Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

You can't censor away extremism or any other problem

freddiedeboer.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 863 posts

Re: You can't censor away extremism or any other problem

#61

Post by Bud »

bopbeepboop wrote: post #9
dkjaudyeqooe wrote: post #4

Like most of these rants against "censorship" they skip over people's rights to restrict speech as a form of speech itself: there is no moral (or legal) right to give people you disagree with a forum or audience to express their view. Calling to silence others (that is, encouraging them to take your view of not giving them an audience) is fine as long as people have a choice on how to respond. If there is some notion…

“Free speech” in the moral sense is exactly that people who operate civil infrastructure shouldn’t use their privilege for censorship. So... people who believe in “free speech” as a moral value will disagree with your first paragraph — and hence, your entire post. You assume your conclusion, so your argument fails to be persuasive. “I disagree with what you say, but I’ll fight to the death to defend your right to say…

We don't have a "moral duty" to force corporations to allow Nazis on their platform, though.

The Nazis are perfectly capable of building their own platform.

Re: You can't censor away extremism or any other problem

#62

Post by jackjeff »

I know the article spends its time describing how anti hate speech laws in Western Europe are not working. But frankly they’re not enforced. I think this is why they don’t work.

I see censorship has putting dirt under the carpet. People will try again. There’s no accountability. Social media censorship would ban flashing boobs with the same enthusiasm as Nazi propaganda. The latter is not a breach of terms and condition, it’s literally illegal over here, in the same way punching someone in the street would be.

Why not put these people in court? I understand it won’t entirely eliminate right wing ideology, but at least it sends a clear message that racist, homophobic, and threat to use violence are illegal.

If you look at right wing parties in France and Germany, their speech is a lot more nuanced. They can’t go about and say things like “all Mexicans are rapists” (a Trump quote) because it would lend them in jail or worse to be stripped of the right to run for elections. So it works!

The only problem is that it is not enforced for anyone else. People can go about and write things like that on social media and face no consequences whatsoever. At worst, their accounts will be disabled.

Edit. Typos

Re: You can't censor away extremism or any other problem

#63

Post by pii »

ycombigator wrote: post #22
modmans2nd wrote: post #11

Deplatforming it helps prevent it from normalizing in the community.

No, just makes it edgier for the kids. Takes longer to crystalise but crystallises harder.

so if we don't have "actual nazi's" right now, in 20 years we 100000% will, and it will be "the left's" fault?

Re: You can't censor away extremism or any other problem

#65

Post by Bud »

TameAntelope wrote: post #7

> Look: the most powerful governments, militaries, and intelligence services in the world have in recent decades tried to prevent the communications of terrorist groups such as Al-Qaeda and ISIS, using the most sophisticated digital means possible and with the full backing of various publishing and social media platforms. And yet those organizations effortlessly shared their propaganda and their rhetoric and coordina…

These are very good examples, but we just witnessed an even better one: Trump has been, for all practical purposes, entirely silenced, simply because Twitter deplatformed him.

Re: You can't censor away extremism or any other problem

#66

Post by Sohcahtoa82 »

zapdrive wrote: post #56

What the left also needs is a realization that some of its beliefs are akin to extremism. And some of the left inspired policies have really really hurt and isolated a significant population. The left needs to soften it's stand on such issues.

What the right also needs is a realization that some of its beliefs are akin to extremism. And some of the right inspired policies have really really hurt and isolated a significant population. The right needs to soften it's stand on such issues.

It's such a generic statement that it's meaningless and could apply to any group of opinions.

Re: You can't censor away extremism or any other problem

#67

Post by bopbeepboop »

tshaddox wrote: post #51
bopbeepboop wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“Free speech” in the moral sense is exactly that people who operate civil infrastructure shouldn’t use their privilege for censorship. So... people who believe in “free speech” as a moral value will disagree with your first paragraph — and hence, your entire post. You assume your conclusion, so your argument fails to be persuasive. “I disagree with what you say, but I’ll fight to the death to defend your right to say…

Note how “to defend your right to say it” actually makes sense in its normal context of positive and negative rights. One can in theory fight to defend every person’s right to say what they want to say, because saying something generally does not preclude anyone else from also saying something. However, these modifications doesn’t work the same way: “to defend your right to be trending on Twitter” or “to defend your…

The response is that Twitter is more like a neighborhood bar than CNN — and yeah, it would be pretty weird to exclude people from the bar’s karaoke or comedy night based on their political beliefs. Being able to speak your mind at the bar (or other neighborhood center) is exactly what free speech is about.

Actually, it would be illegal to ban people based on politics (as Twitter does) where I live (Seattle), as doing so violates rules for public accommodations which require the owner (a private company) not to discriminate based on political ideology. Rules for private establishments to enforce public access and equality are normal.

Whether or not you think it makes sense to defend the right to be trending on Twitter depends on whether you view it like the bar (mic night open to all) or like CNN (editorial control).

Of course, if Twitter is like CNN and not the bar, they should lose copyright protections — those aren’t meant for edited anthologies (like CNN).

Re: You can't censor away extremism or any other problem

#69

Post by Impossible »

dkjaudyeqooe wrote: post #4

Like most of these rants against "censorship" they skip over people's rights to restrict speech as a form of speech itself: there is no moral (or legal) right to give people you disagree with a forum or audience to express their view. Calling to silence others (that is, encouraging them to take your view of not giving them an audience) is fine as long as people have a choice on how to respond. If there is some notion…

There are multiple issues with free speech no matter what, and some of them are the result of closed platforms that have too much power over communication channels, but ultimately need to moderate to avoid turning their platform into 8chan. I agree with you that many complaints about free speech on the internet have weird caveats like... You should have the right to say whatever you want without criticism or you should have the right to engage in rational debate or play devil's advocate on any topic even if another party doesn't want to. Like you said this might make the free speech proponent happier, but ends up limiting the speech of the person that doesn't want to engage in that way.
Post reply on HN