Luyện nói tiếng Anh bằng Shadowing qua video: Should social media platforms censor hate speech? | Nadine Strossen | Big Think

social media platforms present the same issues that we have been grappling with with respect to older media but throughout human history every time a

new medium of communication comes along many people including many government officials become very exercised about the new power and the allegedly new

harms that are posed so we went through this when radio was invented when the telephone was invented when television was invented when the world wide web

came to people's attention and in fact I have read that when the printing press was invented and when papyrus was invented there were similar eruptions of

fear about this great new power to distribute information and the harm that can be done through information and disinformation so I think it's really

important for us to have historic humility and not see what we're what we're going through now is inherently different and more dangerous than the

past and I think that the same fundamental principles that have applied to other media should apply to social media as well first of all as private

sector entities social media companies have absolutely no legal obligation to respect First Amendment rights free speech rights for anybody else so just

as I have no right to participate in your wonderful film and I have no right to have an op-ed in the New York Times I have no right to have my post displayed

on Facebook or Twitter and so forth moreover those companies have their own First Amendment rights to make their own editorial decisions about what

expression they are going to allow on their platform and what they're not going to allow is somebody who defend free speech right for media company so along with other companies would oppose government

restriction on the ability of these companies to decide what they will air and what they will not air however I will raise my voice to urge these

companies to adhere as closely as as feasible to the same basic standards that are reflected in the First Amendment because I think that for all

of the potential damage that can be done by various kinds of online communications including disinformation and so-called fake news and political

ads and so forth that far more harm is done when we empower these largely unaccountable private sector you know really powerful entities to pick and

choose what expression is going to be aired and what will not be aired and that danger is especially great when we are talking about political speech the

Supreme Court has consistently said throughout history of all expression that is important in our system of government by far the most important is

speech about public affairs speech about politics We the People to quote the opening words of our Constitution we wield sovereign power but how can we do

that responsibly or effectively if we do not have access full access to information about those who are running for office those who are seeking our

votes those who are making public policy decisions most of the time when people advocate censorship beyond the emergency situation in which First Amendment law

allows speech to be censored most of the part-time people talk about the harm that speech can cause whether it be dissin formation / fake news or whether

it be hate speech or whether it be terrorist content and I agree speech have an enormous capacity to do harm as well as an enormous capacity to do good

we protect it precisely because it is so powerful but the argument 99.9 percent of the time starts and ends with the potential harm of free speech those who

advocate censorship never examine whether censorship is going to be effective in addressing redressing reducing the harm they never address

whether censorship to the contrary is going to do more harm than good and every situation that I'm aware of censorship actually ends up being

ineffective in addressing the harms at stake at best or counterproductive at worse so disinformation well are we going to

say that empowering mark zuckerberg and the other Titans of Silicon Valley to decide that certain speech is untrue is that actually going to solve our

political problems I think to the contrary that is as threatening to democracy as it is to individual freedom likewise with respect to so-called hate

speech that conveys discriminatory ideas against traditionally marginalized or excluded groups every hate speech law around the world to this day is

disproportional and Forrest consistently against the very minority groups who are hoped to be protected and we shouldn't be surprised at that once you have these

discretionary standards what is hate speech what is disinformation no two individuals can agree on such inherently subjective concepts and so by definition those who wield power are going to wield

their discretion in ways that predictably are going to perpetuate their power and not empower those who have traditionally been silenced or

marginalized

Phương Pháp Shadowing Là Gì?

Shadowing là kỹ thuật học ngôn ngữ có cơ sở khoa học, ban đầu được phát triển cho chương trình đào tạo phiên dịch viên chuyên nghiệp và được phổ biến rộng rãi bởi nhà đa ngôn ngữ học Dr. Alexander Arguelles. Nguyên lý cốt lõi đơn giản nhưng cực kỳ hiệu quả: bạn nghe tiếng Anh của người bản xứ và lặp lại to ngay lập tức — như một "cái bóng" (shadow) đuổi theo người nói với độ trễ chỉ 1–2 giây. Khác với luyện ngữ pháp hay học từ vựng bị động, Shadowing buộc não bộ và cơ miệng phải đồng thời xử lý và tái tạo ngôn ngữ thực tế. Các nghiên cứu khoa học xác nhận phương pháp này cải thiện đáng kể phát âm, ngữ điệu, nhịp điệu, nối âm, kỹ năng nghe và độ lưu loát khi nói — đặc biệt hiệu quả cho người luyện IELTS Speaking và muốn giao tiếp tiếng Anh tự nhiên như người bản ngữ.

Luyện nói tiếng Anh bằng Shadowing qua video: Should social media platforms censor hate speech? | Nadine Strossen | Big Think

Bối cảnh & Nền tảng

5 Cụm từ chính cho Giao tiếp Hằng ngày

Hướng dẫn Shadowing Từng bước

Phương Pháp Shadowing Là Gì?