From Sally Adee at New Scientist:
For people like Cerf and many American companies, who view online speech through the lens of the US First Amendment, Germany’s approach may look like a heavy-handed suppression of the right of free expression. However, it may be a necessary first step in re-establishing a shared moral reality. In the age of bots, misinformation, and anonymity, free speech itself may be used to enact a kind of censorship.
There are many good reasons to be wary of outsourcing the policing of moral beliefs to private corporations, even if they are only tasked with implementing a country’s national laws, as would be the case with the draft German proposal. But we should focus on the problems of relying on multinationals with corporate interests to police our moral consensus, instead of misguidedly hiding behind the old defence of free speech.More.
Reality check: We should stop reading New Scientist. The internet empowers everyone except gatekeepers. A pop science gatekeeper like New Scientist cannot possibly like that. If they can’t market gatekeeping, they can at least market gloom and doom. There’s always a market for that, especially among people wh can no longer force others to listen to them and not to listen to others.
See also: Why free speech infringes on “liberty” It is easy for the naturalist prof to dispense with liberty of the mind because she does not accept the existence of the mind.
New Scientist author supports Popular Science shutting down comments.
Part I: What is fake news? Do we believe it?
Part II: Does fake news make a difference in politics?
Part III: What can we do about fake news that would not diminish real news? Diminish real news? Critics of ‘fake news’ should go to China — only the government has the right to post fake news.