What is *Liars: Falsehoods and Free Speech in an Age of Deception* about?

Cass R. Sunstein’s *Liars* examines how deliberate falsehoods threaten societal trust, public health, and democracy in the digital age. It analyzes legal frameworks (particularly U.S. law), ethical systems, and psychological factors that enable harmful lies—like COVID-19 hoaxes and deepfakes—to spread rapidly. The book advocates for balanced solutions, including targeted legal reforms and platform moderation, while upholding free speech principles.

Who should read *Liars: Falsehoods and Free Speech in an Age of Deception*?

Legal scholars, policymakers, and anyone concerned about misinformation’s societal impact will find this book essential. It’s also valuable for psychology enthusiasts exploring why people believe/share lies and for social media users seeking insights into platform accountability.

Is *Liars* by Cass Sunstein worth reading?

Yes—Sunstein combines rigorous legal analysis with behavioral science to explain how falsehoods erode democracy and offers actionable solutions. The blend of real-world examples (e.g., Trump’s lies, anti-vaccine myths) and ethical frameworks makes it a timely, thought-provoking read for navigating modern information challenges.

What are the main arguments in *Liars: Falsehoods and Free Speech*?

Sunstein argues that while most lies should remain protected speech, society must legally restrict those causing imminent harm (e.g., death threats, defamation). He emphasizes social media’s amplifying role and critiques platforms for insufficient content moderation, urging a mix of legislative action and corporate responsibility.

How does *Liars* address the role of social media?

The book highlights how platforms like Facebook and Twitter accelerate lies by prioritizing engagement over accuracy. Sunstein proposes “nudges” like warning labels and fact-check links to reduce harm without outright censorship, balancing free expression and public safety.

What ethical frameworks does Cass Sunstein use in *Liars*?

Sunstein evaluates lies through utilitarianism (weighing harms vs. benefits), deontology (duty-based ethics), and virtue ethics. He prioritizes intent, magnitude of harm, and likelihood of damage, arguing that malicious falsehoods warrant stricter regulation than accidental misinformation.

Does *Liars* discuss deepfakes and doctored videos?

Yes. Sunstein warns that AI-generated content (e.g., deepfakes) poses unprecedented risks by distorting reality convincingly. He suggests updated defamation laws and platform policies to combat synthetic media, stressing the need for rapid response mechanisms.

How does *Liars* compare to Sunstein’s earlier work like *Nudge*?

While *Nudge* focuses on behavioral economics’ role in policymaking, *Liars* applies similar principles to misinformation. Both emphasize “choice architecture,” but *Liars* prioritizes curbing deliberate deception over guiding positive decisions.

라이어스

거짓 정보와 기만의 시대 속 표현의 자유

캐스 선스타인

3.53(119 Reviews)

라이어스 개요

"거짓말들(Liars)"에서 법학자 캐스 선스타인(Cass Sunstein)은 소셜 미디어가 어떻게 민주주의를 위협하는 허위 사실을 증폭시키는지 탐구하며 우리의 정보 왜곡 위기를 다룹니다. 거짓이 진실보다 빠르게 퍼지는 세상에서 표현의 자유는 살아남을 수 있을까요? 미국에서 가장 많이 인용되는 이 법학자는 놀라운 해결책들을 제시합니다.

전달 방식을 선택하세요

한 권의 책, 다양한 듣기 방식.

라이어스의 같은 아이디어를 담았습니다. 나에게 맞는 목소리, 깊이, 속도를 고르고 언제든 바꿔 보세요.

1장

The Truth About Lies: Why Falsehoods Matter More Than Ever

When was the last time you caught someone in a lie? Perhaps it was a friend's harmless exaggeration, a politician's campaign promise, or a social media post that seemed too outrageous to be true. In Cass Sunstein's "Liars," we confront an uncomfortable reality: we're living in an era where falsehoods travel faster than truth, where "fake news" isn't just a dismissive label but a genuine threat to social cohesion. The book arrives at a critical moment-when a casual scroll through your feed might expose you to more misinformation than facts. Oprah Winfrey once listed Sunstein's work among her "books that help her through" difficult times, noting his ability to clarify complex social phenomena. As a Harvard professor and former Obama administration official, Sunstein brings scholarly rigor to a problem that affects us all: how should society balance free expression against the harms of deliberate deception?

2장

The Moral Landscape of Lying

Imagine a car salesman who looks you straight in the eye and lies about a vehicle's accident history. While this deception might not constitute legal fraud, something about it feels fundamentally wrong. This sense of wrongness provides essential context for understanding why falsehoods matter-not just legally, but ethically. Lies come from countless sources with diverse motivations. Some people lie because they enjoy the power it gives them over others or to show contempt for those they deceive. Others lie out of self-interest, seeking advancement or influence. Many believe their own falsehoods through motivated reasoning, while some simply don't care about truth when falsehoods better serve their agenda. What makes lying wrong goes beyond its instrumental harms. When someone lies to you, they effectively "take" something from you-your liberty, property, or reputation. A false accusation, misleading advertisement, or fabricated rumor can inflict concrete damage. But beyond these tangible harms, lies violate trust itself, the foundation upon which relationships and societies function. From a utilitarian perspective, lies must be judged by their consequences rather than being inherently wrong. While some lies might be justified when they produce more good than harm, utilitarians generally oppose lying because it destroys trust-the essential foundation of relationships and society. Even seemingly benevolent "paternalistic" lies are problematic because they deprive people of agency over their own lives. Kantians take a different approach, opposing lies not because of their consequences but because lying treats people disrespectfully as means rather than ends. When you lie to someone, you violate their autonomy, denying their agency and subjecting them to your will-making deception a close cousin to coercion or even a form of violence. As Kant himself wrote: "Truthfulness in statements which cannot be avoided is the formal duty of an individual to everyone, however great may be the disadvantage." Political lies are particularly damaging because they treat citizens with contempt, denying the fundamental democratic premise of citizen sovereignty. When leaders lie systematically, they create what might be called "democratic vertigo," inducing either rage or indifference among citizens. By making it impossible to know whom to trust, political lies undermine the very foundation of self-government.

들리는 모든 단어를 눈으로 확인하세요

라이어스의 각 단어가 오디오에 맞춰 실시간으로 강조되어 편하게 따라 읽을 수 있습니다.

3장

The Constitutional Puzzle of False Speech

When Xavier Alvarez falsely claimed to be a decorated war veteran at a public meeting in 2007, he violated the Stolen Valor Act, which criminalized false claims about military honors. His case eventually reached the Supreme Court, which struck down the law as unconstitutional in United States v. Alvarez (2012). This ruling revealed a profound tension in American constitutional law: why should demonstrably false statements receive First Amendment protection at all? The case became a pivotal moment in defining the boundaries between protected speech and deliberate falsehoods. The Court's reasoning, led by Justice Kennedy, emphasized that punishing false speech would create a chilling effect that would deter legitimate free debate. The plurality worried about giving government "authority to compile a list of subjects about which false statements are punishable," fearing this would create a Ministry of Truth with no clear limiting principle. They noted historical examples where governments used laws against false speech to suppress dissent, from colonial sedition laws to McCarthy-era persecution of suspected communists. This decision reflects a deep American commitment to the "marketplace of ideas" concept first articulated by Justice Holmes in Abrams v. United States (1919)-the notion that truth emerges from the competition of ideas in free discussion. Yet this marketplace often fails spectacularly in the modern era, particularly in digital spaces. Far from revealing truth, this marketplace can amplify falsehoods through echo chambers, algorithmic amplification, and viral misinformation. Scientific research from cognitive psychology and information science has "almost uniformly rejected" the notion that truth is the dominant factor determining which propositions gain acceptance in public discourse. People generally assume statements wouldn't be made unless substantially true-we are "credulous Bayesians" who fail to sufficiently discount sources' motivations or limited information. This tendency is particularly pronounced in social media environments where rapid sharing occurs with minimal verification. Even when we consciously reject falsehoods, they leave "a cloud of suspicion" that influences our beliefs and behavior, a phenomenon known as the "continued influence effect." Our intuitive, emotional mental processing (System 1) might credit false statements even when our deliberative reasoning (System 2) does not, as demonstrated in numerous psychology studies showing how initial exposure to misinformation persists even after correction. The challenge facing courts and policymakers is finding ways to discourage harmful falsehoods without unduly restricting important speech. While some argue that deliberately false statements have no constitutional value, others contend that protecting some false speech is necessary to avoid self-censorship of truthful speech. Sometimes a chilling effect on certain falsehoods can be "an excellent safeguard" for truth, but determining where to draw that line remains contentious. Recent cases involving election misinformation and COVID-19 falsehoods have only heightened these tensions between free speech and truth preservation.

4장

Why Protect Falsehoods?

Why should demonstrably false statements receive constitutional protection? John Stuart Mill famously argued that falsehoods serve valuable purposes: they spare feelings, protect privacy, shield from prejudice, comfort the sick, preserve innocence, prevent panic, and even promote thought that ultimately helps realize truth. Different theories of free speech protection yield different conclusions about protecting falsehoods. The democratic self-government view suggests many falsehoods deserve no protection since they contribute nothing to self-governance. The individual autonomy perspective values speech intrinsically rather than instrumentally, potentially protecting falsehoods but questionably lies. The "marketplace of ideas" theory might protect falsehoods that help discover truth. Perhaps the strongest argument for protecting falsehoods is that officials cannot be trusted to regulate "truth." When officials regulate "falsehoods," they may end up censoring truth due to ignorance or self-interest. As Mill noted, "All silencing of discussion is an assumption of infallibility." Authoritarian leaders often suppress truth under the guise of combating falsehoods. Another compelling concern is that punishing falsehoods might deter people from speaking truth. Even with perfect technology for detecting lies, people would self-censor when uncertain about their statements. What's needed is "optimal chill"-considering the balance between deterring harmful falsehoods and important truths. Even if government could be trusted and chilling effects were minimal, false statements might still have social value. Mill argued that encountering falsehoods helps us hold "living truths" rather than "dead dogmas." When we confront false claims, we learn more about truth through the collision with error. When people express falsehoods, we also learn valuable information about what others believe. Discovering that many fellow citizens believe vaccines cause autism or that climate change is a hoax helps combat "pluralistic ignorance"-not knowing what others think. Ultimately, falsehoods are banned not merely because they're false but because they threaten harm. Some create clear and present danger, like falsely shouting "fire" in a crowded theater. For less harmful falsehoods, we might adopt the principle that "false statements are constitutionally protected unless the government can show they threaten serious harm that cannot be avoided through more speech-protective means."

라이어스에서 더 많은 것을 얻으세요

매일 새로운 인사이트를 10만 개 이상의 레슨에서 만나보세요
단어가 강조되어 오디오와 실시간으로 동기화됩니다
내 라이브러리를 저장하고 모든 기기에서 이용하세요

5장

Why Falsehoods Spread So Effectively

Most people tend to believe what others tell them-we have a natural "truth bias" that makes us vulnerable to falsehoods. Even when information is clearly discredited, we often continue to rely on it in forming judgments. This meta-cognitive myopia-our tendency to focus on primary information while giving insufficient weight to signals about its accuracy-may have evolutionary roots in our hunter-gatherer past. Research shows that even when explicitly told information is false, people remain influenced by it-including professional judges in criminal cases. Negative information particularly leaves a lasting impression that's difficult to erase. While we're more skeptical of some sources than others, we generally give too little weight to signals that information might be false. Despite faith in counterspeech, research examining Twitter rumor cascades found falsehoods spread "significantly farther, faster, deeper, and more broadly than truth" across all categories-with political falsehoods showing the greatest advantage. False rumors reached 1,500 people six times more rapidly than truthful ones. This spread isn't primarily due to bots but to human behavior. Falsehoods appear to spread faster because they're more novel and evoke stronger emotional reactions like surprise and disgust. Corrections to falsehoods have mixed effectiveness. While they can work for straightforward factual matters, corrections often fail when people have emotional investments in their beliefs. Research on Sarah Palin's "death panels" claim showed that politically knowledgeable supporters became more convinced of her claim after seeing corrections. This "backfire effect" occurs because those with strong knowledge feel emotionally invested in their beliefs. Social influence can be powerful enough to make people doubt direct evidence from their own senses. Solomon Asch's classic experiments demonstrated how individuals would embrace obvious falsehoods when confronted with unanimous group judgments that contradicted what they could plainly see. In these experiments, 36.8% of subjects yielded to group pressure when matching line lengths, despite clear visual evidence. Falsehoods spread through social cascades when people lack private information and rely on others' statements or actions. Both informational cascades (where people genuinely rely on others' knowledge) and reputational cascades (where people conform to preserve their standing) can entrench false beliefs throughout groups. When like-minded people discuss their shared beliefs, they typically become more extreme in those positions-a robust pattern called group polarization. Online communication exacerbates this problem as groups with distinctive identities engage primarily in internal discussions, becoming increasingly extreme and potentially more committed to falsehoods.

6장

Reputation Under Siege

When reputation collides with free speech, complex and difficult tensions emerge. Defamation law serves dual critical purposes: deterring harmful misconduct that can destroy lives and providing injured parties both monetary compensation and a crucial chance to clear their names. The stakes are extraordinarily high-defamatory remarks can devastate individuals economically and personally, destroying careers, relationships, and mental health. False accusations can force people to move, change jobs, or withdraw from public life entirely. Beyond individual harm, defamation damages associated institutions and undermines the foundations of democratic discourse by poisoning public debate with lies. The Supreme Court's approach to defamation underwent a revolutionary transformation with New York Times Co. v. Sullivan in 1964. Before this landmark case, the First Amendment imposed few meaningful limits on defamation law, allowing plaintiffs to prevail by simply proving statements were false and harmful. Sullivan established the "actual malice" standard for public officials, requiring proof that speakers either knew statements were false or showed "reckless disregard" for truth. This radical ruling created substantial protection for those spreading falsehoods about public figures, prioritizing "breathing space" for free expression over reputation protection. The Court reasoned that fear of lawsuits could chill important political speech and robust public debate. The current system creates a three-tiered structure distinguishing between public officials, celebrities, and ordinary citizens, with public figures unable to recover damages without showing actual malice. Private individuals face a lower burden of proof in most cases. This balance, while protecting press freedom, may not be optimal in today's media landscape, as good people suffer devastating reputation damage while falsehoods remain inadequately deterred, particularly in the viral ecosystem of social media where lies can spread globally in minutes. To better balance free speech with protection against damaging falsehoods, several modest but meaningful proposals deserve serious consideration: (1) Mandatory warnings and disclosures could inform people when statements have been proven false, similar to fact-checking labels; (2) Carefully calibrated damage caps could promote free speech while ensuring meaningful deterrence against malicious lies; (3) A general right to demand correction after demonstrating a statement is false and damaging, with penalties for non-compliance; (4) A "notice and take down" right requiring platforms to remove clearly defamatory content after proper notification; (5) Algorithm adjustments to downgrade proven defamatory statements on social media to reduce their viral spread while preserving the record. The current system inadequately protects people's reputations and fundamentally trivializes their profound interest in maintaining their good name. In an era when false information spreads instantly to millions through social networks and remains permanently accessible through search engines, we urgently need better tools to protect individuals while preserving the essential right of free speech. The challenge is finding mechanisms that can respond at the speed and scale of modern communications while maintaining due process and avoiding censorship.

들리는 모든 단어를 눈으로 확인하세요

라이어스의 각 단어가 오디오에 맞춰 실시간으로 강조되어 편하게 따라 읽을 수 있습니다.

7장

When Falsehoods Kill

A landmark University of Chicago study revealed how public statements on television dramatically impacted COVID-19 spread and deaths. Researchers meticulously compared viewers of Fox News hosts Tucker Carlson and Sean Hannity, who took markedly different approaches to the pandemic. From late January 2020, Carlson consistently warned viewers about the serious threat, emphasizing the virus's lethality and calling for early preventive measures. In contrast, Hannity remained dismissive well into March, repeatedly downplaying the risk and falsely claiming "zero people in the United States of America have died from the coronavirus" on February 27, even as cases were mounting. The study's findings were stark: in geographic areas where more people watched Hannity compared to Carlson, COVID-19 cases and deaths were significantly higher, with some regions showing up to 30% more casualties. Viewers' behavior changed accordingly-Carlson's audience adopted protective measures like mask-wearing and social distancing weeks earlier than Hannity's viewers. This demonstrates how trusted media figures' statements can dramatically affect public behavior, especially on matters where viewers lack strong prior knowledge or scientific understanding. Deepfakes represent another modern challenge to truth, with increasingly sophisticated technology making them nearly indistinguishable from reality. While some applications are harmless or entertaining (like viral videos of the Beatles performing Taylor Swift songs or Tom Cruise doing magic tricks), others can cause serious reputational damage or manipulate public opinion. What makes deepfakes particularly problematic is their unique authenticity and credibility; they're self-authenticating in ways written falsehoods aren't. Research shows our cognitive systems struggle to dismiss them even after learning they're fake, creating a "seeing is believing" effect that persists. Social media platforms face increasingly complex choices about policing truth. Facebook's controversial policy of allowing politicians to run false ads stems from practical concerns-distinguishing verifiable facts from opinions or predictions is challenging, and comprehensive fact-checking would invite accusations of bias from all political sides. However, this hands-off approach enables the targeted spread of misinformation to receptive audiences through sophisticated algorithms and personalization. This threatens democratic discourse by creating a fractured political environment where citizens cannot establish shared facts or discern truth from fiction. Falsehoods about health and safety present special challenges requiring careful consideration. Government clearly has authority to regulate false commercial advertising that endangers health, as demonstrated by FDA regulations and truth-in-advertising laws. For non-commercial speech, regulation is most justified when speakers knowingly make false claims that create clear, present dangers to public safety. Facebook's current policy removes misinformation contributing to "imminent violence or physical harm," but this imminence requirement may be too strict-lies creating serious harm weeks or years away, like climate change denial or anti-vaccination propaganda, should also be considered for removal. The challenge lies in balancing free speech protections with preventing demonstrable public harm.

8장

Balancing Free Speech and Truth

A comprehensive framework for evaluating speech restrictions weighs four critical factors that help determine when limitations may be justified. The first factor, speakers' State of Mind, exists on a spectrum from deliberately lying to being reasonably mistaken, with reckless and negligent behavior falling between these extremes. The Magnitude of Harm ranges from grave (like inciting violence or causing death) through moderate (reputational damage) and minor (temporary confusion) to nonexistent. Likelihood of Harm considers probability, from inevitable consequences to remote possibilities. Finally, Timing of Harm examines whether negative effects are immediate or may manifest in the distant future. When speakers knowingly spread falsehoods (State of Mind level 1) causing at least moderate harm (Magnitude level 2), regulation becomes justifiable regardless of timing. Examples include deliberately false advertising leading to financial losses or intentional defamation causing career damage. For unintentional falsehoods, like honest reporting errors or misunderstood scientific data, speech should generally receive protection unless the harm reaches grave levels - such as panic-inducing false information during public emergencies. Current U.S. constitutional law, shaped by cases like New York Times v. Sullivan, fails to strike an optimal balance. Public figures face excessive barriers in responding to damaging falsehoods, while government officials lack adequate tools to address modern threats like sophisticated deepfakes and coordinated disinformation campaigns. Health and safety falsehoods, such as dangerous medical misinformation during public health crises, deserve particular scrutiny. The most effective and constitutionally sound approaches emphasize transparency through labels, warnings, and fact-checking rather than outright censorship. Private institutions play a crucial role in maintaining information integrity. Traditional media outlets should strengthen fact-checking processes and correction policies. Social media platforms need robust systems to identify and label manipulated content, from doctored videos to false health claims. These efforts should include clear appeals processes and transparency about enforcement decisions. News organizations should develop stronger protocols for verifying sources and correcting errors. As political philosopher Hannah Arendt observed, protecting "common and factual reality itself" represents "a political problem of the first order." When facts become malleable and truth negotiable, democratic discourse suffers. While free speech remains fundamental to democracy, it should not become a shield for deliberate manipulation of reality. The challenge lies in preserving open dialogue while establishing reasonable guardrails against the most harmful forms of false information. This requires careful balancing of competing interests and recognition that different types of speech may warrant different levels of protection based on their potential for harm.

라이어스에서 더 많은 것을 얻으세요

매일 새로운 인사이트를 10만 개 이상의 레슨에서 만나보세요
단어가 강조되어 오디오와 실시간으로 동기화됩니다
내 라이브러리를 저장하고 모든 기기에서 이용하세요

9장

Platforms and Their Policies

Social media platforms have developed increasingly sophisticated approaches to combating misinformation, implementing multi-layered policies that evolve with emerging threats. Facebook's community standards represent a complex framework aimed at preventing potential offline harm while carefully balancing free expression principles. Their approach includes both proactive and reactive measures, prohibiting specific categories of content: direct incitement to violence, technically manipulated media that could mislead users, systematically debunked misinformation, and demonstrably false health claims. Rather than immediate removal, Facebook employs a nuanced approach of reducing distribution of false news, utilizing advanced machine learning models and partnerships with over 80 third-party fact-checking organizations globally to identify and assess problematic content. Twitter's policy framework focuses heavily on platform manipulation and authenticity. Their guidelines explicitly prohibit artificial amplification or suppression of information through multiple mechanisms. This includes commercially-motivated spam campaigns, coordinated inauthentic behavior networks, and systematic manipulation of platform metrics. The platform has implemented specific rules against cross-posting identical content across multiple accounts, purchasing followers or engagement, and participating in "engagement pods" designed to artificially boost visibility. Users face suspension for operating networks of fake accounts, creating misleading account information, or employing automation tools to inflate follower counts or engagement metrics. YouTube has developed comprehensive policies against deceptive practices, with particular emphasis on electoral integrity and community exploitation. Their guidelines specifically address sophisticated forms of voter suppression, including content that provides incorrect voting hours, fake polling locations, or false information about voter identification requirements. The platform's spam policies extend beyond simple content removal to include systematic approaches to detecting coordinated disinformation campaigns, manipulated engagement metrics, and misleading thumbnails or titles designed to deceive viewers. During the COVID-19 pandemic, YouTube implemented particularly stringent health misinformation policies, working directly with health organizations to define boundaries. Their COVID-19 medical misinformation policy prohibits specific categories of content: discouragement of medical treatment, promotion of unproven remedies or cures, denial of the virus's existence, promotion of alternative treatments over medical care, and false claims about vaccine availability or efficacy. The platform established a dedicated COVID-19 medical misinformation team and developed specialized machine learning tools to identify potential violations. While these platform policies remain dynamic and imperfect, they represent significant efforts to balance competing interests in the digital public sphere. The standards have become increasingly relevant to constitutional law, as courts frequently reference platform policies when evaluating government speech regulations. These private sector approaches often inform judicial analysis of "less restrictive alternatives" in First Amendment cases. Truth's fundamental role in maintaining social trust and democratic discourse has driven platforms to continue refining their approaches. While government regulation faces significant First Amendment constraints, private platforms have greater flexibility to experiment with content moderation strategies. False statements generally receive constitutional protection unless they cause demonstrable harm that cannot be addressed through counter-speech or other less restrictive means. As technology and disinformation tactics evolve, platforms must constantly adapt their policies while preserving open dialogue and free expression principles.

★★★★★

라이어스 완독을 축하합니다

100만 명 이상의 학습자가 사랑합니다

“23일째 매일 사용하고 있어요. 이제 제 일상의 한 부분이 되었습니다.”

jayallen

라이어스의 핵심 주제

misinformation regulation
first amendment jurisprudence
marketplace of ideas
democratic trust
ethics of deception

라이어스의 명언

When someone lies to you, they effectively 'take' something from you.
Political lies undermine the very foundation of self-government.
All silencing of discussion is an assumption of infallibility.

라이어스의 등장인물

Cass R. SunsteinAuthor, Harvard professor, and legal scholar
Xavier AlvarezMan whose false military claims led to a SCOTUS case
Justice KennedySupreme Court Justice who led the Alvarez ruling
Justice HolmesJustice who articulated the marketplace of ideas

저자 소개

베스트셀러 *거짓말들(Liars)*의 저자이자 저명한 법학자인 캐스 R. 선스타인(Cass R. Sunstein)은 하버드 법학대학원의 로버트 웜슬리 대학교수(Robert Walmsley University Professor)이며 행동경제학의 개척자입니다. 오바마 정부 시절 백악관 규제정보국(OIRA) 처장을 역임한 선스타인은 오보, 사회적 영향력, 의사결정 체계에 관한 정책들을 형성해 왔습니다. 헌법 및 행동과학 분야의 전문성을 바탕으로 집필된 거짓말들은 법적, 심리학적, 기술적 관점을 통해 기만이 사회에 미치는 영향을 탐구합니다.

선스타인의 영향력 있는 저서로는 리처드 탈러와 공동 집필하여 40개 이상의 언어로 번역된 세계적인 베스트셀러 *넛지(Nudge)*와 문화적 서사를 분석한 스타워즈로 본 세상(The World According to Star Wars) 등이 있습니다.

그의 또 다른 주요 저서인 *탄핵: 시민 가이드(Impeachment: A Citizen’s Guide)*와 *#공화국(#Republic)*은 디지털 시대 민주주의가 직면한 과제들을 살펴봅니다. 법학계의 노벨상이라 불리는 홀베르그상(Holberg Prize)을 수상한 그의 연구는 세계보건기구(WHO)와 펜타곤의 여러 이니셔티브의 토대가 되었습니다. 매년 70만 권 이상의 도서 판매고를 기록하며, 그는 미국에서 가장 많이 인용되는 법학자로서의 위상을 공고히 하고 있습니다.

라이어스 요약 다운로드

라이어스 요약을 무료 PDF 또는 EPUB으로 받으세요. 인쇄하거나 오프라인에서 언제든 읽을 수 있습니다.

다른 사용자들도 좋아한 책

Lying

Sam Harris

Everybody Lies

Seth Stephens-Davidowitz

Alex Edmans

Daniel J. Levitin

Ian Leslie

Anna Merlan

Timothy Garton Ash

The Secret Barrister

이 책에 대한 FAQ

더 알아보기

학습 계획

Truth, Trust, and Public Reason

In an era of deep polarization and digital manipulation, understanding the architecture of truth is a vital survival skill. This plan is designed for citizens, professionals, and students who want to navigate modern information ecosystems with skepticism and intellectual integrity.

1 h 12 m•3 섹션

학습 계획

Master self-deception

In a world full of cognitive shortcuts, understanding how we lie to ourselves is the ultimate competitive advantage. This plan is essential for leaders, decision-makers, and individuals seeking personal growth who want to strip away mental illusions and see reality clearly.

5 h 24 m•4 섹션

학습 계획

Lying, deception, and compartmentalization

Deception is a fundamental aspect of human psychology that impacts everything from personal relationships to societal structures. This learning plan helps individuals understand the mechanisms behind lying and compartmentalization, providing practical skills for detecting manipulation while exploring the ethical complexities of when deception might be justified or harmful.

6 h 5 m•4 섹션

학습 계획

Why Your Memory Lies

This learning plan is essential for anyone interested in psychology, law, or personal development who wants to understand why our brains often misremember facts. It provides a scientific foundation for those looking to improve their decision-making and interpersonal communication by acknowledging the limits of human recall.

1 h 45 m•4 섹션

학습 계획

Combat logical fallacies

In an era of misinformation, the ability to think critically is a vital survival skill. This plan is designed for professionals, students, and citizens who want to sharpen their decision-making and resist manipulation in complex public and private debates.

5 h 25 m•4 섹션

학습 계획

AI & social media algorithm

As AI and social media algorithms increasingly shape what we see, believe, and do online, understanding these systems is essential for anyone who wants to be digitally literate in the 21st century. This learning plan is ideal for professionals, students, creators, and everyday users who want to move beyond passive consumption to critically engage with the technologies that influence public discourse, personal behavior, and societal outcomes.

5 h 10 m•4 섹션

학습 계획

Die Lüge

In einer Welt voller Fehlinformationen ist die Fähigkeit, Täuschung zu durchschauen, eine lebensnotwendige Kompetenz. Dieser Kurs richtet sich an alle, die ihre Menschenkenntnis schärfen, sich vor Manipulation schützen und ein Leben in echter Integrität führen möchten.

4 h 38 m•4 섹션

학습 계획

AI Myths: LLMs vs. True Sentience

This learning plan is essential for anyone looking to look past the headlines and understand the actual capabilities of modern AI. It is particularly valuable for tech enthusiasts, students, and professionals who want to ground their understanding of machine intelligence in both science and philosophy.

5 h 45 m•4 섹션

샌프란시스코에서 컬럼비아 대학교 동문들이 만들었습니다

LOVED BY

1,000,000+ curious minds.

4.7

avg rating

1M+ learners

"Instead of endless scrolling, I just hit play on BeFreed. It saves me so much time."

@Moemenn

"I never knew where to start with nonfiction—BeFreed’s book lists turned into podcasts gave me a clear path."

@Chloe, Solo founder, LA

117

"Perfect balance between learning and entertainment. Finished ‘Thinking, Fast and Slow’ on my commute this week."

@Raaaaaachelw

"Crazy how much I learned while walking the dog. BeFreed = small habits → big gains."

@Matt, YC alum

108

"Reading used to feel like a chore. Now it’s just part of my lifestyle."

@Erin, Investment Banking Associate , NYC

254

"Feels effortless compared to reading. I’ve finished 6 books this month already."

@djmikemoore

"BeFreed turned my guilty doomscrolling into something that feels productive and inspiring."

@Pitiful

4.5K

"BeFreed turned my commute into learning time. 20-min podcasts are perfect for finishing books I never had time for."

@SofiaP

"BeFreed replaced my podcast queue. Imagine Spotify for books — that’s it. 🙌"

@Jaded_Falcon

201

"It is great for me to learn something from the book without reading it."

@OojasSalunke

"The themed book list podcasts help me connect ideas across authors—like a guided audio journey."

@Leo, Law Student, UPenn

483

"Makes me feel smarter every time before going to work"

@Cashflowbubu

웹에서 BeFreed가 어떻게 논의되고 있는지 더 보기

샌프란시스코에서 컬럼비아 대학교 동문들이 만들었습니다

LOVED BY

1,000,000+ curious minds.

4.7

avg rating

1M+ learners

"Instead of endless scrolling, I just hit play on BeFreed. It saves me so much time."

@Moemenn

"I never knew where to start with nonfiction—BeFreed’s book lists turned into podcasts gave me a clear path."

@Chloe, Solo founder, LA

117

"Perfect balance between learning and entertainment. Finished ‘Thinking, Fast and Slow’ on my commute this week."

@Raaaaaachelw

"Crazy how much I learned while walking the dog. BeFreed = small habits → big gains."

@Matt, YC alum

108

"Reading used to feel like a chore. Now it’s just part of my lifestyle."

@Erin, Investment Banking Associate , NYC

254

"Feels effortless compared to reading. I’ve finished 6 books this month already."

@djmikemoore

"BeFreed turned my guilty doomscrolling into something that feels productive and inspiring."

@Pitiful

4.5K

"BeFreed turned my commute into learning time. 20-min podcasts are perfect for finishing books I never had time for."

@SofiaP

"BeFreed replaced my podcast queue. Imagine Spotify for books — that’s it. 🙌"

@Jaded_Falcon

201

"It is great for me to learn something from the book without reading it."

@OojasSalunke

"The themed book list podcasts help me connect ideas across authors—like a guided audio journey."

@Leo, Law Student, UPenn

483

"Makes me feel smarter every time before going to work"

@Cashflowbubu

"Instead of endless scrolling, I just hit play on BeFreed. It saves me so much time."

@Moemenn

"I never knew where to start with nonfiction—BeFreed’s book lists turned into podcasts gave me a clear path."

@Chloe, Solo founder, LA

117

"Perfect balance between learning and entertainment. Finished ‘Thinking, Fast and Slow’ on my commute this week."

@Raaaaaachelw

"Crazy how much I learned while walking the dog. BeFreed = small habits → big gains."

@Matt, YC alum

108

"Reading used to feel like a chore. Now it’s just part of my lifestyle."

@Erin, Investment Banking Associate , NYC

254

"Feels effortless compared to reading. I’ve finished 6 books this month already."

@djmikemoore

"BeFreed turned my guilty doomscrolling into something that feels productive and inspiring."

@Pitiful

4.5K

"BeFreed turned my commute into learning time. 20-min podcasts are perfect for finishing books I never had time for."

@SofiaP

"BeFreed replaced my podcast queue. Imagine Spotify for books — that’s it. 🙌"

@Jaded_Falcon

201

"It is great for me to learn something from the book without reading it."

@OojasSalunke

"The themed book list podcasts help me connect ideas across authors—like a guided audio journey."

@Leo, Law Student, UPenn

483

"Makes me feel smarter every time before going to work"

@Cashflowbubu

"Instead of endless scrolling, I just hit play on BeFreed. It saves me so much time."

@Moemenn

"I never knew where to start with nonfiction—BeFreed’s book lists turned into podcasts gave me a clear path."

@Chloe, Solo founder, LA

117

"Perfect balance between learning and entertainment. Finished ‘Thinking, Fast and Slow’ on my commute this week."

@Raaaaaachelw

"Crazy how much I learned while walking the dog. BeFreed = small habits → big gains."

@Matt, YC alum

108

"Reading used to feel like a chore. Now it’s just part of my lifestyle."

@Erin, Investment Banking Associate , NYC

254

"Feels effortless compared to reading. I’ve finished 6 books this month already."

@djmikemoore

"BeFreed turned my guilty doomscrolling into something that feels productive and inspiring."

@Pitiful

4.5K

"BeFreed turned my commute into learning time. 20-min podcasts are perfect for finishing books I never had time for."

@SofiaP

"BeFreed replaced my podcast queue. Imagine Spotify for books — that’s it. 🙌"

@Jaded_Falcon

201

"It is great for me to learn something from the book without reading it."

@OojasSalunke

"The themed book list podcasts help me connect ideas across authors—like a guided audio journey."

@Leo, Law Student, UPenn

483

"Makes me feel smarter every time before going to work"

@Cashflowbubu

웹에서 BeFreed가 어떻게 논의되고 있는지 더 보기

지금 바로 학습 여정을 시작하세요

9장

라이어스

개요라이어스 개요

한 권의 책, 다양한 듣기 방식.

The Truth About Lies: Why Falsehoods Matter More Than Ever

The Moral Landscape of Lying

들리는 모든 단어를 눈으로 확인하세요

The Constitutional Puzzle of False Speech

Why Protect Falsehoods?

라이어스에서 더 많은 것을 얻으세요

Why Falsehoods Spread So Effectively

Reputation Under Siege

들리는 모든 단어를 눈으로 확인하세요

When Falsehoods Kill

Balancing Free Speech and Truth

라이어스에서 더 많은 것을 얻으세요

Platforms and Their Policies

라이어스 완독을 축하합니다

라이어스의 핵심 주제

라이어스의 명언

라이어스의 등장인물

저자 소개

라이어스 요약 다운로드

다른 사용자들도 좋아한 책

이 책에 대한 FAQ

What is Liars: Falsehoods and Free Speech in an Age of Deception about?

Who should read Liars: Falsehoods and Free Speech in an Age of Deception?

Is Liars by Cass Sunstein worth reading?

What are the main arguments in Liars: Falsehoods and Free Speech?

더 알아보기

1,000,000+ curious minds.

1,000,000+ curious minds.

한 권의 책, 다양한 듣기 방식.

The Truth About Lies: Why Falsehoods Matter More Than Ever

The Moral Landscape of Lying

들리는 모든 단어를 눈으로 확인하세요

The Constitutional Puzzle of False Speech

Why Protect Falsehoods?

라이어스에서 더 많은 것을 얻으세요

Why Falsehoods Spread So Effectively

Reputation Under Siege

들리는 모든 단어를 눈으로 확인하세요

When Falsehoods Kill

Balancing Free Speech and Truth

라이어스에서 더 많은 것을 얻으세요

Platforms and Their Policies

라이어스 완독을 축하합니다

다른 사용자들도 좋아한 책

더 알아보기

라이어스 개요