To be frank, in my book, relative to inadvertently being fingerprinted and tracked wherever I go, I consider being consistently faced with “let’s confirm you’re not a robot” popups and pages to be a minor inconvenience.
Consider that all those CAPTCHAs are fingerprinting your browser anyway, and probably also your biometrics (through your inputs while solving each CAPTCHA).
Hard agree. I’m always trying to get my fellow young Americans to understand this and it seems to go right over their heads a lot of times. My parents lived through multiple oppressive dictatorships before emigrating to America. Once I understood everything that they and their families experienced (e.g., family members being kidnapped, disappeared, and eventually murdered simply due their political views), I gained a much deeper appreciation for our Constitution (in particular, our Bill of Rights).
Nowadays, watching how easy it is to get folks to give in to censorship and tyranny for psychological “safety” scares me sometimes (especially when it’s all due to politics).
No matter what someone’s views are (and how offensive I may find them to be), I’ll never ever advocate for their censorship, because I understand where that can lead. Today, it’s your opponent; tomorrow, it’s you.
I actually don’t know if I agree with the last part. A chunk of the Rwandan genocide was a radio station instigating and advocating for the mass slaughter of a people. Atrocities in Myanmar also were originally advocated for in Facebook. On more personal levels, domestic abuse is also psychological torture and the wearing down of a person with words and it should be in someone’s right to file a restraining order to stop being contacted by their abuser even if the abuser doesn’t perform physical violence.
That is to say I broadly agree with the notion that speech should be relatively unfettered, but I do believe there must be exceptions for speech that actively aims to fetter people. We must limit speech that advocates limiting the freedoms of people to live as independent and equal citizens.
> That is to say I broadly agree with the notion that speech should be relatively unfettered, but I do believe there must be exceptions for speech that actively aims to fetter people. We must limit speech that advocates limiting the freedoms of people to live as independent and equal citizens.
While absolute free speech remains unattainable in practice due to inevitable societal boundaries, it should serve as an aspirational ideal toward which we continually strive, minimizing deviations rather than expanding them. Speech restrictions often and quickly devolve into subjectivity, fostering environments where only dominant ideologies prevail.
So, of course, by all means, restrict speech that harms children, incites violence, etc., but be very careful to not open that door too widely.
Yes I agree totally with this, we should never open the door too widely to censorship. It should only be limited to speech to take away others rights as citizens and people. People can say whatever they want until they say “this person must not be an equal to me”.
That's a huge leap from directly instigating genocide that actually happened to "We must limit speech that advocates limiting the freedoms of people to live as independent and equal citizens." which is severe censorship of all sorts of political ideas, including ones which we already enact and most people agree with. There's a lot of widely-accepted government-enforced inequality (foreigners, prisoners, convicts, children, inherited rights, etc.) which just shows how overly broad the restrictions you say we must impose are. Even yourself saying that could be interpreted as a violation of your own rule! You also advocated for restraining orders! You're your own enemy. Your opinion could really benefit from some back and forth with other people to refine it into something more sensible. Hopefully I'm contributing a little to that.
> But also yes to the cops arresting a kid who posts on social media that he’s gonna kill all his classmates tomorrow morning.
I think that everyone (yes, literally everyone) would agree that direct incitements and threats of violence such as this would be fine to censor and deal with appropriately. As a free speech advocate, I know a lot of folks with free speech absolutist views yet I don’t know a single person who’d be against any of that.
The reality though is that, in practice, these extreme examples tend to be used to justify censorship only to end up making the rules vague and subjective enough that, sooner or later, folks start being censored for wrongthink.
Also, “moderation” is just a soft term for censorship.
People make vague and non-serious advocations for inequality and non-freedom all the time and it's not really that serious. For example saying on social media that some politician is a criminal and should be locked up. It has to be OK to discuss political ideas, even in the form of "I think we should..." (advocating) rather than "what if we did...?" (not advocating).
Wait what’s wrong with a restraining order? Do you think it should be legal for a person to stalk and mail threats to someone, go to their workplace to issue threats, phone them to issue threats, etc? I acknowledge stopping someone is censorship, but I also believe that it is important to both harbor free speech as an ideal in the ideal world, and also that it is important to acknowledge we don’t exist in the ideal world where no one will use their freedom of speech to egregiously destroy people.
> These governments that block social media or control/monitor the internet to avoid critics of government or dissent, whether that be Nepal, Tunisia, Turkey, UK, Germany, China, Egypt, US, Russia, Israel, are always shocked when there is an uprising.
I beg to differ. I don’t think that any of these governments are shocked that the people eventually fight back. I think that they simply make the mistake of underestimating the power of the people (especially when united) and severely overestimating their ability to suppress the people and their dissent. That’s how tyranny works.
That said, freedom of speech is always worth fighting for! Once you lose your right to speak freely, it’s only a matter of time before you start to lose everything else.
As much as it’s true that there’s stochasticity involved in just about everything that we do, I’m not sure that that’s equivalent to everything we do being a stochastic process. With your dart example, a very significant amount of the stochasticity involved in the determination of where the dart lands is external to the human thrower. An expert human thrower could easily make it appear deterministic.
I think that both of you are right to some extent.
It’s undeniable that humans exhibit stochastic traits, but we’re obviously not stochastic processes in the same sense as LLMs and the like. We have agency, error-correction, and learning mechanisms that make us far more reliable.
In practice, humans (especially experts) have an apparent determinism despite all of the randomness involved (both internally and externally) in many of our actions.
You aren’t specifying your point of comparison. A nightmare relative to what? You might be saying a nightmare relative to what we have now. Are you?
We once considered text to be generated exclusively by humans, but this assumption must be tossed out now.
I usually reject arguments based on an assumption of some status quo that somehow just continues.
Why? I’ll give two responses, which are similar but use different language.
1. There is a fallacy where people compare a future state to the present state, but this is incorrect. One has to compare two future states, because you don’t get to go back in time.
2. The “status quo” isn’t necessarily a stable equilibrium. The state of things now is not necessarily special nor guaranteed.
I’m now of the inclination to ask for a supporting model (not just one rationale) for any prediction, even ones that seem like common sense. Common sense can be a major blind spot.
> You aren’t specifying your point of comparison. A nightmare relative to what? You might be saying a nightmare relative to what we have now. Are you?
Very fair point.
And no, it’s less about the status quo and more about AI being the default. There are just too many reasons why this proposal, on its face, seems problematic to me. The following are some questions to highlight just a few of them:
- How exactly would “human creators [applying] their own digital signatures to the original pieces they created” work for creators who have already passed away?
- How fair exactly would it be to impose such a requirement when large portions of the world’s creators (especially in underdeveloped areas) would likely not be able to access and use the necessary software?
- How exactly do anonymous and pseudonymous creators survive such a requirement?
