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

121–130 of 863 posts

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

#121

Post by caslon »

NaturalPhallacy wrote: post #107
Zardoz84 wrote: post #27

You can't dialog with fascist.

Nevermind that Daryl Davis has literally converted over 200 KKK members: https://www.rt.com/viral/371340-meet-black-man-kkk/ THAT is how you beat fascism. Not censorship. Lazy programmers trying censor via bits and bytes are never going to accomplish in a million years what Mr. Davis already has.

200 people isn't very much. Twitter has 192 million users. Assuming (extremely generously given that twitter is on the Internet and has a userbase that skews younger) that twitter matches America's partisan divide, it probably has around 90 million users.

It seems unlikely that at least a thousand people out of 90 million aren't gullible enough to be swayed by hellbanning.

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

#122

Post by justbored123 »

refurb wrote: post #84
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.

You are completely missing the point. Because those laws exist, the argument for "free speech" and against censorship is ignorant. We don't have free speech and never had and never will, no country on earth has, because it's ridiculous to the point of been childish. Speech is not free, it has limits, like everything else.

And about Alex Jones, the case proves beyond reasonable doubt that he should had been censored to prevent the damage and that is my point. His speech has real life serious consequences that hurt people even if he didn't do it personally and he didn't intended to happen.

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

#123

Post by hef19898 »

NaturalPhallacy wrote: post #93
Sohcahtoa82 wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Doesn't mean it's wrong... The racists on the right know they're racists. They admit it. The racists I've encountered on the left are the racism-of-low-expectations kind with a dash of openly-racist-against-white-people, and then they go and act morally superior to people who aren't racist against any race. The sanctimony is grating.

Don't they deny being racist, sexist or whatever more often than not when called out? It sure seems so.

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

#124

Post by tsimionescu »

Griffinsauce wrote: post #80
tsimionescu wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, if AT&T cut out phone service from union sympathizers, that would be OK, because they are just expressing their right to free speech? I think there is such a thing as critical communication infrastructure, and even if it run by private companies, it should be protected from censorship. Whether all of FB or just private messaging fall under this is more debatable, but there have to be clear limits on what a compan…

> the problem there lies in the market power of the monopolies, not their speech.

So if there were 50 companies, and all of them censored you for saying something really unpopular, would things be any better?

Critical infrastructure must be legally protected from censorship and (private, mandate-less) eavesdropping. Whether it is run by a monopoly or many small companies is immaterial.

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

#125

Post by NaturalPhallacy »

sagichmal wrote: post #14

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

It works....in the short term...within a very narrow scope.

And then suddenly, for no reason at all, someone incredibly well aligned with everyone you deplatformed rises to power.

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

#126

Post by glogla »

Zardoz84 wrote: post #27

You can't dialog with fascist.

Jean-Paul Sartre has a good quote on this - he framed it around anti-semitism but it covers othes as well, it might as well been written about QAnon or COVID deniers:

Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.

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

#127

Post by hef19898 »

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.

So, making sure people can live their lives, without being discriminated and abused, is extremism? What you are saying is that people with more liberal and left leaning views should just forget about it and roll with the right, unless the right feels hurt.

It would help, if you would the issues the left should soften up on.

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

#128

Post by bcgraham »

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…

> 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.

The urge to preempt what an audience hears is suspect.

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

#129

Post by NaturalPhallacy »

blockmarker wrote: post #108
Bud wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Because he didn't go anywhere else. He could have joined Parler or Gab and continued drawing attention.

He did, and is.

Just because you only pay attention to mainstream (D) media doesn't mean he's not on others.

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

#130

Post by _v7gu »

smsm42 wrote: post #59
Zardoz84 wrote: post #27

You can't dialog with fascist.

There are usually two steps here: 1. Declare people who disagree with you fascists 2. Declare that it's impossible to dialogue with fascists Then it all becomes very easy.

We should unironically taboo the words fascist (unless referring to 30's Italy), nazi (unless referring to third reich), communist (unless they propose a People's Republic) and socialist (not really referring to anything, but the word has become an ad hom at this point) to have any kind of healthy political debate. It is cowardly to hide behind those words and not say what you actually mean
Post reply on HN