Freedom of speech is not okay when it is fake news
For the fuckwits who disagree with Tech companies taking down fake news.
Several people with whom I have had recent exchanges are outraged that the technology platforms such as Twitter, Facebook and Google are actively taking action against fake news in particular misinformation and disinformation about COVID-19 vaccines. A lot of these commentators say that what is happening is against free speech and is illiberal. Some Americans are claiming that it is against the First Amendment, which states that: “Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech”. I disagree!
I consider myself a liberal, but the central tenet of liberalism is that it is fine to be a selfish citizen provided your selfish behaviour doesn’t have an impact on your fellow citizens. Yes, fake news and disinformation may be considered free speech, but as it is having a negative impact on your fellow citizens it is not okay.
What these fuckwits don’t realise is that the AI algorithms and reporting systems the tech platforms are using are analogous to vaccines and behavioural changes we are using to combat COVID-19.
Taking a reductionist approach a viral infection is simply a bit of malicious nucleic acid code that does its damnedest to reproduce itself and spread. For example, the SARS-CoV-2 is a single-stranded positive RNA virus of ~ 29,900 bases in size. This RNA encodes for 27 different proteins, which include the Spike, Envelope, Membrane and Nucleocapsid proteins. Nuclei acids use a triplet code that is interpreted by the ribosome to make proteins; this is basic biology. The proteins then help spread the nucleic acid code. The way to stop the spread of this code is to socially isolate, wear masks and wash your hands frequently. At the same time, vaccines are being used to create immunological memory that prevents the virus from being able to infect your cells and hence prevents viral code from being replicated and transmitted.
Misinformation, disinformation and/or fake news is also code, binary code that is represented as zeros and ones. The software we use interprets this code as representing information and displays it as letters and/or words, images, audio or video. This is basic computer science. The aim of the people who create this disinformation is to get it copied and spread as many times as possible with the hope that it changes the behaviour of the recipients who interact with it.
An infectious idea or an infectious bit of information is called a meme and behaves in much the same way as a virus. To stop a malicious meme you need to identify it as such, which is what the tech-enabled AI engines and reporting infrastructures do. These systems are the internets vaccines and act as the Internet’s immune system allowing the internet’s platforms to fight malicious memes. The other way you can protect yourself is to fact check information, the equivalent of doing a SARS-CoV-2 PCR or lateral flow test, to make sure what you are reading/seeing/hearing is kosher or malicious. You can block individuals or websites so as not to be exposed to disinformation; this is the internet equivalent of wearing a mask. Better still you can report individuals and sites to the relevant authorities so as to get them barred or taken down; i.e. quarantined.
The point I am trying to make is that disinformation/fake news is a real problem and is a form of malicious propaganda. The people who create this disinformation have an agenda, which is not necessarily to protect you. For example, a large proportion of the COVID-19 vaccine disinformation comes from Russia, China and Iran as is part of an information war or info-war with the United States and its allies. In whose interest is it to allow these countries freedom of speech when their memes are designed to sow social discord and prevent people from being vaccinated against COVID-19?
So it is not alright to allow disinformation memes to spread. They are a threat to democracy and a threat to liberalism. Vaccinating and socially isolating ourselves from disinformation is essential and it has nothing to do with limiting freedom of speech.
Dangerous memes have been with us for thousands of years, take religion for example. Social media has given memes a medium through which to propagate at unprecedented rates, far more quickly than human moderators can monitor. So on the surface allowing an AI moderator to remove fake news and propaganda seems reasonable. But who writes the code, who decides what is fake news? In the West it is a handful of unelected billionaires whose interests are manifestly not aligned with society. In China the internet is mediated through the Chinese Communist Party. That doesn’t turn out well either.
Perhaps a more important question is can we agree that objective facts exist ? If we can’t agree on this basic unit of understanding then we are spiraling towards an increasingly polarized, post-truth future of alternative facts. Many “fuckwits” in America are prepared to swallow Trumps’ Orwellian exhortations to “"Just remember, what you are seeing and what you are reading is not what's happening." In this world facts don’t exist - unless convenient - and the scientific method is nothing but a hoax.
Denial of objective truth is at the heart of the threat to democracy and liberal ideals, memes are merely a symptom of the malaise.
Couldn't agree more that dangerous misinformation needs to be curbed. We already implement important policy to protect citizens, such as laws banning hate speech, that would seemingly contradict free speech ideology. Banning the publication of anti vaxx material would also protect citizens.
While major tech companies are somewhat on board with fact checking material and taking down some posts, the volume of content makes it difficult for these steps to be effective. I think the key to the solution is to look at who actually publishes the posts. At the moment it's individuals who are responsible for what appears on their Facebook and Instagram accounts. Why not make it the platforms themselves?
Most people get their news from social media these days, so why can't we look at these companies like news outlets? If a newspaper publishes damaging misinformation they can be sued for defamation, libel ect. In my view Facebook and the Times should have the same laws applied to them for the content they produce. Then let's see how effectively they manage to curb misinformation ! They will have law suits coming out of their ears.