681–690 of 1001 posts
curl 206.223.147.222/index.html -H 'Host: 8ch.net'
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Popper's tolerance criteria, by contrast, seems clearcut What is that criteria? Because I can easily see people disagreeing on what is and is not intolerant. Would you agree that saying that a baker in Colorado must make a cake for a gay wedding is intolerant of the baker's belief? Because I'm certain a sizeable proportion of the US population would agree that it is intolerant.
The criteria is pretty straightforward: you apply the "intolerance of intolerance" to the first intolerant action in the chain, i.e. the one that infringes unprompted on someone else.
And if you can´t see why the above applies, maybe you ought not to use the word "straightforward" anymore because you are clearly not qualified to do so.
My opinion is that freedom of speech is a fine ideal to strive for, but it relies on having a stable society with some minimum level of education (moral and philosophical too, not just the technical kind). It requires people who are able to fully parse the implications of what they are hearing to make sound and rational judgements on the rejection of an idea or the embrace of it. It creates a moral duty for the peopl…
Personally I'm in agreement with Popper's view that societies should tolerate everything except intolerance. It draws a fine line between what's acceptable speech and what is not. And going by it, things like 8chan should get shut down. The line of thought you put forward, by contrast, rubs me in a very wrong way. It was used to justify, depending on the period and country, not allowing people to vote on the basis th…
That is a nice ideal to strive for, but the problem is that one person’s idea of tolerance is another’s intolerance. Example: people in the Valley love to think of themselves as “tolerant”. But most outside the Valley view actions like those taken against Brendan Eich of Firefox and the firing of James Damore of Google as examples of extreme intolerance. Defenders of these actions would argue that they are defending tolerance, because the Valley viewed these people as being intolerant. Defenders of the individuals involved here would argue that these actions show the Valley is extraordinarily intolerant of any view that even slightly differs from their own.
It’s a thorny issue. I absolutely detest 8chan and most of the speech on it. Most normal people would. But I also recognize their right to exist, at least in a country that holds the concept of freedom of speech in such high regard.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We're so glad you consider that more important than the continued shootings that only the US seems to suffer from on a frequent and permanent basis. That free speech is sure making a lot of people free right.
Freedom of speech IS more important than few dead people. This entire country was founded on this particular issue. People went to war for it. So there is no need to be glib here.
There is quite evidently no move to legally curtail any freedoms. Nor are the restrictions put on by these companies in any substantially onerous or making free speech impossible.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm completely fine with that until we have literally any logical or scientific reasons to oppose tolerance.
Would you advocate tolerating, say, parents neglecting their children in various ways that we think are harmful to development? Or would you instead try to spin those forms of child neglect as acts of intolerance?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because the truth has a liberal bias? What is the argument you are making against the seemingly neutral argument that defends tolerance? Why is the right at odds with tolerance?
Practical example: we shouldn't accept immigrants into our country (whatever the country is). Even for economical reasons. Even if there are no jobs for them. Even if there's no infrastructure to support them. Ooops, intolerant. Thoughtcrime. Well actually now that I think of it, any argument can be reshaped as intolerant. Abortionist? Intolerant of life, or of religion. Pro-life? Intolerant of women's rights. I don'…
Probably the best comment in this whole topic.
I've generally been on the free speech side of this debate, as some of my previous comments on HN will show. With 8chan, I legitimately don't know what my opinion is. I've read it before, and I spent a few hours reading it this weekend, and it's beyond clear to me that it absolutely had the potential to radicalize shooters and terrorists. I'm not referring to the simple use of racial or ethnic slurs -- of course this…
I've lost good friends to 4chan/8chan. They were obsessed. At first it was cat pictures and memes, but it went way downhill from there. I've watched those sites cause the transition from normal, interesting, reasonable, open minded, intelligent, happy human beings, to horrible inexcusable pieces of shit who I never want to have anything to do with ever again. It's not just that they inspire a few shooters and mass mu…
There is a whole cottage industry of people attempting to radicalize jaded white teens and "skeptics" to turn them from ideological libertarians or politically unaffiliated into hateful, "alt-right" fascists. One of them was Steve Bannon [0].
[0] https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/talkingtech/2017/07/18/s...
This once again goes to show that you can do nothing illegal and still be virtually locked out of the internet. The viewpoint that "it's okay to kick 8chan off the internet" is not consistent with the viewpoint that "the internet should be neutral infrastructure". Take from that what you will. People are doing the "yada yada not entitled to a platform" thing, but the distinction between free speech and having a platf…
> We now live in a society where it is acceptable for private companies to essentially completely ban individuals from exercising their free speech on the internet. This is phrased as something to be fearful of here, but I think I'm actually fine with this precedent. There's nothing to stop people with extreme right-wing ideologies from marshaling the resources required to stand up all the pieces of web infrastructur…
The purpose of the canary in the coal mine is not to protect the canary. It is to protect the miner from the encroaching danger.
This once again goes to show that you can do nothing illegal and still be virtually locked out of the internet. The viewpoint that "it's okay to kick 8chan off the internet" is not consistent with the viewpoint that "the internet should be neutral infrastructure". Take from that what you will. People are doing the "yada yada not entitled to a platform" thing, but the distinction between free speech and having a platf…
"Free speech on the internet" is not something found in law.
> The canary in the coalmine was The Daily Stormer
Because The Daily Stormer was just a site to share ideas, right?
> The Daily Stormer, which has established 31 physical chapters in the United States and more in Canada
> Some of its readers do more than issue threats. Dylann Roof, who massacred nine African Americans in Charleston in 2015, posted on the site. Thomas Mair, the neo-Nazi assassin who last year killed Jo Cox, a British member of Parliament, was a regular reader. And just last month, another Daily Stormer reader, James Jackson, was charged with murder and terrorism after carrying out a plan to go to New York City to kill a black man at random.
How ever will the Nazis share their hateful and violent ideas without the private internet companies? Oh no, the poor racists!
> One message included an image of Gersh being sprayed with a green gas, along with the words: Hickory dickory dock, the kike ran up the clock. The clock struck three and the Internet Nazis trolls gassed the rest of them.
https://www.splcenter.org/news/2017/04/18/splc-sues-neo-nazi...
I've generally been on the free speech side of this debate, as some of my previous comments on HN will show. With 8chan, I legitimately don't know what my opinion is. I've read it before, and I spent a few hours reading it this weekend, and it's beyond clear to me that it absolutely had the potential to radicalize shooters and terrorists. I'm not referring to the simple use of racial or ethnic slurs -- of course this…
I'm not really that well informed of 8chan, but bringing it down, while practical, doesn't seem like the ideal solution. Isn't it just like covering your eyes and pretending the problem isn't there? The problem doesn't sound like it's 8chan, but rather these people and their ideologies. If 8chan was brought down, they'll just find another hub to congregate, but now we don't know where to reach them to talk. I thought…
Reddit found that banning hate subreddits reduced the overall usage of hate speech on the website. Even though the most dedicated users probably moved to voat, now some clueless kid who just wants to see look at memes is much less likely to just stumble upon that content.