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

651–660 of 863 posts

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

#651

Post by ttt0 »

api wrote: post #599
Alupis wrote: post #542

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can anyone name a time in history where the people censoring things turned out to be the "Good Guys"?

Censorship of child pornography?

It's not a political ideology or political speech. The reason we came up with freedom of speech is primarily so you can criticize the people in power. I know that people for whatever reason got this weird idea that pornography is somehow free speech, presumably because of lobbying, but historically free speech always coexisted with obscenity laws. If you want to silence your political enemy, it's going to be hard to do on the basis of pornography, but it's rather easy to do on a basis of 'hate speech'.

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

#652

Post by vkou »

throw_nbvc1234 wrote: post #510
vkou wrote: post #496

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The article's main point is that apparently, 10-15% of the population voting for unabashed fascists is a colossal policy failure. Whereas I don't actually see that as a problem. In any given population, about ~10% of it is going to be sympathetic to fascism. That is what it is. It's an appealing ideology for a lot of people. The problem is when you get closer to 40%, or 50%, and unabashed fascists start making their…

And when the systems/mechanisms for them to oppress their opposition were already put in place in an attempt to limit them from getting that power in the first place. If you go down the path of "censorship", you better get it right. Otherwise you'll probably be worse off in the end.

As the history of repressive governments has shown, they don't need any help in building these systems. Once they are in power, they really don't give two figs about how open and accepting your society was of viewpoints like theirs, and they can quickly assemble any instruments of oppression that they find lacking.

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

#653

Post by therealjumbo »

unethical_ban wrote: post #492
buescher wrote: post #395

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not only subjective terms like "extremism", but religious terms like "redeemable".

You and the people who talk like you are getting downvoted because you're contrarian without actually stating an opposition view to what you're ranting about. Someone: Extremism is bad. You: What is extreme is subjective. The next step would be for you to try to give counter points of what you think is extreme that others consider not, or better, what you think is not extreme that others consider so.

If "extremism" gets banned, then individuals are incentivized to get things they don't like labeled as extremism.

We wouldn't be having this conversation if the things labeled extremism and thus banned from platforms was limited to ISIS and literal Nazis. It's been far more far-reaching than that. That's probably due to the incentives, not due to actual extremism.

So if extremism is subjective, it will be leveraged in that manner and you can't stop that behavior without removing the incentive. That's the point, not what is or isn't labeled as extremism today, that's just dragging the conversation back into the political gutter.

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

#654

Post by sabarn01 »

morelisp wrote: post #601
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…

> I'm reminded of Daryl Davis, and the way he de-radicalized KKK members. He did it by talking to them, engaging them in speech. 1. Daryl Davis is literally the only person ever mentioned in this context. If you don't have another example, this doesn't even qualify as an anecdote anymore. 2. Over the course of multiple decades Davis has, via intense 1:1 work and personal connection and at great risk to himself, derad…

Megan Phelps-Roper Derek Black George Wallce Via Shirley Chisholm

https://www.persuasion.community/p/lessons-of-a-black-pionee...

You are basically saying there is no power in integration and that the only effort for reform here should be negative consequences which generally isn't viewed as a liberal perspective on how to reintegrate people into society.

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

#655

Post by gampleman »

Today Scotland passed the wildly controversial hate crime bill. Thankfully the bill was amended several times which gutted many of the more extreme provisions. But I can tell you for a fact that people I know have been seriously preparing to go underground - they perceived this bill as such a serious threat to their freedom of speech and religious liberty that some where preparing to purchase property in remote locations to enable clandestine meetings, others started reading on encryption, etc.

Not one said “oh well, time to change my basic wordlview, since it might soon be illegal”.

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

#656

Post by Alupis »

Jarwain wrote: post #641
Alupis wrote: post #542

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can anyone name a time in history where the people censoring things turned out to be the "Good Guys"?

Isn't this subject to survivorship bias? If, 1000 years ago some movement was censored by the "good guys", if they've done a half-competent job, would we even Know they tried censoring things in the first place? Not to mention how the "good guys" are usually just whomever manages to last/survive

How about in the last 100 years then?

In the 50's-70's, the US tried it's hardest to censor/hide/destroy Marxism, it's ideals, and derivatives (Socialism) - yet it still exists today.

You cannot disappear ideas by silencing the individuals that believe them. Instead of trying to hide them away, the ideas need to be exposed publicly and discussed openly. If one side truly is righteous, it will prevail through open discussion and logic.

Just like in the 50's - what we have today is a weaponized notion of censorship to destroy our political enemies and those who do not think the same way we do. That's certainly not what "Good Guys" do.

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

#657

Post by monocasa »

elastolin wrote: post #188
nindalf wrote: post #115

I'm surprised to see people agreeing with this hypothesis ... while commenting on HN. I'm a huge fan of the site rules ( https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html ) and the way they are applied by the moderation team. But that said, HN has the most heavy handed censorship of any site I frequent. Read all the rules from start to finish and ask yourself if you'd be ok following these rules in every Internet foru…

>show me a site without moderation that still has high quality discussion 4chan

4chan is moderated.

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

#658

Post by lliamander »

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.

> EDIT: the rain of downvotes is telling as usual.

You suggest that people subject to social stigma and censure should "maybe ask [themselves] some questions". Do you think the reaction you are receiving should cause you to question your own position?

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

#659

Post by Viliam1234 »

louwrentius wrote: post #611
hef19898 wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

You seem to get down-voted but I agree with your view and I think is is funny that the free-speech-absolutists downvote / to take your speech away. To be intolerant against intolerance is at the heart of any stable, decent, livable society. I don’t understand the view of the free-speech-absolutists because it is so obvious that it doesn’t work. In Europe - or least in The Netherlands - saying discriminatory thing can…

> To be intolerant against intolerance is at the heart of any stable, decent, livable society.

I agree; in the name of preserving social order, SJWs should all be thrown in jails.

Just kidding... but that's what the article is talking about. You can make strict laws (or social norms) against "intolerance", and someone else will be happy you handed them a powerful weapon they can use against you.

Do your political opponents seem intolerant to you? Let me tell you a secret: the feeling is probably mutual. You prefer to focus on those parts where they are less tolerant than you, and ignore the ones where it is the other way round. They do the same.

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

#660

Post by bhupy »

11thEarlOfMar wrote: post #647

I keep coming back to whether people in general still think open mindedness is a virtue. By open mindedness, I mean open to new experience, open to new ideas, open to new people. Practicing openness means observing and hearing and then evaluating for yourself whether you want to assimilate the experience or idea into your life. Open mindedness also means being open to new information, even if it contradicts a basis f…

In addition, in my experience I’ve found the discussion to be centered around the freedom to express one’s self, but free speech is also very much about the freedom of the recipient to seek out and listen to whatever speech they want.
Post reply on HN