Attorney General Barr and Encryption
I wanted to write a post about how the encryption would interact with free speech, especially given the leaked memo to censor the Internet.<p>Let me start by stating my views on free speech and rights in general, and then how they are shaped by these events.
I think that human rights and freedoms are just that: personal freedoms. Freedom of religion is about personal religious observance without harming others. These freedoms philosophically should not mean entitlement to unlimited exercise thereof. The right to bear arms doesn’t mean you should be able able to stockpile unlimited amounts of ammunition and incendiary devices etc.<p>Similarly, FREEDOM of speech to me is a PERSONAL human freedom. You can say what you want, and not be punished by the government for it. You can say it in a car, you can say it in a bar, you can say it very far, you can wish upon a star. But there are limits to how many people can hear you. Maybe 10 or 100 people at an event.<p>Once you get into situations where 5,000,000 people can hear a tweet, that’s clearly not about FREEDOM of speech in its strict sense. It is about entitlement to use a PLATFORM, maintained by an ORGANIZATION that involves many people, to broadcast arbitrary, unfiltered one-to-many messages to everyone.<p>I think this latter thing is toxic, in both directions. Society listening to tweets of celebrities cheapens public discussion and civic thought. And being reachable by the whole world using email (rather than through networks of shared invited&#x2F;capabilities) leads to constant spam and papparazzi for celebrities. What happened here is an ORGANIZATION put on a show or movie and catapulted this celebrity into the limelight and carefully maintains their stature, along with their own publicists, social media team on twitter, etc.
This is the society we live in, where we have heroes. But entitlement to unlimited unfiltered megaphones is NOT the same as freedom of speech, any more than being a leader if a paramilitary group of unlimited size is the same as the right to bear arms.
So, freedoms and rights have limits. Where those limits lie is the heap paradox - as you take away grains, when is a heap no longer a heap? etc.
So what is the alternative to this type of misnamed “free speech” aka megaphones run by organizations, super PACs, mainstream media, and so on? It is COLLABORATION.<p><pre><code>  Look at Wikipedia.
  Look at peer reviewed journals and science.
  Look at large open source projects
</code></pre>
There, individual contributions are filtered and often butt up against changes, revisions, etc. The result is that when the general public sees something, it is the result of a collaborative process of filtering and refining the presentation of information, citing sources, etc. There are no heroes on wikipedia, and only a few in science and open source. Most contributions are filtered by a community of experts, not state governments or platforms employing boiler rooms of low paid workers to determine what’s true.
I would like to see more of that COLLABORATION and less of COMPETITION.<p>I would like to see a patentleft movement in drug research, instead of big pharma. I would like to see news reported like Wikipedia with footage submitted by everyday people on the ground instead of “intrepid reporters in a warzone”. CNN used to have a motto that they have “no celebrities”. News agencies tried to stay lukewarm and neutral. FOX News changed the game, lots of people copied the model. The Internet eliminated newspapers and classifieds. News had to adapt because capitalism and cutthroat competition for the same ad dollars means MORE clickbait and MORE lockin to one type of audience. For-profit Social networks further use this content to herd us into echo chambers of outrage, because that’s what drives the most engagement, which the social networks need to monetize. They send notifications in an increasingly desperate attempt to grab your attention in a tragedy of the commons where the commons is our attention.<p>This has had a corrosive effect on society. The capitalist (competition based) news has made us more polarized and outraged, while the capitalist (competition based) social networks have made us more addicted to our notification slot machine, with smaller attention spans and self control, responding to that stranger on the internet over that latest outrage.<p>THIS is the culture that leads to more mass shootings. The fact that we have giant platforms instead of peer to peer is another problem. By banning extremist people from platforms, a platform can pop up which attracts the worst extremists, and feeds them. This platform should ABSOLUTELY be a honeypot for the FBI to watch these people. In our world of centralized platforms, Platforms like this should be RUN by the FBI.
Instead, our government takes the wrong approach. They shut down the Craigslist and Backpage hookers sections instead of using them to entrap and catch traffickers. Then they threaten large platforms with SESTA (2018) when they should be the ones catching the people who are out there. The platforms should be honeypots!<p>Anyway. So although I feel my stance is correct, and beneficial to society, there are three practical problems with it:<p>1. First Amendment is not interpreted as I do. In fact Citizens United even allowed our politics to be run by PACs with huge money and megaphones (although nonprofits could have always done that). So legally my literal understanding of limits of freedoms is not matching the traditional ones (slander, yelling fire etc.)<p>2. This may be the more serious one. As we have more end to end encryption and better personal technology, all well-meaning ideas about limits of freedom of speech and arms melt away. Imagine Alex Jones on SAFE Network with 1,000,000 people subscribed to his encrypted feed. Or imagine 3d printed guns from illegally shared 3d models, stored in 10% of the homes in NYC. Can’t stop people using a turing complete language to turn out banned material.<p>3. Even with numerical limits on each person’s audience, a hateful message can attract people who make plans to use technology to asymetrically perpetrate criminal acts. And end-to-end encryption means we won’t know what they’re saying.
However, I believe that if we took the freedoms in the way I defined them, and moved to collaborative platforms instead of competitive ones, our society’s health would measurably improve.