Freedom of speech

Main article: Political systems

The question has come up about whether the ratings system requires freedom of speech. The answer is yes, but perhaps we’ve been too quick to assume that. Freedom of speech is a complex subject because, even in the most free societies, there are restrictions. One of these, perhaps the most important, is defamation. Fortunately the ratings system has a built-in mechanism to oppose those who slander others. We have, incidentally, discussed having a separate legal framework to handle this but we’ve generally settled on the idea that we should let the ratings system do its work first and only then consider more heavy-handed approaches.

There are other restrictions on free speech having to do with national security, incitement to violence, obscenity, non-disclosure of sensitive information, etc. Some of these are agreed to by the involved parties and are thus governed by contract law. But still, taking a Rawlsian view on the inalienability of free speech, they represent restrictions.

In addition, and more importantly, there are a whole host of restrictions that are culturally imposed. Hate speech is one of them and, while protected by the US Constitution, is highly restricted as a practical matter (eg in academia). Here we enter a dangerous zone. Communities under a ratings system will no doubt impose their own form of practical restrictions (again, the ratings system doing its job) based on cultural conditions. The question then becomes whether these restrictions would go too far would need to be pre-empted through law. Under Rawls, freedom of speech is an inalienable right, one not only protected but one that cannot be voluntarily surrendered even with unanimous community support.

The ratings system, as software, does not have a political philosophy built into it. People and communities can do whatever they want. But we might want to encourage the foundation of communities with “good” principles by having appropriate defaults and weightings. We might consider, for example, a basic set of rated characteristics we could start with, one of which is adherence to principles of fundamental rights. We could also weight these characteristics higher in overall ratings for members. It is more important that people support a basic freedom, like speech, than their skill in a particular profession. Obviously, these settings could be changed but the idea is that most members would keep them in some form and they would effectively become foundational ideas for everyone in all communities.

We will also, along with deploying the ratings systems software, start communities of our own. It is here that we would primarily favor certain characteristics such as adherence to a Rawlsian scheme of basic liberties (eg the "Rawlsian community"). Then, as communities develop, competition between them would determine which ones were designed optimally and would likely influence the rest. This is a Darwinian, survival of the fittest, vision of how communities evolve.

No doubt this will happen. Darwinism can be viewed as a basic law, much like entropy and gravity. The best systems will not only amass power and influence naturally but will also be emulated by others. It is inevitable that they, and their ideas, will spread.

Nevertheless, for an issue as fundamental to the ratings system as freedom of speech, we probably want to leave as little to Darwinian chance as possible. What if it turns out that the optimal level of free speech is quite restrictive because it leads to greater social harmony? This is, in fact, what the US is struggling with right now. But most of us are probably uncomfortable with the notion of restrictions on our freedom, no matter how objectively optimal they may be for the community.

In fact, we would say that such communities have an objective function that is weighted incorrectly or is simply wrong. The correct objective function, a multi-objective function to be sure, should include basic freedoms as fundamental to our quality of life, just like our health, material well-being, etc.

This means we should develop our system to be open and flexible but also with defaults that ensure, or perhaps strongly encourage, basic freedoms from the beginning. And we don’t have to adopt a full-scale Rawlsian political philosophy. Some of what Rawls believed, especially about income distribution, might be viewed as controversial. But his notion of basic political freedoms, especially freedom of speech, should be taken seriously. It is doubtful that these ideas will elicit any major objection from potential users.

Let's return to freedom of speech by noting that it is usually too general a term and needs to be broken down into separate categories to be meaningful. So let’s do that and consider how the current legal mechanisms handle each case vs. the ratings system.

Defamation/slander/libel

The ratings system is a good natural way to handle this. It can distinguish first the truth of the claim and the intent behind the alleged defamation: is it true and exposes something important, is it true but exposes merely the trivially embarrassing, or is it false? If false, the ratings system is expected to quickly bring this out, much faster than what we’re traditionally used to. If it is true and unimportant, its purpose was merely to hurt the other person and infringe on their privacy. In this case the ratings system is ideal for enforcing the cultural norm where one remains politely silent about known embarrassing but benign information about someone else. The right to privacy, a basic liberty in the Rawlsian sense, is thus maintained. And it is, of course, normally how courteous people are expected to behave anyway. If it is true and important, then its importance presumably outweighs the privacy rights of those it infringes on (eg a politician taking a bribe). The arbiter of importance is the community, operating through the ratings system.

In general, the ratings system should be good at discovering intent. It will be able to distinguish between misinformation which is someone who honestly spreads the wrong information and disinformation where someone knowingly spreads false information. Furthermore, the ratings system will likely do a good job establishing what the community thinks is important. Spreading the idea that someone is, say, a closet fan of the ballet will generate one level of reprobation (ie none for the fan and some for the tattler) but spreading the fact that they are a pedophile quite another.

Contract (trade secrets)

Usually in contracts people agree to keep secret specific trade information, such as the workings of a business, an invention, the mechanics of a financial arrangement, etc. Usually there is some reciprocal arrangement. In return for keeping the secret, we are rewarded with something (money, a job, etc.) The secret is usually so specific that we don’t think agreeing to keep it is an infringement on the inalienability of our free speech rights. If Bob works as a chemist for Coca Cola and agrees to keep the formula a secret as part of his job, we don’t see that restriction on his rights as serious enough to worry about. After all, there are other recipes for Cola drinks and, while they’re not quite as good, humanity will survive without the real thing. Furthermore Bob is being compensated for his silence, he happily agreed to it, the agreement isn’t otherwise onerous, and his doing so doesn’t really affect the overall scheme of basic liberties enjoyed by society at large.

But there are cases when it might. Suppose Coca Cola figures out a new product that tastes way better than Coke but is dangerously addictive, something like heroin or fentanyl. The company has Bob not only agree to not reveal the formula but to also not reveal the project for the new drink itself. The substance is legal so the company could go ahead and make a fortune selling it. Bob knows the danger, however, so after failing to convince his managers that the project should be cancelled, decides to go to the press with his knowledge. He is promptly fired for contract violation and sued.

Here we have a different situation because Bob’s whistleblowing was necessary for society to protect the system of basic liberties for everyone, or at least the millions who would have succumbed to the dangerous new Coke product. He may have violated his contract but society should see his act as a necessary one. A court, in our society, should exonerate his action.

What the court might not do, however, is find him another job or compensate him for his trouble. But in a ratings based society, especially the moneyless variant, Bob’s contribution to society would be recognized for what it is and he would be rewarded naturally in the currency that matters: ratings. His ability to claim goods and services in the economy would be enhanced as a result of his action.

National security secrets

This is similar to contract/trade secrets although, presumably, all national security secrets are ones that, if revealed, would damage the overall system of liberties for everyone. But there are exceptions. In the case of Edward Snowden for instance, who leaked the fact of a US government surveillance program in the wake of 9/11, his actions can easily be seen as protecting the basic liberties of everyone. National security information, like any contractually obligated secret, may need to be revealed to further the overall scheme of basic liberties.

But Snowden is controversial because his actions can also be seen as violating the Espionage Act, for which he is wanted in the US. However, it is hard to see how a properly nuanced understanding of his whistleblowing would come from a US courtroom. Prosecuting him has been a desire at the highest levels of the US government for many years now.

A better picture would certainly come from a community appraisal, something the ratings system would make possible. Did his actions to benefit the many outweigh the compromising intelligence he allegedly revealed? A large number of community members would be in the best position to decide this. In case we are afraid of revealing more sensitive intelligence through this process, communities will have the ability to form committees with privileged access to information. The important thing in this process is that these sub-groups are community-controlled and subject to an ongoing endorsement through the ratings system. Before we move on, we might note that in a US court, the community, “the people” as it were, are in fact highly motivated government prosecutors.

Let’s turn to other espionage-adjacent cases, those related to the China Initiative, which targeted Chinese people in the US who are suspected of spying for China. It started in 2018 and has since been terminated (in 2022). The program has been criticized for its unfair treatment of academics (mainly) who were guilty of small infractions such as failing to disclose Chinese funding sources on grant applications. According to a recent article, “In the past six years, more than 250 scientists - most of them of Asian descent - have been identified as having failed to disclose overlapping funding or research in China, or having broken other rules. There were only two indictments and three convictions as legal outcomes of those investigations, yet 112 scientists lost their jobs as a result”

This type of oversight is normally viewed in our society as minor. We fill out a great many forms and forget to write everything when answering the questions. To the government, however, the form is their gotcha. It is an easy way to establish a list of suspects without doing the real work intended by the policy: finding out who is really passing secrets to an adversarial government.

The government could have approached the issue carefully, by discreetly realizing that most of its “suspects” were guilty of a trivial violation and dismissing them. Instead it pursued them loudly and, one suspects, with a political intent in mind. This is a good example of how government is often incapable of taking a larger societal view on issues and focuses instead on its narrow self- interest.

A ratings system, run by a diverse community, would quickly surface the fact that the proposed methods of espionage discovery in this case were unfair and ineffective. Political intent, if any, would also be quickly exposed. But it is also likely that the community as whole would not know the correct method to investigate suspected espionage. In cases where expertise is required, however, it will have the ability to find the correct people and provide them the weight to make the necessary recommendations.

Hate speech

Hate speech is normally defined on the basis of its repercussions. Certain words, usually referring to racial or identity groups, are so highly offensive in the US English language that they are almost never said aloud. Furthermore, using these words often presages a call to violence, or some other form of oppression, so we can reasonably see that using them causes a disruption to the larger system of liberties. But let’s leave this concern out of our consideration for the moment and go with the first problem: they are offensive. In contemporary society, there is only one reasonable response when someone says they are offended by something you said and that is to simply stop saying it. If a particular word is offensive there are usually plenty of acceptable substitutes, so the self-censorship that results is not onerous (after an acceptable period of time is given to adjust). So in this case, it is a matter of politeness to stop using a word deemed offensive. But if someone is offended by the expression of legitimate ideas, we cannot be so accommodating. Discussions of sensitive subjects such as slavery or the holocaust may be difficult for certain people but we cannot just stop talking about them. In order to continue making progress on our liberties, we must be able to recall what happens when we lose them.

There is obviously a fine line between censorship as an act of courtesy and one where we can’t express legitimate ideas. Most people seem to understand intuitively where the line is. But the law or a rule at, say, a university can easily make mistakes and go too far one way or another.

It would seem that the ratings system will reflect the views of the community better than the law would in matters such as these. Furthermore, the ratings system will impose the correct sanction on violations of cultural norms via speech. Instead of using heavy-handed measures such as fines, imprisonment, being expelled from college, etc. the ratings system will simply register its displeasure by expressing what others think, encouraging debate, etc. This should be enough to correct any “misbehavior” without lasting consequences. A final note on overly tough consequences is that they frequently have the effect of hardening people’s positions rather than giving them the space to think and come to better conclusions.