EFF: Internet Free Speech Depends Upon Many Weak Links

Tonight I tried to watch two shows on Rumble.com, but all I could see was this:

This might simply be an innocent technical issue. I hope so. When I see the entire network go down, however, I am concerned. Is this the result of an attack on Rumble.com?  I hope that things get fixed and that we are advised about what happened and why. In the meantime, I find myself thinking about this article by EFF:

I'm very much aware that if the Internet Hosts decided that they would exclude certain types of information, many websites, such as mine would disappear. That is one vulnerability of many. Here are the others:

Here is an excerpt from the EFF article:

Speech on the Internet requires a series of intermediaries to reach its audience. Each intermediary is vulnerable to some degree to pressure from those who want to silence the speaker. Even though the Internet is decentralized and distributed, "weak links" in this chain can operate as choke points to accomplish widespread censorship.

The Internet has delivered on its promise of low-cost, distributed, and potentially anonymous speech. Reporters file reports instantly, citizens tweet their insights from the ground, bloggers publish to millions for free, and revolutions are organized on social networks. But the same systems that make all of this possible are dangerously vulnerable to chokeholds that are just as cheap, efficient, and effective, and that are growing in popularity. To protect the vibrant ecosystem of the Internet, it's crucial to understand how weaknesses in the chain of intermediaries between you and your audience can threaten speech.

Each of the links above represents a link in the chain of intermediaries that directly facilitate or indirectly support speech on the Internet.

Website are also vulnerable as a result of "Shadow Regulation"

Shadow Regulations are voluntary agreements between companies (sometimes described as codes, principles, standards, or guidelines) to regulate your use of the Internet, often without your knowledge.

I don't like the fact that I have so little control and that my website could be quickly erased but for the willingness of all of these entities the cut backroom deals with each other, but that is a sad fact.

Continue ReadingEFF: Internet Free Speech Depends Upon Many Weak Links

The Most Dangerous Lies

Sahil Bloom most warns that the most damning lie is the lie you tell to yourself. He then offers a list of the most dangerous lies, including these:

"When I get [X], then I'll be happy" "This is just who I am" "I don't have time for [X]" "I'm not capable of [X]" "I know exactly what I'm doing" "They just got lucky"

Continue ReadingThe Most Dangerous Lies

What the News Media Got Wrong about Trump-Russia

These are excerpts from Part I of Jeff Gerth's Four-Part series at the Columbia Journalism Review, who previously worked for decades with the NYT.

Today, the US media has the lowest credibility—26 percent—among forty-six nations, according to a 2022 study by the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism. In 2021, 83 percent of Americans saw “fake news” as a “problem,” and 56 percent—mostly Republicans and independents—agreed that the media were “truly the enemy of the American people,” according to Rasmussen Reports. . . .

What follows is the story of Trump, Russia, and the press. Trump’s attacks against media outlets and individual reporters are a well-known theme of his campaigns. But news outlets and watchdogs haven’t been as forthright in examining their own Trump-Russia coverage, which includes serious flaws. Bob Woodward, of the Post, told me that news coverage of the Russia inquiry ” wasn’t handled well” and that he thought viewers and readers had been “cheated.” He urged newsrooms to “walk down the painful road of introspection.” . . .

On the eve of a new era of intense political coverage, this is a look back at what the press got right, and what it got wrong, about the man who once again wants to be president. So far, few news organizations have reckoned seriously with what transpired between the press and the presidency during this period. That failure will almost certainly shape the coverage of what lies ahead.

The title of Gerth's article: "The press versus the president, part one"

Continue ReadingWhat the News Media Got Wrong about Trump-Russia

The Psychological Traits of People who Seriously Support Free Speech

Many people say they support free speech, but only of a subset of those are willing to stand up and take flak in support of free speech in particular uncomfortable situations. How do these two groups differ?

Researchers Jeff Cieslikowski and Sean Stevens of FIRE have reviewed the relevant psychological research. High cognitive ability and emotional intelligence predict greater support for free speech. Here are a few excerpts from their recent article:

[P]eople with high cognitive ability also often exhibit greater intellectual humility. At its core, intellectual humility refers to whether a person is open to the idea that they might be wrong, and research has demonstrated that the relationship between cognitive ability and support for free speech is amplified if an individual also possesses more intellectual humility.

The most recent research extends these findings. Those higher in cognitive ability and emotional intelligence –– the ability to recognize emotions in oneself and others, and to use this emotional information to productively and positively guide one’s actions –– were more supportive of freedom of speech and less concerned with appearing "politically correct," which the researchers define as “using language (or behavior) to seem sensitive to others’ feelings, especially those others who seem socially disadvantaged.” The researchers suggest that those high in emotional intelligence favor free speech because the former correlates positively with psychological reactance –– the tendency for people to experience anxiety or distress when they perceive their freedom is threatened.

Those who strongly and consistently support free speech:

[P]ossess a unique perspective on the negative consequences of speech restrictions, and that these individuals are more likely to be concerned with how speech restrictions can backfire and be used to suppress the expression of disadvantaged or unpopular groups in society...

[P]rincipled support for free speech is rooted in the idea that all human beings are fallible. Therefore, we should be intellectually humble and open to the ideas of others, for we ourselves might be wrong. This suggests that individuals high in cognitive ability and emotional intelligence may be principled defenders of free speech, tolerating even the speech they abhor. They would likely agree with John Stuart Mill, who wrote:

The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error.

Continue ReadingThe Psychological Traits of People who Seriously Support Free Speech

The Pot Shot Version of the Ad hominem Attack

Today I posted the following on my Facebook account:

I often post quotes, article excerpts or videos featuring the writings or conversation of others. I post these because I find them interesting and, sometimes, inspiring. Quite often, people respond in the comments by pointing out that that person once did something they disapprove of. They often write something like "I don't like that person."

I don't understand this way of thinking. There are many brilliant but flawed people out there. In fact, each of us can see one of those significantly flawed people in the mirror every morning. When I share information on FB, it is because I find the information interesting. I am not saying "This is a perfectly well-adjusted person who is always correct and who has never done anything I would ever question." For instance, there are severely flawed artists (e.g., Michael Jackson) whose work I admire greatly. Same thing with writers, podcasters, politicians and activists. Thomas Jefferson owned slaves. Is this a problem? Hell, yes. Was he also brilliant? Did his genius help establish this amazing (though flawed) country you call home? Absolutely. When I celebrate Jefferson's amazing accomplishments am I trying to say it's OK to own slaves? Some people apparently think so, because they've been renaming schools that bore Jefferson's name. This is performative, not serious thinking.

All of the people I find interesting are flawed. I am flawed, you are flawed. People of prominence often stumble in big public ways. If you've never gone out into the world to attempt something brave and ambitious, you are flawed in that way too. Can we have an understanding, then, that I am already aware that everyone I mention in my posts is a flawed human being, and many of them have fucked up more than once? Sometimes they've fucked up in intensely cringe-worthy ways. Many of them have fucked up, realized they've fucked up and already admitted that they've fucked up. Pot shots are especially strange in those situations. When you watch a movie, do you sit there obsessing that some of the actors are personally flawed human beings? Or do you enjoy the movie on its own merits? Why do you give your favorite actors a pass?

I don't share information about people BECAUSE they are flawed. Rather, I am sharing their work and observations because I have found that work to be interesting or admirable. I work hard to try to make sense of an extremely complex world and my thought process never stops evolving. I often disagree with things I have stated in the past and you have too. We do this all the time and there is no way to stop doing this. That's how people think and that is why we have conversations--to help each other when we fall off the tracks.

It is the easiest, lowest and most ignorant form of criticism to sit back and point out people's imperfections. This insidious pot shot form of ad hominem is ubiquitous on FB. I assure you that I could engage in taking pot shots at others every hour of every day, with very little effort, but it would do nothing to encourage meaningful conversation or human flourishing.

Continue ReadingThe Pot Shot Version of the Ad hominem Attack