Freedom of speech...

[Chris152]

... without responsibility to truth. Nearly the whole of the first 15 minutes of BBC tv news this evening was dedicated to the former when it takes no account of the latter.

(Apologies mods, had to get it off my chest!)

Mod edit : as this was started in "off topic" as opposed to OT2, I intend to moderate it accordingly. Sideways.

 

[Spectric]

Thats why I avoid watching the BBC news, more sob stories and being PC than actual news and they are no longer the intelligent company they once were, also a fair amount of bias thrown in for good measure.

 

[Chris152]

Thats why I avoid watching the BBC news, more sob stories and being PC than actual news and they are no longer the intelligent company they once were, also a far amount of bias thrown in for good measure.

Well, my point was that the news they covered highlighted the problem of freedom of speech without responsibility to truth, which I see as a very big problem in some parts of the world today. Their coverage was quite reasonable.

 

[deema]

The problem with truth, is that everyone has a different perspective of what is truth. So, at one time to suggest the earth rotated around the sun was sufficient to get you burnt at the stake, today, suggesting there are all only two genders today has almost the same effect. So, free speech cannot be judged by what anyone considers the truth. Freedom of expression, is just that, your freedom to propose ideas that nobody else feels is right or appropriate because it just might be in the long term proved to be the truth!

 

[Chris152]

We have responsibility to truth in the sense that we have to do the utmost to justify the claim to truth. It need not be absolute, but it must not be a load of cobblers that some half-wit made up because it suits his or her own ends.

 

[selectortone]

Thats why I avoid watching the BBC news, more sob stories and being PC than actual news and they are no longer the intelligent company they once were, also a far amount of bias thrown in for good measure.

I watched that too. What bit of the first 15 minutes (in which it was reported that Meta are removing fact checking, Apple AI often gets it's facts wrong and the incoming President of the USA threatened to hit Denmark with huge tariffs unless they let him buy Greenland - and refused to rule out invasion - and ditto the Panama Canal) do you consider "sob stories and being PC"?

 

[sploo]

The problem as far as I see it in recent years, is that those who go on about having "freedom of speech" actually mean "I (and possibly only I) should be able to say anything I like without negative consequences".

They often also seem to think that freedom of speech means that others must give them a platform, and that people should listen to them.

 

[RobinBHM]

The rise of populism has coincided with the rise of the ability to spread lies faster than the truth can catch up.

When somebody can get elected to president by making statements like “they are eating the dogs”…..I think we all know something seriously wrong.

 

[Hypnotic Chimera]

The rise of populism has coincided with the rise of the ability to spread lies faster than the truth can catch up.

When somebody can get elected to president by making statements like “they are eating the dogs”…..I think we all know something seriously wrong.

It's also incredibly hypocritical that those individuals who wail loudest about their right to free speech are often the ones actively shutting down voices that dissent with their view, and deliberately remove the free speech of others.

 

[RobinBHM]

The problem is not free expression

The problem is that the liars are winning.

We now live in the era of “alternative facts”….and the big question is: “how do we put the genie back in the bottle”

 

[Sideways]

Let's see if this thread stands any chance of going somewhere useful without the name calling and party political posturing.

 

[Terry - Somerset]

There has been a debate over the extent to which social media as publishers need to take responsibility for content, or are simply a communications platform technology.

I would guess Facebook, Apple, X, TikTok, Instagram etc are concerned about the costs, feasibility and likely legal implications of being held accountable. The UK and many other countries seem to aspire to legislation to mandate content management. A few thoughts or speculation:

• Trump - MAGA - may see predominantly US owned social media and IT companies as a route to dominate globally with policies and editorial control driven by the White House.
• Whether wider editorial control of public users is feasible is questionable given the open nature of the platforms. AI could enable greater systematic automation - it could also enable ever more complex abuses.
• Ultimately the only option is to ban these companies - reliance on US tech and social media means the consequences could be very damaging.

 

[Chris Puttick]

• Ultimately the only option is to ban these companies - reliance on US tech and social media means the consequences could be very damaging.

Reliance on US tech and social media has been very damaging to the UK. The former is a major contributor to the UK's productivity plateau, and the latter has given us Trump and his populist pals.

 

[Fitzroy]

You can say what you like but I don’t have to listen. This worked well when it was relatively difficult to espouse one’s views widely or took active effort to go and engage with, eg a soapbox in the local park.

However in today’s digital world firstly it’s not hard to get your views and alternative facts broadly distributed, and secondly it’s much harder to walk past when it’s being fed to you with zero effort.

I’m all for freedom of speech and expression, I’ve seen what happens to society when it is repealed (lived in Russia 20yrs ago and have watched the slow and sinister impacts of loosing these freedoms). However, we either need to begin to educate on how to interact and interpret social media, or the social media companies need some form of regulation. At the moment it’s a cesspool of misinformation and lies and we’re all happy floating around in it on our lilos whilst supping a cocktail.

 

[Scruples]

The problem is not free expression

The problem is that the liars are winning.

We now live in the era of “alternative facts”….and the big question is: “how do we put the genie back in the bottle”

We don't. The uninformed or misinformed views tend to fizzle out. Except the Flat Earthers. How do they keep going...? But, at least, nobody takes any notice, other than poke fun.

 

[Chris152]

Remember Putin's 'rationale' for invading Ukraine? Neo-Nazis and all that? A series of untruths, a re-writing of history that led to 'justification' of the invasion.

Not that the ambition is quite so unsubtle (economics and strategic/ political positioning rather than warfare), but this follows the same logic, I think - a series of lies followed by the 'solution'.

Clearly it's all rubbish, but it does betray a malignant and dangerous attitude. And I'd say the UK is now very vulnerable as a result of poor decisions in recent years.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

The rise of populism has coincided with the rise of the ability to spread lies faster than the truth can catch up.

When somebody can get elected to president by making statements like “they are eating the dogs”…..I think we all know something seriously wrong.

In Ohio an immigrant from Haiti was taken to court for cooking and eating a neighbours cat.

 

[Chris152]

In Ohio an immigrant from Haiti was taken to court for cooking and eating a neighbours cat.

A perfect example of how deliberate misinformation escalates and people are led to misrepresent the truth.

https://news.sky.com/story/how-trum...ng-pets-started-and-spiralled-online-13213476

 

[DrPhill]

One problem, as I see it, is that the huge decisions are made by governments. Governments are affected to some degree by popularity and popular opinion. Popular opinion is affected by social media, and most people seem to be poor at assessing the veracity of what they read. So if social media is filled with misinformation driving an agenda, then that will bias popular opinion and ultimately government decision.

 

[sploo]

A perfect example of how deliberate misinformation escalates and people are led to misrepresent the truth.

https://news.sky.com/story/how-trum...ng-pets-started-and-spiralled-online-13213476

That is indeed perfect. And of course; those who shared and amplified such untruths (untruths that risk spurring people into violence) have faced essentially zero consequences.