







Making big public statements is always fun and people who think themselves to be important love doing it as a way of trying to influence public opinion and/or politics. They are a way for institutions and individuals to organize and try to shine some light onto important issues. We’ve seen many such things in the […]
Breaking the silence
Research on science communication has largely focused on teaching scientists how to describe their studies in ways that interest the public while deepening their understanding of scientific exploration. However, there is another, often overlooked side to science communication—how scientists respond when questions arise about the integrity of their research. Often, the tendency has been to stay silent and wait for any controversy to pass or be resolved in professional forums. But in an age of growing, intense attacks on science, silence can be detrimental to both public trust and the careers of scientists who are under scrutiny. For better or worse, journalists, social media professionals, and the public may take a response of “no comment” as a concession that the critics are correct, so forthright communication about research questions is more urgent than ever.

Saying the obvious thing
Stating the obvious is surprisingly useful. Most of your knowledge lives below the threshold of conscious awareness, so it’s possible for a piece of writing to remind you of what you already know. It’s common to know you don’t like something without being quite sure why, and reading an obvious statement (such as “accuracy matters, even when you agree with the broad strokes”) can help clarify why you find certain things distasteful.

The Liar’s Dividend: Can Politicians Claim Misinformation to Evade Accountability?
This study addresses the phenomenon of misinformation about misinformation, or politicians "crying wolf"' over fake news. Strategic and false claims that stories are fake news or deepfakes may benefit politicians by helping them maintain support after a scandal. We posit that this benefit, known as the "liar's dividend," may be achieved through two politician strategies: by invoking informational uncertainty or by encouraging oppositional rallying of core supporters. We administer five survey experiments to over 15,000 American adults detailing hypothetical politician responses to stories describing real politician scandals. We find that claims of misinformation representing both strategies raise politician support across partisan subgroups. These strategies are effective against text-based reports of scandals, but are largely ineffective against video evidence and do not reduce general trust in media. Finally, these false claims produce greater dividends for politicians than alternative responses to scandal, such as remaining silent or apologizing.
Governing Online Speech: From 'Posts-As-Trumps' to Proportionality and Probability
Online speech governance stands at an inflexion point. Platforms are emerging from the state of emergency invoked during the pandemic and lawmakers are poised t
Free Speech on the Internet: The Crisis of Epistemic Authority
Abstract. Much of our knowledge of the world comes not from direct sensory experience, but from reliance on epistemic authorities: individuals or institutions that tell us what we ought to believe. For example, what most of us believe about natural selection, climate change, or the Holocaust comes from our reliance on epistemic authorities (scientists, historians). Sustaining epistemic authority depends, crucially, on social institutions that inculcate reliable second-order norms about whom to believe about what. The traditional media were crucial, in the age of mass democracy, with promulgating and sustaining such norms. The internet has obliterated the intermediaries who made that possible, and, in the process, undermined the epistemic standing of actual experts. This essay considers some possible changes to existing free speech doctrine to remedy the epistemological crisis brought about by the internet.

“CEO said a thing!”
A blistering guide to what lazy journalism too often looks like

CherieDeVille on Instagram: "Standing up for the first amendment is everybody’s responsibility."
14K likes, 405 comments - cheriedevillexo on August 6, 2024: "Standing up for the first amendment is everybody’s responsibility.".

You Have the Right to Think
Epistemic Status: Public service announcement. We will then return to regularly scheduled programming. Written partly as a response to (Robin Hanson): Why be Contrarian, responding to the book Inad…

"CEO Said A Thing!" Journalism
"CEO said a thing!" journalism involves parroting the claims of a business leader or executive with absolutely no context, correction, or challenge whatsoever, no matter how elaborate the delusion.

Are LLMs Stifling Political Speech? An Assessment of How AI Models Protect Free Expression | Oversight Board
The Oversight Board’s first evaluation of large language models (LLMs) shows that some of the world’s most-used models from Anthropic, DeepSeek, Google, Meta
The challenges of constitutional silence: Doctrine, theory, and applications
Abstract. In this introduction to our symposium on “Constitutional Silence,” we situate the articles in this collection and explore the significance of the
How (Not) to Write a Privacy Law
After many years of failed starts, proposed information privacy legislation has begun moving forward in both houses of Congress. The docket in the recently ended 116th Congress was crowded, with a number of different proposals jostling for attention and no agreement on which deserved to be the front runner. Even so, as the 117th Congress begins, there is growing inside-the-Beltway consensus on the list of features that a successful bill will need to include. This paper critically assesses those zones of emerging consensus.

Convention leaders find out that lying to cover up a PR problem makes a bigger PR problem. #MephitZooGate dogpatch.press/2026/06/29/anthroverse-resign…
Anthroverse Vice Chair forced to resign, retract false claims in Mephit Furmeet zoophile coverup.
dogpatch.pressI went ahead and created a pol.is conversation about this, pls contribute! pol.is/7bdiwbvh2d You can contribute by voting on statements and/or adding your own statements. First time using it, hope it helps surface useful insight!
Wesley Finck
It would be awesome to use a collective deliberation tool like polis for making sense of atproto ecosystem-wide discussions like sign in branding / terminology. Bsky threads are not the appropriate format. plus many more voice can contribute meaningfully.
A new report from the Project Liberty Institute, Social Web Foundation, Public AI, & @modalfoundation.eurosky.social stresses the importance of continued dialogue to create shared problem definitions, priorities, and identify next steps across research, standards development, and gov communities.