I’ve been busy, for two good reasons: firstly I’ve been asked to do some public speaking about Blockchain technology and Web3 and have been allocating my ‘blogging time’ to preparing for that, and secondly the markets have been very volatile and interesting to trade. I feel happy to have had the discipline to have risked off in December, enabling me to calmly observe the opportunities that are potentially setting up now, without too much of a bias. I don’t know if we’re ‘there’ yet and I haven’t taken any positions with conviction - but oh my, day trading galore. More on that in the next posts of course, these are very interesting times.
But first, as I am genuinely grateful for the feedback I received on my last blog entry about Elon Musk’s purchase of Twitter (and also read some poorly constructed mainstream reporting on the subject in the meantime), I figured I’d write one more post on the topic of the censorship/free speech/fake news debate. Besides, I am injured and at home, what else am I going to do?
Not always, but I mostly read that ‘Musk is bad’. As described in my last post, this is an easy case to make, I could make it as well. But one must argue for something. And I didn’t see any of that. Most of the ad hominem hit-job articles I read even omitted the crucial piece of information that Musk intends to open source the algorithm and wants to push for some form of authentication, increasing the importance of online reputations and thereby highly likely lowering the amount of misinformation outright. Leaving that out is either disingenuous or incompetent in my opinion.
A solid article here and there seems to have increasingly become the exception proving the rule nowadays, not even only in legacy media, but everywhere. I really do look forward to a properly performing, reliable and transparently coded quality control mechanism that is equal for all.
At the moment, the quality of media content is a bit too much like ordering something on Amazon or Bol, but 80% of the time, your order doesn’t arrive, and in half of the remaining cases, you didn’t get what you ordered, but you are fanatically told that, in fact, you did! And in a way, the free speech debate feels like the final straw for me.
When I think about what to say, write, or, well, think, I try to avoid making too many logical errors. I’ve noticed a certain pattern in the overall reporting, in this case about Twitter.
Most arguments are basically a version of ‘There is fake news. Fake news is bad. Echo chambers increasingly exist. We must censor’. No reasonable party I know disputes the first three statements, so this is not what the debate is about. Indeed, most are very good at labeling the problem. But this doesn’t automatically provide (or prove) censorship as a solution. And the claim that people who advocate for as little censorship as possible, are disputing these aforementioned statements, is known as ‘a strawman’. A misrepresentation of someone’s argument to make it easier to attack.
The debate is not about the existence of fake news or echo chambers. Of course this is correct. It’s about whether or not increased censorship is the best solution to tackle these problems.
‘More censorship = less fake news’ is a false cause. It’s like using an argument that is yet to be proven victorious, as proof for the argument that one is making. The correlation between fake news and censorship is the contention here, not the existence of fake news. And unless there is a clear proven correlation, some might say it is always best to err on the side of caution rather than to implement an interventionist tool which has potentially unpredictable side-effects.
This correlating line of thought often only calculates the externalities of one side (the effects of too much fake news are bad) but not the other, while there is a non-zero, quite realistic chance that this selective censorship perhaps even made and makes things worse. You’d have to be sure that the censorship by which the supposed reduced spread of fake news is achieved is, first of all, accurately implemented, but also that it has more weight than for example, the perhaps heightened conviction, frustration or social isolation that may result from being censored or incorrectly de-platformed. It could potentially increase polarization instead of decreasing it, fringe opinions could be more strongly held, debate discouraged, it could sway the public to vote for more extreme politicians, etcetera.
Censorship has plenty of hidden societal costs that are unaccounted for. But more importantly, the black or white way of positioning this debate also leaves out new, innovative and technological solutions that combat fake news, but with as little censorship as possible - at which I will make an attempt in my next post.
Errors are also made using the ‘burden of proof’ fallacy, when asserting that it was appropriate to censor something because it wasn’t consensus at the time, creating a self-fulfilling prophecy, because by censoring criticism on policy, it takes longer for the ‘new’ insight to become consensus. In my view, this is really just plain trivial logic because of a lack of a limiting principle. When taken to its extreme, ‘I can censor anything as long as I can claim that I didn’t 100% know it was truth at the time’ is not safe way to manage censorship and can be gamed almost infinitely and at will by the censurer.
In the vast majority of cases, the burden of proof should be on the one who censors, not on the person voicing a ‘dissident’ opinion. As an example, for some, apparently, the Fed printing trillions of dollars causing inflation was ‘new insight’. For others, it was simply ‘insight’, inevitable from the get-go. Same with for example, lockdown policies and its externalities. Who is the arbiter who gets to decide what is ‘new’ and what is ‘current’ insight, without weighing too much on the debate? Fine line there, as the difference between what is insight and ‘new’ insight is a matter of opinion (and debate) almost by definition, and therefor can almost never be used as the sole reason to censor.
And hey, sidenote, about that inflation, who was correct in the end? Perhaps more importantly and crucially, is it even relevant who was correct? People are still allowed to be incorrect, right? I feel like I read (and write:)) incorrect stuff all the time. Or do all the people that predicted ‘no/transitory inflation’ now need to be censored and heckled because they can no longer appeal to authority (assuming they ever could)? Did they squander their credit? If yes, for how long? When do they get reinstated? Based on what? It all feels a little too arbitrary to me at the moment.
Anyway, last I checked, these economists all still have their jobs, even though, well, they weren’t even close.
There would have to be additional discussion needed about who holds accountable the one who censors and based on what, why certain false things aren’t censored and why certain true things are.
A properly scalable solution solves for this enormous grey zone between what is real and what is fake - and how to allow for enough debate, without swaying the debate one way or the other. Misrepresenting a historical black & white fact is obviously fake news. Deliberately misrepresenting a news item by choosing certain polarizing wording might be as well, but what about interpreting data or correlations differently than ‘the establishment’, for lack of better wording. Is that also ‘fake news’? What if someone in charge is incompetent? Or malicious? Or simply makes a mistake? Surely this is also a risk, and arguably a greater risk than fake news itself.
Would it have been OK to have been censored back in the day for saying a lobotomy probably shouldn’t be used as a treatment that frequently? Or would that have been censored as fake news because it wasn’t in line with the consensus of ‘the’ science? Which new precedents are we setting here as a society?
Why should I, or anyone else, potentially get increasingly muzzled? Because it will lead to less fake news? Really? I don’t subscribe to that logic at all. Too much of a slippery slope.
I have always been taught that censorship discourages scientific progress. Because experts change their minds all the time, in the face of new information and discussion, as they should. When did we pivot away from thesis, antithesis, synthesis? I didn’t get the memo. And lastly, how do we stop the one who censors from being too ‘trigger happy’, even if assuming they mean well? We’re going to need some scalable best practices, where not only the poster or journalist is held accountable, but also the fact-checker. Don’t trust, verify.
Loosely related..
I, for one, value consistency.
About many things, there simply is no objective truth. This is obvious, because if there was, life wouldn’t work this way and this whole discussion would be resolved already, as there would be no need for it to begin with. Some things that we view as standard are not standard for others. And one person’s superhero is another person’s villain. This balancing act is tough to solve, so I’d like to speak out against the back-of-the-napkin calculation for the ‘oh well, more censorship it is’ proposal. Its historical track record speaks for itself and it is one of authoritarianism and unhealthy centralization.
So let’s be positive and argue for something and discuss a solution, one which in my opinion is inevitable.
Instead of talking about censorship vs. free speech, I believe we should be using technology to solve a societal problem, like humans have done almost every time a persistent societal problem endures. That is why I am very much PRO an improved and politically neutral fact checking mechanism as a free speech enabler, as opposed to the ineffective, and frankly borderline dangerous, non-solution of ‘more censorship’. Balaji Srinivasan and many other intelligent people are working on creating this and I have the utmost confidence they will succeed.
And hey look, Crypto Exchange Binance is joining in on the Twitter Bid (and so is Larry Ellison from Oracle). Assuming this deal ever goes through, things just got very interesting as this makes it much more likely that blockchain will play a role in authentication and perhaps even immutability of past actions or content(!!).
Buzzwords aside, I can’t wait to discuss how an application of Web3 could for example incentivize and mobilize the crowd to attack fake news from within, by utilizing an on-chain, traceable fact-checking rating system that rewards good behaviours and track records. I’ll draft a proposal;)
lizard people