Daily Archives: March 29, 2017

The president wants liberties for himself that he doesnt grant to others.

Singaporean blogger Amos Yee, who has been granted asylum in the United States.

A March 24 decision by a US immigration court in Chicago to grant asylum to Amos Yee, an 18-year-old blogger from the tiny Asian city-state of Singapore, has lit up news media worldwide because it illuminates new dangers to freedoms of speech, not only in Singapore which ranks near the bottom of every assessment of press and other freedoms but even in the US, where Yees asylum was opposed by President Trumps Department of Homeland Security.

DHS has 30 days to appeal the immigration courts decision, and undoubtedly its deciding right now whether to do so. An appeal, which DHS would file through its Immigration and Customs Enforcement agencys Office of Chief Counsel, could reinforce ICEs image as Trumps presidential security force. And it would bolster the authoritarian regime in Singapore that has beguiled tourists and foreign investors with gleaming skyscrapers, obedient migrant workers and efficient management that reflect only a small part of its much harder, darker reality.

Singapore is a laboratory for what the conservative Economist magazine condemned in 2012 as crony capitalism combined with nationalism, calling the countrys late founder and longtime prime minister Lee Kuan Yew a tireless advocate of Asian values, by which Lee meant a mixture of family values and authoritarianism that hobbles democracy by running a society as if it were a business corporation.

That may be possible in a little city-state of about 6 million people, but Lees way of subsuming politics to business management has made Singapore a model for neoliberal cooperation with dictators over the world. Come to think of it, governing a country as if it were a business is just what Trump has appointed his son-in-law Jared Kushner to do. Singapores restrictions on freedoms of expression, so evident in the Amos Yee asylum case, may presage a shift toward that model in America that was already happening before Trumps election.

A Trump administration appeal of Yees asylum will damage Americas reputation as the land of the free and home of the brave.

A Trump administration appeal of Yees asylum will damage Americas reputation as the land of the free and home of the brave, a reputation reinforced by Judge Samuel B. Coles detailed, devastating assessment of Singapores treatment of the then-16-year-old Yee, whom it imprisoned twice for his blog rants against religion and more fatefully, although not mentioned by the government against Singapores leaders.

An American appeal of Yees asylum would bolster Singapores authoritarian regime and cast a harsh new light on speech-suffocating political correctness in America that begins not mainly on college campuses, where some angry, frightened 19-year-olds and junior professors do react immaturely and destructively but do so to larger, encroaching dangers in government and business curbs on citizens freedoms, whether by state surveillance for power or corporate surveillance for profit.

The immigrant court, citing seemingly endless precedents in Singapores judicial record, found that, under cover of enforcing a dubious law against wounding religious feelings, Yees prosecution was a pretext to silence his political opinions of the Singapore government and that his detention and general maltreatment constitute persecution on account of Yees political opinions.

That decision and the grant of asylum confirmed America as the greatest country of the world, Kenneth Jeyaretnam, secretary-general of Singapores government-harassed opposition Reform Party, told me after flying from virtual exile in London to Chicago to testify on Yees behalf. Jeyaretnam detailed for the court precisely how Singapores government, like many others these days, suffocates citizens freedoms deftly but decisively behind legalistic and democratic facades.

Yee wasnt exactly a poster boy for freedom of expression. His expletive-laden, quasi-pornographic rants against Muslims, Christians and, more fatefully, Singapores late founder and virtual dictator Lee Kuan Yew (on a blog with some 50,000 followers) were childish rubbish, as Jeyaretnam himself acknowledged in his blog post supporting asylum.

But that only reinforces the significance of this case. Plenty of Singaporean leaders, including Lee himself, a classic 19th-century racist, have spewed such rubbish without ever being prosecuted. In 1967 Lee told an interviewer that

The bell curve [that supposedly measures race-driven differences in intelligence] is a fact of life. These are realities that, if you do not accept, will lead to frustration because you will be spending money on wrong assumptions You get a good mare, you dont want a dud stallion to breed with your good mare. You get a poor foal. Your mental capacity and your EQ and the rest of you, 70 to 80 percent is genetic.

Lee ran Singapore so tightly on such premises that he characterized its consequent racial (and religious) compartmentalization (with Chinese like himself at the top, Malays and others below) as an example of harmonious multiculturalism that Singapores laws enforce. We decide what is right. Never mind what the people think, he told the government-controlled Straits Times in 1987.

Lees son, who has succeeded him as prime minister, still runs Singapore that way, with only a few new grace notes. Its prosecution of Yee is only one recent instance of the governments relentless use of its scandalous judiciary to intimidate, bankrupt or cripple the political opposition with legal suits commenced against dissidents and detractors for alleged defamation, wrote the late Francis T. Seow, a former solicitor general of the county who ended his life in exile in Massachusetts.

Its clear that the Singapore government saw Amos Yee as the proverbial nail sticking up that had to be hammered down, said Phil Robertson, deputy Asia director of Human Rights Watch, which monitors Singapore.

Stung by the asylum decisions exposure of its methods, the countrys ministry of home affairs complained with ill-disguised petulance that

There are many more such people, around the world, who deliberately engage in hate speech, and who may be prosecuted. Some of them will no doubt take note of the US approach, and consider applying for asylum in the US. Anyone who engages in hate speech or attempts to burn the Quran, Bible or any religious text in Singapore, will be arrested and charged.

Yee hadnt burned anything or endangered anyone. Hed lampooned Singapores leaders and methods. But what about American college students who rant and sometimes even shout down others who have every right to be heard? Those wayward students, too, take more cues from authority than their critics admit.

When Yale University, where I teach, bypassed its facultys objections to establish a new college with the National University of Singapore in that country, Yale President Richard Levin told the Yale Alumni Magazine that Understanding that norms are different is part of the value of this experiment and that In Singapore, it is illegal to express racist or intolerant positions publicly. Here in the United States, some of our university peers have speech codes. If that isnt a defense of political correctness from the top down, what is?

Trump has spewed even more racist and vulgar rubbish than Lee Kuan Yew, and he has denounced political correctness for trying to block it. Since that kind of free speech is so dear to our lying, crooked, so-called president, whats his excuse for opposing Amos Yees freedom? The most likely answer is that, like Singapores late Lee and so many other aspiring seigneurs, Trump wants liberties for himself that he doesnt grant to others.

What the American Constitution rightly protects in freedom of speech, a healthy civil society would rightly modulate. Freedom does require limits against which to express itself responsibly a lesson that young people such as Yee and the shouting American students will learn in time but only if Singapores too-authoritarian civil society or Americas too-anarchic civil society become healthy enough to help them to do that. Embracing governmental solutions like Singapores, as Trump seems inclined to do, wont save either that island society or our continental one from the cascading ills we feel rising all around us.

View original post here:
Trump's Double Standard on Freedom of Speech - BillMoyers.com

Many experts fear uncivil and manipulative behaviors on the internet will persist and may get worse. This will lead to a splintering of social media into AI-patrolled and regulated safe spaces separated from free-for-all zones. Some worry this will hurt the open exchange of ideas and compromise privacy

The internet supports a global ecosystem of social interaction. Modern life revolves around the network, with its status updates, news feeds, comment chains, political advocacy, omnipresent reviews, rankings and ratings. For its first few decades, this connected world was idealized as an unfettered civic forum: a space where disparate views, ideas and conversations could constructively converge. Its creators were inspired by the optimism underlying Stuart Brands WELL in 1985, Tim Berners-Lees World Wide Web and Electronic Frontier Foundation co-founder John Perry Barlows 1996 Declaration of Independence of Cyberspace. They expected the internet to create a level playing field for information sharing and communal activity among individuals, businesses, other organizations and government actors.

One of the biggest challenges will be finding an appropriate balance between protecting anonymity and enforcing consequences for the abusive behavior that has been allowed to characterize online discussions for far too long. Bailey Poland

Since the early 2000s, the wider diffusion of the network, the dawn of Web 2.0 and social medias increasingly influential impacts, and the maturation of strategic uses of online platforms to influence the public for economic and political gain have altered discourse. In recent years, prominent internet analysts and the public at large have expressed increasing concerns that the content, tone and intent of online interactions have undergone an evolution that threatens its future and theirs. Events and discussions unfolding over the past year highlight the struggles ahead. Among them:

To illuminate current attitudes about the potential impacts of online social interaction over the next decade, Pew Research Center and Elon Universitys Imagining the Internet Center conducted a large-scale canvassing of technology experts, scholars, corporate practitioners and government leaders. Some 1,537 responded to this effort between July 1 and Aug. 12, 2016 (prior to the late-2016 revelations about potential manipulation of public opinion via hacking of social media). They were asked:

In the next decade, will public discourse online become more or less shaped by bad actors, harassment, trolls, and an overall tone of griping, distrust, and disgust?

In response to this question, 42% of respondents indicated that they expect no major changein online social climate in the coming decade and 39% said they expect the online future will be more shaped by negative activities. Those who said they expect the internet to be less shaped by harassment, trolling and distrust were in the minority. Some 19% said this. Respondents were asked to elaborate on how they anticipate online interaction progressing over the next decade. (See About this canvassing of experts for further details about the limits of this sample.)

Participants were also asked to explain their answers in a written elaboration and asked to consider the following prompts: 1) How do you expect social media and digital commentary will evolve in the coming decade? 2) Do you think we will see a widespread demand for technological systems or solutions that encourage more inclusive online interactions? 3) What do you think will happen to free speech? And 4) What might be the consequences for anonymity and privacy?

While respondents expressed a range of opinions from deep concern to disappointment to resignation to optimism, most agreed that people at their best and their worst are empowered by networked communication technologies. Some said the flame wars and strategic manipulation of the zeitgeist might just be getting started if technological and human solutions are not put in place to bolster diverse civil discourse.

A number of respondents predicted online reputation systems and much better security and moderation solutions will become near ubiquitous in the future, making it increasingly difficult for bad actors to act out disruptively. Some expressed concerns that such systems especially those that remove the ability to participate anonymously online will result in an altered power dynamic between government/state-level actors, the elites and regular citizens.

Anonymity, a key affordance of the early internet, is an element that many in this canvassing attributed to enabling bad behavior and facilitating uncivil discourse in shared online spaces. The purging of user anonymity is seen as possibly leading to a more inclusive online environment and also setting the stage for governments and dominant institutions to even more freely employ surveillance tools to monitor citizens, suppress free speech and shape social debate.

Most experts predicted that the builders of open social spaces on global communications networks will find it difficult to support positive change in cleaning up the real-time exchange of information and sharing of diverse ideologies over the next decade, as millions more people around the world become connected for the first time and among the billions already online are many who compete in an arms race of sorts to hack and subvert corrective systems.

Those who believe the problems of trolling and other toxic behaviors can be solved say the cure might also be quite damaging. One of the biggest challenges will be finding an appropriate balance between protecting anonymity and enforcing consequences for the abusive behavior that has been allowed to characterize online discussions for far too long, explained expert respondent Bailey Poland, author of Haters: Harassment, Abuse, and Violence Online.

The majority in this canvassing were sympathetic to those abused or misled in the current online environment while expressing concerns that the most likely solutions will allow governments and big businesses to employ surveillance systems that monitor citizens, suppress free speech and shape discourse via algorithms, allowing those who write the algorithms to sculpt civil debate.

Susan Etlinger, an industry analyst at Altimeter Group, walked through a future scenario of tit-for-tat, action-reaction that ends in what she calls a Potemkin internet. She wrote: In the next several years we will see an increase in the type and volume of bad behavior online, mostly because there will be a corresponding increase in digital activity. Cyberattacks, doxing, and trolling will continue, while social platforms, security experts, ethicists, and others will wrangle over the best ways to balance security and privacy, freedom of speech, and user protections. A great deal of this will happen in public view. The more worrisome possibility is that privacy and safety advocates, in an effort to create a more safe and equal internet, will push bad actors into more-hidden channels such as Tor. Of course, this is already happening, just out of sight of most of us. The worst outcome is that we end up with a kind of Potemkin internet in which everything looks reasonably bright and sunny, which hides a more troubling and less transparent reality.

One other point of context for this non-representative sample of a particular population: While the question we posed was not necessarily aimed at getting peoples views about the role of political material in online social spaces, it inevitably drew commentary along those lines because this survey was fielded in the midst of a bitter, intense election in the United States where one of the candidates, in particular, was a provocative user of Twitter.

Most participants in this canvassing wrote detailed elaborations explaining their positions. Their well-considered comments provide insights about hopeful and concerning trends. They were allowed to respond anonymously, and many chose to do so.

These findings do not represent all points of view possible, but they do reveal a wide range of striking observations. Respondents collectively articulated four key themes that are introduced and briefly explained below and then expanded upon in more-detailed sections.

The following section presents a brief overview of the most evident themes extracted from the written responses, including a small selection of representative quotes supporting each point. Some responses are lightly edited for style or due to length.

While some respondents saw issues with uncivil behavior online on somewhat of a plateau at the time of this canvassing in the summer of 2016 and a few expect solutions will cut hate speech, misinformation and manipulation, the vast majority shared at least some concerns that things could get worse, thus two of the four overarching themes of this report start with the phrase, Things will stay bad.

The individuals voice has a much higher perceived value than it has in the past. As a result, there are more people who will complain online in an attempt to get attention, sympathy, or retribution. Anonymous software engineer

A number of expert respondents observed that negative online discourse is just the latest example of the many ways humans have exercised social vitriol for millennia. Jerry Michalski, founder at REX, wrote, I would very much love to believe that discourse will improve over the next decade, but I fear the forces making it worse havent played out at all yet. After all, it took us almost 70 years to mandate seatbelts. And were not uniformly wise about how to conduct dependable online conversations, never mind debates on difficult subjects. In that long arc of history that bends toward justice, particularly given our accelerated times, I do think we figure this out. But not within the decade.

Vint Cerf, Internet Hall of Fame member, Google vice president and co-inventor of the Internet Protocol, summarized some of the harmful effects of disruptive discourse:

The internet is threatened with fragmentation, he wrote. People feel free to make unsupported claims, assertions, and accusations in online media. As things now stand, people are attracted to forums that align with their thinking, leading to an echo effect. This self-reinforcement has some of the elements of mob (flash-crowd) behavior. Bad behavior is somehow condoned because everyone is doing it. It is hard to see where this phenomenon may be heading. Social media bring every bad event to our attention, making us feel as if they all happened in our back yards leading to an overall sense of unease. The combination of bias-reinforcing enclaves and global access to bad actions seems like a toxic mix. It is not clear whether there is a way to counter-balance their socially harmful effects.

An anonymous respondent commented, The tone of discourse online is dictated by fundamental human psychology and will not easily be changed. This statement reflects the attitude of expert internet technologists, researchers and pundits, most of whom agree that it is the people using the network, not the network, that is the root of the problem.

Paul Jones, clinical professor and director of ibiblio.org at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, commented, The id unbound from the monitoring and control by the superego is both the originator of communication and the nemesis of understanding and civility.

John Cato, a senior software engineer, wrote, Trolling for arguments has been an internet tradition since Usenet. Some services may be able to mitigate the problem slightly by forcing people to use their real identities, but wherever you have anonymity you will have people who are there just to make other people angry.

And an anonymous software engineer explained why the usual level of human incivility has been magnified by the internet, noting, The individuals voice has a much higher perceived value than it has in the past. As a result, there are more people who will complain online in an attempt to get attention, sympathy, or retribution.

Michael Kleeman, formerly with the Boston Consulting Group, Arthur D. Little and Sprint, now senior fellow at the Institute on Global Conflict and Cooperation at the University of California, San Diego, explained: Historically, communities of practice and conversation had other, often physical, linkages that created norms of behavior. And actors would normally be identified, not anonymous. Increased anonymity coupled with an increase in less-than-informed input, with no responsibility by the actors, has tended and will continue to create less open and honest conversations and more one-sided and negative activities.

Trolls now know that their methods are effective and carry only minimal chance of social stigma and essentially no other punishment. Anonymous respondent

An expert respondent who chose not to be identified commented, People are snarky and awful online in large part because they can be anonymous. And another such respondent wrote, Trolls now know that their methods are effective and carry only minimal chance of social stigma and essentially no other punishment. If Gamergate can harass and dox any woman with an opinion and experience no punishment as a result, how can things get better?

Anonymously, a professor at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) commented, We see a dark current of people who equate free speech with the right to say anything, even hate speech, even speech that does not sync with respected research findings. They find in unmediated technology a place where their opinions can have a multiplier effect, where they become the elites.

Some leading participants in this canvassing said the tone of discourse will worsen in the next decade due to inequities and prejudice, noting wealth disparity, the hollowing out of the middle class, and homophily (the tendency of people to bond with those similar to themselves and thus also at times to shun those seen as the other).

Unfortunately, I see the present prevalence of trolling as an expression of a broader societal trend across many developed nations, towards belligerent factionalism in public debate, with particular attacks directed at women as well as ethnic, religious, and sexual minorities. Axel Bruns

Cory Doctorow, writer, computer science activist-in-residence at MIT Media Lab and co-owner of Boing Boing, offered a bleak assessment, writing, Thomas Piketty, etc., have correctly predicted that we are in an era of greater social instability created by greater wealth disparity which can only be solved through either the wealthy collectively opting for a redistributive solution (which feels unlikely) or everyone else compelling redistribution (which feels messy, unstable, and potentially violent). The internet is the natural battleground for whatever breaking point we reach to play out, and its also a useful surveillance, control, and propaganda tool for monied people hoping to forestall a redistributive future. The Chinese internet playbook the 50c army, masses of astroturfers, libel campaigns against enemies of the state, paranoid war-on-terror rhetoric has become the playbook of all states, to some extent (see, e.g., the HB Gary leak that revealed U.S. Air Force was putting out procurement tenders for persona management software that allowed their operatives to control up to 20 distinct online identities, each). That will create even more inflammatory dialogue, flamewars, polarized debates, etc.

And an anonymous professor at MIT remarked, Traditional elites have lost their credibility because they have become associated with income inequality and social injustice. This dynamic has to shift before online life can play a livelier part in the life of the polity. I believe that it will, but slowly.

Axel Bruns, a professor at the Queensland University of Technologys Digital Media Research Centre, said, Unfortunately, I see the present prevalence of trolling as an expression of a broader societal trend across many developed nations, towards belligerent factionalism in public debate, with particular attacks directed at women as well as ethnic, religious, and sexual minorities.

As billions more people are connected online and technologies such as AI chatbots, the Internet of Things, and virtual and augmented reality continue to mature, complexity is always on the rise. Some respondents said well-intentioned attempts to raise the level of discourse are less likely to succeed in a rapidly changing and widening information environment.

As more people get internet access and especially smartphones, which allow people to connect 24/7 there will be increased opportunities for bad behavior. Jessica Vitak

Matt Hamblen, senior editor at Computerworld, commented, [By 2026] social media and other forms of discourse will include all kinds of actors who had no voice in the past; these include terrorists, critics of all kinds of products and art forms, amateur political pundits, and more.

An anonymous respondent wrote, Bad actors will have means to do more, and more significant bad actors will be automated as bots are funded in extra-statial ways to do more damage because people are profiting from this.

Jessica Vitak, an assistant professor at the University of Maryland, commented, Social medias affordances, including increased visibility and persistence of content, amplify the volume of negative commentary. As more people get internet access and especially smartphones, which allow people to connect 24/7 there will be increased opportunities for bad behavior.

Bryan Alexander, president of Bryan Alexander Consulting, added, The number of venues will rise with the expansion of the Internet of Things and when consumer-production tools become available for virtual and mixed reality.

Many respondents said power dynamics push trolling along. The business model of social media platforms is driven by advertising revenues generated by engaged platform users. The more raucous and incendiary the material, at times, the more income a site generates. The more contentious a political conflict is, the more likely it is to be an attention getter. Online forums lend themselves to ever-more hostile arguments.

Frank Pasquale, professor of law at the University of Maryland and author of Black Box Society, commented, The major internet platforms are driven by a profit motive. Very often, hate, anxiety and anger drive participation with the platform. Whatever behavior increases ad revenue will not only be permitted, but encouraged, excepting of course some egregious cases.

Its a brawl, a forum for rage and outrage. The more we come back, the more money they make off of ads and data about us. So the shouting match goes on. Andrew Nachison

Kate Crawford, a well-known internet researcher studying how people engage with networked technologies, observed, Distrust and trolling is happening at the highest levels of political debate, and the lowest. The Overton Window has been widened considerably by the 2016 U.S. presidential campaign, and not in a good way. We have heard presidential candidates speak of banning Muslims from entering the country, asking foreign powers to hack former White House officials, retweeting neo-Nazis. Trolling is a mainstream form of political discourse.

Andrew Nachison, founder at We Media, said, Its a brawl, a forum for rage and outrage. Its also dominated social media platforms on the one hand and content producers on the other that collude and optimize for quantity over quality. Facebook adjusts its algorithm to provide a kind of quality relevance for individuals. But thats really a ruse to optimize for quantity. The more we come back, the more money they make off of ads and data about us. So the shouting match goes on. I dont know that prevalence of harassment and bad actors will change its already bad but if the overall tone is lousy, if the culture tilts negative, if political leaders popularize hate, then theres good reason to think all of that will dominate the digital debate as well.

Several of the expert respondents said because algorithmic solutions tend to reward that which keeps us agitated, it is especially damaging that the pre-internet news organizations that once employed fairly objective and well-trained (if not well-paid) armies of arbiters as democratic shapers of the defining climate of social and political discourse have fallen out of favor, replaced by creators of clickbait headlines read and shared by short-attention-span social sharers.

It is in the interest of the paid-for media and most political groups to continue to encourage echo-chamber thinking and to consider pragmatism and compromise as things to be discouraged. David Durant

David Clark, a senior research scientist at MIT and Internet Hall of Famer commented that he worries over the loss of character in the internet community. It is possible, with attention to the details of design that lead to good social behavior, to produce applications that better regulate negative behavior, he wrote. However, it is not clear what actor has the motivation to design and introduce such tools. The application space on the internet today is shaped by large commercial actors, and their goals are profit-seeking, not the creation of a better commons. I do not see tools for public discourse being good money makers, so we are coming to a fork in the road either a new class of actor emerges with a different set of motivations, one that is prepared to build and sustain a new generation of tools, or I fear the overall character of discourse will decline.

An anonymous principal security consultant wrote, As long as success and in the current climate, profit as a common proxy for success is determined by metrics that can be easily improved by throwing users under the bus, places that run public areas online will continue to do just that.

Steven Waldman, founder and CEO of LifePosts, said, It certainly sounds noble to say the internet has democratized public opinion. But its now clear: It has given voice to those who had been voiceless because they were oppressed minorities and to those who were voiceless because they are crackpots. It may not necessarily be bad actors i.e., racists, misogynists, etc. who win the day, but I do fear it will be the more strident. I suspect there will be ventures geared toward counter-programming against this, since many people are uncomfortable with it. But venture-backed tech companies have a huge bias toward algorithmic solutions that have tended to reward that which keeps us agitated. Very few media companies now have staff dedicated to guiding conversations online.

John Anderson, director of journalism and media studies at Brooklyn College, wrote, The continuing diminution of what Cass Sunstein once called general-interest intermediaries such as newspapers, network television, etc. means we have reached a point in our society where wildly different versions of reality can be chosen and customized by people to fit their existing ideological and other biases. In such an environment there is little hope for collaborative dialogue and consensus.

David Durant, a business analyst at U.K. Government Digital Service, argued, It is in the interest of the paid-for media and most political groups to continue to encourage echo-chamber thinking and to consider pragmatism and compromise as things to be discouraged. While this trend continues, the ability for serious civilized conversations about many topics will remain very hard to achieve.

The weaponization of social media and capture of online belief systems, also known as narratives, emerged from obscurity in 2016 due to the perceived impact of social media uses by terror organizations and political factions. Accusations of Russian influence via social media on the U.S. presidential election brought to public view the ways in which strategists of all stripes are endeavoring to influence people through the sharing of often false or misleading stories, photos and videos. Fake news moved to the forefront of ongoing discussions about the displacement of traditional media by social platforms. Earlier, in the summer of 2016, participants in this canvassing submitted concerns about misinformation in online discourse creating distorted views.

Theres money, power, and geopolitical stability at stake now, its not a mere matter of personal grumpiness from trolls. Anonymous respondent

Anonymously, a futurist, writer, and author at Wired, explained, New levels of cyberspace sovereignty and heavy-duty state and non-state actors are involved; theres money, power, and geopolitical stability at stake now, its not a mere matter of personal grumpiness from trolls.

Karen Blackmore, a lecturer in IT at the University of Newcastle, wrote, Misinformation and anti-social networking are degrading our ability to debate and engage in online discourse. When opinions based on misinformation are given the same weight as those of experts and propelled to create online activity, we tread a dangerous path. Online social behaviour, without community-imposed guidelines, is subject to many potentially negative forces. In particular, social online communities such as Facebook also function as marketing tools, where sensationalism is widely employed and community members who view this dialogue as their news source gain a very distorted view of current events and community views on issues. This is exacerbated with social network and search engine algorithms effectively sorting what people see to reinforce worldviews.

Laurent Schpbach, a neuropsychologist at University Hospital in Zurich, focused his entire response about negative tone online on burgeoning acts of economic and political manipulation, writing, The reason it will probably get worse is that companies and governments are starting to realise that they can influence peoples opinions that way. And these entities sure know how to circumvent any protection in place. Russian troll armies are a good example of something that will become more and more common in the future.

David Wuertele, a software engineer at Tesla Motors, commented, Unfortunately, most people are easily manipulated by fear. Negative activities on the internet will exploit those fears, and disproportionate responses will also attempt to exploit those fears. Soon, everyone will have to take off their shoes and endure a cavity search before boarding the internet.

Most respondents said it is likely that the coming decade will see a widespread move to more-secure services, applications, and platforms and more robust user-identification policies. Some said people born into the social media age will adapt. Some predict that more online systems will require clear identification of participants. This means that the online social forums could splinter into various formats, some of which are highly protected and monitored and others which could retain the free-for-all character of todays platforms.

Some experts in this canvassing say progress is already being made on some fronts toward better technological and human solutions.

The future Web will give people much better ways to control the information that they receive, which will ultimately make problems like trolling manageable. David Karger

Galen Hunt, a research manager at Microsoft Research NExT, replied, As language-processing technology develops, technology will help us identify and remove bad actors, harassment, and trolls from accredited public discourse.

Stowe Boyd, chief researcher at Gigaom, observed, I anticipate that AIs will be developed that will rapidly decrease the impact of trolls. Free speech will remain possible, although AI filtering will make a major dent on how views are expressed, and hate speech will be blocked.

Marina Gorbis, executive director at the Institute for the Future, added, I expect we will develop more social bots and algorithmic filters that would weed out the some of the trolls and hateful speech. I expect we will create bots that would promote beneficial connections and potentially insert context-specific data/facts/stories that would benefit more positive discourse. Of course, any filters and algorithms will create issues around what is being filtered out and what values are embedded in algorithms.

Jean Russell of Thrivable Futures wrote, First, conversations can have better containers that filter for real people who consistently act with decency. Second, software is getting better and more nuanced in sentiment analysis, making it easier for software to augment our filtering out of trolls. Third, we are at peak identity crisis and a new wave of people want to cross the gap in dialogue to connect with others before the consequences of being tribal get worse (Brexit, Trump, etc.).

David Karger, a professor of computer science at MIT, said, My own research group is exploring several novel directions in digital commentary. In the not too distant future all this work will yield results. Trolling, doxxing, echo chambers, click-bait, and other problems can be solved. We will be able to ascribe sources and track provenance in order to increase the accuracy and trustworthiness of information online. We will create tools that increase peoples awareness of opinions differing from their own and support conversations with and learning from people who hold those opinions. The future Web will give people much better ways to control the information that they receive, which will ultimately make problems like trolling manageable (trolls will be able to say what they want, but few will be listening).

Technology will mediate who and what we see online more and more, so that we are drawn more toward communities with similar interests than those who are dissimilar. Lindsay Kenzig

Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Google and other platform providers already shape and thus limit what the public views via the implementation of algorithms. As people have become disenchanted with uncivil discourse open platforms they stop using them or close their accounts, sometimes moving to smaller online communities of people with similar needs or ideologies. Some experts expect that these trends will continue and even more partitions, divisions and exclusions may emerge as measures are taken to clean things up. For instance, it is expected that the capabilities of AI-based bots dispatched to assist with information sorting, security, and regulation of the tone and content of discourse will continue to be refined.

Lindsay Kenzig, a senior design researcher, said, Technology will mediate who and what we see online more and more, so that we are drawn more toward communities with similar interests than those who are dissimilar. There will still be some places where you can find those with whom to argue, but they will be more concentrated into only a few locations than they are now.

Valerie Bock, of VCB Consulting, commented, Spaces where people must post under their real names and where they interact with people with whom they have multiple bonds regularly have a higher quality of discourse. In response to this reality, well see some consolidation as it becomes easier to shape commercial interactive spaces to the desired audience. There will be free-for-all spaces and more-tightly-moderated walled gardens, depending on the sponsors strategic goals. There will also be private spaces maintained by individuals and groups for specific purposes.

Lisa Heinz, a doctoral student at Ohio University, commented, Humanitys reaction to negative forces will likely contribute more to the ever-narrowing filter bubble, which will continue to create an online environment that lacks inclusivity by its exclusion of opposing viewpoints. An increased demand for systemic internet-based AI will create bots that will begin to interact as proxies for the humans that train them with humans online in real-time and with what would be recognized as conversational language, not the word-parroting bot behavior we see on Twitter now. When this happens, we will see bots become part of the filter bubble phenomenon as a sort of mental bodyguard that prevents an intrusion of people and conversations to which individuals want no part. The unfortunate aspect of this iteration of the filter bubble means that while free speech itself will not be affected, people will project their voices into the chasm, but few will hear them.

Bob Frankston, internet pioneer and software innovator, wrote, I see negative activities having an effect but the effect will likely be from communities that shield themselves from the larger world. Were still working out how to form and scale communities.

The expert comments in response to this canvassing were recorded in the summer of 2016; by early 2017, after many events (Brexit, the U.S. election, others mentioned earlier in this report) surfaced concerns about civil discourse, misinformation and impacts on democracy, an acceleration of activity tied to solutions emerged. Facebook, Twitter and Google announced some new efforts toward technological approaches; many conversations about creating new methods of support for public affairs journalism began to be undertaken; and consumer bubble-busting tools including Outside Your Bubble and Escape Your Bubble were introduced.

Some participants in this canvassing said they expect the already-existing continuous arms race dynamic will expand, as some people create and apply new measures to ride herd over online discourse while others constantly endeavor to thwart them.

Cathy Davidson, founding director of the Futures Initiative at the Graduate Center of the City University of New York, said, Were in a spy vs. spy internet world where the faster that hackers and trolls attack, the faster companies (Mozilla, thank you!) plus for-profits come up with ways to protect against them and then the hackers develop new strategies against those protections, and so it goes. I dont see that ending. I would not be surprised at more publicity in the future, as a form of cyber-terror. Thats different from trolls, more geo-politically orchestrated to force a national or multinational response. That is terrifying if we do not have sound, smart, calm leadership.

Sam Anderson, coordinator of instructional design at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, said, It will be an arms race between companies and communities that begin to realize (as some online games companies like Riot have) that toxic online communities will lower their long-term viability and potential for growth. This will war with incentives for short-term gains that can arise out of bursts of angry or sectarian activity (Twitters character limit inhibits nuance, which increases reaction and response).

A share of respondents said greater regulation of speech and technological solutions to curb harassment and trolling will result in more surveillance, censorship and cloistered communities. They worry this will change peoples sharing behaviors online, limit exposure to diverse ideas and challenge freedom.

While several respondents indicated that there is no longer a chance of anonymity online, many say privacy and choice are still options, and they should be protected.

Terrorism and harassment by trolls will be presented as the excuses, but the effect will be dangerous for democracy. Richard Stallman

Longtime internet civil libertarian Richard Stallman, Internet Hall of Fame member and president of the Free Software Foundation, spoke to this fear. He predicted, Surveillance and censorship will become more systematic, even in supposedly free countries such as the U.S. Terrorism and harassment by trolls will be presented as the excuses, but the effect will be dangerous for democracy.

Rebecca MacKinnon, director of Ranking Digital Rights at New America, wrote, Im very concerned about the future of free speech given current trends. The demands for governments and companies to censor and monitor internet users are coming from an increasingly diverse set of actors with very legitimate concerns about safety and security, as well as concerns about whether civil discourse is becoming so poisoned as to make rational governance based on actual facts impossible. Im increasingly inclined to think that the solutions, if they ever come about, will be human/social/political/cultural and not technical.

James Kalin of Virtually Green wrote, Surveillance capitalism is increasingly grabbing and mining data on everything that anyone says, does, or buys online. The growing use of machine learning processing of the data will drive ever more subtle and pervasive manipulation of our purchasing, politics, cultural attributes, and general behavior. On top of this, the data is being stolen routinely by bad actors who will also be using machine learning processing to steal or destroy things we value as individuals: our identities, privacy, money, reputations, property, elections, you name it. I see a backlash brewing, with people abandoning public forums and social network sites in favor of intensely private black forums and networks.

A number of respondents said they expect governments or other authorities will begin implementing regulation or other reforms to address these issues, most indicating that the competitive instincts of platform providers do not work in favor of the implementation of appropriate remedies without some incentive.

My fear is that because of the virtually unlimited opportunities for negative use of social media globally we will experience a rising worldwide demand for restrictive regulation. Paula Hooper Mayhew

Michael Rogers, author and futurist at Practical Futurist, predicted governments will assume control over identifying internet users. He observed, I expect there will be a move toward firm identities even legal identities issued by nations for most users of the Web. There will as a result be public discussion forums in which it is impossible to be anonymous. There would still be anonymity available, just as there is in the real world today. But there would be online activities in which anonymity was not permitted. Clearly this could have negative free-speech impacts in totalitarian countries but, again, there would still be alternatives for anonymity.

Paula Hooper Mayhew, a professor of humanities at Fairleigh Dickinson University, commented, My fear is that because of the virtually unlimited opportunities for negative use of social media globally we will experience a rising worldwide demand for restrictive regulation. This response may work against support of free speech in the U.S.

Marc Rotenberg, executive director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC), wrote, The regulation of online communications is a natural response to the identification of real problems, the maturing of the industry, and the increasing expertise of government regulators.

John Markoff, senior writer at The New York Times, commented, There is growing evidence that that the Net is a polarizing force in the world. I dont believe to completely understand the dynamic, but my surmise is that it is actually building more walls than it is tearing down.

Marcus Foth, a professor at Queensland University of Technology, said, Public discourse online will become less shaped by bad actors because the majority of interactions will take place inside walled gardens. Social media platforms hosted by corporations such as Facebook and Twitter use algorithms to filter, select, and curate content. With less anonymity and less diversity, the two biggest problems of the Web 1.0 era have been solved from a commercial perspective: fewer trolls who can hide behind anonymity. Yet, what are we losing in the process? Algorithmic culture creates filter bubbles, which risk an opinion polarisation inside echo chambers.

Emily Shaw, a U.S. civic technologies researcher for mySociety, predicted, Since social networks are the most likely future direction for public discourse, a million (self)-walled gardens are more likely to be the outcome than is an increase in hostility, because thats whats more commercially profitable.

Experts predict increased oversight and surveillance, left unchecked, could lead to dominant institutions and actors using their power to suppress alternative news sources, censor ideas, track individuals, and selectively block network access. This, in turn, could mean publics might never know what they are missing out on, since information will be filtered, removed, or concealed.

The fairness and freedom of the internets early days are gone. Now its run by big data, Big Brother, and big profits. Thorlaug Agustsdottir

Thorlaug Agustsdottir of Icelands Pirate Party, said, Monitoring is and will be a massive problem, with increased government control and abuse. The fairness and freedom of the internets early days are gone. Now its run by big data, Big Brother, and big profits. Anonymity is a myth, it only exists for end-users who lack lookup resources.

Joe McNamee, executive director at European Digital Rights, said, In the context of a political environment where deregulation has reached the status of ideology, it is easy for governments to demand that social media companies do more to regulate everything that happens online. We see this with the European Unions code of conduct with social media companies. This privatisation of regulation of free speech (in a context of huge, disproportionate, asymmetrical power due to the data stored and the financial reserves of such companies) raises existential questions for the functioning of healthy democracies.

Randy Bush, Internet Hall of Fame member and research fellow at Internet Initiative Japan, wrote, Between troll attacks, chilling effects of government surveillance and censorship, etc., the internet is becoming narrower every day.

Dan York, senior content strategist at the Internet Society, wrote, Unfortunately, we are in for a period where the negative activities may outshine the positive activities until new social norms can develop that push back against the negativity. It is far too easy right now for anyone to launch a large-scale public negative attack on someone through social media and other channels and often to do so anonymously (or hiding behind bogus names). This then can be picked up by others and spread. The mob mentality can be easily fed, and there is little fact-checking or source-checking these days before people spread information and links through social media. I think this will cause some governments to want to step in to protect citizens and thereby potentially endanger both free speech and privacy.

This section features responses by several more of the many top analysts who participated in this canvassing. Following this wide-ranging set of comments on the topic will be a much-more expansive set of quotations directly tied to the set of four themes.

See the original post here:
The Future of Free Speech, Trolls, Anonymity and Fake News Online - Pew Research Center's Internet and American Life Project

Ms. McMaster: Addressing your remarks about Judy Collins regarding the president. This is not a Hollywood rant, it is Ms. Collins exercising her right to free speech. You saw Ms. Collins perform five years ago; surely you knew of her liberal leanings. If the positions were reversed, and Ms. Collins had said something disparaging about former President Obama, would your reactions been the same?

Freedom of speech is a right enshrined in our Constitution, and it is a highway that runs both ways.

To quote Voltaire: I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it

Ms. McMaster, your correct action (maybe) would have been to get up from your seat, go to the box office and, in righteous indignation, demand a refund of your ticket. But you did not do that, did you? Bet you enjoyed the show, Mrs. Lincoln!

More:
Judy Collins exercised her right to free speech with anti-Trump talk at concert - Wyoming Tribune

During a Saturday morning perusal of my bookshelf, I found myself looking for something to satiate a mood I couldnt quite put my finger on. My usual historical nonfiction wasnt hitting the mark. The narratives, though rich and intriguing, felt too glaringly matter of fact.

Fact, of course, has been a central topic of conversation in the national narrative lately. Likewise, so has truth. As a lifelong student of journalism, I have long engaged the meaning of both and attempted their pursuit as a professional in-the-field and student. So, I searched for a text that would shed some light on how to navigate this increasingly treacherous terrain in a more contemporary context.

Between the binds of books on journalism, mass communications theory, historical narratives on obscure but highly significant world events and the occasional memoir of a humorist, I spotted a small book I had forgotten about: Walter Lippmanns Public Philosophy. I had read it in my early years as a student of journalism. Perched next to a domineering textbook on First Amendment philosophy, Lippmanns work was overshadowed by the collection of texts that had inspired it.

Its an easy book to get lost. The small, thinly bound work is little more than 130 pages. My copy is one that I imagine a young, brooding James Dean-type character might carry in the back pocket of his jeans. Though it hasnt seen any significant days of well-styled rebellion in my hands, it has witnessed a great deal of intellectual sparring. Its pages are yellowed, worn and dog-eared, its binding and cover creased and faded.

I picked up the book, and sifted through it. One passage immediately stood out.

But when the chaff of silliness, baseness, and deception is so voluminous that it submerges the kernels of truth, freedom of speech may produce such frivolity, or such mischief, that it cannot be preserved against the demand for a restoration of order or of decency, wrote Lippmann. If there is a dividing line between liberty and license, it is where freedom of speech is no longer respected as a procedure of the truth and becomes the unrestricted right to exploit the ignorance, and to incite the passions, of the people, the passage continued.

Though written in 1958, contemporary concern over fake news, misinformation, misdirection, make these words alarmingly significant today. Lippmann built on the ideas of those before him, but his contextualization of the issues surrounding freedom of speech is particularly compelling in light of the age of media explosion. Silliness, baseness and deception have indeed become voluminous to an extent that he likely could have never imaged.

The perversion of freedom of speech as a means to exploit ignorance is now unparalleled because we all communicate unhindered, and at an incredible speed. Freedom of speech seems to have taken on some all-empowering power and is used as a protection for anything uttered at all, regardless of why or what. First Amendment scholar Alexander Mieklejohn wrote in his 1948 book Free Speech and its Relation to Self-government, When self-governing men demand freedom of speech they are not saying that every individual has an unalienable right to speak whenever, wherever, however he chooses. They do not declare that any man may talk as he pleases, when he pleases, about what he pleases, about whom he pleases, to whom he pleases. The common sense of any reasonable society would deny the existence of that unqualified right. Mieklejohn used the example of a random individual making assessments about a patient in a hospital without the consent of a nurse or doctor. That discussion would be considered out of order. Ultimately Mieklejohn contends that the First Amendment is not the guardian of unregulated talkativeness.

In essence, everyone may have a voice and the right to use it, but in the process of meaningful debate, the procedure truth is broken when freedom of speech, as a honored right, is conflated with a general notion of ones freedom to speak. This led me to the question: Is freedom of speech valuable without the procedure of truth? Its unlikely.

Truth is a concept that has long been in the throes of debate. Perhaps the most significant contention is that a truth is only considered a truth so long as it can stand the barrage of intelligent questioning and testing.

The key, Lippmann suggested, can be found in the wisdom of John Stuart Mill, a 19th century English philosopher.

The beliefs which we have most warrant for, have no safeguards to rest on, but a standing invitation to the whole world to prove them unfounded. If the challenge is not accepted, or is accepted and the attempts fail, we are far enough from certainty still; but we have done the best that the existing state of human reason admits of; we have neglected nothing that could give the truth a chance of reaching us: if the lists are kept open, we may hope that if there be a better truth, it will be found when the human mind is capable of receiving it; in the meantime we may rely on having attained such approach to certainty attainable by a fallible being, and this is the sole way of attaining it.

If freedom of speech is designed to facilitate useful and meaningful progress in a society, the misuse of it destroys its necessity. It no longer serves a purpose, and as Lippmann suggests, may even create discord where it otherwise may not exist.

So, what happens when we value the concept of free speech but abandon the understanding of its purpose? We lose meaning, and ultimately we lose the process by which we derive, at least in the closest way possible, truth. We also lose the concept.

Perhaps we think that in the information-laden era in which we find ourselves, we are better equipped to discover the truth. After all, we have statistics and facts on our side. Weve documented them, put them in databases and can search for them with a tap of a few buttons and a few choice keywords. However, as Mill and Lippman suggest, its not facts that are the key to truth, its the contextualization of those facts and the understanding of them within their circumstances that allow us to establish the weight and meaning they should be given, or if they are meaningful at all. There are, after all, a plethora of meaningless facts.

The question is, as a society, are we prepared philosophically, technologically, or even conceptually, to reengage the procedure of truth?

Mill tasked us with two things. One, we must accept the challenge to prove a truth false. Two, if we fail in this challenge, we must understand that though we may not have proven the truth to be false, we are still not certain of its truth. We have not proven the truth to be true. However, we must also accept that we have done what is necessary to work toward establishing a truth and move forward, but with the understanding that continued challenging to that truth may, in time, find it to be false. The human mind must stay open to its own fallibility.

What Mill was describing, to some extent, was the importance of open-minded debate. Without debate, the seeking of truth is meaningless and cannot exist. Without a desire to seek out truth beyond fact that lacks context, meaningful expression is nonexistent.

Information, discussion, news whatever way in which we utilize our freedom of expression is only valuable when it adds to the debate or the meaningful pursuit of a contextualized understanding of situations, events or realities.

The question is, as a society, are we prepared philosophically, technologically or even conceptually, to reengage the procedure of truth?

If we continue to conflate the ideas of fact and truth and mistake the ability given by the freedom to speak with the incredible responsibility of the freedom of speech we will ultimately find ourselves in isolated vacuums, screaming out meaningless information to no one,reinforcing our existing thoughts. We will have all but abandoned the procedure of truth, and devalued a society right and responsibility. Freedom of speech is central to democracy, and without it we have no means of forward-moving independent thought.

Our existing means of communication have lulled us into a false sense of interaction when, in reality, we are increasingly isolated from debate. Weve isolated ourselves, nestled into pockets of like-minded thought and stayed there until our own perspectives have been so far reinforced that others seem like impossibilities, not alternative perspectives. Our debates are little more than a series of spewed facts, without context and meaningful analysis of established or emerging truths. True debate requires doubt as well as information, disbelief as well as criticism.

We exist not in an era of understanding, but in an era of information. We have ultimately neglected the idea of understanding as we have devalued the importance of debate.

While it may seem as though the First Amendment needs protecting, it is also true that a better understanding of it could serve as protection for us. Meikeljohn wrote:

Just so far as, at any point, the citizens who are to decide an issue are denied acquaintance with information or opinion or doubt or disbelief or criticism which is relevant to that issue, just so far as the result must be ill-considered, ill-balanced planning for the general good. It is that mutilation of the thinking process of the community against which the First Amendment to the Constitution is directed.

Perhaps then, our concern over actions that infringe on the First Amendment should be focused on both the protection of freedom of speech and the people who exercise the rights granted by it. There is equal and increasing danger to both.

*Image: Graffiti in Wales. Flickr/wiredforlego.

Visit link:
Unregulated Talkativeness and the Misuse of the Freedom of Speech - The Islamic Monthly