Daily Archives: October 24, 2021

Each year, Americans mark the third week in October as Free Speech Week: a nationwide event aiming to raise public awareness of the importance of freedom of speech and of freedom of the press. Free Speech Week is a nonpartisan, non-ideological occasion in which organizations from various parts of the political spectrum promote these fundamental rights.

This year, as always, there will be a primary focus on the first word of the phrase free. Yet little attention comes to speech itself, or how citizens, journalists, and others should use the First Amendment rights they have been given.

The nature of free speech in America, in contrast to even other developed Anglophone countries like Canada, the U.K., and Australia, is such that the right to individual expression is nearly unlimited. For example, Canada criminalized hate speech in 1992, and the government is currently pushing legislation that would curtail online hate speech too, under the absurdly broad definition of communication that expresses detestation or vilification of an individual or group of individuals on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination.

But in the United States, only the most egregious of violations obscenity, true threats, and incitement of imminent violent action to name a few fall outside of constitutional protections. The broad scope of free speech gives Americans a wide berth to choose what to say.

Traditionally, these choices have been moderated by social norms that have narrowed what is considered appropriate speech for the appropriate situation. But in the era of the internet, which facilitates rapid communication between everyone all at once, these norms have quickly fallen away. The ease of hitting send on a tweet or Facebook post, and the ensuing instant confirmation of ones thoughts by likes and shares, overwhelmed the longstanding rules of conversation that live on when we meet face to face.

Without social restraints, weve entered an era where internet trolling is increasingly common, and the unmoderated internet is essentially unusable. The impersonal nature of the internet discourages direct and thoughtful conversations between individuals. Indeed, examples of intemperate online speech have been used to criticize free speech more broadly.

Even people who are pro-free speech often want some restraints on speech if they are the subject of pugnacious online posts. They want something to be done about obnoxious or hateful speech, whether by the social media company hosting the speech or even by the government.

Free speech advocates can head off some of this criticism and the restrictions that often follow by embracing virtue. Political philosopher and former National Review writer Frank Meyer put it plainly: Free individualism uninformed by moral value rots at its core and soon brings about conditions that pave the way for surrender to tyranny.

So, what virtues could help our speech problem? All of Aristotles 12 virtues, except maybe ambition. But specific emphasis should be placed on temperance, truthfulness, and magnanimity: temperance to encourage self-restraint, magnanimity to be generous to those you disagree with, and truthfulness to assist in furthering the discourse in our country.

For those in censorious environments like a college campus, courage becomes the most significant virtue. It is particularly important that younger Americans, those just coming to grips with the internet and their right to voice their opinions, achieve a balanced understanding of free speech, and of both the rights and responsibilities it confers. The alternative would be an even greater degradation of our civic discourse, and the possible acceptance of even more draconian restrictions in order to govern it.

Although free speech need not be virtuous to be free, Meyer also emphasized that virtue must be freely chosen to be truly virtuous. Speech codes and restrictions enforced by social media companies and university administrations are not solutions to the problem. An abrogation of liberty by the government will not miraculously make individual citizens more responsible. As Meyer said, truth withers when freedom dies, however righteous the authority that kills it.

While Americans should certainly appreciate and advocate for the fundamental constitutional right to free expression, this Free Speech Week, we should all try and encourage a little virtuous speech, too.

Ryan Wolfe is the Manager of Continuing Education Programs at The Fund for American Studies (TFAS), a nonprofit educational organization that promotes the principles of limited government, free-market economics, and honorable leadership.

Go here to read the rest:
People Who Love Free Speech Can Protect It By Doing It Virtuously - The Federalist

Photo: Jerry Coyne on The Dave Rubin Show, via YouTube (screenshot).

Its been decades since I first read1984, but it clearly is a book for our current cultural and political moment. I bought a copy at a used book store the other day and the tattooed and purple-haired young lady at the register gave me a curious glance. She commented, Oh, Ive had other people asking about this book. Why are you reading it now?

I wasnt going to get into a discussion about current events, but I couldnt entirely stop myself. I said, Well, it just seemed timely.

It just She hesitated. It just seemed like the right time?

Yes, I answered, realizing this was definitely not a conversation I wanted to have. It seemed like the right time, I said, to which she responded with a mistrustful look.

It was almost, but not quite, a conversation from Orwells dystopian novel, where truth can barely be hinted at, and then carefully covered over, never stated outright.

Timely is right. Even more Orwellian was a comment in aNew York Timesarticle that a colleague passed around last night with some amusement. TheTimesreports, M.I.T.s Choice of Lecturer Ignited Criticism. So Did Its Decision to Cancel. The lecturer is Dorian Abbot, a scientist who has opposed aspects of affirmative action. Well, thats enough to get you canceled.

Among those weighing in on the topic was, of all people, our Censor of the Year from 2014, atheist and evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne at the University of Chicago. A pioneer of cancel culture, Coyne earned that distinction by using his own clout to squash a young physicist, Eric Hedin, who was then teaching at Ball State University. Hedins thoughtcrime (Orwells term) was to introduce his students to intelligent design. Acting in concert with the bullies at the Freedom From Religion Foundation, Coyne got Hedin canceled. The idea was to put the less powerful scientist down the memory hole (Orwell again), but they didnt entirely succeed. Hedin is still teaching, though no longer at Ball State, and he tells his story in a recent book,Canceled Science: What Some Atheists Dont Want You to See.

Cut to 2021 and here is the same Jerry Coyne, now presented without irony as a free speech advocate! From theTimesstory:

I thought scientists would not get on board with the denial-of-free-speech movement, said Jerry Coyne, an emeritus professor of evolutionary biology at the University of Chicago. I was absolutely wrong, 100 percent so.

Coyne, who punched down, canceled Eric Hedin, and never apologized, deplores what he calls the denial-of-free-speech movement. Try to wrap your mind around that one. George Orwell had the perfect word. In1984, he called it doublethink:

To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it, to believe that democracy was impossible and that the Party was the guardian of democracy, to forget whatever it was necessary to forget, then to draw it back into memory again at the moment when it was needed, and then promptly to forget it again, and above all, to apply the same process to the process itself that was the ultimate subtlety: consciously to induce unconsciousness, and then, once again, to become unconscious of the act of hypnosis you had just performed. Even to understand the word doublethink involved the use of doublethink.

Doublethink is one tool by which the prestige of science is used to hypnotize the public on behalf of a materialist picture of reality. Another is intimidation and bullying. Part of our motivation in producing theScience Uprisingseries was to call forceful attention to how science itself the truth about cosmic, biological, and human origins is canceled in the process. As the masked narrator puts it, Any view that challenges materialism is punished. Its this materialist dogma that keeps many scientists behind a mask. But some scientists are willing to speak about where the evidence leads.

If you havent exploredScience Uprisingyet, a great place to start is the most recent episode, Human Evolution: The Monkey Bias. The scientists who appear unmasked in the episode are geologist Casey Luskin and biologist Jonathan Wells. Its highly worthwhile.

Originally posted here:
Doublethink: Censor of the Year Calls for Free Speech - Discovery Institute

Donald Trump hailed his own creation of a new free speech social media network, Truth Social, on Wednesday nightbut a scan of its terms and conditions shows that users will not be allowed to criticize the site. The former president, who was thrown off Facebook and Twitter earlier this year for inciting the Capitol riot, announced the launch of his new network in a press release, writing: I created Truth Social and TMTG to stand up to the tyranny of Big Tech. The sites landing page claims that the site, which is set to go live next year, will be a place for open, free, and honest global conversation.However, despite those promises, Truth Social has already published a long list of prohibited activitiesincluding a clause that states that users must not disparage, tarnish, or otherwise harm, in our opinion, us and/or the Site. Users are also told they must not annoy any of the sites employees. Its not clear if that includes Trump himself.

Read more here:
Trump's New Free Speech Network Has Already Banned Any Criticism of Itself - The Daily Beast

Balancing the freedom of expression with the health and safety of the people has been an issue that's long troubled our nations highest courts. The freedom of speech, and Bill of Rights as a whole, is a symbol of national pride in the U.S. However, we dont practice complete and unadulterated free speech and havent for a long time.

One of the first major Supreme Court cases regarding free speech, Schenck v. United States, saw the court rule in 1919 against the defendants right to spread anti-draft literature, stating that speech inciting clear and present danger isnt protected by the constitutionSince that time, free speech has been increasingly narrowly defined by preceding court decisions.

Today, as corporations and institutions create policies to establish standards of appropriate behavior among employees and students, the question emerges: Do these individuals' rights remain when they enter these environments? More complicated yet is when this question is applied to public universities in receipt of public funding and further still, when the public university in question is the Bill of Rights author James Madisons namesake.

For the past seven years,JMUs maintained a yellow lightstatus by the Foundation of Individual Rights in Education, or FIRE, an organization tasked with assessing the degree at which students rights are being violated on campuses across the country. FIRE ranks schools by their compliance to constitutional standards from red to green light statuses.

Prior to receiving its yellow light status, JMU was one of few universities that boasted a green light status, first achieving the distinction in 2011. Moreover, JMU was listed on FIREsSeven Best Colleges for Free Speech in 2012. However, JMUs enactment of school rules, such as enforcing a screening of all forms of public expression prior to expression, a requirement for mandatory association with a recognized student organization and a limit on the areas in which public expression can be found contributed to its demotion during the 2015-16 school year. School rules with the intent of protecting students from harassment, bullying and obscenity also played a role in FIRE determining JMUs yellow light status.

Ultimately, this begs the question of whether total free speech is desirable on campus, even when considering the crucial role the marketplace of ideas plays in the development of creativity at academic institutions.

Student Defenders is an organization at JMU that actively seeks to prevent the encroachment of students rights during the process of determining appropriate retribution for the violation of university policy. More specifically, Student Defenders stands in as an advocate for students throughout proceedings of an Office of Student Accountability and Restorative Practices (OSARP) or Honors Council case.

Closely associated with FIRE, Student Defenders has been the source of the most prominent movement for the amendment of rules limiting expression at JMU. Gage Waltner, the director of Student Defenders, said the organization has been expanding its communication with officials on campus to secure a spot on the Accountability Control Board, which meets every summer to provide feedback on potential changes to the student handbook. Moreover, he suggested that rectifying even the most trivial infractions or vaguely worded policies is crucial, stressing that overlooking them could lead to a more consequential infringement of students rights.

Considering JMU is a public institution receiving$98 million in state funding, as of 2021, the enforcement of policies that limit the freedom of expression on campus while legally sound could be interpreted as government censorship and prevents the voices of many to go unheard. While the U.S. government doesnt recognize the protection of speech that could endanger another person, JMUs policies take the sentiment a step further by not protecting speech that could be considered harassment or bullying.

The argument of whether or not JMU has a valid claim on the interest of its students mental health is precarious considering the gravity of its consequences. Most college students are adults and therefore dont require the government or university to protect them from the worlds harsh realities. However, a hostile environment isnt conducive to learning and can causelong-lasting psychological damage.

Tim Miller, JMUs vice president for student affairs, is tasked withfostering a constructive environment for students. He and his leadership team suggest that expression and safety arent mutually exclusive and that JMU strives to advance them simultaneously while noting the complexities of assessing the severity of harassment and the various remedies provided by the university.

Health, safety and free speech on a college campus are both vital to student success and growth, just in different ways, Miller said. We are regularly examining ways we can enhance both while being mindful of restrictions and requirements that apply to us as a university and particularly as a public agency.

He went on to mention annual evaluations that the policies outlined in the student handbook endure and further stated that two policies that had been flagged by FIRE are currently under additional review. He also discussed the harassment section of JMUs sexual misconduct policy. Miller argued that this policy allows JMU to satisfy its legal obligations to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,a law prohibiting employment discrimination on the basis of sex, race or other condition, as well as providing protection against subjection to hostile environments and sexual harrassment.

So long as achieving green-light status requires the abandonment of rules flagged by FIRE, including those hedging against harassment and bullying, complete free speech may not be ideal in a college setting. That being said, reducing the barriers students face in the pursuit of self expression at JMU should be a priority, beginning with the removal of the rules that limit or prevent students especially those without the support of a recognized student organization from speaking their mind.

With compelling arguments and valid interests on both sides of the issue, a compromise must be reached and, in large part, has for the past six years. However, movements to further refine school policy in pursuit of the ideal balance that optimizes creativity and well-being should be welcomed and encouraged. Its an indication of the health and vitality of the community at JMU that its splitting hairs on issues as important as the freedom of expression and its implications at large.

Evan Weaver is a sophomore English major. Contact Evan at weavereh@dukes.jmu.edu.

Excerpt from:
Opinion | JMU's protection of free speech, while promising, could be better - The Breeze

The laws governing the use of VR/AR technology arent necessarily the most exciting subject to most people, at least not compared to the adrenaline racing through the veins of anyone playing Resident Evil 4 on Oculus Quest 2.

In the coming years, though, free speech and safety may be on a bit of a collision course as online platforms move from 2D screens and out into the physical world. Ellysse Dick, a policy analyst from the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF), recently organized and moderated a conference with the XR Association on AR/VR Policy. Its a lot to take in and you can check out the five-hour event in a recorded video covering a wide range of the issues at hand. For a more abbreviated discussion, though, I invited the policy expert into our virtual studio to talk about the likely changes in store as this technology marches into mainstream use.

Theres going to be growing pains, Dick said. The way were going to figure out what people think is too creepy and what is within limits is probably not going to be a nice little pros and cons list that we all follow. People are going to be freaked out. And in many cases, justifiably so, especially if their children are involved or their private lives are involved.

Check out the roughly 28-minute discussion in the video below or follow along with the transcription posted below the video.

[00:00] Ian Hamilton: Thank you so much for joining us today. Ellysse Dick, youre an expert in privacy and policy, can you explain to us what you do and where you work and what some of the major issues are that youre thinking about these days?

[00:11] Ellysse Dick: Im a policy analyst at the Information Technology And Innovation Foundation. We are a tech and science policy think tank in Washington, DC, and we cover a wide range of science and technology policy issues. So my specific area is AR/VR. I lead our AR/VR work stream, and that means I cover really everything from privacy and safety to how government can use these technologies, how we can be implementing them across sectors. A lot of my work obviously is in the privacy and safety realm because it seems like thats the first thing we have to get right if we can actually start thinking about how policy will impact this tech.

[00:49] Ian Hamilton: So I think a lot of brains might turn off out there when they hear policy talked about, but if we wanted to get to those people right at the start of this interview, what are the things that you think need to change about policy regarding AR and VR and this entire technology stack?

[01:07] Ellysse Dick: I think when people think of policy, the first thing they think of is like Congress making laws, right? But what were actually talking about is all the range of how government can support innovation in this field. So this includes even things like government funding for different applications and different use cases. We actually just had a conference where we had a conversation about this, you know, the National Science Foundation does a lot of work in funding up and coming applications for these technologies. So policy isnt just laws that make things harder, it is how our policy makers and how our government will support this technology and make sure that its being used correctly going forward.

[01:46] Ian Hamilton: Are there very different sort of things in mind for AR than there are for VR, sort of like in your home technology use versus everyday out in the world technology use?

[01:59] Ellysse Dick: We do tend to clump them together when were talking about it broadly, just because when were describing the technology, especially to policy folks who might not be thinking about this everyday, like we do, but youre right they are two very separate technologies when were thinking about the policy implications. Obviously, AR raises a lot more questions about privacy in the outside world, bystander privacy, what it means if were walking around with computers on our faces thats a very different question than when were talking about VR, which on a privacy standpoint is much more biometric data capture, user privacy, and how we interact in virtual space. Also in safety, if were talking about AR were talking more about making sure that the ways the digital and physical world interact is safe and age appropriate and doesnt involve harassment or defamation, whereas in VR when were talking about safety, were really talking the ways that humans interact in fully virtual space, which raises a lot of questions about things like free speech. How much can we actually mediate these spaces when were really just talking face to face in a virtual world?

[03:02] Ian Hamilton: The rumor is that Facebooks gonna rebrand its entire company to something new. This evolution with that company of going from an organization where you upload photos of the past and then it identifies where the faces are in your photo and then you tell it, which face it is. Youre kind of training the system to understand what the faces of your friends and family look like. And then it can find those maybe in later photos and make it easy for you to tag them in the future. Thats a very early feature of the Facebook platform and when I think about wearing Ray-Ban sunglasses that let me go out into the world and then take photos or videos of people, it would not be hard to take that video process back to my machine or to my server and have every single face in that photo or video analyzed and taggable. I think that brings home how big of a shift were in for technologically as soon as more of these glasses are mainstream. What policy issues govern exactly what I just described?

[04:11] Ellysse Dick: So thats a great question. I actually wrote a little bit about this when the Ray-Bans came out. Right now what were looking at is basically a cell phone recording camera on your face. So the way it exists right now, the form factor is different, but the underlying policy concerns are very similar to things like body-worn cameras or cell phone cameras, or any kind of recording device. And we do have laws in this country about one or two party consent when recording other people. We have laws that protect against things like stalking. But we do need to start thinking about whether those laws will be enough when we start thinking about things like what if you dont have to bring that video home and process it on your server? What if you can do it right there on device? That starts raising a lot of questions about whether those laws that we have right now will be enough to protect against malicious misuse. Thats one of my biggest concerns is people who are not using these devices the right way, because obviously theres a lot of very exciting ways you can do them the right way thats going to make society better. But a huge role for policy is to think about that malicious misuse and what we can do to protect against it. We need to look a few steps forward beyond just the camera on your face aspect to really think about that.

[05:22] Ian Hamilton: I was one of the first people to get an iPhone and I remember feeling like I had this super power back when it came out of having Google Maps in my hand and able to navigate me and my friends around a new city in real time that we didnt know actually where we were going. And prior to that, there was just no way to pull up directions everywhere you go. And it was a magical feeling. And I was able to have this camera around with me at all times, were able to take wonderful photos remembering the occasion. But thats a completely different early use cases of what cell phones were good for compared to where we are today where they are sometimes a recording device of last resort when you have an altercation in public, like you pull out the phone as quickly as possible in some instances to document the absurdity of someone elses behavior in a particular setting. And I think about that evolution that took maybe 10 years or 15 years to actually happen. Were kind of at the beginning of that journey when it comes to glasses or body worn cameras. And you talk about consent for two people interacting theres plenty of videos out there on the internet, some of the most popular internet videos, are situations where only one party gave consent for the recording of the situation.

[06:45] Ellysse Dick: The two party and one party consent laws differ by state and have largely to do with recording of conversation, not necessarily image capture so that is a major difference there. But you talk about the cell phone we can go all the way back to the first Kodak camera if we want to talk about the evolution of how we capture moments in time. So I think that one of the things that Ive talked about a lot is distinguishing this evolution from how we perceive and interact with the world, from the actual risks of harm from a new technology that might be different from older ones. A lot of the things that people were worried about with drones or with cell phone cameras or with the original handheld camera do apply to AR glasses. And then we can learn from that. And then we need to look forward and figure out whats different besides just the form factor to figure out what other law and policy we need for it. I think your point about evolving how we are using cameras is a good one but I dont necessarily think that policy is the place to talk about whether or not you should be able to take a video of someone elses actions in public and upload it to the internet. Because the way that we perceive the world now, we just are capturing so much of it. I do think consent is very important and there are situations where there should be more consent mechanisms in place, or at least ways that people can opt out of recording. Especially if were talking about more advanced AR glasses that are maybe not just video but could possibly capture biometric information about them or spatial information about them. So we need to think of ways that we could use technologies, like maybe geo-fencing or other sort of opt in opt out options to allow people to still own their own private space, private businesses, places of worship, public bathrooms, that kind of thing.

[08:27] Ian Hamilton: When I first started reporting on VR I recognized it as likely a future computing platform that would change things quite a bit. I just think were in for so much future shock as this technology goes out in future numbers. The thing that Im noticing change this month and last month, is youve got the Space Pirate Trainer arena mode thats on Oculus Quest and its driving people out into public with their Oculus VR headsets to find space to play this game. And then youve got the Ray-Bans going out in the real world exactly the same way, where people are just adopting this and taking them out into the real world and theyre changing behaviors left and right. I expect the behaviors to change ahead of policy and even social norms that have to catch up to the way people end up wanting to use these devices. Ive seen two of these examples, one was a research paper that converted every car on the street into scifi type vehicles and then in real time erased people from off of the street. And then there was another technology that was kind of similar turned the faces of every passer-by going up the escalator into a smile. So all these frowns instantly turned into smiles from these people. Those are going to be significant changes as soon as the glasses can augment everyday interactions. Lets go to age 13 restriction, are the policies around childrens use strong enough to be ready for this type of change thats coming?

[10:03] Ellysse Dick: No, I dont think so. And I think one of the issues with the way that we approach, especially privacy right now, especially in this country, is people will tend to come up with a laundry list of the types of information you can and cannot collect. So in the case of children, this is COPPA, which lists the kind of information that you need express consent to collect and the parental permission. The problem is if you just keep adding to that laundry list, youre never going to keep up with the kinds of technologies that are out there and you might inadvertently restrict use of the technology. So for example, biometric data, especially if we were to extend the age for COPPA to an older age that might be a little bit more appropriate to use head-worn devices. If theyre using motion capture, what does that mean in terms of the ability for younger children or even preteens to use this tech perhaps in an educational context, or in something that might be very valuable to them even beyond just entertainment. So I do think we need to rethink how we approach childrens privacy, especially. Obviously it should be a priority that children are safe on these platforms, both physically, mentally, emotionally, but I think saying specifically you can and cant gather this type of data is not the way to move forward with that. We need a much more holistic approach.

[11:16] Ian Hamilton: What do you think people need going forward in order to feel more comfortable with these devices?

[11:22] Ellysse Dick: Im going to say we need national privacy legislation, first and foremost. It is impossible for companies to have a baseline to build their privacy policies and practices off of, if there are laws in some states, no laws in other states and no national baseline, especially when so many of them are starting out in the United States. So a comprehensive national privacy legislation is an absolute must for all of these things youre talking about. From there, I think that companies do need to think about notice and consent a lot differently when were talking about immersive spaces, especially because its a new technology. A lot of people arent going to actually understand what it means to be collecting, say, eye tracking data or motion tracking data. So we need to find a way to help people understand what can be done with that information. And we also need to make sure that in the event that information is compromised or misused that, again, on the policy side, we have laws to address that. One of the things I think of a lot is how non-consensual pornography could translate into these spaces. What happens if someone breaches someones data that is sensitive in an immersive space, you need to have laws to address that. We need to have laws to address the privacy harms. And then we also need to make sure that companies are at the forefront of this to make sure that those harms arent happening at the first place. We need to make sure that users are informed and actually have an understanding of what data is being collected and what that could mean for them.

[12:44] Ian Hamilton: Im thinking of when youre in an online space in Facebook, if youre in Horizon Worlds, I believe theres a rolling recorder recording your last few, I dunno if its a few seconds or a few minutes, of your interactions online and that sort of rolling body camera, so to speak, on everyone who is in that online space, can be used to report any action any time. And if theres behavior in that, rolling whatever length of time video, that gets turned into Facebook, you could get banned or have your account revoked theoretically, is that what were in for walking around with AR glasses as sort of the de facto standard for regulation of behavior in public? Obviously laws, certainly, keep certain people in line in certain situations. Is everyone wearing a one minute rolling camera going to do the same thing in the future?

[13:41] Ellysse Dick: I think you bring up a great point, especially with the Horizon recordings, theres going to be a huge trade-off here between privacy and safety and free speech. These three things youre not going to be able to have a hundred percent at any time. To have safety we might have to give up some privacy, have some form of monitoring available. We have that already on social media, right? Theres the ability for systems to detect what youre uploading before you even put it on the platform to make sure theres no egregious content in there. We can talk about how effective that system is, but it is there, there is monitoring involved in the way that we communicate online right now. But when were talking about real time communication that includes gestures, thats really changing the game. That makes it a lot harder to do it the way you would do on a 2D platform. So there is absolutely a question of how much trade off are we willing to do if were talking about a fully immersive space. When were talking about AR I think its sort of the same thing, perhaps if you have an application that people are drawing in real time on physical spaces and that can be easily erased, do you keep track of that? Do you keep track of their activity? Their virtual activity in physical space? Well, you might want to, if you want to make sure that you can go back and prove that they did something inappropriate, so you can ban them or remove them. But were still talking about real-time activity and free speech, so thats a question I dont have a full answer for, but I think is one that we really need to look at both on the policy side, but also individual platforms developing these technologies really need to take a step back and think about where they want to make those trade-offs because it will have a huge impact on how we interact with each other and the world going forward.

[15:16] Ian Hamilton: What policies are in Facebooks interest to change? And are those the same policies that everyone who is using this technology should see changed?

[15:31] Ellysse Dick: As more people are coming in were going to have to change the way that we approach things like community guidelines and user education. So many, especially VR spaces, have really been built on these small communities of enthusiasts who have sort of established their own norms that make sense in a small group, but thats not going to scale. So there needs to be a bit more of a concerted effort to build in community guidelines and make sure people understand how those work just from a person to person interaction way. Also personal safety guidelines, people really need to understand how to not run into walls, how to not trip over tables and understand that they are responsible for that for themselves. People really dont understand how easy it is to fling your hand into your own desk when youre sitting at it in VR, Ive done it plenty of times and I use this on a regular basis. So I think that user education portion is really important. And thats why user policies and the user controls is something that companies like Facebook and other companies building these platforms really need to think about and try to preempt as much as possible by allowing users to shape the experience in a way that makes sense for them, whether thats making sure that they can use the experience sitting down, if they have mobility challenges or a small space or setting perimeters around themselves if theyre not comfortable being close to people, the ability to mute other people. The nice thing about having fully virtual space, is you can make it fully customizable to the individual. And obviously a fully customizable experience is a lot to ask, but making sure that users have the ability to shape it in a way that feels safe and secure and enjoyable for them is really important. And I think that companies need to look at ways to bake that into their user guidelines and to their user policies.

[17:07] Ian Hamilton: Let me ask a sort of tricky question here. Are elected officials in the United States prepared to make these changes that more tech savvy people understand deeply? A person like yourself, understanding this technology and the policy deeply its not the same as the actual, 70 or 80 year old person who has been in office for 20 to 30 years or whatever their length of time, how do we actually effect change through our elected officials? And are there traits in elections that people should look for among their candidates to push this all on the right direction?

[17:44] Ellysse Dick: Before we even get to elected officials, self-regulation, self-governance in industry is going to be critical here for exactly what you said. Theres not a strong understanding of it within certain policy circles, and building the standards within industry so everyone can sort of agree on the best practices is a really important first step. Whether people follow those best practices obviously is a different question, but at least establishing what should we be doing? Policy is not going to do that fast enough. So self-governance is really important. As far as actual elected members of the government, we do want more people who understand how technology works, but we also want people who have a strong understanding of the potential harms and the ability to differentiate that thing I was talking about earlier from, the privacy panic and the scifi dystopian visions of the future and actual things that could happen that policy could prevent, things like privacy legislation, online safety legislation, child safety, that kind of thing. A policymaker doesnt have to know the inner workings of a specific technology if they can understand the potential three, four steps out uses of that technology and think backward from there. Everyone in Congress should put on a headset because I think it would just help everyone understand better what were talking about here, because its really hard to describe to someone whos never used it before.

[19:01] Ian Hamilton: Thinking about this governor in the state next door to me who apparently got pretty upset at a journalist viewing source for a state website. Thinking about that misunderstanding of how technology works compared to where we are with these headsets and how they function. People of Congress, if youre an elected official, you need to try these headsets on and really understand exactly how they function and the wide range of how they function and what they actually do to understand how they change society. Ive been wearing the Ray-Ban sunglasses out in like semi-public spaces, Im thinking about the baseball fields with my kid going out to the baseball field to film my particular child is a little different from wearing dark sunglasses and filming random kids on other teams. If another parent sees my sunglasses with a little light on them from the other side of the field, I would totally understand them being alarmed. Who is that person? Why are they filming? Thats a completely different action than holding up your camera and very obviously telegraphing to everyone else out there on the field Im filming in this particular direction and my kid is in that direction. And I just wonder how elected officials- whether theyre actually out there using technology the same way everyone else does. Thats why Im inviting it into my life this way to really understand how it changes those social norms.

[20:26] Ellysse Dick: Theres going to be growing pains. The way were going to figure out what people think is too creepy and what is within limits is probably not going to be a nice little pros and cons list that we all follow. People are going to be freaked out. And in many cases, justifiably so, especially if their children are involved or their private lives are involved. So I think thats going to help shape that social norm side of things. Once we get past that social norms side of things, we can see where there are policy gaps. The more policy majors can be involved in that first round, actually using the technology, experiencing it, understanding what the limitations actually are, and where they might want to add more guardrails, we can get to that coexistence of policy and social norms much faster than we would if were over here using the technology and figuring out if its creepy or not, and then 10 years down the line we go to Congress and say, okay, we figured out what you need to legislate about. If were all involved in this process together, and industry is working with Congress and vice versa to really help them understand the technology, I think we can prevent some of the most egregious misuse of the technology.

[21:31] Ian Hamilton: Its tough that sci-fi ends up being our only reference point for so much of this use. Almost every sci-fi story is a dystopia. Ive been reading Rainbows End quite recently for this picture of a world that isnt quite so dystopian necessarily, that actually shows you how a world functions when you can have four people in a given location and one of those people is a rabbit and a completely different scale than the rest. Those are the types of things that we are in for as far as how people interact and, the rabbit, their identity could be masked in this interaction with three people feeling like theyre in the same spot together. Its a bummer that weve got sci-fi as this only thing to measure against. This interview is happening right before Facebook announces whatever its rebrand is. And I hate to give so much weight to whatever they decide. But Ive noticed in some of Mark Zuckerbergs interviews with various people out there him talking about governance of the overall organization and how that might change in the future. And I would not be surprised to see an effort to give community more than just a token say in what happens on that platform. This is a long-winded way of asking, do you think our social networks become a layer of self-governance that happens before, or even replaces, our traditional institutions?

[23:02] Ellysse Dick: You can sort of say thats happening already on 2D platforms. People interact with the world so much through social media, that social media has a role in how people perceive the world. And the way that people use social media helps them understand how to shape their algorithms, their platforms. Obviously when were putting this into 3D space, again, it really extrapolates that into making it like a second real world and I do think that users and people who are interacting within virtual spaces have a role to play in this governance. And I do think that really focusing on first user education so that people coming into the experience know whats going on and how to use it. And then really focusing on that user feedback and on that social feedback, paying attention to those growing pains I was talking about and really taking that into consideration. I agree, I really dont like that scifi is our only analogy sometimes. I dont want everyone to think that were heading toward this dystopic future that every scifi novel that has to do with VR talks about, cause it doesnt have to be that way. But if its not going to be that way, we have to bring in everyone into the conversation. Industry has to have a role. Government has to have a role. Researchers like myself and academic institutions need to have a role, as well as the great civil society advocates who are out there really making sure that theyre raising the important questions. It has to be a really comprehensive effort and if its done right, then we can make really innovative, new ways to interact with the world. But absolutely it has to be a whole of society effort.

[24:34] Ian Hamilton: How do you think de-platforming works in this future? Because it feels like there is a fundamental disconnect amongst certain members of society in just how free speech works on a given companys platform. So you get de-platformed by a given organization, you frequently hear the word censorship thrown around to describe what just happened with them getting de-platformed, how does that work when your speech is out there in the world and youre not behind a keyboard in a house or touching a touchscreen, youre kind of walking around everywhere with a soap box, ready to jump on it at any time, and a company can take away that soapbox from you if what you say on that soap box violates their private policies. So how does de-platforming work in this future?

[25:30] Ellysse Dick: Free speech is going to be one of the biggest questions that we have as more and more people are using immersive experiences as their primary form of digital communication. Because, like you said, its not the same as typing something on a screen and having a post taken down. Its actually, I feel that I am speaking to you right now in this virtual space. And de-platforming me or removing me from the space really feels a lot more hands-on, I guess, than flagging a removing a post that I put on Facebook or Instagram or Twitter. So I think companies really need to, especially, now that theyre being asked already to question how they think about de-platforming and content moderation, they need to really think forward, especially companies that are building these virtual experiences that might have some social media experience like Facebook, they really need to think about what free speech looks like in a virtual environment and what the consequences of de-platforming could be, because I think it will be different than de-platforming on social media. And what level of misuse or platform abuse, warrants that level of speech removal, because it is different than social media and I think just porting the standards from Facebook or Twitter into an immersive space is not the answer for this at all.

[26:44] Ian Hamilton: Hmmmm well thank you so much for the time thats a lot to think about, hopefully we have you on again cause this is an ongoing conversation all the time. Thank you so much for the time.

[26:53] Ellysse Dick: Absolutely. This was great. Thanks for having me.

Read more:
How Will Privacy, Free Speech And Safety Coexist In VR/AR? - UploadVR