In the US, there are only a handful of universities that don't take government funding. And even the ones that don't: what value is there to society in a "university" that does not encourage free ad lively discussion of every idea? Not much.
Unless the government funding came with an agreement to allow any and all speech, a minority of government funding doesn't count. What value would there be in a university that does not encourage free and lively discussion of every idea? Well let's say there's one that used to have no limits but now doesn't allow, for example, free and lively discussion of putting puppies in a blender. Is it now worth not much? No, the university's value is practically unchanged. Disallowing discussion of a handful of bigoted and counterfactual ideas does not diminish its value much more than that.
The laws will probably change. There's a rising tide of sentiment on the right against corporate control, and is the left really going to stand up and defend corporations against individual rights?
I'd be delighted if Facebook were forced to choose between publisher (with liability) and common carrier (with no editorial discretion).
Good luck changing those laws. And quite unfortunately there's no rising tide of sentiment on the right against corporate control, just against very specific forms of private censorship, which is why they still want wanton deregulation and aren't bothered by the Citizens United decision. So yes the left really is more pro-free-speech in the proper legal meaning of the word, that shouldn't be a surprise.
The idea that Facebook could ever be forced to choose between being a publisher and being a common carrier is based on a false dichotomy or perhaps a misunderstanding of what a publisher is. They're already liable for what's hosted on their platform, which is why they'll get their pants sued off if they don't promptly take down child porn etc.
You're essentially saying it's ok to be evil as long as you tell yourself that you're good ("reasonably agree" the other side is wrong), because even if you turn out to be wrong and was actually doing evil, the moral universe will correct you (eventually). The victors write the history books.
That's actually not far off what I'm saying, the difference is that I don't think that deplatforming is inherently evil (and therefore I'm not necessarily "being evil" by advocating it) and that I think we can get a good handle on discerning right from wrong.
The problem with suppressing wrong/hate speech is that the same argument could be made about Galileo in the 1600s or US racism in the 60s. Let me "quote" you: "Don't let the black man speak at your college, don't allow black content on your social media platform, etc. Letting them debate ideas spreads them to vulnerable people who aren't swayed by logic, and citizens should use their civil liberties and private property rights to deny these debates a venue."
A good point. And here's where the closest thing to a true "marketplace of ideas" comes into play: The "correct" position can organically win a long uphill battle, but "wrong" ones can only win if a complacent populace lets them. Civil rights leaders in the '60s were in fact widely "de-platformed," even if that's not what it was called back then, and they eventually won anyway. The entire arc of the moral universe toward justice had to be forcefully gouged through every obstacle you can imagine, but it wasn't stopped. Therefore we shouldn't be afraid to de-platform ideas that we can reasonably agree are "wrong."
Slashdot, as a private platform, should be free to ban my anti-marketplace-of-ideas speech if they wish - legally they're free to do so. It's only a problem if a government bans that speech.
"Free speech" means "you're free to say anything without being charged with a crime." And there are limits to that even in the US - incitements to violence, for example. Very different from the "marketplace of ideas" concept which has nothing to do with criminality:
Everyone you disagree with is a "Nazi" these days, so you're saying "don't let people you disagree with speak at a government-funded school. I don't see any daylight between that and government censorship.
It may amount to government censorship at a public school. However most colleges are privately funded so there's no issue.
Censorship by effective monopolies that dominate public debate is nearly as bad as censorship by governments.
Nearly as bad in your opinion, but legally worlds apart. Again, the alternatives are enforced common carrier status and forced speech. Choose.
Anyway, since when are "forbidden ideas" less attractive? I don't think the human mind works that way.
Doesn't matter how attractive they are if they're highly elusive and largely unknown. Pushing ideas underground works.
Debunk the bunk. Especially, do so in a way that kids of anti-vax parents get the full story.
This is what the Western world's been doing for much of the late 20th century, and as you can see the bunk has been winning. Remember Einstein's definition of insanity?
The marketplace of ideas holds that the truth will emerge from the competition of ideas in free, transparent public discourse and concludes that ideas and ideologies will be culled according to their superiority or inferiority and widespread acceptance among the population.
That central tenet is demonstrably false. We would not live in a world of viral fake news and large subcultures who believe in clear falsehoods if it were true. Exposing the public to falsehoods for the purpose of debate was not harmless or, on balance, beneficial.
The "marketplace of ideas" does not equal free speech, they're different things. The "marketplace of ideas" is the concept that it's beneficial (or at least harmless) to expose the public to a debate of terrible ideas and falsehoods. "Invite the nazi to speak at the college, we'll curb-stomp him with facts and reason and show everyone how wrong his ideas are, thus making the audience less supportive of nazi ideas" - that's the "marketplace of ideas."
I don't propose any government censorship, I propose that we realize that debating these ideas spreads them to vulnerable people who aren't swayed by logic, and that citizens should use their civil liberties and private property rights to deny these debates a venue, forcing them into smaller and more obscure venues where less people would be exposed to them. Don't let the nazi speak at your college, don't allow anti-vax content on your social media platform, etc.
Funny, the ownership class uses their freedoms to limit our freedoms and nobody has ever accused them of being fascists. Let's admit that "freedom" by itself is a word that's vague to the point of uselessness and be more specific:
Let's exercise our civil liberties and private property rights a way to reduce the exposure of factually wrong and morally toxic ideas to the public rather than to perpetuate their debate in the mistaken belief that it might achieve the same end.
Fuck the marketplace of ideas. If that concept had any merit, why is this the state of affairs in the Western world after practicing it for so many decades? Actually being right does not do much to convince the Average Joe that you're right, especially after they've sought out and indoctrinated themselves with beliefs that are wrong. We have disproved the marketplace of ideas through experiment, and our reality is the aftermath.
We need to use our freedoms to reduce the exposure of factually wrong and morally toxic ideas to the public rather than continuing to wait for the marketplace of ideas' invisible hand to lead people to the truth while it merely points out rabbit-holes to madness for vulnerable people to gleefully leap into. Call it corporate censorship if you like, but the alternatives are common carrier status or forced speech. Choose one.
It's also strange for someone who expresses such worry about corporate censorship to be so gung-ho about corporate and government propaganda campaigns.
Why would it cost $15k for the manufacturer to provide the server software for a user to run locally, and add a way to point the device to a different server? The server software doesn't have to run on the robot itself.
In capitalism, a thing is either growing or it's dying. Like cancer.
But I'm glad that TPTB are realizing that human attention is a finite resource, this should kill off the capitalists' hopes that we can all become YouTube stars or Instagram influencers to keep this clusterfuck rolling along in the face of mass unemployment from automation - as if there's no problem with the hellishness of everyone having to work such a degrading job. Actual camwhores seem to have a more dignified profession.
I'm quite serious about that title. This is the year that wider society finally puts and end to the intellectual equivalent of drinking the waste water used to wash an ebola corpse.
The "marketplace of ideas" is one of the most damaging ideas to come out of the Western world in the late 20th century. The idea basically says that spreading terrible ideas and lies is beneficial or at least harmless as long as it can be debated. The world we live in today is its disproof: It was supposed to elevate the truth and instead a large fraction of the population intellectually lives in a fictional universe while physically inhabiting our reality. Debating these ideas simply spreads them to vulnerable people while having no effect on those who are more swayed by reason and facts.
This doesn't mean a regression to actual government-backed censorship, but rather people using their freedoms to choose not to enable the spread of these ideas, rather than choosing to enable their spread.
This kind of behaviour is not common, especially with Democratic party presidents. To be clear, simply appointing a former lobbyist doesn't necessarily amount to putting a fox in the henhouse, although it's obviously not good. Appointing a lobbyist who used to lobby for a conflicting cause, a businessperson who currently profits from a conflicting interest, a person who denies the science that underpins the mission of the institution they're appointed to, or a person who had previously expressed interest in dismantling the institution they've been appointed to, are putting a fox in the henhouse.
The only qualifying example of that kind of behavior from Obama I can think of was Tom Wheeler, and that didn't even turn out badly.
With Trump on the other hand, he's done this very consistently:
I actually thought giving the Saudis access to non-weaponizable forms of nuclear power was a decent idea for this reason. However it would still be illegal, counter to all of US foreign policy, and massively hypocritical after Trump's harping on the fact-free Uranium One conspiracy theory.
The top 10% are hardly "working class," those are people making clean into the 6-digits. It's also cherry-picking to suggest that everyone who got a smaller refund paid less overall:
Slashdot Mirror
In the US, there are only a handful of universities that don't take government funding. And even the ones that don't: what value is there to society in a "university" that does not encourage free ad lively discussion of every idea? Not much.
Unless the government funding came with an agreement to allow any and all speech, a minority of government funding doesn't count. What value would there be in a university that does not encourage free and lively discussion of every idea? Well let's say there's one that used to have no limits but now doesn't allow, for example, free and lively discussion of putting puppies in a blender. Is it now worth not much? No, the university's value is practically unchanged. Disallowing discussion of a handful of bigoted and counterfactual ideas does not diminish its value much more than that.
The laws will probably change. There's a rising tide of sentiment on the right against corporate control, and is the left really going to stand up and defend corporations against individual rights?
I'd be delighted if Facebook were forced to choose between publisher (with liability) and common carrier (with no editorial discretion).
Good luck changing those laws. And quite unfortunately there's no rising tide of sentiment on the right against corporate control, just against very specific forms of private censorship, which is why they still want wanton deregulation and aren't bothered by the Citizens United decision. So yes the left really is more pro-free-speech in the proper legal meaning of the word, that shouldn't be a surprise.
The idea that Facebook could ever be forced to choose between being a publisher and being a common carrier is based on a false dichotomy or perhaps a misunderstanding of what a publisher is. They're already liable for what's hosted on their platform, which is why they'll get their pants sued off if they don't promptly take down child porn etc.
The world does not move at internet speed.
Meaning what?
You're essentially saying it's ok to be evil as long as you tell yourself that you're good ("reasonably agree" the other side is wrong), because even if you turn out to be wrong and was actually doing evil, the moral universe will correct you (eventually). The victors write the history books.
That's actually not far off what I'm saying, the difference is that I don't think that deplatforming is inherently evil (and therefore I'm not necessarily "being evil" by advocating it) and that I think we can get a good handle on discerning right from wrong.
The problem with suppressing wrong/hate speech is that the same argument could be made about Galileo in the 1600s or US racism in the 60s. Let me "quote" you: "Don't let the black man speak at your college, don't allow black content on your social media platform, etc. Letting them debate ideas spreads them to vulnerable people who aren't swayed by logic, and citizens should use their civil liberties and private property rights to deny these debates a venue."
A good point. And here's where the closest thing to a true "marketplace of ideas" comes into play: The "correct" position can organically win a long uphill battle, but "wrong" ones can only win if a complacent populace lets them. Civil rights leaders in the '60s were in fact widely "de-platformed," even if that's not what it was called back then, and they eventually won anyway. The entire arc of the moral universe toward justice had to be forcefully gouged through every obstacle you can imagine, but it wasn't stopped. Therefore we shouldn't be afraid to de-platform ideas that we can reasonably agree are "wrong."
Slashdot, as a private platform, should be free to ban my anti-marketplace-of-ideas speech if they wish - legally they're free to do so. It's only a problem if a government bans that speech.
"Free speech" means "you're free to say anything without being charged with a crime." And there are limits to that even in the US - incitements to violence, for example. Very different from the "marketplace of ideas" concept which has nothing to do with criminality:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Everyone you disagree with is a "Nazi" these days, so you're saying "don't let people you disagree with speak at a government-funded school. I don't see any daylight between that and government censorship.
It may amount to government censorship at a public school. However most colleges are privately funded so there's no issue.
Censorship by effective monopolies that dominate public debate is nearly as bad as censorship by governments.
Nearly as bad in your opinion, but legally worlds apart. Again, the alternatives are enforced common carrier status and forced speech. Choose.
Anyway, since when are "forbidden ideas" less attractive? I don't think the human mind works that way.
Doesn't matter how attractive they are if they're highly elusive and largely unknown. Pushing ideas underground works.
Debunk the bunk. Especially, do so in a way that kids of anti-vax parents get the full story.
This is what the Western world's been doing for much of the late 20th century, and as you can see the bunk has been winning. Remember Einstein's definition of insanity?
It would only be fairly mitigated if homeschooling meant keeping non-vaccinated children quarantined from society, which it doesn't.
And how did free speech get into this? There's been no talk of governments criminalizing anti-vaccine speech.
Participating in it? Not intentionally. It certainly doesn't mean I support the concept. Learn what it means:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
The marketplace of ideas holds that the truth will emerge from the competition of ideas in free, transparent public discourse and concludes that ideas and ideologies will be culled according to their superiority or inferiority and widespread acceptance among the population.
That central tenet is demonstrably false. We would not live in a world of viral fake news and large subcultures who believe in clear falsehoods if it were true. Exposing the public to falsehoods for the purpose of debate was not harmless or, on balance, beneficial.
The "marketplace of ideas" does not equal free speech, they're different things. The "marketplace of ideas" is the concept that it's beneficial (or at least harmless) to expose the public to a debate of terrible ideas and falsehoods. "Invite the nazi to speak at the college, we'll curb-stomp him with facts and reason and show everyone how wrong his ideas are, thus making the audience less supportive of nazi ideas" - that's the "marketplace of ideas."
I don't propose any government censorship, I propose that we realize that debating these ideas spreads them to vulnerable people who aren't swayed by logic, and that citizens should use their civil liberties and private property rights to deny these debates a venue, forcing them into smaller and more obscure venues where less people would be exposed to them. Don't let the nazi speak at your college, don't allow anti-vax content on your social media platform, etc.
Funny, the ownership class uses their freedoms to limit our freedoms and nobody has ever accused them of being fascists. Let's admit that "freedom" by itself is a word that's vague to the point of uselessness and be more specific:
Let's exercise our civil liberties and private property rights a way to reduce the exposure of factually wrong and morally toxic ideas to the public rather than to perpetuate their debate in the mistaken belief that it might achieve the same end.
Fuck the marketplace of ideas. If that concept had any merit, why is this the state of affairs in the Western world after practicing it for so many decades? Actually being right does not do much to convince the Average Joe that you're right, especially after they've sought out and indoctrinated themselves with beliefs that are wrong. We have disproved the marketplace of ideas through experiment, and our reality is the aftermath.
We need to use our freedoms to reduce the exposure of factually wrong and morally toxic ideas to the public rather than continuing to wait for the marketplace of ideas' invisible hand to lead people to the truth while it merely points out rabbit-holes to madness for vulnerable people to gleefully leap into. Call it corporate censorship if you like, but the alternatives are common carrier status or forced speech. Choose one.
It's also strange for someone who expresses such worry about corporate censorship to be so gung-ho about corporate and government propaganda campaigns.
The right to contribute to both your children's and society's collective vulnerability to potentially deadly disease outbreaks?
Why would it cost $15k for the manufacturer to provide the server software for a user to run locally, and add a way to point the device to a different server? The server software doesn't have to run on the robot itself.
In capitalism, a thing is either growing or it's dying. Like cancer.
But I'm glad that TPTB are realizing that human attention is a finite resource, this should kill off the capitalists' hopes that we can all become YouTube stars or Instagram influencers to keep this clusterfuck rolling along in the face of mass unemployment from automation - as if there's no problem with the hellishness of everyone having to work such a degrading job. Actual camwhores seem to have a more dignified profession.
I'm quite serious about that title. This is the year that wider society finally puts and end to the intellectual equivalent of drinking the waste water used to wash an ebola corpse.
The "marketplace of ideas" is one of the most damaging ideas to come out of the Western world in the late 20th century. The idea basically says that spreading terrible ideas and lies is beneficial or at least harmless as long as it can be debated. The world we live in today is its disproof: It was supposed to elevate the truth and instead a large fraction of the population intellectually lives in a fictional universe while physically inhabiting our reality. Debating these ideas simply spreads them to vulnerable people while having no effect on those who are more swayed by reason and facts.
This doesn't mean a regression to actual government-backed censorship, but rather people using their freedoms to choose not to enable the spread of these ideas, rather than choosing to enable their spread.
So it's like a cross between a criminal record and a credit score. Not very dystopian.
Those are still rather dystopian things, you've just been conditioned not to see them as such.
This kind of behaviour is not common, especially with Democratic party presidents. To be clear, simply appointing a former lobbyist doesn't necessarily amount to putting a fox in the henhouse, although it's obviously not good. Appointing a lobbyist who used to lobby for a conflicting cause, a businessperson who currently profits from a conflicting interest, a person who denies the science that underpins the mission of the institution they're appointed to, or a person who had previously expressed interest in dismantling the institution they've been appointed to, are putting a fox in the henhouse.
The only qualifying example of that kind of behavior from Obama I can think of was Tom Wheeler, and that didn't even turn out badly.
With Trump on the other hand, he's done this very consistently:
https://qz.com/861897/fox-in-t...
AKA Trump's standard approach to appointing anyone to a position in government.
Actually I have been on a boat, with rum, in the Caribbean, but I'll admit that I was only thinking of "piracy" in the computing context :-P
As an O.G. Pirate I welcome this redefinition of piracy :-)
Urban Outdoorspeople.
Spoilers: It'll only be a good way of exposing your eyeballs to a lot of white nationalist drivel.
Applicable Ferengi rules of acquisition: #177, #189, #261, #292
I actually thought giving the Saudis access to non-weaponizable forms of nuclear power was a decent idea for this reason. However it would still be illegal, counter to all of US foreign policy, and massively hypocritical after Trump's harping on the fact-free Uranium One conspiracy theory.
GET OUT OF HERE STALKER
The top 10% are hardly "working class," those are people making clean into the 6-digits. It's also cherry-picking to suggest that everyone who got a smaller refund paid less overall:
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/p...