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

561–570 of 863 posts

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

#561

Post by playingchanges »

grawprog wrote: post #483
ralmidani wrote: post #351

You can't censor it away completely, but you can help the redeemable extremists __know__ they're indulging in extremism by forcing them to go to fringe websites rather than allow them to stay on Twitter and Facebook as if nothing is wrong. As for the "deplorables" who know what they're doing and will never question it or feel any remorse, we should not be giving them a megaphone. sources[0]: I was susceptible to extr…

I've spent a lot of time on the internet over the years and the thing i've noticed about 'extremists' of all kinds, not just idealogical ones, i'm talking like any kind of 'extremist'. That handful of people you find on a forum more devoted to whatever the topic or niche is than everybody else. The people that are there, every day all day immersing themselves in it. They're fairly far and few between and wherever you…

Underrepresented POV I think. ‘Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity’.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon's_razor

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

#562

Post by runarberg »

Noos wrote: post #514
runarberg wrote: post #475

Earlier quoted context omitted.

True. A Marxist will have a different conception of the masses from an anarchist (even though the intersection is usually pretty large). But I fail to see what that has to do with anything. There is no game of leftism . The goal is to free people from the tyranny of capitalism and fascism (marxists might emphasize the former while anarchists the latter). Leftists generally accept rich folks sympathetic to the cause,…

It is not to free people, it is to free the abstract idea of people. This is how leftists are as tyrannical as everyone. They have a romantic idea of the poor which is not tied to their actual existence or wants, and act on it. Too often, it is just a way to morally justify their own wants or desires. Any evil can be justified if it helps a faceless mass of people.

> romantic idea of the poor

It is actually quite fun to read Dostoevsky’s Idiot with that in mind that Dostoevsky might have written Prince Myshkin (the Idiot) with Leo Tolstoy in mind. Dostoevsky was very much not a man of means, whereas Tolstoy literally came from a line of nobility. To Dostoevsky, Tolstoy’s talk of the impoverished must have sounded like he had no idea what he was talking about.

That being said, I do think that romanticism of the poor is a really old school mentality, maybe some boomers sometimes still engage in it, but I doubt that you’ll find contemporary leftists engaging in it. Today’s left is much more AOC and Greta Thunberg complaining about how shitty life is for the poor (with a substantial retweet history each backing up poor people calling for it).

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

#563

Post by AnimalMuppet »

yongjik wrote: post #163
NaturalPhallacy wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This misses the point (that the author of OPs post nailed). It doesn't matter that it doesn't scale. It works, and censorship doesn't. Do you want a (difficult) method that works (personal involvement and direct conversation), or a simple, easy, lazy one (deplatforming/cancel/censorship) that doesn't?

Censorship comes with its own problems, but if your position is that it flat out doesn't work, you'd need a more convincing argument. Nazi censored. Stalin censored. Xi censors. Seems hard to explain if censorship doesn't work.

Sure it worked. Using a nuclear warhead works to solve your ant infestation, too.

We want something that works and that doesn't have the nasty side-effects. Nazi, Stalin, and Xi's tactics aren't the answer we're looking for.

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

#564

Post by meheleventyone »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #495
jawarner wrote: post #427

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is neutrality in this scenario? BLM is about protesting anti-black racial injustice in the criminal justice system. Is neutral ground that there is no injustice? That it doesn't matter? Yes, there was violence at a small fraction of protests, and it's fair to have pushback on that. That seems a separate issue than rejecting BLM on the face of it with an expression like ALM.

Neutral ground is that injustice is wrong, no matter who it happens to . It's wrong when it happens to blacks, it's wrong when it happens to Asians, it's wrong when it happens to Hispanics, and it's wrong when it happens to whites. That's neutral. From there, you look around and you see that blacks and Hispanics seem to have injustice happening to them in ways that don't often happen to whites. (Not sure about Asians…

"The lives of people to whom injustice happens due to extra-judicial murders by the police, who are predominantly black matter and should be considered" doesn't exactly roll off the tongue.

In contrast "Black Lives Matter" describes the issue exactly, succinctly and pithily. As a bonus it outs the people who want to remain willfully ignorant about it.

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

#565

Post by pstuart »

playingchanges wrote: post #561
grawprog wrote: post #483

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've spent a lot of time on the internet over the years and the thing i've noticed about 'extremists' of all kinds, not just idealogical ones, i'm talking like any kind of 'extremist'. That handful of people you find on a forum more devoted to whatever the topic or niche is than everybody else. The people that are there, every day all day immersing themselves in it. They're fairly far and few between and wherever you…

Underrepresented POV I think. ‘Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity’. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon's_razor

...or laziness

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

#566

Post by rayiner »

feoren wrote: post #543
rayiner wrote: post #464

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Allowing "dog whistles" to be censored also creates a powerful incentive to redefine ideas the censors don't like as "dog whistles." For example: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/18/opinion/biden-latino-vote... > With the help of two liberal pollsters, Joshua Ulibarri and Celinda Lake, we conducted 15 focus groups with members of various Hispanic communities across the country and ran a national survey. We also polled…

This reminds me of the argument that police forces can't be racist if they employ black officers. Even black police officers are more likely to shoot an innocent black man than an innocent white man in the same situation. Want to find someone who is racist against Argentinians? Go to Peru or Chile. Just because some Latinos in a focus group agree with a message does not mean it's not racist against Latinos.

> Just because some Latinos in a focus group agree with a message does not mean it's not racist against Latinos.

It's not "some." According to the article, it's a decisive majority (more than 3 in 5).

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

#567

Post by GVIrish »

smaryjerry wrote: post #459
GVIrish wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but to be a journalist you literally have to correct false statements you make What? No, you absolutely do not have to correct false statements you make to be a journalist. Reputable publications post retractions and clarifications because that is how they maintain their reputation, but it is in no way a requirement.

You actually do or you can lose your license to broadcast. The FCC is prohibited by law from engaging in censorship or infringing on First Amendment rights of the press. It is, however, illegal for broadcasters to intentionally distort the news, and the FCC may act on complaints if there is documented evidence of such behavior from persons with direct personal knowledge. This is also besides slander and libel, lying…

> It is, however, illegal for broadcasters to intentionally distort the news, and the FCC may act on complaints if there is documented evidence of such behavior from persons with direct personal knowledge.

What particular laws are you referring to?

> This is also besides slander and libel, lying about an individual or organization.

Sure, you can get sued for that. But getting sued for libel or defamation doesn't mean you can't be a journalist anymore. A journalist who loses a libel lawsuit can keep writing even if they've been sued into oblivion.

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

#568

Post by eeZah7Ux »

fatsdomino001 wrote: post #500
tablespoon wrote: post #456

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> "you can help the redeemable extremists __know__ they're indulging in extremism by forcing them to go to fringe websites rather than allow them to stay on Twitter and Facebook as if nothing is wrong." > This is such a terrible idea. All this accomplishes is causing extremists to find echo chambers where they will never actually know what they're doing is wrong. It's much better to keep extremists in mainstream pla…

> That core may get more extreme in its echo chamber, but its overall movement could end up being smaller and weaker. This is precisely the problem. That core will certainly get more extreme because there's no cross pollination between it and other more moderate groups. I would rather have more people with less extreme views than fewer people with more extreme views, because it's much more likely the more extreme peo…

> I would rather have more people with less extreme views than fewer people with more extreme views, because it's much more likely the more extreme people are a greater danger to society than the less extreme people.

History proves otherwise. All wars, massacres, tyrannies required extreme views to become popularized enough to achieve momentum.

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

#569

Post by rednerrus »

eeZah7Ux wrote: post #560
bleah1000 wrote: post #530

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is just a few people explaining how they de-radicalized. Now imagine the opposite, someone with some slightly bad opinion suddenly finds themselves shut out of the main platforms because of hate speech rules. They now become more radicalized. Due to the number of people constantly being suspended/banned I think there is a greater chance that these people will become radicalized, than someone will realize they ha…

> some slightly bad opinion suddenly finds themselves shut out of the main platforms because of hate speech rules A "slightly bad opinion" has to be more than "slightly bad" to break hate speech rules. If you feel a platform is overzealous in enforcing hate speech rules, don't use it. Or maybe ask yourself some questions before moving out. EDIT: the rain of downvotes is telling as usual.

Who decides?

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

#570

Post by DC1350 »

eeZah7Ux wrote: post #560
bleah1000 wrote: post #530

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is just a few people explaining how they de-radicalized. Now imagine the opposite, someone with some slightly bad opinion suddenly finds themselves shut out of the main platforms because of hate speech rules. They now become more radicalized. Due to the number of people constantly being suspended/banned I think there is a greater chance that these people will become radicalized, than someone will realize they ha…

> some slightly bad opinion suddenly finds themselves shut out of the main platforms because of hate speech rules A "slightly bad opinion" has to be more than "slightly bad" to break hate speech rules. If you feel a platform is overzealous in enforcing hate speech rules, don't use it. Or maybe ask yourself some questions before moving out. EDIT: the rain of downvotes is telling as usual.

That’s not true. Not being attracted to transgender people is enough to get banned on Reddit.

I was banned from r/asktransgender for telling a girl in a relationship with a pre-transition MtF person that it doesn’t make sense to call herself a lesbian (since sexual orientation is based on sex and not gender)

Post reply on HN