I think what's most troubling right now is that there seems to be collusion between government and social media, in the form of deliberate, fabricated misinformation. We're used to media oligarchs skewing the news to suit their own political and economic ends, but I think this is a whole new level of deceit.
Freedom of speech...
- Thread starter Chris152
- Start date
Help Support UKworkshop.co.uk:
In fact, they've been rewarded.
Sky News doing a reasonable job of outing the lies - but not really going far enough in telling the world that "those claims are lies".
Perhaps because there is just a single small element which might be true - such as a non-Haitian person being convicted of cruelty to companion animals - but that doesn't mean that this single person ate a cat, and it certainly doesn't equate to an entire foreign immigrant community eating pets. And Yet - the sensationalistic and entirely false narrative is the one that gathers momentum and gets relentlessly, deliberately and actively soapboxed by a platform.
The platform itself is wholly responsible here for the fast and deliberate spreading of lies, not the individuals and their "freedom to tell lies".
Man with Goose photo Geolocated:
Corner of Cleveland Av and Northwood Road, COLUMBUS, Ohio (not Springfield) and photo known to be from many years ago.
Check the location out for yourselves - conclusive proof to not be in Springfield...
Deliberate lies were still being actively spread even well after the bad actors spreading the lies had been informed about the photo detail after the person who took the photo publicly declared the photo's provenance.
Which just goes to tell you exactly what you need to know about the problems of instant information and bad actors being actively, deliberately and wantonly deceitful in order to further their own agenda.
Corner of Cleveland Av and Northwood Road, COLUMBUS, Ohio (not Springfield) and photo known to be from many years ago.
Check the location out for yourselves - conclusive proof to not be in Springfield...
Deliberate lies were still being actively spread even well after the bad actors spreading the lies had been informed about the photo detail after the person who took the photo publicly declared the photo's provenance.
Which just goes to tell you exactly what you need to know about the problems of instant information and bad actors being actively, deliberately and wantonly deceitful in order to further their own agenda.
I sit somewhere on the fence, or perhaps more accurately off the side, of the gender debate as it mostly seems to be a fuss about nothing. There are some specific aspects that I think present genuine problems to be addressed (like, prisons, sport), but in what way is the reaction similar to being burnt at the stake? Trans people get loads of vile abuse too and I'm not defending either side on that as the 'anti-TERF' brigade are as bad, but isn't it just (unpleasant) freedom of expression being exercised by both sides of a polarised debate? As far as I know there is no equivalent of, say, the ALF on either side (yet).
If not then straight behind the curtain !
Perhaps a new years pledge should have been to promise to be courteous and freindly when having debates on topics where there are many opinions and no actual correct answer.
ey_tony
Established Member
I agree completely but I find from experience that if someone disagrees with those who hold a left wing outlook on a subject then they are themselves targeted and not their views or arguments.
Let's just see how long it lasts before the personal attacks start!
It is only misinformation if you take it onboard, just look at youtube and how many videos promote bad workshop practices. If you just follow without fully doing your homework then that is your fault, aim for an attitude that questions everything and where you are willing to also ask the questions rather than just acceptance of what is before you.
Also treat social media the same as a scam, it is just nothing more than some outfall for verbal diarrhea that has become the realm of the phone zombie.
ey_tony
Established Member
I think I can agree with every part of your post.
We are bombarded with fake news on a daily basis and it's difficult to actually determine what is fake and what is real.
Personally I treat everything that I'm told with suspicion until I can verify what I believe is the truth.
I agree completely - but it does seem many people don't do their homework, enough people to cause real problems for those who do, and for themselves in the longer run. I think the only real solution would be achieved through education - sadly, critical thinking doesn't feature large in most schools' curricula. But it needs to be there in a form that counteracts the tsunami of misinformation and deceit that we're presented with these days. The internet's become a terribly dangerous thing.
Blackswanwood
Still Learning
It’s worth listening to the latest “The Rest is Politics” podcast which covers Elon Musk’s interest (and use of X) in the UK and other European countries.
I quite like the combination of Rory Stewart and Alastair Campbell.
I quite like the combination of Rory Stewart and Alastair Campbell.
sploo
Somewhat extinguished member
The problem though is that so many don't. They see what's posted by others and immediately believe it to be true (especially if it aligns with their own current beliefs or prejudices).
This is where I feel freedom of speech needs to be tempered with consequences for those that deliberately try to mislead others (especially for their own gain).
Sadly, it's all going in the wrong direction at the moment: Facebook have just announced that they're going to cease using independent fact checkers, and Twitter is literally owned by one of the most problematic sources of nonsense.
I'm simply reading what you wrote. You wrote it here:
I'm saying that the discussion on Freedom of Speech extends way, way beyond some small concerns about a specific domestic political party (one which is objectively and evidentially far, far more grown up, above board, trustworthy and clean that anything that preceded in the past 10 years or so), and straight into international social media platforms, of which one in particular is deliberately spreading lies in order to pursue a right wing agenda. No political parties named here, the emphasis of what I'm saying is on the dichotomy of deliberately platforming knowingly false information, in the fastest way known to humankind, and in doing so specifically generating support for a political agenda versus the "Right to Free Speech" - particularly when in the immediate aftermath of any "Freedom of Speech" issues being promoted online, those "Freedom of Speech" issues are exposed as easily and quickly disprovable.
Also often platforming deliberate misinformation that has an extremely high likelihood of placing specific political figures in mortal danger. Are you aware that a death threat was quick to follow some of the deliberate and easily disprovable lies dressed up in the form of "Free Speech" on social media earlier this very week?
You were three posts in at this point, two of which displayed a fixation on denigrating the Labour Party.
My observation is that we're heading for thread lock if that continues. That's not attacking your views. That's not attacking you personally.
That is probably down to both a failure in our education system and many decades of poor leadership and social decline.
Now we might have a bunch of wooden tops in charge but they are not really that interesting and as I have said before, we should not be letting the dust settle on our tools and so brave a little chill to venture into our workshops and be productive and then come back and discuss the outcome, hopefully not frost bite.
I've just listened to the first part - really good, thanks for suggesting it. Settling down to hear about Austria and Canada next.
Ollie78
Established Member
Freedom of speech is important otherwise honest communication cannot happen.
If we cannot discuss a subject because it might offend someone then we have very little chance of getting to a conclusion that makes any sense.
Fear of being shunned by your peers is a strong force and I think it leads to people self censoring. The many cases of people being jailed for what can only be described as "thought crimes" or what we would have traditionally called having an opinion is truly worrying and is the excact opposite of free speech.
I would say that there appears to be a certain lack of ability to have a discussion in the hypothetical sense, asking "what if ?" and thinking about the possible outcomes etc. If ever I watch any type of debate on tv many people take each point as a personal attack rather than looking at the fundamental issue.
Also many people forget that more than one thing can be true at the same time.
If we cannot discuss a subject because it might offend someone then we have very little chance of getting to a conclusion that makes any sense.
Fear of being shunned by your peers is a strong force and I think it leads to people self censoring. The many cases of people being jailed for what can only be described as "thought crimes" or what we would have traditionally called having an opinion is truly worrying and is the excact opposite of free speech.
I would say that there appears to be a certain lack of ability to have a discussion in the hypothetical sense, asking "what if ?" and thinking about the possible outcomes etc. If ever I watch any type of debate on tv many people take each point as a personal attack rather than looking at the fundamental issue.
Also many people forget that more than one thing can be true at the same time.
Last edited:
Chris Puttick
Established Member
- Joined
- 20 Aug 2024
- Messages
- 56
- Reaction score
- 42
Freedom of speech is (a) not an absolute and therefore (b) does not include the right to lie
I love this ethos and entirely agree.
Since you also agree that two things can be true a the same time - and refer to a certain lack of abilities in some people - there is another dimension to this "Freedom of Speech" discussion centred upon the removal of those pesky and expensive fact checkers on social media platforms.
The potential outcome is that the complete lack of ability that some people possess in acknowledging the patently obvious observable reality, and the deep-seated desire to prove their pre-selected biases as "correct" translates into the "danger" that whatever the platforms broadcast will be taken to be "true", regardless of it's connection to anything that is true within objective reality. The "truth" stops being based upon reality and starts being based upon "majority opinion". It kinda worries me.
I think we've seen a few things crop up on this forum, such as a strong criticism of Jess Phillips, based upon nothing that exists in objective reality and instead, as it would appear to me, to be based solely on misinformation from "media sources".
Ollie78
Established Member
Do we not need freedom of speech to effectively find out if something is a lie ?
We are free to lie but equally free to be called a liar.
Much of what is discussed and argued over by us crazy humans is based on belief and opinion which could easily be classed as lies. I still think we should be free to discuss it.
Ollie78
Established Member
Indeed, who fact checks the fact checkers ?
It could fairly quickly become a situation where an AI fact checker ends up deciding the acceptable truth by checking with a different AI which has previously learned the truth from a biased data set fed to it by a third AI etc. etc. This could end up in massive circular reasoning and degenerate into nonsense very fast.
Often the passage of time is the only thing that reveals the truth which is a problem when everything is so quick now. News and equally fake news and opinion are blasted around the world in seconds.
Critical thinking is an important skill and I am not sure they are teaching it in schools anymore.
Last edited:
