111–120 of 923 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Actually it's been pretty conclusively shown that removing extremist content from mainstream channels pretty much prevents the ideas from propagating in the mainstream. If the cockroaches want to crawl under the fridge there's not much you can do to stop them but you can stop them from breeding on the table.
This comment would feel so natural to a Putinist apparatchik.
Has our society become so fragile that once harmless kooks are now considered a threat to civil order?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Yay another extremist swept under the digital carpet, problem solved - well NO. Well yes, at least partially. Studies of bans on hate communities on reddit have shown effectiveness not only in reducing the total hate, but also, and this is important, changing the behaviour of individual users who were active in the hate communities as they moved towards more moderate, diverse communities. [...] "What they found was…
is racism equivalent to fat shaming now?
It seems plausible that they stem from the same or similar social, psychological, and/or moral defects.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just be aware that it's a double edged sword. Mass acceptance of censorship makes it easy to stifle societal progress by designating ideas which you disagree with as extremist content. We are lucky that the people currently at the helm of tech industry happen to hold mostly liberal views that we broadly agree with. If that was not the case, the same argument could have been used by them to suppress many left-wing/pro…
If you prove that views are damaging, you are not entitled to protections in any shape or form.
I very strongly feel that we should be very careful to avoid adopting a legalistic attitude towards freedom of speech. That is, I am opposed to the argument that private corporations are not bound by the first amendment, and therefore it's okay for them to suppress content. I agree that they're not bound by the first amendment (I don't claim to understand the nuances of the "platform" laws so I won't address that), b…
Look at all the experts trying to fighting the lies Trump has been spreading. All that effort, and yet almost 50% of this country believes him. Every moment they have to spend debunking yet another lie is time they can't spend on something useful.
Look at all the people blaming 5g for COVID19. Every person that acts on that rumor and damages property or makes terrorist threats is drawing police attention away from something more useful.
Sometimes, you can't fight bad ideas by debunking them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If something _you_ like is censored for the same reason David Icke was censored, then you can get the fuck off YouTube and Facebook yourself, and throw your little right wing victimhood hissy fit as the door hits you on the way out, just like Milo Yiannopoulos did, then subscribe to his mailing list or read his blog or buy his book. YouTube and Facebook aren't obligated to tolerate him spreading his filth on their se…
A service used by literally billions of people is a propaganda machine for those that control it. It is not a private platform anymore. Youtube can influence public opinion in one way or another by simply manipulating their ranking algorithm. I know it's probably hard to choke down, but YouTube can swing elections and change policy with a click of a button. There are significant regulations on television. We can appl…
I very strongly feel that we should be very careful to avoid adopting a legalistic attitude towards freedom of speech. That is, I am opposed to the argument that private corporations are not bound by the first amendment, and therefore it's okay for them to suppress content. I agree that they're not bound by the first amendment (I don't claim to understand the nuances of the "platform" laws so I won't address that), b…
COVID-19 has added the additional element of this new concept of "disinformation". The argument is seductively simple: "being exposed to this information could lead you to engage in patterns of behavior that harm society. Therefore we can conceptualize this speech as being an indirect form of violence/negligence and therefore we have a moral obligation to remove such content". Some people, after being exposed to misi…
You missed my point :) Humans, being inherently limited, are always at risk of being wrong. Being wrong about things is the default state. I simply don't think that we should strive to expunge all forms of "misinformation". That is to say, of course people believe misinformation.
> Do you have evidence that the truth more often than not win over lies?
Ah, I see my point is easily misinterpreted. I find it very plausible (in fact, I outright believe) that "a lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is still putting on its shoes". Rather, I think the implications of using that fact to justify suppression is inherently dangerous.
Furthermore I think truth, just like the concepts of agency and free will, are useful abstractions for us to operate under. But when examined in their totality, the concepts unravel. Thus I feel that truth is local, not global, and by acting like there is a global form of truth we are only forcing our local-truth onto others in the misguided belief that we can separate truth from our individualized local contexts.
Coming back down to earth for a second, the problem always remains: "who decides what truth is"?
Yay another extremist swept under the digital carpet, problem solved - well NO. This will just shift this extremist content to other unregulated and unmonitored platforms that will not engage in debate, but blindly accept such things. After all, if people believe this kinda stuff, cutting of the head won't stop them believing, just shifts the problem out of the public glare, at least on the surface.
Yay another extremist swept under the digital carpet, problem solved - well NO. This will just shift this extremist content to other unregulated and unmonitored platforms that will not engage in debate, but blindly accept such things. After all, if people believe this kinda stuff, cutting of the head won't stop them believing, just shifts the problem out of the public glare, at least on the surface.
We already have this. It's called 4chan and 8chan.
And you know what? It's absolutely better to keep this shit to their echo chamber, where they have limited exposure, than Youtube, where they have a potential audience of billions.
I very strongly feel that we should be very careful to avoid adopting a legalistic attitude towards freedom of speech. That is, I am opposed to the argument that private corporations are not bound by the first amendment, and therefore it's okay for them to suppress content. I agree that they're not bound by the first amendment (I don't claim to understand the nuances of the "platform" laws so I won't address that), b…
The problem is you’ve just said you won’t address the primary, most compelling reason to take these actions.
Assuming that “sunshine is the best disinfectant” presupposes a lot of things about society that are, in my observation, no longer true. We do not have the time, through our own actions or not, for quiet contemplation and retrospection into deep topics. We have polarized ourselves into camps of right and wrong. We are exposed to a staggering volume of information that all seems mostly the same with some slight differences but widely varying outcomes.
Your theory of how the world should work is very, almost simplistically, seductive. Woe but for the world to be like that, like the “perfectly rational actor” assumed in economic textbooks or the “perfectly smooth sphere on a frictionless plane” in physics.