Freedom of Spe - (this title has been censored for your safety)

For those that know me, they'll know I value liberal freedoms very strongly. But for those who know me really well, they'll know I think there are limits to these values. In previous posts I've talked about freedom more generally. I've talked about how simply being empowered by technology to follow our desires can be catastrophic if there isn't a strong cultural guiding force. I've also talked about how some freedoms should be removed all together such that well-being is maximized. For example, I think providing unlimited dog food to a Labrador will only result in a painful and tragic death.

But this post will be a bit different. Here I want to talk about freedom of speech in the digital age, and specifically where I think a line should be drawn.

For the most part I believe freedom of speech is an incredibly powerful social tool. It allows us to articulate and spread ideas in non violent ways that can encourage positive change. I used to believe quite strongly that as long as there is no direct physical violence as a result of what someone is saying, then that person should be free to say it. I even held this view in light of the fact that 1) this could facilitate online bullying and 2) It allows members of the Westboro Baptist Church to picket funerals with anti gay rhetoric etc etc. The reason I defended freedom of speech so strongly is because it's used as the process by which we determine other values. Galileo had radical and offensive ideas about the sun being the center of the solar system, and if he was empowered with the freedom of speech the world would have been better of.

I've recently changed my view upon the realization that the power of conversation has been wildly exaggerated. I used to idealize freedom of speech as creating a space where turbulent ideas can mix together and battle for superiority - a kind of natural selection for good ideas. Now, due to the polarizing nature of the internet, I think this view was very naive. YouTube, for example, is filled to the brim with different political ideas from all across the spectrum, and this seems like a good thing because it creates a giant virtual space in which people can engage and learn from these ideas. I think the reality is very different. Instead, the YouTube recommendation algorithm manipulates this space and pumps confirmation bias into our brains with 21st century efficiency. Since most of us now live in largely virtual worlds, I don't think we can rely entirely on the ideal of freedom of speech to properly inform us or reform our societies.

So what's the solution? Surely, I'm not proposing some type of Government censorship, right? Wouldn't that be some slippery slope to some tyrant taking control and manipulating our decisions? Well, I have two proposals:

1) The internet needs a healthier virtual space to spread ideas. Basically a well developed forum with unlimited free access to the worlds information. I don't think this is as unrealistic as it sounds. Wikipedia is a perfect example of what can be done with donations. I envision a website which is a hybrid of Kialo & Wolfram Alpha. In principle, AI could also be used to fact check information as well.

2) I think social media companies need to be penalized for spreading false information in the same way sugar based products should be taxed for causing obesity. Admittedly, I'm unsure what the metric for false information should be, but I suspect it can be measured.