The original convo was about the Canadian FCC being asked to ban fox news from Canada's tv providers (I dont know if they have more than one). Seeing as the company fired the employee at the heart of the request (for something else, but still relevant), seems like the company itself felt it was wrong to say what he was saying.

So the provider could be considered to be Canada's FCC (depending on how it works up there) and/or Fox News.

That is not a provider! It's a regulatory body and a censor.
Their job isn't to provide anything, but to regulate and censor.
They have a monopoly right to ban anything on television. This is not some random company refusing to promote something on their channel. Jesus.

The fact that fox fired him (which they have a right to do) is irrelevant. It's not proof that they admit wrongdoing. And it had nothing to do with this anyway.

So, if the state claimed ownership, or the sole right to approve anything printed, on all printing presses, that wouldn't be censorship, but merely a refusal to promote? And an offending printer's right to free speech wouldn't be infringed if they were unable to print, since they could still just go yell on a street corner?

In Canada: Is there no other means for this voice to be heard?

If I had to guess the answer is no. I'm pretty sure AM radio and the internet would give access. If not elsewhere.

If the regulators deem (which I don't know what they decided, but we know they were asked to consider it) that this type of speech is dangerous, then they should seek to minimize its reach.

I'm pretty sure you'd like 0 regulation of these airwaves, so it's sort of moot to ask you what level of oversight should happen, but without a neutral body (imperfect, but as neutral as we can get) you'd only hear what private money wants you to hear.

So there has to be a middle ground. We've established many times elsewhere on this board that people are stupid and need guard rails. This regulatory body seems like a necessary guard rail.

Freedom of speech is an interesting topic for the modern age, because applied absolutely…it has the ability to destroy itself.

The simple truth is that freedom of speech is necessarily dependent on a democratic system in order to exist. Authoritarian governments have absolutely no impetus to protect such a right. Nor, really, do any power players within a country.

But a democratic system is in turn fully dependent on the ability of a public to access reliably factual information, in order to make political decisions that are in their best interest. In order to know what actually happened in their country this week. Last month. Ten years ago. In order to know what they are voting in response to, and in advocation of.

We now live in an age where misinformation is often amplified to be louder than actual information, and that will only be exacerbated by the further development of artificial intelligence. On top of this, misinformation has a built-in resource that actual information often doesn’t: people who see its promotion as useful to their cause. People with intrinsic motivation to amplify it.

Perhaps most importantly, misinformation is most effectively and frequently used for the promotion of non-democratically minded actors within a democracy.

As we move further and further into the digital age, and into an age where misinformation floods the system, I think that in the absence of guard rails…freedom of speech very likely has the power to destroy the system that it depends on for life.

This is an insane post, but briefly: can you now at least admit that it is in fact censorship, just that in your mind it is good censorship? Because that is what you are now arguing.

What is it that's so unique about television that makes it necessary to give a regulatory power unilateral power to censor in ways that aren't necessary for radio, Internet, newspapers, or just shouting from a street corner? Is it just that it's easier? Regardless of your answer to that last question, is pretty clear that you'd happily be in favor of banning media and speech from those platforms as well, if you had the power, which I hope for all our sakes, you never do.

This is an interesting take. I think it’s right, but there are no guardrails that don’t exacerbate the same problems that misinformation does… particularly if those guardrails arise from the state. How Tiananmen Square is treated in China would be a good example of where state guardrails inevitably lead

I disagree with the word “inevitably” here, but to be fair if you had said “often” or “threaten to” I would 100% agree. So I think we are mostly in agreement.

It’s an interesting topic exactly because there isn’t a good answer or obvious solution. The ice on either side of us is no more sturdy or safe than the ice we are standing on now.

- I don't think free speech survives for long - it seems to inevitably degrade - but we can try to keep it going for as long as possible. The problem is so many people think they can keep it alive by instituting soft censorship as a means to stave off the inevitable, but this only accelerates its collapse. Of course, many are just trying to stop the ferris wheel while they're on top, not realizing that they aren't actually on top.

- The "dangerous speech" argument against free speech is as old as the idea of free speech itself. Socrates was killed because of "dangerous" speech, so it's been around for a long time and it will never go away. Worse, it eventually wins, because a.) the masses can always be convinced that speech is too dangerous, and b.) it is massively beneficial to powerful people to convince people of this.

- The only slim hope I see for survival against an onslaught of AI generated lies is for people to develop a radical mistrust of everything they see online or on TV (something they should already have done). I don't see that happening though. People will believe what they want to believe. It will certainly be interesting times...

- And make no mistake, governments - OUR governments - will be the biggest producers of AI misinformation.

Responding to the bold parts in sequence:

1. Lots of holes in this logic, the two biggest I see being that A) persuasive political messaging has never been entirely rooted in fact, and B) the notion of the rational political consumer is a utopian fantasy.

2. It’s important to distinguish between mis and disinformation. I think we agree that misinformation presents the bigger threat given the way the world seems to be headed.

3. The obvious solution I see is for government to regulate AI and social media to the extent that both mis- and disinformation are labeled as such on prominent platforms. The tech will have to mature just a little bit, the political process quite a bit more. But I don’t think it’s unreasonable to assume that in 15 years, we’ll have a reasonably bipartisan-regulated, private industry-owned early iteration of a vehicle that says something to the effect of “Vice President AOC’s post is referencing content that has been identified as potential misinformation, as defined by the National Center on Transparency.”

Where would a "National Center on Transparency" come from that it could be considered legitimate and not an extension of the preferences of the state?

The last institution that we should be in charge of regulating AI is the one with a 1.2 trillion dollar military. Talk about a boot stamping on a human face forever.

That movie “The Creator” Is gonna be so good

Equal representation of both parties, appointed by Congressional leadership (majority+minority), with a non-affiliated Chair

That would likely produce something that was balanced between the major parties, makes sense. I do not believe such an organization would act independently of the priorities of the federal government or even the executive branch, which is a much more serious when it goes against what what is true (like all those WMDs in Iraq or how we need just two weeks to flatten the curve).


Here's a hypothetical: During a Presidential debate, candidate Trump says "There is no trans genocide, trans people are murdered at a rate similar to other groups". Obviously something triggering to many people and that would be pounced on by media on both sides of the issue. What would this Center do? Nothing because it would risk election interference? Would it dismiss the claim as hate speech? What if they fact-checked this and found out it was true... would they put out a statement stating what they found knowing how that would effect at-risk people? Or, as history teaches us is more likely, they would repeat the position of those who fund them so they all have jobs next FY. Would that even rise to something need to handle and could they do it in a timely manner? It all seems like a lose-lose.

I don't know that my argument changed, so saying "now" implies that.

And I don't think I'm as extreme as you're making it out to be.

I started out saying people have different opinions.

Then, to explain my view because that's what we do here, I said I saw it as a matter of promotion not banning.

Define that how you want.

I'm in favor of censorship when it guards against lies that turn into violence. An impossible task I know. And one fraught with mistakes/abuse. Such is life...

See, everyone makes mistakes. Honest mistake everyone.

Hard to know the truth these days...

You get how that refutes your previous points, right?