Freedom of Speech in the Era of Social Media

We can debate whether the measures you propose are good ideas, but if you are talking about laws as opposed to private terms of service, I would not characterize 1 and 2 as consistent with "free speech absolutism."

2 seems especially problematic to me. I would be unwilling to post in a public forum, especially about politics, if I had to dox myself. I say that not because I am afraid of revealing my views on politics to my friends and acquaintances. I say that because I am unwilling to risk harassment from people I don't know, especially in this era of mobs organized through social media.

I also think that 2 (and 1 to a lesser extent) could be a hugely limiting factor on political resistance in extreme political scenarios.

I am very much on board with purging bot accounts or similar phenomenon, but I am not up to date on the best strategies for doing so.

I can think of one current example where you might be right: The Israel-Gaza war, and people who post against Israel's, let's say, excesses, being targeted for their opinions.

I don't know, I don't have any fully formed opinion on what is the best, most optimal approach here, assuming I want people to be able to say what they think if they believe it is important to do so, and assuming I want people to be responsible and face consequences if they abuse their right.

Maybe I am naive, but I believe it is way more likely that I will face harassment if I post a strong, emotional text condemning Israel, calling what they do an apartheid, and comparing Netanyahu to Hitler, than if I write a more balanced text, centering on facts, no use of emotions or any type of manipulative tactics some people use (sometimes unconsciously), maybe even trying to put myself on Israel's shoes. Or at least, posting the same way I believe most of us would talk the subject if we were doing this in public.

Seems common sense to me, but I might be naive. Maybe just the fact I posted the above paragraph would paint a target on me for harassment in the US nowadays.

Would I face actual consequences if I said the former, and if it became attached to my real identity for the rest of my life? Yes, most likely.

I think that phrase definitely crossed a few lines, and it would have been possible to make the point without saying any of that. I, you or anyone else still would be entitled to say it, so it continues to be free speech. But having no accountability, no responsibility, I think it is just wrong.

Using my real name would not cause me to be more measured, but that's probably because I do not cultivate an extreme on-line persona. I am not especially concerned about people being hassled by on the internet by other rational people. I am more concerned about people being hassled in the real world by crazy people. But my highest concern would be government targeting. I am not a person of consequence on the internet. But if I were, and if I worked at a law firm that was known to Donald Trump, I would not be posting anti-Trump content on the internet under my real name. And that's mainly because I would not want to incite Trump to target my law firm, especially if I feared my law firm would capitulate like some many others did.

I also think that organizing movements like the Arab Spring, Hong Kong protests, etc., could be greatly hampered by the measures you are proposing.

In other words, there is considerable risk that you will induce a different sort of accountability than you are trying to induce.

Palantire basically creates large datasets on civilians that many governments can’t. These datasets get used in just the way you would imagine, to harm citizens.

I don’t think making it required to dox online comments is conducive to actual free speech. It just makes targeting trivial

Even if one finds The Three Simple Ideas to be Big and Beautiful, there is the problem of finding moderators willing to do all the extra work required for free..

So, we can say that, with the world being the way it is, with the existence of firms like Palantir, being able to remain anonymous on the internet is a necessity if we want to retain any resemblance of free speech.

But, at the same time, we can say that the biggest threat to the current semi-fake free speech is Palantir and the governments it works with. Not the idea of demanding responsibility and accountability.

In my previous life on 2p2, I doxxed myself.

So, anyone who knows my previous SN can still find out who I am.

I can be on board with this

I didn't think tame deuce was on board with the idea i floated around a lot, which is that any company or individual taking public money should be restrained in full by all rules that restrain government behaviour.

Free speech absolutism btw is about the gvmnt (or companies taking public money) not being allowed to deprive you of freedom and/or property no matter what you say, not about the lack of any other consequence by private companies/individuals. Usually, free speech absolutists are ok with private discrimination being legal. At the same time the gvmnt should *not* be able to punish you for anything, private companies *should* be able to discriminate against you for anything you said (monopoly considerations aside).

It also doesn't excuse all content, when speech is action, actions can be sanctionable. Speech is action when it's part of a contract or promise of a contract for ex, it's uncontroversial for example that lying in a ad (or when selling anything in general) should be sanctionable. As such, speech is sanctionable when it's about training terrorists, or organizing any criminal activity.

So the "absolutism" is only about what isn't already part of a crime or irregular sanctioned behaviour. Like your personal opinion on a person, institution, or group of human beings.

When i see people actually say, not trolling, but believe the earth is seriously flat and say that or post that belief.

i do question free speech for a moment

I don't really think companies should be put under government control like that, but I think that we didn't notice that the public sphere became privatized, the companies grew too quickly for a form a government that was adapted to slower times. As a result the public sphere has become editorialized (social media algorithms), monitored (big data) and censored (moderated) outside both public and political control. Exactly what the fix should be I'm not sure of, but we need it.

As for the definition of free speech absolutism you offer here, I think that can simply be called "free speech". Free speech absolutism I see as going a (big) step further and stating that no speech should be regulated.

Free speech is infuriating, difficult and exceptionally dangerous. There is a reason it is rare.

However for those of us who live in democratic societies, it is our most integral right. Without it, we risk not being allowed to point out when society grows less free.

Unfortunately, the only reasonable way it can be measured is in how much free speech you are willing to give your political opposition and those who annoy you. If not, you are just measuring privilege, not rights.

I never read anyone suggesting that there should be no military secrets (like the position of nuclear submarines in a given moment in time, or the details of how many nuclear weapons there are in general and where and many other things) for ex, and that alone would deny "absolutism" in free speech.

Who are the people who,as absolutists, want to make it perfectly legal to communicate the position of nuclear submarines?

A free speech absolutist would argue that any infringement on speech is a slippery slope, and free speech with an infringement like you describe here is an illusion.

He might also say that from a practical viewpoint, the public should know where nuclear submarines are at, because it would allow them more informed political views. He would likely also argue that any problem with this knowledge is not due to the nature of free speech, but due to the nature of nuclear submarines.

A nitpicker would also point out that the position of nuclear submarines are poorly guarded secrets as they are pretty easy to find, it is diesel-electrics you tend to lose track of.

I am asking who in real life is saying that. Authors, names. I have discussed free speech a lot with "ultra libertarians" (people far more libertarian than i am) and no one, ever, asked for 0 information to be kept secret or, for that matter, for someone to be allowed to pretend do be someone else (remember all lies are "just speech" as well) without limits.

Even ultra-isolationists that don't want to have spies in foreign countries do want to have counter-espionage at home (basic defense requires that) and no one, ever, suggested that it should be legal to name the names of all the counter espionage personnel in the country lol.

That idea that there is no avenue of life where lies (or revealing information that needs to be secret) can be sanctioned is simply something i never read by anyone. Libertarians especially do take fraud in commerce very seriously for ex.

But again keep in mind the model you are describing would make it legal to lie as a witness in a trial among other things, and again, i never once in my life read anyone suggesting that was the model of free speech they had in mind.

Has it occurred to you that you have never actually met any libertarians?

A lot of people like to call themselves libertarians, because they like to perceive themselves as the champions of freedom. Very few of those people actually are libertarians, because it is a tough ideological position to hold and freedom is a lot more tricky than they want to admit. These days with most libertarians just being crypto-conservatives, the label is also close to useless anyway.

It is the political equivalent of having read Ulysses.

Especially in europe, it's fairly common to have left-libertarians (anarchic or not). I met many (live and online) because they were literally the only people on the left who agreed with me lockdowns were morally horrific and one of the worst crimes against the people ever committed in peace time by western countries. So we bounded and talked a lot. Those would be the people focused on open borders, right to protest, free abortion and drugs much more than they focus on lower regulations and taxes ok? left-libs. "pirate party" people if you want some political reference.

I never heard the idea that it was a violation of free speech to prosecute witnesses who lie in a trial. Or that impersonating law enforcement shouldn't be a crime.

Did you? can you name some authors, names, books, online manifestos, micro-party proposals , whatever that ask for the free speech absolutism you are describing here?

The only thing happening here is that you are learning that libertarian more often than not is just a self-adopted label that doesn't mean anything. Those people are rarely in favor of more personal freedom, they just like the label and the pretense of moral high ground.

Similarly, there is no need for the label "free speech absolutist" to express that you support a bog standard democratic model for the right to free speech. You can simply say that you support free speech and the normal limitations that apply.

As for "free speech absolutist" as a term for a person who supports unrestricted free speech, this would be an ideal among anarchists, some minarchists and some activists who argue in favor of an unrestricted internet.

And even the type of "free speech absolutist" who simply denote someone who argues in favor of far less restricted free speech than we currently enjoy would pretty much be guaranteed to argue against things like restrictions on free speech in the name of national security or law enforcement - because in the vast collection of slippery slopes, those are historically the slipperiest.

There is, when you are a hard no to "hate speech" censorship or similar things.

As you well know, we don't have 1a equivalent protections in europe, even if several countries in theory have "free speech" in their constitution. There are baltic countries which are censoring pro-russia political opinions, several countries which are censoring anti-immigration political opinions and so on.

I am anti Russia but i defend the freedom of speech of people who, mistakenly, are pro Russia ok?

Paradoxically, for a country that tends to compress rights a lot, Italy is behaving better than most european countries. People can be pro Russia without legal repercussions, people can be strongly against immigration without legal repercussions (unless they propose crimes should be committed against immigrants, ofc).

So i am not sure how you want people who are against the concept of "hate speech laws" to call themselves. They are pretty "absolutist" *as compared to what their countries are doing and legislating and to what other people think on the topic*.

Again please name a single group, author, book , manifesto and so on that is not anarchic (ofc if you are anarchic, no law exists, so it's "absolute free speech" because of lack of *all laws*) that wouldn't sanction false witnessing or fraud in commerce, or impersonating someone else.

If it has not been clear from my posts: There are very few people who want free speech absolutism, they just want a label they think sets them apart. Most probably are anarchists and minarchists, so excluding them is a weird choice.

As for the the poorly named thing you call "free speech absolutism", it isn't even at the level of John Stuart Mill's free speech. He pretty much wrote the book on the modern understanding of free speech, and our societies have desperately tried to circumvent it ever since.

Take yourself for example. Your knee-jerk reaction in a debate on free speech was to offer gotcha examples for when it should be curtailed and made illegal. That is not really the actions of a "free speech absolutist", that's just someone who makes excuses for state infringement on expression.

And it is common to throw the 1st amendment in the face of Europeans, but it is hard to take it too seriously. The US has a long and ongoing history of puritan morality laws, political censorship and poor whistleblower protections.