see an incredible naivete, the willingness to believe any kind of bullshit offered, believed with zero evidence and even against unsurmountable evidence against it.
Yet I do know countries with a tight restriction and control of information where people respond warily to anything you present to them and will critically test it for validity, desperate to actually find out what IS true.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.