
We're Not Censoring You, Just Your Computer - capo
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/were-not-censoring-you-just-your-computer/
======
unimpressive
We're not censoring you, just your printing press.

This whole dialogue is ridiculous.

~~~
yummyfajitas
Strangely, few people seem to have a problem with "we're not censoring you,
just your corporation."

~~~
gpvos
That's not strange. Corporations are not people, and their rights should be
different from people. In some ways they may be less restricted, in some ways
more restricted. Free speech is for real people. As the saying goes, I'll
believe corporations are people when Texas executes one.

~~~
yummyfajitas
Computers/printing presses aren't people, and their rights should be different
from people. Free speech is for real people.

Property doesn't have free speech rights, the people who own it do.

~~~
Dylan16807
Corporations are standalone 'people'. An employee can free speech whatever
they want, they just can't do certain things and _attribute them to the
corporation_. They can use the corporation's equipment, even.

------
dfc
The NYT article this is in response to was discussed here:

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4139519>

------
tokenizer
The internet was different from the radio and television, but now it seems
that governments want to prohibit its provocative nature.

The problem is though, is that the internet is two way communication oppose to
one way like most radio and television, and that attempting to "limit" it,
means limiting one path of that communication, us.

I feel like regulating the internet will cause more harm than allowing a few
miscreants to organize through it. The miscreants will always find a way. Like
DRM, this will only hurt the innocent and ignorant, not the savvy and
mischievous.

~~~
ihsw
Unlike DRM it gives control to governments, which is more desirable and more
effective than client-side half-measures.

------
InclinedPlane
We're not censoring you, we're just censoring the air in between your mouth
and other people's ears. Air can't have rights, so this is not a problem.

~~~
sophacles
Obviously you didn't write the paper, it was merely the result of the ink
choosing to stick better to some chemicals rather than others, and the
resulting pattern being adhered to the paper.

------
tikhonj
I think this question is much more interesting regarding WolframAlpha than a
normal search engine. A search engine listing is just a directory of links
(although Google and friends are adding new capabilities constantly) where a
WolframAlpha result is a curated, rewritten summary of the content in
question.

Right now, WolframAlpha is one of the nearest things we have to the "advanced
Artificial Intelligence" from the article; in a certain sense, it actually
_does_ create new content. Should this have speech protections? From an
ideological point of view, I think it should, but I am sure about its legal
status. A question I'm not even sure about ideologically is copyright--how
much copyright protection do you give to things like WolframAlpha's result
pages?

Either way, the most important point is that the future where computers
produce novel and useful content is not the future at all--it's now.

~~~
davidhollander
> _WolframAlpha is one of the nearest things we have to the "advanced
> Artificial Intelligence" from the article; in a certain sense, it actually
> does create new content._

The conclusions one draws from the article is that it creates new content in
the same manner as a web scraper, calculator, or printing press creates new
content. Wolfram Alpha cannot be said to possess independent agency because it
does not possess its own set of intrinsic preferences which it seeks to
maximize. Rather the preferences are extrinsic and determined by humans,
classifying it as a tool rather than agent.

------
jeffdavis
Similar arguments are made regarding campaign finance: "We're not regulating
your speech, we're regulating your money.".

------
ajuc
If text written by computer programmed by human isn't a product of human, it
surely can't be protected by copyright?

------
planetguy
Concrete examples here would make this whole debate a lot clearer.

It's important to realize that the choice isn't between "Computers have free
speech" vs "The government can censor anything a computer does". The choice is
between "existing free-speech precedent applies to computers" vs "computer
program output falls into some other legal framework which we might not have
figured out yet".

The only legal case which seems to be mentioned in either article is a nine-
year-old suit against Google by someone unhappy with Google's ranking of
search results. In that case, the court bought Google's argument that "Hey,
our ranking can say whatever we like, free speech". But as to how far that
argument goes, it hasn't yet been tested.

US free speech law means that it's _very_ hard to be held legally liable for
any consequences of your speech. On the other hand, if you build a machine,
you can in many circumstances be held liable for what that machine does. Now,
is a computer program more like speech, or is it more like a machine?

------
Karunamon
Worth Mentioning: Cato is a Koch Bros. group with a very _very_ far right
bent. Evaluate everything said with that in mind.

~~~
othermaciej
First of all, your argument is pure ad hominem. You didn't give any
explanation to how Koch funding

Second, Cato is not controlled by the Koch brothers. They were involved with
the founding of the organization and recently attempted a takeover; that's now
being worked out in mediation. So the premise of your ad hominem is false.
Cato has a history of taking libertarian positions and criticizing both the
left and the right in a principled way.

And beyond that, Julian Sanchez, the guest author here, is well known for
criticizing the right (for example, he coined the phrase "epistemic closure"
to refer to the lack of openness of the right to outside information, as he
perceived it).

So, in brief, what you said was not actually worth mentioning. It would have
been a poor argument even if true, and is actually totally false.

~~~
sophacles
Actually, when placing a piece in greater context, mentioning the source and
the tendencies of a source, is not an ad hominem fallacy. (It is ad hominem,
just not fallaciously so).

A part I noted in the article that is subtly trying to conflate two things, is
that privacy guards are injected as a first amendment violation, in an article
over the absurdity of computers being an independent actor in free speech.
They may be related topics, but suggesting privacy protections are silly
because they are obviously first amendment issues akin to computer speech is a
bit questionable. Further the article presents some strawman arguments with
regard to that particular issue - for instance the issue of hand compilation
suddenly being ok for everyone worried about computer speech wrt privacy: well
no, that particular issue has been hashed out many times in pre-computer eras,
with things like city directories and telephone books.

Second, just because someone criticizes the left and the right both, does not
matter when characterizing the things a particular organization cares to
publish, particularly when that statement doesn't support the characterization
of the group as a right leaning group. Plenty of "liberal" groups criticize
the left, even though no one would disagree they are liberal (e.g. socialist
groups regularly attack the democrats for not doing enough, bowing to
centrism, whatever).

Finally, it was worth mentioning in that without such a warning about strong
political leanings, one may not be inclined to be on the lookout for the above
mentioned types of issue conflation. A warning about this is fair, whether you
agree or disagree with the conclusion, it doesn't mean you shouldn't pay
attention for it and understand implicit biases in a piece.

~~~
anamax
> Finally, it was worth mentioning in that without such a warning about strong
> political leanings, one may not be inclined to be on the lookout for the
> above mentioned types of issue conflation. A warning about this is fair,
> whether you agree or disagree with the conclusion, it doesn't mean you
> shouldn't pay attention for it and understand implicit biases in a piece.

Shorter sophacles "I try to appear objective so don't notice that I'm applying
a double standard". Namely, he'll make up stuff about Koch and their ilk but
folks he agrees with get a pass. And he expects to be praised for this.

> A part I noted in the article that is subtly trying to conflate two things,
> is that privacy guards are injected as a first amendment violation, in an
> article over the absurdity of computers being an independent actor in free
> speech.

That part was so important that it didn't rate a mention until he got called
on the Koch fallacy.

That might have been an interesting discussion, but he was more interested in
poisoning the well.

~~~
Karunamon
>but he was more interested in poisoning the well.

 _Really_. Mentioning that a group has typically right-wing views is
considered poisoning the well. How the heck does THAT work?

You've done a hell of a lot of assuming both about me and my position based on
nothing more than saying a group has right wing views. Is that somehow
incorrect?

~~~
anamax
You've made several choices. Those choices have consequences. If you didn't
intend them....

For example, you've never bothered to point out that other groups have left-
wing views.

And, as I pointed out, you could have discussed the content. Instead, you went
with an unfounded smear. (Edit: He intended it as a smear and believes that
all right-thinking people take Koch-association as damning.)

I apologise for pointing this out.

~~~
Karunamon
I think it reflects more on you that you consider "having right wing views" to
be a smear and poisoning the well and the like.

And where do you know all this stuff about me, is the other thing I'd like to
know. How the _hell_ do you know what I do or not do in a given situation?

~~~
anamax
> How the hell do you know what I do or not do in a given situation?

I made a claim about your past behavior. Maybe your future behavior will be
different.

