Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... eace6037ac

Still, after a season of dangerous talk about responding to idiotic talk by abridging First Amendment protections, Americans should consider how, if at all, to respond to “cheap speech.” That phrase was coined 22 years ago by Eugene Volokh of UCLA Law School. Writing in the Yale Law Journal (“Cheap Speech and What It Will Do”) at the dawn of the Internet, he said that new information technologies were about to “dramatically reduce the costs of distributing speech,” and that this would produce a “much more democratic and diverse” social environment. Power would drain from “intermediaries” (publishers, book and music store owners, etc.) but this might take a toll on “social and cultural cohesion.”

Boy does that seem prophetic right now.

Customization breeds confirmation bias — close-minded people who cocoon themselves in a cloud of only congenial information. This exacerbates political polarization by reducing “shared cultural referents” and “common knowledge about current events.”

But, he correctly says, cheap speech is reducing the relevance of political parties and newspapers as intermediaries between candidates and voters, which empowers demagogues. Voters are directly delivered falsehoods such as the 2016 story of Pope Francis’s endorsement of Donald Trump, which Hasen says “had 960,000 Facebook engagements.”

Seems kind of funny that as the internet and social media toppled a bunch of delinquent regimes in the Arab spring but in the west it gives us celebrity presidents like Obama and Trump.

What say you, CS.com?

I don't disagree with this at all. There is a danger when every person, no matter how smart or how dim, thinks that what they have to say, at the moment they think it, is worth shouting that thought into the void for all to hear. I made reference in other posts to the comments section in newspapers - you read most of those comments and you can't imagine how most of those people get up every morning and manage to make it through the day. Twitter and Facebook and Instagram have reinforced that and brought that kind of discussion and interplay out into the open and legitimized it. And the other part of this was something that came up on AGS back before this site was even created - the political board had gotten so heated that there were boards set up, invitation only, for Dems and for GOP'ers. The idea apparently was that it was so toxic to have to read the thoughts of the other side that it was better just to be walled off and only hear from people who agree with you. Again, fast forward, and that's exactly what people have today with their Twitter feeds and Facebook groups. There's no real discussions in those venues, there's no room for complexity or nuance, and unfortunately, the real world has plenty of complexity and nuance in it.

GannonFan wrote:I don't disagree with this at all. There is a danger when every person, no matter how smart or how dim, thinks that what they have to say, at the moment they think it, is worth shouting that thought into the void for all to hear. I made reference in other posts to the comments section in newspapers - you read most of those comments and you can't imagine how most of those people get up every morning and manage to make it through the day. Twitter and Facebook and Instagram have reinforced that and brought that kind of discussion and interplay out into the open and legitimized it. And the other part of this was something that came up on AGS back before this site was even created - the political board had gotten so heated that there were boards set up, invitation only, for Dems and for GOP'ers. The idea apparently was that it was so toxic to have to read the thoughts of the other side that it was better just to be walled off and only hear from people who agree with you. Again, fast forward, and that's exactly what people have today with their Twitter feeds and Facebook groups. There's no real discussions in those venues, there's no room for complexity or nuance, and unfortunately, the real world has plenty of complexity and nuance in it.

People need filters for taking in information more than they do for disseminating it. Everyone having a voice isn't a problem, the problem is being overly credulous about dubious things in chain emails or Facebook news.

Eugene Volokh was, and is, one smart muthafucka.

Pwns wrote:

GannonFan wrote:I don't disagree with this at all. There is a danger when every person, no matter how smart or how dim, thinks that what they have to say, at the moment they think it, is worth shouting that thought into the void for all to hear. I made reference in other posts to the comments section in newspapers - you read most of those comments and you can't imagine how most of those people get up every morning and manage to make it through the day. Twitter and Facebook and Instagram have reinforced that and brought that kind of discussion and interplay out into the open and legitimized it. And the other part of this was something that came up on AGS back before this site was even created - the political board had gotten so heated that there were boards set up, invitation only, for Dems and for GOP'ers. The idea apparently was that it was so toxic to have to read the thoughts of the other side that it was better just to be walled off and only hear from people who agree with you. Again, fast forward, and that's exactly what people have today with their Twitter feeds and Facebook groups. There's no real discussions in those venues, there's no room for complexity or nuance, and unfortunately, the real world has plenty of complexity and nuance in it.

People need filters for taking in information more than they do for disseminating it. Everyone having a voice isn't a problem, the problem is being overly credulous about dubious things in chain emails or Facebook news.

Not sure about that - I've seen plenty a ridiculous thing come out of people's mouths. Not every thought they moment you have the thought is worthy of broadcasting to the world, even more so the case for some people. I much prefer a Republic to a Democracy just for this reason.

Who would have thought the internet is more dangerous than the internal combustion engine?

Huh

Wills occasional editorials on baseball were wonderful

OL FU wrote:Wills occasional editorials on baseball were wonderful

He's just about my favorite Conservative of all time...
I used to really dislike George Will when I was a younger man but over time it occurred to me
that what I didn't like wasn't him - but more - his dismantling of my previously held notions

He destroyed much of my wild side rampant Liberalism

Chizzang wrote:

OL FU wrote:Wills occasional editorials on baseball were wonderful

He's just about my favorite Conservative of all time...
I used to really dislike George Will when I was a younger man but over time it occurred to me
that what I didn't like wasn't him - but more - his dismantling of my previously held notions

He destroyed much of my wild side rampant Liberalism

I don't disagree. My comment was more about my weariness of pundits and commentators in general, including Will.

as far as destroying your rampant liberalism, I give him a D+

All of which doesn't change they fact that he used to write really good baseball articles

OL FU wrote:

Chizzang wrote:
He's just about my favorite Conservative of all time...
I used to really dislike George Will when I was a younger man but over time it occurred to me
that what I didn't like wasn't him - but more - his dismantling of my previously held notions

He destroyed much of my wild side rampant Liberalism

I don't disagree. My comment was more about my weariness of pundits and commentators in general, including Will.

as far as destroying your rampant liberalism, I give him a D+

All of which doesn't change they fact that he used to write really good baseball articles

and
Baseball Books even...