"Should I Be Banned For Quoting the Bible?" Debating Free Speech on the BBC
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 22 ส.ค. 2024
- To support me on Patreon (thank you): / cosmicskeptic
To donate to my PayPal (thank you): www.paypal.me/c...
- NOTES
An important correction:
(TL/DR: my first response to Sean's last question was "there's research in both directions", which does seem to be true. But I then concluded by saying, "the studies actually show the opposite" when I should have said have said, "some studies appear to show the opposite". I wasn't speaking carefully and suggested that there is a consensus in the opposite direction. I had based this on work by Jacob Mchangama, but upon review think it at best shows that the results are inconclusive (especially in deducing a causal relationship between free speech and less social conflict and violence, as opposed to mere correlation). This is still a relevant observation, but did not warrant me saying that "the studies actually show the opposite". Also the study I cited on terrorism refers to offline free speech, as freedom online is difficult to measure accurately, and the link was found only in democracies, with the results in autocracies being mixed.)
The study I cited can be found here: journals.sagep...
I wanted to say that this study is only conclusive for offline speech, not online speech, and so may have not been a good study to cite in this context. The authors write that "the relative absence of precise data and open questions regarding how to measure freedom in the cybersphere means that whether freedom of expression in electronic media is different must remain an open question."
It's also worth emphasising that the study found an unambiguous association between increased discursive freedom and reduction in terrorism in democracies, but the results in autocracies are mixed.
Also, I think it was too strong to say "the evidence points the other way":
I had based this on Jacob Mchangama's recent history of free speech in which he writes, "But while online expression may sometimes lead to real-life harm, it does not necessarily follow that placing restrictions on free speech is an effective remedy. On the contrary, studies suggest that, on the whole, freedom of expression is associated with less rather than more violent extremism and social conflict in democracies. The preventive effect of free speech on terrorist attacks seems particularly strong." (Mchangama, "Free Speech: A Global History From Socrates to Social Media", Hardback, p. 371)
For the final claim he cites the study linked above, and for the more general claim he cites his own work which can be found online here: www.cato-unbou..., itself mentioning a then-upcoming study, now published and available here: www.dropbox.co...
The study finds that "some of the most commonly expressed concerns regarding freedom of
expression - such as its potential detrimental effects on social conflicts (including genocide), radicalization and terrorism - by and large are not supported by the evidence or the existing research literature", and that increased freedom of speech is associated with a number of societal benefits and less social conflict in democracies.
My understanding is that, especially concerning online media, the evidence is unclear and the issue far from settled regarding the influence of free speech on hate crime.
So, my first statement that "there's research in both directions" was accurate, but I said, "the studies actually show the opposite" when I should have said have said, "some studies appear to show the opposite".
- SPECIAL THANKS
As always, I would like to direct extra gratitude to my top-tier patrons:
Itamar Lev
Evan Allen
John Early
Dmitry C.
Seth Balodi
James Davis
g8speedy
James Davis
Mouthy Buddha
Solaf
- CONNECT
My Website/Blog: www.cosmicskept...
SOCIAL LINKS:
Twitter: / cosmicskeptic
Facebook: / cosmicskeptic
Instagram: / cosmicskeptic
Snapchat: cosmicskeptic
The Within Reason Podcast: podcasts.apple...
- CONTACT
Business email: contact@cosmicskeptic.com
Or send me something:
Alex O'Connor
Po Box 1610
OXFORD
OX4 9LL
ENGLAND
------------------------------------------
Important correction: my answer to Sean's last question to me was too strong. The full details are in the description, but here is the TL/DR:
My first response to Sean's last question was "there's research in both directions", which does seem to be true. But I then concluded by saying, "the studies actually show the opposite" when I should have said have said, "some studies appear to show the opposite". I wasn't speaking carefully and suggested that there is a consensus in the opposite direction, and said that the findings of the cited study are replicated across "pretty much any area of political violence". I had based this on work by Jacob Mchangama, but upon review think it at best shows that the results are inconclusive (especially in deducing a causal relationship between free speech and less social conflict and violence, as opposed to mere correlation). This is still a relevant observation, but did not warrant me saying that "the studies actually show the opposite". Also the study I cited on terrorism refers to offline free speech, as freedom online is difficult to measure accurately, and the link was found only in democracies, with the results in autocracies being mixed.
I apologise for putting the point too strongly and not offering appropriate clarifications about the data.
Hey Alex, don't worry about it. Your clarification shows that you ponder things you say and we all need sometimes to look back and make clarification of things we unintentionally spoke.
Appreciate your scholarly concern. I hope someday I can be open-minded to correction ( whether by another person or by my own reasoning ! ).
Respectfully from Florida
@@Sammy_1992 I have a difficult time in the first place to understand "religious arguments". So "debunking" probably won't help me. However I'm open-minded to discussions regarding "religion", faith, and the existence of a loving God.
Respectfully from Florida
I appreciate your correction. I already linked you in Twitter a study that shows opposite results.
This should be pinned imo, it's a pretty important piece of info
The fact that you took the time to add this says a lot and is genuinely refreshing - not many people with this level of integrity here. Thanks, Alex!
Feels like the first time in a long time i've seen a segment on the BBC where no ones shouting, nice work
All you need is people with manners not like piers morgan
Well, when you've got 2 minutes to discuss a matter, it's hard for it to descend into chaos, much less arrive at any sort of reasonable conclusion. Alex was about to reply to something at the end that finally seemed to be getting at the heart of the matter until he was cut off. This interview was a waste of everyone's time.
A lot of this depends on the moderator/presenter. This presenter stayed neutral and posed a balanced set of questions designed to get everyone in the panel to defend their positions.
Idiots like Piers Morgan just want drama so the clips will go viral.
@@allrequiredfields You could debate this issue for hours and not come to any definitive conclusion.
@@EnglishMike Piers Morgan is no idiot - he just knows very well that he's an entertainer more than a journalist, and drama brings viewers - thus he encourages sensationalism and argument.
Gotta love a debate that doesn't have Peirs Morgan
That was the first thing that occurred to me when each person was allowed to calmly air their views. No Morgan wrecking ball.
Hadn't noticed until you said it but good point. Everyone actually finished a sentence. Amazing. Instead of fielding discussion Piers just talks and spouts opinions and few facts.
"What have you got against the homeless?"🙄
Piers Morgan does debate? I wasn’t aware of that. Thought that he was only into the generation and dissemination of propaganda?
It's not really a debate if he's around.
WOW! Alex's question about Leviticus didn't just get swept under the rug, it got rolled up in it, thrown in the trunk, and driven to the landfill with two in the back of the head.
And it was a softball. He could have gone for the Q'n or the hadiths. The conservative peaceful person on the far right (take that as you will) might have blown a gasket, but why not
@@rexsceleratorum1632 I think it was bait to see if she said that the Bible was hate speech OR if she said religious texts should be exempt. In any case it would've been interesting to hear her response.
It pained me that they straight up ignored it
@@Dan_Capone But as it happened, nobody in the group cared enough about the Bible to feel that they had to make a stand, rather than sweep the subject under the rug.
Well, I wondered if they realised the relevance of Leviticus - it being the book with arguably the most vile pronouncements in the Bible
Alex: should I be banned for quoting the Bible?
Everyone else: squirming uncomfortably and not touching it with a 10-foot Pole
I love how Alex keeps getting invited back to the BBC. It's inspiring!
They are even calling him a commentator, as if this was what he regularly did for a living. Seems like Alex officially is a talking head! 😅
A bit masochistic don't you think?
@@dinksmallwood5561how do you mean?
@@dinksmallwood5561 what.
He'll get invited till he reads his script
Was that actually a TV debate where ideas got debated? I'm impressed
There was hardly a debate to be honest. The women didn’t have a clue what they were on about.
Thankfully Pears Morgan wasn't invited otherwise it wouldn't
@@jazzman2516I think they had some good points even though I'm not agreeing with everything
@@ThcBanaman they had some good points, but they had nothing to do with the discussion. You can tell that neither of them understand what free speech actually is, they’re just bringing their agenda into it. Especially the one who said that ‘racism, homophobia and misogyny are not free speech’, which is the dumbest statement I’ve ever heard. You should still be entitled to speak freely even if what you say may offend, and you can’t strictly police language with those labels anyway, as they can be arbitrarily defined. Who gets to say what’s racist, homophonic, misogynistic? There are many non-racist, non-homophobic, and non-misogynistic comments you could make that could actually be read/heard as such by certain people. Just look at Kathleen Stock as an example. Woke lunatics are not the arbiters of free speech, they are its enemy.
@@jazzman2516 If you give people the tools to get rid of democracy while using democratic platforms you failed, simple. Hate drags more hate, as German I'm glad we forbade denying the Holocaust. There's clear evidence the Holocaust happened, so yes you can have the 'free spech opinion' to not believe it, which is stupid. But if you watch the idiots, especially in the US electing Trump, not being able to formulate what's wrong with him, subscribing to the dumbest outdated ideas, some about centuries old and Refuted, you can't count on "public intelligence". So should there be limitations to free speech on specific topics, absolutely yes IMHO. Fight me bro lol
My favourite bit was when you were talking
You’re an npc
@@lingardinho2956What is an npc?
@@lingardinho2956that’s literally the Chriswill,
Same😄
Great discussion. The host did a great job of letting all four speak their mind. I'm impressed.
Until he tried to step in and deflect Alex’s question about quoting the Bible… The single best point made during this “debate.”
@@rowdy3837indeed
@@rowdy3837 To play Devil's advocate, these are timed segments with a hard cutoff. The host has to balance extracting information from the guests with the ticking clock.
@@rowdy3837 I think the host actually did a good job, there was no point going down the path of a tangent like that into "what is hate speech". All that was needed was a nod in the direction of defining hate speech is problematic.
All 4 did a great job, host (the 5th person) was a "passive-income" participant in it all. I'd have to see how he handles people I know to be rowdy. He certainly wasn't even their coach that I would give him even 20% credit for how things went down. He was there though, so I'd give him 5% credit this episode (he can keep raking up credit if he keeps managing to have good shows).
They kept asking "why don't social media companies do this?" Very simple: they make more money NOT doing that. Insane to expect them to self-regulate in a capitalist system.
Because the second you say anything anti-capitalist the right will pounce on you. When you're trying to have a civilised discussion with people on the right it's a fine line you have to tread in the interests of diplomacy
@@matt69niceNot here in the USA. The "right" thoroughly understands the need for a free market. We've been trying to bring big tech to accountability for quite a while but because at the moment those tech companies are benefiting the masters of those that call themselves "leftists" the people are split on it. However, it's the uniparty in DC that's most opposed.
@@matt69nice As a centrist, I have experienced way more good will to have a honest discussion about the limitation of capitalism with right-wingers than talking to left-wingers about the limitations of collectivism. In general, there is more vitriol on the left, *at least currently.*
@@matt69nice I don't want to make anyone feel pounced on nor do i want to associate myself with the right. But using "capitalism" the way you do is spurious. Capitalism is a very basic and kind of loosely defined term. Are you suggesting that regulations or counterchecks on political/money relationships are needed (not really anti-capitalist), or a planned system removing voluntary exchange/contract and and seizing assets to be distributed without consideration of property rights? And no I don't mean to say that the latter is the same as raising taxes, I'm talking about a real revolution. If you are backing such violence, shouldn't you expect pushback?
It is not about capitalism, it is that what is and is not allowed to be said is inevitably a political decision that should be taken by politicians. There can be arguments as to how much or how little politicians should be allowed to constrain free speach, but that does not absolve the politicians from having the ultimate responsibility for making such decisions. Unelected commercial bodies have no place making such decisions, it is for them to abide by decisions made by (and justified by) politicians.
"if I may" - Alex O'Connor's proper version of "hold my beer".
Props to the moderator for his control of the conversation and for pushing back against everyone
He didn't really push back on the side supporting censorial regulation. His push back was mostly focused on the free speech side imo
@@FoivosApostolou 7:10 he did ask them a question to clarify on why SM companies don't regulate.
And to be honest, if you call what he says 'push back' on either side then that's a bit confusing. He doesn't really push back on either side, he asks easily answerable questions or makes a statement.
@@Jester343 what were you expecting?
i just want to know what i can consider push back.
@@Jonathan-tw4xm Challenging the point that a person is trying to make, not clarify.
@@Jester343 Give me examples you would accept in this case.
I'm trying to understand what the push back would be since I thought it was but you might be right
We experienced this in Mexico, under a single political party that ruled like a dictatorship for 70 years, controlling all media. However, as soon as the internet exploded in Mexico between 1996 and 2000, the party lost the election. We now have an autonomous institute that organizes elections. Free speech is invaluable. Instead of trying to prevent certain ideas from being shared, we should invest in education.
The reverse is currently happening in America. Free speech has resulted in the wildfire spread of conspiracy theories, demonizing and crippling education. It’s empowered Christian nationalists to stomp out free speech.
"They lost the election"
"Free speech is unavailable"
This isn't compatible - you DO have free speech - what you don't like is people having different opinions to you
The internet helped PAN win the 2000 elections? First time I've heard this theory.
La persona promedio no tenía acceso a internet en México en el 2010, olvídate en el 2000, hijo.
free speech doesn't promote education, far from it... It gives more power to idiots and actually promotes the uneducated (see the Covid debate or all the "crystal healing" stuff". People, for the most part, can't understand academic papers. They don't have the IQ or knowledge necessary. This is why they believe dumb FB conspiracies.
Firstly, it amazes me how do you jump from the premise that having internet access led to the reform of a biased electoral institution (believe it or not, electoral process are always supervised even dictatorial regimes, haha). If a 70 year old regime was defeated, don't you think many other substantial geopolitical changes may have happened during the 80's and 90's of the last Century? Secondly, during that time there were no social media, no smartphones, and internet access was still very limited even as home service. That's why cybercafé were popular, and sorta profitable business at that time. And finally, freedom of speech is not necessarily a correlation of investing in education. Education is necessary to built criteria, coherent reasoning, and, yeah, an ideology. There are many and very educated professionals from the radical left and the far right for example (the recent circus) who cannot even debate, instead they resolve to spit insults to one another as arguments. So, it's not a matter of knowledge per se, but to strengthening and consolidating the bases on which freedom of speech can be effectively execirse in public spaces from the houses of representatives to universities according to values of respect, fair play, responsability and accountability. I too believe we're very far from there.
This seemed like a very civilised debate. I like it
On one side you have two people who have no idea what they're talking about. No idea how an algorithm works. And on the other, two who are sane. Not sure if civilised is the right word.
@@sueyourself5413 Honestly, something like turning off suggestions would be something governments could force social media companies to do. It's technically feasible and I can imagine that in this case it would have prevented the spread of misinformation. The question is only whether we as society think the pros outweigh the cons. Because while this might prevent speculative statements from spreading it would also strongly decrease the quality of internet search.
@@sueyourself5413I believe you’re incorrect, their argument as I understand it is that algorithms like tick tock are designed to get people to keep clicking which and so you find an asymmetry of the things being promoted. When you try to change the algorithm so that it isn’t promoting certain things you aren’t censoring or taking away speech you just are evening the playing ground so that free speech can actually have the desired effect. That’s at least my understanding, where do you think I’ve gone wrong there?
@@israelgulley9104Exactly anger hatred and distrust of "the other side" are great ways to push engagement. Engagement equals ads, which equals revenue and profit.
This is how I understood it. Now what to do about it, if anything, is a different point. But the point itself seems clearly valid.
Sophie's recommendation of "regulation/ethical framework" was most appropriate I think. Those recommendations made are NOT speech. They are adverts, which are well within social norms to regulate. They are made with the purpose of driving traffic and views and clicks. If they WERE speech... then the answer is already clear... you treat TikTok and Twitter and and and as being held to Journalistic standards... and the Laws that regulate them.
Was kind of hoping Alex would not join the sweaty guy in "Totally unlimited speech"... but rather slice off the rest of the cake and just stick to what she was talking about.... those recommendations. Restricting free speech is stupid and pointless... but "everything is speech" is ridiculous I think.
The two women are talking about one thing... Sweaty Guy is talking about another thing entirely... and Alex is stuck simultaneously trying to defend free speech and make up the ground that Sweaty Guy is being a shitheel about (steps in pooh.... then walks around in your house as though everything is fine)
The host sets up Alex to make the point on something he knows Alex cares about, The Chinese Striker, setting him up to kill the idea of' "no anonymity on the net"
but again... he cant GET to Sophie's point because Sweaty Guy
I still have NO FN clue what Alex thinks of those recommendations. I think they are NOT speech, and tight rules for them are fine.... what does Alex think about those specifically? I WANT TO KNOW SWEATY GUY, SO STFU!
Thank you so much for attaching the study you cited in the description. It is rare to find this, and is very helpful for those who want to look deeper into the problem.
Gosh it's so nice to see a civilised debate where all sides get to talk freely. Great job by the host, hope this fella can host more discussions like this
This is why I can't stand television: whenever you start getting to the good stuff, time runs out. It truly is a shame as I've rarely seen a productive discussion that's lasted as short a time as you are allowed on television.
Gotta run those ads, no time for talking it doesn't make $
@crazyprayingmantis5596 all too true. This is why I can appreciate set-up debates or discussions that range between an hour and three. Truthfully, with matters so complex, that's the kind of time we need to move forward
@@crazyprayingmantis5596 This was aired on BBC1 in the UK, which doesn't show adverts. Sunday Morning Live is on for an hour and covers quite a lot of topics, so each segment is quite strictly timed.
I like how they gave everyone a fair chance to speak. And the host wasn’t biased or rude. Great segment.
The host was completely biased towards the censorship supporting ladies.
Felt like they were trying to cram a 45 min podcast into 12 mins, the host did a great job keeping it moving.
@@Keeks749 Lol exactly. But I think it’s a great way to introduce the subject for most people in a quick way; short & succinct.
@@cellestinohernendes3081 I wouldn’t say “completely biased” but I guess I can see how you think he sympathized more with them. In either case though, he gave everyone a fair chance to speak, and didn’t interrupt or berate anyone. That’s what matters most. Still a 10/10 political segment compared to most these days…
@@cellestinohernendes3081 I didn't get that impression. He explicitly praised Alex for making an very convincing point. I think he did his job rather well.
To expect social media companies to abide by a moral framework is honestly the dumbest thing ive ever heard
Speech you don’t like is free speech.
Wish more folks understood that
Exactly. I find the Quran and the Bible to be full of hateful and offensive speech. I would never argue that they should be banned.
@@criert135, hey can you provide one example of the Bible having hateful speech?
And when we say hateful speech, I am assuming the example you provide will have one of several criteria needed to be called hate speech. And just to make sure we know what that is, hate speech is “abusive or threatening speech or writing that expresses prejudice on the basis of ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or similar grounds.”
Please share when you have a chance
@moralesj2239 1 Samuel 15:2-3
"2 This is what the Lord Almighty says: ‘I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. 3 Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’”
Commanding an ethnic genocide is hate speech under any reasonable definition. That's one example. The whole "murder men who have gay sex" thing is probably a better one, but I've gotta drop the Amalekites on Alex O'Connor's comment section.
@@AbsurdlyGeeky I don’t know why God commanded entire peoples to be wiped out. However, I do know that the Amalekites and Israelites were at war with each other. It wasn’t based on ethnic targeting it was based on attacks made upon Israel. This wasn’t based on hate nor can it be hate speech. This was simply an act to ensure survival which was common for people with limited resources at that time as you can imagine.
The good news is that God doesn’t exact punishment on anyone in the world today. He sent His one and only Son to die on a cross as payment to atone for our transgressions. No people are forsaken and can choose to believe that Christ is the savior and be saved thru believing. No Christian today believes that the Old Testament punishments could apply to us today after Christ paid the cost of our sins. So Christianity (the choice of living a Christ-like life) doesn’t look at any people and determine they need to be put to death. True Christianity does not support hate speech.
Wow, you've levelled up from TH-camr to Commentator. Nice.
Honestly I think he leveled up the BBC and not the other way round
@@whatis569Both statements can be true.
@@daniellamcgee4251 I agree they can be, that doesn't mean they are. You may be right though :)
@@whatis569 on the other hand he's wearing a suit and poncy shoes so i'd say he's going to sell out. dressing like jordan peterson doesn't get any brownie points with me. 😅
Anyone notice how quick the host made sure that it was only Alex's opinion when he brought up china 😭
They might be watching
I was so confused by that. All he had said was that a player was their top goal scorer. He hadn't even named the player yet. Presumably some player was their top scorer???
@@BathoryBathHouseEveryone is absolutely petrified of China. Haven't you seen? So much that the presenter knows his higher-ups would want him to pre-empt the statement at the first whisper of "...China..."
So funny he said "his opinion" initially - as though speaking not to Alex but to Big Brother
The irony of it, when they're on the topic of free speech!!
I like how the host bounced every idea between the guests. Like how he takes what one person said and then asks specifically what another person thinks about that. As someone who moderates (amateur) debates occasionally I learned a lot from him in this video
"Why can't social media companies just act right?" One word. G R E E D .
your answer is too simple for a complex problem. its like your a monkey.
This was actually a far more sensible, reasonable discussion than I expected for mainstream television to produce. Alex was thoroughly impressive.
Npc
@@lingardinho2956 Eh?
@@lingardinho2956ur more npc than op lol
Although the chairperson made the default position about restricting speech. He called frazier and Alex as "these guys". I don't know if it ideological, unconscious bias or something worse
I wish they had gone a bit longer. That last idea was pretty good and sounded like a genuine point of sensible compromise.
I would like to hear Alex's view on making the review/censorship which companies do internally more transparent and standardized.
This was uplifting on many levels, and interesting to me that no one jumped to give the "right" solution, but put forth information and ideas.
it didn't even seem like a debate! Healthy intellectual discussion and problem solving
Prince Andrew loves this silly comment
They moved on really quickly from Leviticus. I think it's because one of the guests was obviously Muslim and there was a chance of that religion ALSO being examined as potential hate speech- which would be hate speech.
Well done Alex. Keep up the good work.
It’s great seeing you move further into the mainstream media Alex. Thanks for sharing this.
boomer media
Meteoid
As if you just saw this discussion and didnt think "maybe allowing everyone to spew drivvel and spurious, unsubstantiated, unregulated nonesense (i.e. the vast majority "content") isn't such a good thing" @@land2097
It's never no regulation or complete regulation. Nothing is absolute. There are boundaries and limits. For example, all social media does have some internal regulation, to ban content depicting violence like beheading people by terrorists or explicit pictures of children. That's a necessary regulation, that most people would agree on. It's not a zero-sum game, always.
In the future, it could be just the opposite. Morals change over time. What you think is offensive today, a future generation might wonder, what's the big deal? Vice versa. Morals are just an opinion at a point in time. They're not real.
@@itheuserfirst3186 I disagree, I think that it is quite clear that morality can be tied to concrete factors. Objective morality could exist given enough accurate information about reality, even if only one moral principle needs to be accepted as an axiom (say, what is beneficial for the continuation of humanity as a species since we are talking about morals in human society).
@@TheEnmineerDelusional.
There’s absolutely no such thing as objective morals and we should stop pretending the human mind is some island of perfect logic and reason that can derive the ‘objective moral’ stance.
Each and every one of us is molded by the society we live in.
Why is explicit images of children wrong? What is a child? How is 17 a child but 18 isn’t? Why draw the line there?
What’s so wrong with gore? We can show pictures of blood, but suddenly you add some pieces of human flesh and it’s off limits? Are you kidding?
Half of these things you think can be described away with ‘objective morals’ are only deemed ‘bad’ because that’s what we’ve been conditioned to accept.
Had you been born and raised in ancient Greece, you would scoff at the notion of 18 years of age being the age of majority.
Hell, people 100 years ago invoked ‘objective morals’ to condemn homosexuality and interracial relationships.
All these lines are but marks in the sand, all but guaranteed to be washed away by the tides.
P.s if we’re going by what’s beneficial for the continuation of humanity to derive our morals, we wouldn’t arrive at getting rid of gore, child pornography, or any of those extraneous things. Those don’t anymore harm the continuation of humanity as they are a reflection of our modern sensibilities
I think people are blind to the fact that facebook and twitter is actually fun by usa government and fbi lol
@@TheEnmineer for objective morality to exist, God would need to punish you for your sins. if there is no God to punish you for these "sins," then sins aren't really sins.
you might think torturing slaves is bad. someone else might think torturing slaves is good. without God's judgement, it's just another opinion that you may/may not live to regret.
Mate this was the best moderating in a debate I've seen in a long while (but that's probably because I watch controversial "debates" mostly). The moderator was excellent. No interrupting, no shouting over his guests. Just listens to one side, says "good point, what does the other side think?" and then listens to the other side. And he repeats that. Absolutely excellent. It also gives a feeling that he is willing to listen and change his mind, which is something that so many people seem incapable of doing.
I also liked how the moderator steelmanned all of the arguments. He listened to the argument and then restated the main point of the argument to the other side. I think this kind of moderation makes "gotcha" arguments less effective, which naturally keeps the discussion more civil.
I thought the moderator did a job.
I am SHOCKED this was in the BBC. Kudos to them we need more stuff like this
Very civilized discussion, and I kept just thinking as each person was talking "they're right" which really drives home the intricacies of the topic (far too complicated to properly hash out in a short TV segment of course)
Policy is an area where there aren't any wrong answers depending on what evidence and reasoning you base your policy on. For example, drowning migrants and asylum seekers in the channel might be an effective deterrent and reduce migration numbers. To most of the population the human cost is unpalatable, but most of the population is also anti-immigration, so you could argue that it's a good policy or a bad policy depending on how much you care about them drowning.
@@matt69nice I would hope even the most staunch anti-immigration individuals would not endorse letting asylum seekers drown wtf
well, except the guy sitting next to alex, who appears to be a complete idiot
The two women on the right don’t truly know what free speech is. Free speech is the ability to say anything about everything and not face censorship of any kind. They say they support it but then say that social media companies need to remove posts and silence people.
girl on the right were not saying very good things though
I love seeing all these TV appearances recently from Alex. It really gives me Christopher Hitchens vibes, but perhaps even sharper logically.
I would say Alex is an improvement on Hitchens, less fallacies and more balanced in a discussion
@@hareecionelson5875 "I would say Alex is an improvement on Hitchens, less fallacies and more balanced in a discussion"
- so, how did you conclude 'less fallacies'?
@@Dr.IanPlect --simple: evaluate someone's logic on the basis of their logical fallacy making.
@@hareecionelson5875 Aye, Connor stands on the shoulders of Hitchens and improves where he was lacking.
@@joshboston2323 muted
I dunno if he was brought on to "debate free speech" and that's just what he prepared, but it was like watching two groups of people have two halves of different conversations. He spoke eloquently on why free speech is important, but didn't address the other guests concerns at all.
The women were saying that there are some simple steps that social media companies could take to prevent obvious harms, and we should make them law. Alex responded by saying that free speech is important. That's a complete non-sequitur without the intervening argument that showing that what they were suggesting would impact free speech at all. Unless Alex has become a free speech absolutist while I wasn't watching?
To me the most important thing said here was what Shaista Aziz (the lady on the right) said: "this is not as straightforward as it looks, and equally it is not as complex as the social media companies claim that it is". See: the Facebook papers. In which it was revealed that many of the procedures they put in place were shoddy and had no processes in place to make sure that they worked. Yes, not all problems can completely be solved, and there's edge cases where it gets hairy, but that doesn't mean there's absolutely nothing that can or should be done.
What we need is to teach the public to not assume every allegation has any weight to it and actually do the work to fact check it properly. Full transparency is required if we want to keep the truth from being suppressed.
That's difficult. Ever heard of confirmation bias? What happens is that when someone hears something they don't agree with, they dismiss it as rubbish, irrespective of how sensible the argument is. And in contrast, when folk hear something that confirms their beliefs, they lap it up and take it as the absolute truth, irrespective of how weak the argument is.
Social media recommendation algorithms feed on the second of those.
@@chrisengland5523 "That's difficult." - Oh, well, best not to bother then.
Sorry, that was overly facetious of me. Perhaps, and this is very much only a partial fix, but perhaps a mandatory, thorough education in the kinds of fallacious reasoning that we are all prone to - such as confirmation bias - with a particular emphasis on the political, societal and interpersonal impacts that not accounting for those biases can lead to is in order?
@@chrisengland5523 I agree. That's still the solution.
Man Alex was spot on with that response. Hearing a Muslim speak about hate speech being banned is true irony. And giving the Christian bible as an example was perfect because it was both non-confrontational and confrontational at the same time.
What a load of tosh you're insinuating!
I think people like yourself are the perfect example of why hate speech needs to be controlled better. You don't seem particularly unpleasant - would I be right in assuming that you reducing a highly respected journalist and international aid worker down to "being a Muslim" (i.e. insinuating she holds a level of responsibility for what other people do just because she shares a similar faith) was unintentionally discriminatory? (Though I can't say I see the "true irony" even if we accept the premise that she's just "one of those Muslims". There's a big Islamic movement to stop the restriction of hate speech in the UK that I'm unaware of? Are you actually trying to say that you think Muslims say hateful things?)
And no, that doesn't mean I support the police fostering their already fascist/authoritarian tendencies any further. You can address these things without locking people up.
Agreed. I think he made a great point. Personally if someone started quoting the Bible at me on Twitter, I'd probably block them, but I wouldn't dream of trying to get them banned.
He used the Bible as an example as it's an easy target, which underlies the fact the no on is allowed to criticise islam. The muslim woman has her way and wants to preserve it.
@@pizzaboy4463 or whatever you want to believe
Well, well, well... He sure as shit shut that direction of the conversation on free speech down when you brought up the bible. Funny how there's freedom of religion (not in all countries, and depending the country and the religion) but not freedom of speech when it comes to discussing religious speech or criticism of religious speech. Some religious speech is used as a form of hate speech, online, in person, and in the synagogues.
Another great point and great video Alex!
That was his point. You do realize what the verse he was referring to says, right?
@@littlebitofhope1489I didn't quote the verse because I thought most people who know Alex and know the people in the circles he runs in would also be all too aware of all the problem passages in the bible, let alone in Leviticus.
But since you're skeptical of me knowing what he's referring to or possibly referencing...
*Leviticus 18:22 King James Version*
22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
*Leviticus 18:22 New Living Translation*
22 “Do not practice homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman. It is a detestable sin.
*Leviticus 18:22 New International Version*
22 “‘Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable.
Hitchens made the quoting bible point in his free speech debate many years back
@@Sui_Generis0 I was thinking about mentioning that as well. I remember seeing a lot of those clips on TH-cam. I've read and listened to a lot of Hitchens books as well. Hitchens was quite the sharpest and quickest at pushing back but also at making the points succinctly clear why religion is poison.
Usually Agree with Alex's perspective but there are many studies that link hate speech as a precursor to violence. Obviously, nazi Germany comes to mind but there are many other examples including the current rise in anti semitism and homophobia in America to increased violence against these people.
The problem with these daytime tv "debates" is once you start listening to long form discussions/debates on podcasts they sound simplistic. Example, when the woman claims implementing control in online media is easy (it really isnt) you really start to wonder at the quality of guests on the show.
I was looking for who the individual on the far left (physically) was, then I realized that this is his channel lol.
He speaks eloquently, confidently, yet respectfully. I respect that. He is not using charisma or a domineering approach to get his quotes accross. Rather, he addresses questions directly while acknowledging his source information and providing examples.
I agree with you. Your comments about Alex are excellent.
Well done to Alex.
V naive to think that any government could be trusted to be a fair arbiter of truth when it's main aim is continuance and increase of power.
You seem to be very critical of the government. One could almost assume, that you are trying to incite hatred against our democratically elected leaders!
On a more serious note, Russia is the perfect example for this. Even expressing a wish for peace can be censored, just because the current government wants to suppress all criticism.
@@johnmclawson3982When the government reserved the right to arrest you because they don't like your speech? Neither.
I think people genuinely underestimate how dangerous a loss of free speech can be. The government deciding what is and isn't acceptable to say it's the first step to losing control of your government entirely.
Fraser quit simpin for Musk, its embarrassing.
You seem to be unaware of the rising fascism and increasing online hate speech.
@@tanaka173Ever hear of something called hate speech? Reasonable people can agree what speech is hateful or not, our problem seems to be a lack of reasonable people in control of our government because of capitalism.
Alex is a breathe of fresh air since people like Jordan Peterson. I can’t stand most “intellectuals”
He would cut through peterson’s obfuscations and word-salad like a hot knife through butter.
It is amazing how much he says while saying so little lol
@@Alex-mj5dvit's frustrating that Peterson got so egotistical and thinks he can talk on a vast array of subjects and then we see him talking nonsense as a result. The "so you're saying" interview was so different than what he is now.
JP is an intellectual. his background is psychology. what's yours?
@@dotsdot5608 His practice license has been revoked for purposefully pushing misinformation without taking punishment remedial courses. He is a grifter, just like his self-help-through-my-books-that-aren't-yourself and lie-often saying "I'm an evolutionary biologist" and "I'm a neuroscientist" grift.
Herding wildcat topics like this without fur flying is an absolute achievement in this day and age. Well done. I’m so glad decisions do not lie solely with me.
If hate speech is banned, and if the bible contains hate speech, then yes your account should be banned for quoting hate speech from the bible. Not saying that accounts should necessarily always be banned because of hate speech, but just saying religion shouldn’t have exemptions.
Who decides if the Christian Bible is hate speech though?🤔 Muslims? The Goverment?
You've failed to address that point in your argument. WHO DEFINES HATE SPEACH?
4:42 Host: That is a good point isn't it
Alex: Yeah 😂😂😂
Glad to see you on a talk show other than Piers. You get to talk here without getting interrupted and shouted at. How nice.
Love the host. Unbiased and gave everyone their turn to speak in a respectful manner!
Never thought I'd hear "I investigate tiktok" in a serious conversation.
Here we had five thoughtful and serious people discussing an important topic...and the scary thing is that not a single one had any clear solution to the problem of the spread of disinformation and hate speech and the power of social media to manipulate the masses.
The solution is to remove "reccomended content" if people wanna watch something make them look for it. The line between entertainment/community and advertisement has never been thinner and that's a problem.
Hmmm I heard two solid ideas in there. One is regulate the antisocial algorithms, and the other was stop preventing media from telling the truth.
@@BDnevernindexactly. Don't push viewers towards unhealthy content, allow as much free speech as possible, hold people accountable and challenge them if what they are saying seems harmful.
@@derkatzenfuerst6077
Who decides what's unhealthy content?
@@crazyprayingmantis5596 Good point, that is another big question.
Personally, I don't think there can be a clear answer, what might be educationial content for some, could be disturbing for others.
While there is probably no perfect solution, it should be possible to establish a few basic rules. For example don't recommend adult content to young viewers, don't amplify content that is promoting hate against individuals or groups, self harm or extreme risks.
(The TikTok blackout challenge would be an example).
Provide a good mix of education and entertainment, recommend opposing viewpoints and point out bias or conflicts of interest, a bit like Ground News is doing.
But as long as profit is the main motivation of social media platforms, this is probably not very realistic.
Cant wait for more content from your channel, Alex!
Alex: Even if we decide to regulate, we cannot trust a single person/entity to be the arbiter.
Shyster: Yeah, but social media companies are like media companies and they need to make regulations.
🤣🤣🤣🤣
Everybody likes free speech limits as long as they aren’t having their views or voices limited. It’s all great while liberal, minority and feminist viewpoints seem to be in the ascendancy and any right wing views are being derided in a lot of the mainstream media but as soon as things start changing I’d bet that any censorship would suddenly become wrong in many people’s view.
@@murph8411 Don't you wonder why when it comes to hate speech, it is always the right whining, while everybody else only gets a problem, when speech is censored for no valid reason at all? Is it maybe because... only the right requires to narrow in on some enemy to make their propaganda work?
@@murph8411 Yeah mate, like that famous liberal/minority/feminist 'Don't say Gay' bill we've heard so much about. Or the book banning/burning epidemic etc.
@@GS44691 Oh no, gender ideology and CRT won't be as strongly pushed on kids. Very sad
Alex makes the most cogent point here: who decides and defines the character of the speech, and would a holy book that preaches hate be deemed acceptable by virtue of its historic privilege.
I often find these thing difficult t watch, as its very hard to work out the purpose for these shows given how very brief they are. As good and eloquent as you were I wonder what sort of an impact this discussion will have on peoples overall lives....
At the very least it's a great example to show people of what a civil discussion looks like without screaming obscenities and flinging your phone across the room because someone thinks differently.
@@SynphamyMusicimo thats a pathetically low bar though.
Nowhere was any policy actually discussed, and I feel like they weren't even allowed to really go into detail on any one topic.
What IS free speech? What IS harmful? Ought there be any laws at all with respect to speech? And even if we come away with answers to that, the philosophy is still only as interesting as it pertains to actual policy.
Just seemed like a lot of disparate points being shared by different people with no real direction.
The bottom line takeaway from this is "wow I guess there's a lot of debate on whether or not we should further regulate speech online." Thats... I mean I guess its good for someone tragically uninformed but its not enough of you want to actually come away with more of an idea of how to look at the problem or how to determine if there even is a problem to begin with.
I don't know. I'm glad Alex is getting some airtime but I can't say I have a lot of praise for the BBC unless their goal is to entertain and make viewers feel informed. If thats the case they're doing a pretty good job.
@@kj_H65f Yeah I would say the BBC wants to preserve some sembalnce of impartiality even in debates like these, and would rather encourage the viewers themselves to ascertain which points are more persuasive. And whilst It was quite a directionless, short form discussion which didn't really have room for proper cross-examining and conclusions, I don't fault it much for that - entertainment and informing should be what public broadcasting aims for.
@@kj_H65f Is not a low bar at all. Most of the people on twitter or Reddit are completely incapable of coping with any opposing view to their own.
@@SynphamyMusic Thanks. Excellent comments regarding the example of a great "civil discussion". I'm a Christian believer and I tend to agree with you.
Respectfully from Florida
I do think making the social media companies liable for what they push in their recommendation engines would be a step in the right direction. This would still allow the users free speech but force the social media companies to somewhat rethink their recommendation system that frankly seems to push a lot of outrage content.
No, because the moment the companies are in any way liable then they're going to be as careful as possible. Anything with even the slightest bit of potential to harm the company will be cut. Look how TH-cam responded in the wake of Pewdiepie's bridge comment. It'd be like that but 1000-fold.
Everything you see on social media is provided by an algorithm. There's no such thing as finding new content organically; Unless you already know when to find it then anything close to contriversial will be at best shadowbanned, and nobody will stumble upon it again.
The recommendations are based on what people want to see though. No one at twitter or Google or Facebook are deciding what suggestions come up when you start to type something in, it's based on what other users are searching for. All the companies care about is making people stay on their sites for as long as possible and the way that's done is through engagement, all the recommendations are doing is reflecting what the users are currently engaged with. The reason extreme content is pushed is because that's what people are choosing to watch and search for. To change recommendations you would effectively have to monitor current trends 24/7 and if it was a trend they didn't like they would have to manually remove it. It's a completely impractical solution and wouldn't actually solve anything imo
Or you just have a neutral search bar with no suggestions as you type and make it so if people want reccomendations they have to create that list themselves.
@@thecriticalgamer8462It's like you don't even hear that you are saying. We all understand how it works, and people are saying the thing you wish to protect (addiction algorithms) are bad and not a matter of free speech since it's a company using others' speech against the interests of its own users, on behalf of ite customers (advertisers). More power and freedom to the people, screw the algorithms.
@@JP-sm4cs it wouldn't make any difference. If it still searches key terms and presents recommended matches, they would still show content that may be untrue regardless of whether it appears in a search bar recommendation or not.
Let's take the Huw Edwards example. For a few days there was rampant speculation on who was at the center of a scandal at the BBC so if you typed 'bbc scandal' even if there were no recommendations while you typed, all the content it then displayed would be people speculating on who it is. If you typed 'BBC presenter scandal', you would see videos with names of presenters in the titles, it's then on the user to decide which content to watch but the content presented would still be determined by key terms and what other users are putting on the platform. It literally wouldn't solve anything, it's just a silly suggestion to be honest.
Dang! That is one elegant display of disagreement on TV. Now I want every debate to be hosted in this manner.
Very good job by the moderator trying to give voice to all of them
After watching this debate, I can say with confidence I have no idea where I sit on this issue. You guys started mentioning sources and the interviewer was like "yep, time's up." I fell like if you all had another 10 minutes or so, we could have gotten somewhere
Yeah I feel like it was a good surface level debate that could've invited a deeper discussion on the topic if given more time. Like you, I don't know what to think as of yet on the topic of 'free speech' on social media, but I value seeing these types of civil debates with guests from divergent sides of the discussion.
@@tomm8120it's quite simple in my opinion. If you regulate free speech, you get people like the 15 year old in Britain who was prosecuted (with charges later dropped due to the high publicity) for calling Scientology a cult.
@@Sednas...what does this mean?
@@gaybowser4967 forgot two words
I think the women and the men in the panel were discussing 2 different issues.
The women had nothing to say about free speech itself, it was just "regulate social media" and when asked who the response is "An independent body"
Who oversees this body? What gives that the views of people within the body would not interfere with their job?
You noticed? The "You should do something" and "I am doing this" divide. ;)
In my eyes the men were making counterpoints to the women's argument but instead of answering that counterpoint the women repeated their own talking points.
The classic “I believe in free speech but” line is my favorite.
Also kudos to the rest of the guests for such a sensible and mature debate
Hitch mkii is starting to assume its final form. All the heat, less of the fire. Keep it up Alex.
The point about "none of this would happen if the accused's name hadn't been censored" only works when the accused is guilty of the accusations. There's no easy answers.
the only good one is social media awarness an education.
He is guilty though!👍
Who cares if something is hateful or hurtful? We should argue against these people and call them everything under the sun, but never ban them from saying it
I'm really glad that there are still some young, sensible folks who defend the principles of true liberalism without using their own feelings and anecdotes as the primary argument. Brilliant from Alex as usual, I noted that the host seemed uncomfortable as soon as Alex dragged in an actual, longitudinal study into the discussion. Well done!
Man Alex I really respect and admire all the effort you do to have an unbiased and logical way of thinking in a time where many people dont like their ideas to be challenged and would rather follow their political agendas, blinding themselves from the truth.
I appreciate your comments. I agree.
Great points from Alex as usual…I could listen to you all day!
Lmao the host freeaaked out when you mentioned Leviticus 😂
Um, the "lab leak theory" is not, as the guy in the yellow shirt asserted "on the balance of probabilities true" irrespective of what "most people" would supposedly say.
Some people can't help but blurt out their underlying intentions behind making a certain argument
@@matt69nice You leftist really still coping on this issue? jesus christ let it go ahaha
Yeah, that was an odd little slip
Yeah the second guy on the left was just "I like freedom of speech because it let's me spread BS conspiracies"
I'd say otherwise, but do explain why it isn't the most likely case, genuinely. The other options seem to be that it just happened without cause, or that someone ate some wonky meat and spread it as a result, or the far more ridiculous intentional cause conspiracy theory takes. So, yeah, a freakish accident does seem more likely, though wouldn't rule out a rapid evolution of some pre-existing virus, as that is a thing, but it doesn't seem as likely to just have happened without being detected and intervened
The only way to stop hate speech is to make it non profitable. Don’t respond to it. When it pops up in your feed, don’t eat it. Just select “don’t recommend this channel” or the equivalent in whatever platform you’re using. I used to think “I have to respond to this.” It took me awhile to realize that I don’t have to respond. Think of social media as being a child; if you give it attention for bad behavior, it will behave badly.
It's a great suggestion but I think you know as well as I do that sadly most people struggle to do that, and that's why click baiting videos and grifters/trolls exist. They want to make it so people feel they *have* to reply and few can resist the urge.
When he brought up about connecting names to anonymous accounts, first thing I thought of was South Park and troll hunter. Great discussion
'Yeah! That's his opinion... urrggg' Hahahahahhahaha ..... its like we heard the direct feed from the scared producer screaming in his ear.
To the people in the comments, a civilised debate can be a sign we're not digging deep enough into people's beliefs, which will obviously ignite passions. We just can't allow, on the flipside, a debate to grow out of control. A healthy balance of pushing for answers, and respect for other people's boundaries is what debates need to actually tackle people's real fears, and hopes, and complex ideas.
They’re all npc’s
@@lingardinho2956 it's the TV format that's the issue.
@@KieranLeCam But what do you mean by "ignite passions". I like to hear discussions that indeed dig "deep enough into people's beliefs" but I dislike strongly confrontational debates and constant judgmental attitudes.
By the way, I'm a Christian believer. I like how you said "respect for other people's boundaries..." Excellent.
Respectfully from Florida
@@johnbrzykcy3076 if passion is tempered by understanding and love for your opposition, then it can reign free in all other respects. There is no judgment in Understanding. I hope your day is blessed! :)
@@KieranLeCam Thanks for the great comments. What you said is something important to ponder.
Blessings to you too.
Free speech is free speech and must be protected. I am a christian and have been on the end of some truly atrocious memes about Jesus and have never been offended.
You must have a strong character because many people, including Christians, would become offended by such "memes about Jesus". Respectfully from Florida
Before watching this, I was an advocate of curtailing misinformation. And after hearing the thoughts of Alex and the man sitting next to him, I've genuinely changed my mind. However, there's no denying that once something false is in the public domain, it's hard to wipe that from people's consciousness - even if there are subsequently great videos/speeches/interviews/etc that present the truth.
Glad to see that you are considering the free speech position. I would add that there are costs to Free Speech, like the one you mentioned. I think it is preferable to other option where their is a person or group in control of censorship.
All these social media companies should have their own code of ethics where people are not being defamed. If they don't have a code of ethics then people should be allowed to sue the platforms for defamation.
I'd argue social media creates a " virtual town square".
If you or I were to defame someone in a "real" town square, they could take us to court for slander.
Right now, existing law allow you to sue someone who slanders you online. (So I agree with you, but so do existing laws).
This should have been brought up in the discussion.
I do agree, hesitantly, that the social media algorithms should not "suggest" names and associate them with potentially harmful stories simply because they work at an organization where allegations are a hot topic.
The fix for that is probably to allow a defamed individual to sue the social media platform itself for slander.
We might be surprised how quickly the social media sites would find a fix for their algorithms when they face 10,000 lawsuits.
No.
would have loved to have seen the girl with the veil on to have answered alex's question. because we both know if you can't quote a homophobic line from the bible, surely that will extend to other holybooks :)
They say truth hurts but as long as it's not foul language, should it really be censored?
@@andrewdouglas1963 I'm a Christian believer and I don't think the "truth" that hurts should be "censored". I'm a sensitive person but I need to learn to respect people with other beliefs because "I don't know it all".
Thanks for sharing. Respectfully
This was such a good video. That Leviticus line was perfect
Yes!😎
Alex, as a Christian, the mandate to love you is easy! More power to you, and more power to your elbow should you wish to put it to work.
Hello Alex. How are you?
Lol
A killer example, Alex!
oddly ( and i didn't know i would quote this so i've forgotten the citation) but a religious group in the states got some books banned from the local library, but then another group (possibly the satanic temple, who do really good work in the community and actually act as a secular body) got the bible banned using exactly the same ruling, violence and sex (read ezekiel 23:14 then bear in mind they give this book to children.)
Around a thousand years ago Imam Muhammad Al Ghazali told story of a man walking in the jungle. A roaring lion ran towards him and the man ran as fast as he could to escape from it. He noticed a well in front of him and he jumped inside hoping to escape from the lion. As he was falling inside the well, he grabbed onto the rope and saved himself. The man was so relieved but when he looked down he saw a big snake at the bottom of the well. It had its jaws wide open ready to swallow him up. The man then looked up and saw two mice nibbling at the rope. A black mouse and a white were both chewing into the rope. The scary lion was still prowling outside the well. The man's heart was pounding as he wondered how he could escape from this. Then he noticed a honeycomb in front of him which had delicious honey dripping from it. He stuck his finger into the honey and put it inside his mouth. It was delicious and for a moment he forgot about the lion, the snake and the two mice chewing at the rope. Imam Ghazali explained that the lion is like the angel of death which is always looming above us. The snake was like his grave which all humans will face. The black mouse and white mouse were like the day and night which are always nibbling at our life (the rope). The honey was like this dunya (this temporal world) which with its momentary sweetness makes us forget the death and the eternal life.
Powerful!
When I consider that Alex is all of 6 months older than myself, I feel both inspired and humbled. That someone of my generation can be so clear-minded and articulate, and that the same person expresses a minority opinion so dauntlessly.
I don't know Alex's age but I agree with you. He inspires me too although I could probably be his grandfather.
Peace to you from Florida...
How old is he?
@@azula390624, born in March 1999
Well done. And a great segment.
So happy to see you get more recognition 😁
These debates show the stark contrast between male vs female attitudes toward issues.
😂
Absolutely 0 sense of responsibility from women. Yeah you don't like something? Well go educate people about it or you're FREE to do a boycott for companies to implement whatever it is you want, instead of trying to get the government to do so
I do agree that the anchor worked hard to spread the time around. Good for him. I also agree that free speech is a complicated idea, but also that it does need at least some oversight. I think it is reasonable that individuals and companies who willfully disseminate misinformation, defame people, and spew hate speech, for example, can be prosecuted and _lose their right to "free" speech,_ at least temporarily, if not permanently.
I've always believed that "free speech" was to protect your right to object to government rule. I've never equated free speech with a right to attack people publicly with malice and misinformation. You should have a right to express your views, but I should have a right to _not be attacked_ with unsubstantiated claims and misinformation.
"O daughter Babylon, you devastator! Happy shall they be who pay you back what you have done to us! Happy shall they be who take your little ones and dash them against the rock!"(Psalm 137:8-9 NRSV)
Basically being happy killing "little ones"
Don't forget: Therefore kill all that are of the male sex, even of the children: and put to death the women, that have carnally known men. But the girls, and all the women that are virgins save for yourselves. (Numbers 31:17-18)
Based
Is Alex a free speech absolutist? I would like to hear an intelligent argument about the notions of freedom and responsibility.
He has said he isn't
@@Besthinktwice- the correct take, tbh 👍
Great discussion. Your clarification on the free speech/social conflict studies is probably not as too strongly overstated as you cite yourself for, but kudos for checking yourself on that point.
This was a very nice discussion!
The host did a great job.
Damn alex you killed it. Good job.
About the statement at 8:30 it is, I think, a particularly gullible take on the matters that i see a lot : falsehood and truth aren't on an equal stand, especially if the ones propagating falsehood are actively lying. If you actually seek the truth, for each statement you make, you have to actually research it, which take time and energy, while a liar can make a new line instantaneously, that's the Brandolini's law. Add to that that someone lying as all the liberty to make the lie more appealing than a disappointing truth, so if we let truth and lie fight, truth will likely never win in a public debate, at least in the short term which can be particularly damaging for problem that need a rapid response (or when some call for such rapid response).
Censoring is like sweeping dust under a rug, it's recomended if you want the illusion of a clean house...
Alex being ultra nice quoting Leviticus and not the Quran/Hadiths as an example so as to be gentle on the muslim lady what a gentleman. I'm curious though how she would have taken it. You can literally get accused of hate/Islamophobia just simply quoting immoral text from Hadith/Quran.
Felt like despite the presenter trying his best to create a dialogue between the two sides, each kept coming back to the talking points they really wanted to get out there.
Alex's point about "who decides what is free speech" is a fair one, but I don't think he really tried to address the point about social media alogirthms, and what disastrous concequences their current unregulated state can create. Requiring social media companies to put a rule in place where public figures can't be linked to pedophillia scandals on the search results before it's verified is more than fair enough, and will not do anything to curtail people's free speech.
The algorithms question didnt need answering. Its a fundemental part of the internet, it knows what you're looking for and gives it to you. Its not speech and they would be no problem if we could have spoke the truth in the first place.
The algorithms are automated based on searches of the person using the account and the searches among popularized searches. You cannot create a specific algorithm that exclusively bans certain forms of linkage because computers do not understand language in the same way humans do. For example, let us take your example:
Say you want to a rule that forces a filter on any searches linking pedophilia to public figures:
This is again done by automation to look for keywords.
Think of searches that say "this celebrity NOT a pedophile". That is one exception to account for. Now think of millions of others that these filters would need to be applied to. What's more, algorithms do not only apply for specific scenarios. Filtering search results may actually detach users from relevant spheres of discussion, even if it is biased.
Lastly, what exactly do you mean by "verified". This might sound like deliberate ignorance, but without an objective standard, how would you even expect social media companies to create an algorithm to account for this? Do you mean the result of a court case? What if the court ruled wrongly?
Filtering any search result is tough because virtually no search exists in isolation. Information and misinformation are hardly ever isolated; social media platforms emulsify them. Restrictions access to "unverified" claims quite inevitably lead to the restriction of many verified ones; rather, the verification
A rule does not make some thing or another viable.
How about, instead of a filter that prevents certain searches from appearing, the posts with the links be flagged. That way people can at least know to take the post with a grain of salt.
Social media is already hyper regulated and censored and the government itself has contacts in all big tech companies to pull down what they deem "misinformation", even within the US. Dozens of government agencies were literally telling twitter to take down or boost accounts based on its own whims and Twitter was complying. Not because they were legally obliged to do so, but because they are financially and ideologically aligned with the censorious aspects of US government. No, it is absolutely not fair to prevent the truth from spreading just because it hasn't been "verified" however you think that works in your little totalitarian mind. The government and social media should not be the arbiters or authorities of "truth". That caused countless deaths during COVID and is utterly incompatible and disgusting to a democratic society.
your regime would be basically Pravda. Your regime would prevent us from discussing the atrocities committed during the iraq war or the lies the government told us leading up to it, because it's "disinformation" or "not confirmed" by the US government. Just say you don't believe in free speech. Don't pretend you have some special exception to free speech where actually we do need the government or social media to decide for us what is or isn't true and then censor us based on that.
@@ahampurushahasmi6040
I don't think that's the point she was making. The fact is that it's the algorithm that suggests the topic of the search - so all you need to do is stop it from giving people ideas they didn't already hold.
People seem to think it's some sort of human right to have access to gossip. It's not.
The problem with these “social media companies should do Y” is they come from a local parochial view of regulation.
UK media companies might be forced to do Y, and if a web provider has a physical office in a country they may be beholden to those regulations. But for many of them why would UK law apply?
Imagine if you put up a web forum and some government official from Zambia contacted you telling you what you must now do! Why should I care what Zambian libel and hate speech laws are?
The UK is going to have a really hard time throwing any weight around on this sort of thing now it’s not in the EU. Many companies can just say “US law allows it, go suck eggs.”
Can't see how social media shouldn't be subjected to the same laws the press are.
I think that people who talk about free speech put an astonishing amount of faith in the mob; if one wants to talk about history, relying on the mob to decide what's true and what isn't also hasn't tended to produce terribly positive results, on the level of mass hysterias, pogroms and witch-burnings. "The mob is the mother of tyrants", in the words of Diogenes.
The central problem is that we live in a singularly narcissistic age in which every person is convinced they have all the knowledge they'll ever require already, everything they believe is completely faultless, and all they're interested in doing is yelling their point of view at other people. All respect for experts or intellectuals is dead, unless they happen to parrot what you already believe. And this creates memetic monsters, because there's no experts to check these people's nonsense. I dread to think where it'll all end.
The mob is dangerous but when we're talking about free speech, we aren't talking about burning cars or people.
@@Chronically_ChiII- aren't you? Something about boats, and letting people drown?
Wait you.. some that believes in establishment talking points is making a disingenuous argument to keep the silencing of dissidents.. I am truly shocked. Lefties never change.
@@danielcrafter9349 I'm not following.
Are you talking about the migrant crisis?
@@Chronically_ChiII The vast, vast majority of the time when people say "free speech" these days they're not talking about actual free speech in any sort of political, philosophical sense as they might have done 20 or 30 years ago though. They might *pretend* they are, but herein lies the problem.
"Free speech" as a phrase has metamorphosed itself infrto that same category of political bullshit occupied by words like "freedom" and "equality" where people's selfish desires are rebranded as something much more altruistic and humanistic; people who talk about "freedom" inevitably don't give a shit about or actively resist things like abortion or LGBT rights (freedom for me but not for you, apparently); people who talk about "equality" tend to be in favour of things like affirmative action, etc.
People who talk about "free speech" pretty much always seem completely disinterested in anyone's speech but their own and anyone who agrees with them. Memorably, a free speech-head once told me that the Left shouldn't have free speech because it "doesn't apply to Marxist propaganda".
It's even drifting past this into the realms of becoming basically meaningless, such as recently when a coffee company decided to pull its advertising from GB News because presumably they didn't want to be associated with the channel and the ever-tiresome Laurence Fox described the act as "an attack on free speech"(?). I'm not really sure how that works.
For the average free speech maniac these days, "free speech" seems to mean "I get to say whatever I want, nobody is allowed to criticise me, and I am free of all consequences of my speech". Which is the exact opposite of free speech, given that *free speech is allowed to everyone else, including everyone to criticise you*.
I really don't like Noam Chomsky, but he was bang on with this quote:
"Goebbels was in favor of free speech for views he liked. So was Stalin. If you’re really in favor of free speech, then you’re in favor of freedom of speech for precisely the views you despise. Otherwise, you’re not in favor of free speech."
If you don't want Communists and drag queens giving speeches to 8-year-olds, you're not in favour of free speech. You just want to be able to post the N-word on Twitter. That's not being in favour of free speech, that's just beign a jackass.
It’s amusing that the moderator told Alex, “That’s just your opinion.”
Then later on, when the moderator was talking about a link, Alex cited a study refuting the link.
In response, the moderator was like, “Okay…”
Moderator said "that's his opinion" because Alex mentioned China and everyone is terrified of angering the Chinese Communist Party in some way so moderator pre-empts Alex's statement even before he's said anything