Jovy Chan

Coordinated inauthentic behaviours online are becoming a more serious problem throughout the world. One common type of manipulative behaviour is astroturfing. It happens when an entity artificially creates an impression of widespread support for a product, policy, or concept, when in reality only limited support exists. Online astroturfing is often considered to be just like any other coordinated inauthentic behaviour; with considerable discussion focusing on how it aggravates the spread of fake news and disinformation. This paper shows that astroturfing creates additional problems for social media platforms and the online environment in general. The practice of astroturfing exploits our natural tendency to conform to what the crowd does; and because of the importance of conformity in our decision-making process, the negative consequences brought about by astroturfing can be much more far-reaching and alarming than just the spread of disinformation.

This paper argues that free speech is a ‘two-way right’. The right to marriage is a typical two-way right: it is not a guarantee that every single person can get married. Instead, it only ensures that if two consenting adults wish to marry each other, they can do so freely. Similarly, the right to free speech does not protect a speaker’s unilateral right to speak, nor an audience’s unilateral right to hear. Free speech protects the parties’ right to communicate with each other. Many agree that communication is a collaborative activity. Yet, this collaborative essence is sometimes overlooked. Particularly, when analyzing speech rights, there is a tendency to zoom in on either the speaker interests or the audience interests, focusing on the distinctions between the two. The two-way approach reorients our understanding of free speech, to one that is more integrally shaped by a concept of communication as a joint collaborative endeavor.

C.I. Lewis never completed his final project on ethics. There are a few short papers published based on lectures that he has given in the 1950s, and a vast amount of draft materials that he was working on up until the time of his death in 1964. But his ultimate life project, the final book on ethics, never came to fruition. From the materials available, it seems that even towards the end of his life, Lewis was still adjusting and refining his view on how to answer the question “What is right?” That said, it is clear that the core arguments remain consistent throughout his works and draft manuscripts. The main goal of this paper is to reconstruct from the available materials the overall ethical framework Lewis was working towards; and to present the key arguments that lie at the heart of his ethical theory. In doing so, I will also attempt to show that Lewis’s pragmatic conception of the a priori developed in the 1920s actually plays a critical role in grounding his entire ethical view. This paper concludes with a brief evaluation of how well the argument based on a pragmatic a priori fares against the moral skeptic.