SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
We recently discussed reddit's woes and the hiring of a new CEO. However, we have seen communities come and go for many years.
Clay Shirky wrote about his experience in 1978: "Communitree was founded on the principles of open access and free dialogue... And then, as time sets in, difficulties emerge. In this case, one of the difficulties was occasioned by the fact that one of the institutions that got hold of some modems was a high school. ... the boys weren't terribly interested in sophisticated adult conversation. They were interested in fart jokes. They were interested in salacious talk. ... the adults who had set up Communitree were horrified, and overrun by these students. The place that was founded on open access had too much open access, too much openness. They couldn't defend themselves against their own users. The place that was founded on free speech had too much freedom."
There are two clear trends. One is that less input and customization tends to grow bigger. Note how Geocities was replaced with Myspace which was then replaced with Facebook and Twitter. These newer systems take away personal freedom of expression and makes people follow a 'prescribed' system, albeit an easier one to use. The other trend is that communities that try to be truly free and open end up either stifled by that openness or give up. The only obvious exception is a platform that allows us to simply filter out everything we don't want to see, which becomes a series of the feared echo chamber. With the excessive amount of data and the build up of complex rules on how information is shared, where does this leave us? It seems that like the famous iron triangle allowing free (and legal) speech with the possibility of diverse opinions, a cohesive group, and growth only allows you to pick two.
It seems to me this is a wicked problem, perhaps unsolvable. But I wonder if the community thinks there are other design options? Is this even possible with human nature as it is?
Original Submission
(Score: 4, Insightful) by aristarchus on Sunday July 19 2015, @07:22PM
AS River Tam says at the beginning of Serenity, "we're in their minds and in their heads and we haven't the right." But then the teacher says, "We are not telling people what to think, we're just trying to show them how." And. . . cue probe into forehead. Point is, that freedom of speech is not fundamental, it is in fact only an instrumental right, one that serves a more basic right.
We should start with something concrete: relevant sections of the UDHR:
PDF version for the language English
Article 18
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.
Article 19
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
Article 20
Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.
No one may be compelled to belong to an association.
Article 21
Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.
Everyone has the right to equal access to public service in his country.
The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.
http://www.ohchr.org/EN/UDHR/Pages/Language.aspx?LangID=eng
Crucial part is that what is at stake is freedom of thought, "freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers." And that the freedom of speech is a freedom to seek and receive, and only lastly to impart, which make the point that the only value in speech is the formation and testing of opinions. This is where education is important.
The original Liberal Arts curriculum was divided into two parts, the Trivium and the Quadrivium, or basically skills and content. They are called the "Liberal Arts" because they are the arts of a Liberal Person, and liberal means "free". So what are the skills of a free person? The Trivium is Logic, Grammar, and Rhetoric, or in other words, how to think correctly, how to read and write (information and communication), and how to argue, participate in politics. So this is our Serenity teacher paradox: if we say everyone is entitled to an opinion, but we do not give them the education that would allow them to use that freedom, are they really free? How could they decide to change the "received opinion" of their "echo chamber" and Fox News? This is sort of like saying everyone has a right to life, but not a right to food, shelter, and medical care. Or as Anatole France once said: "The law, in its infinite majesty, forbids both the rich and poor from sleeping under bridges and begging for food in the streets."