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

691–700 of 863 posts

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

#691

Post by Alupis »

notahacker wrote: post #669
Alupis wrote: post #628

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Propaganda isn't the same as censorship. It does not appear any of the Allies made it illegal to believe in Nazism, or to write about it, or even dare to own something from the Nazi era. Nonetheless, it's arguable these efforts were futile, likely misguided, and likely drove some to extremism as a result. You cannot simply compel a population to think a certain way. Instead, you must allow the "bad" ideas to be expos…

Oh, but the Allies did make Naziism illegal (the Soviets of course went further and made most other political speech illegal in their half of Germany) Not only did West Germany have denazification programmes, but things like denying the holocaust are still illegal in Germany today , as the article discusses. It's a bold claim to argue this was "futile" or "likely drove some to extremism" when the context was a reacti…

> Oh, but the Allies did make Naziism illegal

You can be a Nazi in the US, UK and I'm sure pretty much anywhere in the world (except Germany) - and not go to jail, etc. So no, the Allies did not make Nazism illegal. Instead, they attempted to squash Nazism through propaganda (both domestic and foreign), and through spreading the truth about what Nazism had accomplished (Holocaust, among other atrocities). There's Holocaust Deniers roaming the streets of the US today - although they are in the extreme minority due overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

In the end, the evils of Nazism led to it's demise, and the free trade of that information championed over censorship.

As an aside, making Holocaust Denial illegal has accomplished nothing - we have Genocide occurring around the world today, including openly in China - the very same country US companies like the NBA and Disney are falling over each other to do business in. China, of course, denies it's a Genocide...

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

#692

Post by louwrentius »

hef19898 wrote: post #681
Viliam1234 wrote: post #659

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 opp…

If almost 80 years of havinthese laws in basically every European democracy doesn't proof that these laws aren't miss used, I don't know what can. And no, denying people service, jobs and social security based on color, religion sex or whatnot is not the same as fighting for people to have these rights. Because the former takes away rights, while the latter grants rights without anybody else loosing anything.

Thank you, that is exactly the point.

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

#693

Post by lliamander »

tablespoon wrote: post #678
lliamander wrote: post #658

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

>> 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. > 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? That's twisting what h…

You are making a distinction without a difference.

As the original article itself pointed out, "hate speech" is an amorphous term that can refer to any socially unacceptable speech. Actual "hate speech rules" and "downvotes" are merely different mechanisms for enforcing social stigma and censure.

The real question is at what point should a person reevaluate their opinions in light of social pressure. The commenter I was responding to seems to think it should only happen when the opinions in question are ones he disagrees with.

EDIT: additionally, complaining about downvotes is also against the rules of this site. For someone to do that while extending no charity to those who break other content moderation policies is...interesting.

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

#694

Post by SuoDuanDao »

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…

It's certainly true, if the only places where people criticise the mainstream consensus are dominated by neo-nazis, that reasonable people are less likely to criticise the mainstream consensus. The downside to that 'solution' is, sometimes reasonable people need to criticise the mainstream consensus.

I recently thought of a great example: If the goal is to reduce extremism, one of the lowest-hanging fruit would be to censor all videos of police misconduct. There is no question that seeing the George Floyd video radicalised a number of people. If your solution is that a few tech giants should have memory holed that video as it began to go viral, I'd love to hear you explain yourself.

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

#695

Post by meshenna »

ForHackernews wrote: post #398
ralusek wrote: post #384

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And would you describe things as having gotten better this last year? And I don't mean in the sense that you see less of what you think there should be less of online, because then of course it's gotten better if that's the variable being minimized. I mean, do you think the state of extremism and political unity has improved via marginalizing views held by enormous portions of the population?

Yeah, absolutely! In the US, Trump lost the election and we have a genuine shot at police reform for the first time in a generation. In Europe, the pandemic has exposed the incompetence of empty populism.

> has exposed the incompetence of empty populism.

I'd say it has exposed incompetence in general.

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

#696

Post by DubiousPusher »

NaturalPhallacy wrote: post #177
DubiousPusher wrote: post #13

If you cannot censor away opinions, if suppression of ideas doesn't work then why in exactly these kinds of articles do people bemoan it as dangerous? I may agree that most censorship is wrong but it does work. It worked for centuries to help maintain systems of inequality. It worked for centuries to maintain familial control and enforce sexual monoculture in many countries. Information control works so well, it prev…

>If you cannot censor away opinions, if suppression of ideas doesn't work then why in exactly these kinds of articles do people bemoan it as dangerous? Because instead of treating the disease (terrible dehumanizing ideologies) it treats the symptom (them talking about it). Instead of a fire, it creates a bomb. >It worked for centuries to maintain familial control and enforce sexual monoculture in many countries. Info…

> In the short term. Determining the status quo isn't up to censors.

I don't agree. Before WWII, America had a very small standing army. It was practically an American value that the country demilitarized after each war. But from 1900 through WWI and especially through WWII there was a deliberate effort by the government and elites to change that. In just 40 years America went from barely militarized to having a large and expensive standing force that was viewed as a bedrock of American virtues.

Similar things happened throughout history regarding sanitation, citizenship, traffic laws and more. I believe the information ecosystem has a tremendous impact on people's beliefs and values.

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

#697

Post by hef19898 »

stretchwithme wrote: post #661
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…

There isn't a single widely-held opinion that did not begin as an extremist opinion. And plenty of irrational ideas that became widely held.

Only that we went already through the most hard core right wing positions, and it didn't end well. These experiments happened in the 1920s and 30s. Same goes for Stalins form of Communism, which by the way has nothing to do with socialism.

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

#698

Post by wnoise »

fhood wrote: post #684
wnoise wrote: post #672

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You might be able to order it, sure. Translating that into magnitudes is entirely subjective.

Why wouldn't the magnitude be a direct consequence of the two factors I already mentioned? Crossparty support and percentage of total?

Why would it?

It does if and only if that's what you reduce extremism down to.

There's enough there to assert a quadratic relationship (in a given regime) with _their particular phenomenological measurement_ of extremism.

In the physical sciences we can often get away with ignoring the difference between what a measurement procedure outputs, and what it is measuring. But this only because we have high degrees of repeatability, and concordance with other ways of measurement. Neither has been shown to apply here.

The reporting of this is made worse by the use of a common term, rather than the diagnostic tool. Yes, there are common meanings of "energy", "momentum", and so forth, but people understand that they mean very specific technical definitions when a physicist uses them.

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

#699

Post by shirakawasuna »

An analysis of what is efficacious for opposing "extremism" is pointless without also looking at the cause(s) of that "extremism" or being able to identify natural experiments.

Natural experiments: looking at Germany and noticing that there are still lots of Nazis doesn't mean those interventions were not effective, as you don't know what would've happened using other regimes (or just doing nothing). You haven't tested the most basic alternative hypothesis that would confound using this data in this way.

Causes: this is a big can of worms, particularly on a forum where "politics" is frowned upon, which really means that anything non-normative that could cause significant disagreement is frowned upon. But unless you can identify driving forces of, e.g., Nazis and their recruitment, talking about effective interventions is premature and reductive.

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

#700

Post by a1369209993 »

tablespoon wrote: post #687
rednerrus wrote: post #569

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who decides?

> Who decides? Who decides if Nazis are allowed to put signs with Nazi slogans on your lawn?

> on your lawn?

Twitter and Facebook are common carriers[0], not private residences.

Edit: 0: By which I mean that are common carriers in practice, not that they are legally recognized as such.

Post reply on HN