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

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

#711

Post by tablespoon » Fri, Mar 12, 2021, 9:16 PM UTC

lliamander wrote: post #693

tablespoon wrote: post #678

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> 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…

> 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.

No, you're blurring things to the point of meaninglessness. For instance, "first post" competitions would clearly be unacceptable speech here, yet I doubt anyone in good faith would actually call such posts hate speech.

Also, downvotes are an opaque mechanism. Did your post get downvoted because you said something widely regarded as offensive, are this guy [1], or because you just had too many typos? You can speculate, but that's not very good basis for self reflection. However, if you're mad you can't post speech that (for instance) directly attacks some race as being inferior [2], you have a pretty clear thing to reflect on.

[1] https://www.csmonitor.com/World/2015/0701/What-happened-to-t...

[2] https://www.facebook.com/communitystandards/objectionable_co...

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

#712

Post by tgragnato » Fri, Mar 12, 2021, 9:19 PM UTC

throwaway134oe8 wrote: post #634

kelnos wrote: post #604

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know about engagement on mainstream sites declining, but the rising popularity of sites like Parler and Gab seems undeniable. Parler's recent (attempted) deplatforming is evidence enough: you don't bother with a tiny fringe site that isn't growing or wielding any influence.

>but the rising popularity of sites like Parler and Gab seems undeniable It does? Any evidence to support this?

Just look at the “leaks”... Their user base is not so big to be worrisome, but it’s undeniably big. And it’s growing too.

https://ddosecrets.com/wiki/GabLeaks https://ddosecrets.com/wiki/Parler

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

#713

Post by a1369209993 » Fri, Mar 12, 2021, 9:19 PM UTC

mancerayder wrote: post #636

cloverich wrote: post #597

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. In what way does it make it worse? 2. Do you have some common examples of left wing extremism that are rampant and unchecked? I have many examples in my personal Facebook feed of right wing extremism, but few or perhaps no left wing extremism, despite many of my right wing friends voicing a similar complaint.

I have to swallow the fact that any reply means downvotes in this Silicon Valley community, but: 1. Because you're not actually removing right-wing extremism (which would be nice), you're pushing people into the corner. You can't legally or morally prevent people from having extremist views among themselves, having conversations, and in an Internet age you're going to play wack-a-mole if you try to chase after things…

> You can't legally or morally prevent people from having extremist views

Or, y'know, practically (short of lobotomizing them).

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

#714

Post by DubiousPusher » Fri, Mar 12, 2021, 9:20 PM UTC

yanderekko wrote: post #345

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 the process itself involves heaping lots of social costs on people in the attempt to hurt their narratives, and that normally we would consider this bad? I mean, if we concede that literally throwing people in prison is ineffective then shouldn't the argument…

> Because the process itself involves heaping lots of social costs on people

I'm open to that argument. But I think this writer is really trying to have it both ways. They literally say, censorship doesn't work and we shouldn't do it because we are the ones who will be censored. It just seems like a kitchen sink argument. Either it is dangerous to society because it works or it is dangerous to a few because it is unjustly punitive.

I am not fully in agreement with what is happening right now because I believe it is fundamentally immoral to force someone into a society where they must provide for themselves and then to take away their means of provision.

But I also see our society as deeply censoros before this and a lot of people who are very upset now were fully willing to ignore that as long as it didn't broach opinions they value. Two wrongs don't make a right but it does leave me a little suspicious of how genuine they are and how magnanimous they will be when the pendulum of discourse swings back in their favor.

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

#715

Post by salawat » Fri, Mar 12, 2021, 9:21 PM UTC

ethbr0 wrote: post #443

Lammy wrote: post #383

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're still using subjective terms like "extremism" in an objective way that the people on the receiving end of that label may not agree with or appreciate.

As a child, I admit I was wholly taken in by digital IP extremists. The danger is real! They convinced me that information should be free, that it was my right to download and share anything digital, and that the internet was a borderless utopia of knowledge, limited only by our imaginations. Now, I see the error of my ways and the harm I, and those who thought like me, caused to content creators and distributors. I…

You dropped this!

\s

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

#716

Post by tablespoon » Fri, Mar 12, 2021, 9:22 PM UTC

a1369209993 wrote: post #700

tablespoon wrote: post #687

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> Twitter and Facebook are common carriers, not private residences.

Except they aren't actually common carriers. Some people are of the opinion they should be, but having an opinion doesn't make it so.

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

#717

Post by claudiawerner » Fri, Mar 12, 2021, 9:23 PM UTC

bleah1000 wrote: post #530

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…

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…

>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.

This is a bad argument; it is a fact, for example, that child pornography by being censored creates a taboo around it. It's also true that some people will seek it out because of its taboo nature - something it would not be (or only to a lesser extent) if it weren't illegal. The fact that people will download and masturbate to child porn because it is illegal is not a good argument against child porn laws.

We (justifiably, I think) do not allow speech for the purposes of terrorist recruitment. The fact that someone is mistakenly banned for terrorist recruitment and later becomes radicalized is not a good argument to allow terrorist recruitment.

The argument is fundamentally self-defeating; it presupposes that free speech is so good and basic that it overrides all other rights. However, it also supposes that people in general lack sufficient ability to introspect after being censored - people are thought of here not as rational beings to use their rights of speech to engage in democratic deliberation, but as animals who when poked by a stick become enraged.

>He did it by talking to them, engaging them in speech.

Why should it be society's burden to deradicalize people? Does this work at scale? What of all the people who heard Davis or his ideas but were not persuaded? Is the number of people he failed to convince known?

Finally, what of the people who, according to your theory, only become more 'radicalized' when they encounter the position that their views are wrong or harmful?

There's just as good of a chance that one hundred Daryl Davis' trying to deradicalize people will actually cause radicals to dig in their heels. Maybe these hypothetical Davis' don't have a welcoming tone. Maybe the radical doesn't want to listen to a hypothetical Davis because of his race. Maybe the radical actually publicises the exchange and uses it as a megaphone to gish-gallop with 'radical' ideas. Maybe the radical convinces a hypothetical Davis that actually the radical and hateful ideas are correct. Doesn't honest and open dialogue, after all, permit both sending and receiving?

I feel as though the Daryl Davis approach has a lot more risk and a lot less going for it empirically than you suppose.

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

#718

Post by lliamander » Fri, Mar 12, 2021, 9:31 PM UTC

tablespoon wrote: post #711

lliamander wrote: post #693

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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. No, you're blurring things to the point of meaninglessness. For instance, "first post" competitions would clearly be u…

> For instance, "first post" competitions would clearly be unacceptable speech here, yet I doubt anyone in good faith would actually call such posts hate speech.

No, but if you think "hate speech" is a clear and definite term with no room for abuse you are deluding yourself.

> Also, downvotes are an opaque mechanism.

The person I responded to clearly knew why he was being downvoted. He presented an unsophisticated and (on this forum) unpopular view of hate speech rules.

> If you're mad you can't post speech that (for instance) directly attacks some race as being inferior [2], you have a pretty clear thing to reflect on.

Insisting that people who are critical of hate speech rules are white supremacists is not a constructive take.

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

#719

Post by jfengel » Fri, Mar 12, 2021, 9:33 PM UTC

MisterBastahrd wrote: post #468

ryandrake wrote: post #332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It absolutely does work. A little bit, at first, when you have broad consensus backing you - but it does work. People will begrudgingly change their behavior for relatively minor things, and the change in the use rate of racial epithets in public reflects that. The only change is that you now have a bunch of people who are afraid to use a handful of naughty words in public because they might lose their job over it.…

Let's see... My grandparents used the N word freely. My parents used the C word on occasion when they were younger and grew out of it. I don't use either, and neither do my kids. Generations don't exist in bubbles. They are shaped and influenced by popular society just as much as their local communities. 30 years ago, the AIDS epidemic was a punchline. 17 years ago, you couldn't be openly gay in the military and the…

They're mortal, but that's cold comfort when they're oppressing you now.

And they cling to power. The party that opposed gay marriage now controls 67% of the voting power on the court that legalized it. If that case came up again today, it would almost certainly go the other way. And they may, in fact, find ways to re-litigate it.

Even when the majority of that party switched to be in favor if it, they continue to vote for leadership who opposed it. Laws against trans rights are being enshrined in law literally as we speak, and it will take a very long time to scrub them off the books.

They're mortal, but I take no joy in that. They have disproportionate power, and as it dims, they use it harder and harder.

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

#720

Post by jfengel » Fri, Mar 12, 2021, 9:34 PM UTC

joe_the_user wrote: post #667

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…

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. This seems manifestly false. A lot of adult behavior can be changed by scolding, a lot of society runs on scolding. I'm a pretty rational and strongly opinionated person. You won'…

Certainly people get all angsty about being scolded. If it were being ignored, they wouldn't talk about it so much.