Clemson Prof Suggests Regulating Social Media is Good for Free Speech
“research shows that users are bad at distinguishing between true and false claims online”
We already saw what this looked like before Elon Musk took over Twitter/X. It wasn’t good.
The College Fix reports:
Clemson professor: Regulating social media actually is GOOD for free speech
*Sigh* How many of you have learned to be very wary when a progressive or academic (the two usually are synonymous) says something like this?
And have you also learned to raise an eyebrow when the aforementioned use weaselly phrases such as “researchers have suggested” and “research has shown”?
Americans’ hesitance regarding regulations on so-called “hate speech” has a rather simple basis: The Left turns anything they do not like into “hate speech.”…
Alas, here comes Clemson University philosophy professor Mike Gregory (pictured) in a piece titled “Why deregulating online platforms is actually bad for free speech.”
Gregory says “despite [U.S. free speech] legal constraints, researchers have suggested that upholding the value of free speech requires some content-based regulation.”
The need for citizens in a democratic state to be autonomous speakers and thinkers underscores the importance of content-based regulation in upholding free speech. Research has shown that hate speech online in particular and the proliferation of extremism online in general have a chilling effect on online speech through intimidation and fear. So, restrictions on hate speech can support free speech rather than undermining it.
In addition, the spread of online misinformation and the challenges of detecting it can similarly undermine the people’s ability to exchange ideas and evaluate viewpoints as autonomous speakers or listeners. In fact, research shows that users are bad at distinguishing between true and false claims online. This fundamental weakness undermines your ability to operate as an autonomous speaker or listener.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
I know. Let’s start by regulating this clown’s speech and see how that works out.
The answer to false or misleading speech is more speech. Freedom to question and freedom to respond.
Not some arbitrary referee deciding for you what’s “misinformation” and what isn’t, whose motives and biases could be completely opposed to your own.
“research shows that users are bad at distinguishing between true and false claims online”
That’s precisely because you and people like you suck at running schools.
I actually think community notes are the most brilliant idea yet for this. The fact that most so-called journalist champions of free speech have removed all criticism and fact-checking by nixing their comment boxes is the most telling thing about their commitment to free speech and exchange/quality control of ideas.
Community notes are good in principal. In practice there are issues with it and it’s possible to warp them to say what you want if you get enough people together.
Yep, look at wikipaedia
And of course the ‘good professor’ fails to address regulating social media to adhere to approved thought.
What the Left consider hate speech and misinformation can differ wildly to the non-Left. Conversely what the non-Left recognise as misinformation and/or hate speech can be what the Left consider 1st Amendment protected speech.
If the Left is doing the censoring, as they usually are, are they more likely to remove what shouldn’t be online, or simply what they don’t want to tolerate online? (No I’m not asking for a response, that’s a rhetorical question!)
Twitter before, Reddit has some rabidly Leftist mods. The population is largely intolerantly Leftist. The moderating he describes would be largely like Reddit. Banning for ‘commenting while conservative’ is the baseline unspoken treatment.