You can't censor away extremism or any other problem • Hacker News Board

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

#81

Post by nitrogen » Fri, Mar 12, 2021, 6:42 AM UTC

koonsolo wrote: post #40

dmingod666 wrote: post #17

My reading from the outside is, the left needs to realize (I'm sure it applies to the right equally as well) that scolding people into guilt is not a viable approach to affect action or to change perceptions when you're dealing with adults. Neither does boxing people into this, that and that category do any good. Like if all you want to do is dehumanize those guys so you can happily insult / hurt them without hurting…

Reminds me of some test I read in a book (can't remember which one). A teacher asks some student to stand up and raise his hands before him. The teacher stands in front of him and does the same, touching the students hands. Then the teacher starts pushing, and the student uses force to stay in place. Then the teacher uses more force, and so does the student. Finally the teacher asks: "Whay are you pushing me?". "Beca…

This is exactly what is happening here. You cannot expect people to give in once you start pushing.

There was an episode of STTNG that had a profound effect on me as a kid as a metaphor for confrontation, where the crew of a destroyed ship kept saying "more power to the shields" when the "shields" were actually causing the problem.

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

#82

Post by smsm42 » Fri, Mar 12, 2021, 6:42 AM UTC

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's no legal right, unless you are a government employee (who btw routinely censor anyway, e.g. any state university with a content-based speech policy is violating the law). But there's very much a moral right and moral obligation - if you are in a position of power, as people leading the high-tech industry and prominent politicians are, you are responsible for maintaining the society that promoted you to that power in good health.

And good health of the society requires free exchange of ideas and freedom to debate this ideas without fear of being persecuted and punished. Yes, even if you're end up being wrong - in fact, freedom to be wrong (excluding, of course, recognition that you're wrong) is vital to any proper debate, since if being wrong implies one's destruction and punishment, no serious and honest debate is possible, and no serious and honest truth-seeking through free exchange of ideas is possible either. You'd either fear to express your ideas, if you're powerless, or use your power to suppress other's ideas and punish them, if you're powerful - and that would have no relation with whose ideas are better.

Only when the exchange of ideas are free, and only when ideas can participate in this competition without prior approval by powerful incumbents, any healthy democratic society is possible.

And yes, whoever in power in such society, which now includes the big tech leadership, have moral if not legal responsibility for it - a responsibility that they are not only neglecting but blatantly violating right now. Censorship by powerful monopolies is as wrong as censorship by the government, and we need to stop hiding behind this stupid idea "but it's not government, so we can ignore it".

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

#83

Post by FeepingCreature » Fri, Mar 12, 2021, 6:44 AM UTC

refurb wrote: post #46

Zardoz84 wrote: post #27

You can't dialog with fascist.

If you encounter a fascist in the morning, you encountered a fascist. If you run into fascists all day long, you’re probably the fascist.

I mean, it is said that you are the average of the five people you know best, so this is probably correct.

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

#84

Post by refurb » Fri, Mar 12, 2021, 6:45 AM UTC

justbored123 wrote: post #54

According to the authors logic, we should stop censoring child grooming, fraud, false advertisement, defamation, doxxing, false testimony, etc. because "it doesn't work" and "erodes free speech". This is clearly nonsense. It works, and it should be done, the only question as with all laws is were the line should be. We restrict freedom in general when it hurts other people (slavery, rape, killing, trespassing,etc) an…

But Alex Jones - Sandy Hook case wasn't censorship (he was free to say what he said), he was sued for defamation. We already have laws on that and all the other stuff you mention child grooming, fraud, false advertisement, doxxing, false testimony, etc.

The point is - we have laws for speech that enters the criminal realm.

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

#85

Post by bad_username » Fri, Mar 12, 2021, 6:47 AM UTC

victorfonseca wrote: post #33

It's fascinating when someone who is in a position of power and never suffers from hate speech develops his mind. People who suffer from hate speech know and understand cristal clear what they want to ban from our society. But others, which are not feeling it at the skin level, are just "hate," a natural part of the human being.

Please do not automatically jump to assumptions that people who you disagree with are in position of power or never encounter hate. This kind of sweeping generalization is what fuels racism, sexism and other kinds of "identitarianism", it stifles thought and prevents nuanced discussion.

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

#86

Post by cheschire » Fri, Mar 12, 2021, 6:49 AM UTC

FeepingCreature wrote: post #71

cheschire wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree, but I would suggest you use the same logic about labelling anyone in any part of the political spectrum then. Using terms such as "the left" might seem less antagonistic than calling someone a "fascist" yet come across just as harshly when read / heard by someone who hears "the left" preached in the 2 minutes hate of their preferred news source.

Yeah but nobody here said "you can't talk with leftists, they're all extremists and closed-minded." edit: At least nobody I've seen yet. People are probably gonna say it (this goes for any "it" as conversation length grows), but I'd expect it to be downvoted.

Indeed the assertion can be construed as part of the label itself. What I'm saying is that just because a person uses a label without additional assertions, there are many blanks filled in by the reader / listener based on their own daily inputs.

So regardless of the HN crowd's restraint when using labels, the labels themselves can carry unintended implications.

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

#87

Post by vladvasiliu » Fri, Mar 12, 2021, 6:49 AM UTC

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…

Disclaimer: I don't really use Twitter, so my understanding of its mechanics might be wrong.

Isn't "trending on Twitter" a popularity contest? As in something's "trending" because more people (users, as opposed to Twitter the company or their moderators) have chosen to interact with that tweet instead of some other?

I think that "to defend your right to say it", in this context, does mean "to defend your right to be trending on Twitter". What I understand by that is that anyone has a right to not be artificially prevented from trending, such as hiding the tweet from other users (censorship) or "not counting the votes" correctly which won't have a tweet "trend" even though it's the most retweeted / replied to.

As I've said on another comment on this thread, my tweet is my speech, it's not Twitter's. And if the "trending" is the effect of the users' actions, having a tweet become trending is the collective speech of the users, not twitter's.

It's pretty much the same thing with CNN. Having someone on "cnn tonight" is CNN's speech. They choose to have person A instead of person B.

Twitter removing a tweet or otherwise preventing it from trending is like some external entity – e.g. the cable company – preventing CNN from having person C on the show because they don't agree with person C's speech.

In my opinion, in this scenario, CNN is like the Twitter user, not like Twitter the company. Just because they have some third party on the show doesn't make CNN any less of a publisher of speech. Just as if a Twitter user chooses to quote someone instead of someone else (as opposed to twitting an "original thought" or "own opinion").

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

#88

Post by bad_username » Fri, Mar 12, 2021, 6:50 AM UTC

sagichmal wrote: post #14

Eliminate? No. Reduce to the point of practical irrelevance? Yep. Deplatforming works.

The minute your platform becomes malevolent, and begins to "work" against your values, will you not regret granting it the power of moderating the social discourse?

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

#89

Post by brigandish » Fri, Mar 12, 2021, 6:50 AM UTC

Zardoz84 wrote: post #27

You can't dialog with fascist.

It's an irony that the kind of free speech you appear to support (and please correct me if I'm wrong) existed in fascist states like Nazi Germany and fascist Italy, because, as Chomsky points out here[1] "Goebbels was in favour of freedom of speech for views he liked".

I'd suggest you might try the other path, as Chomsky also suggests:

> “If you're in favour of freedom of speech that means you're in favour of freedom of speech precisely for views you despise. Otherwise you're not in favour of freedom of speech.

> There's two positions you can have on freedom of speech, and you can decide which position you want.”

[1] https://youtu.be/4-oV42OMQoE?t=408

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

#90

Post by k4c9x » Fri, Mar 12, 2021, 6:52 AM UTC

dmingod666 wrote: post #17

My reading from the outside is, the left needs to realize (I'm sure it applies to the right equally as well) that scolding people into guilt is not a viable approach to affect action or to change perceptions when you're dealing with adults. Neither does boxing people into this, that and that category do any good. Like if all you want to do is dehumanize those guys so you can happily insult / hurt them without hurting…

I don't think anyone really expects to convince racists, sexists, homophobic, rapey, violent, narcissist to change their ways. Ignoring them is obviously bad so there's nothing left to do but to try and make sure their, technically legal, but clearly nefarious, behavior doesn't go unnoticed at every opportunity.