Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Our nation cannot censor its way back to cultural health

frenchpress.thedispatch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 366 posts

Re: Our nation cannot censor its way back to cultural health

#81

Post by tomlockwood »

rossdavidh wrote: post #73
tomlockwood wrote: post #5

I think this article misses one big point which is how we - the people on this website - have actively constructed a world where advertisers can shift spend really quickly. Brand safety is a big reason for censorship - the idea of keeping ads for a company away from content that people might not like. YouTube demonetizes loads and loads of controversial topics across the political spectrum - and that's a Feature for…

I agree with you, but I think an important point to add is, that this is why it is dangerous to have the most import forums be advertising driven. Stephen Douglas spoke from a literal podium (when he wasn't prevented from doing so by an angry mob). There were multiple newspapers in most cities, and each part of the political spectrum had one (prominent abolitionists were often editors). By crafting a society wherein…

Yeah totally totally. But then, its very funny to me that some of the people who complain the most about the censorship of "Right Wing" content by leftist big tech, are also, violently, over-my-dead-body, opposed to many kinds of community/government/centrally-owned collectivist platforms that wouldn't be under the influence of advertising. The Libertarian platforms that we have are the way they are precisely because they're market-based.

The podium requires a public square and the public square is currently privately owned.

Re: Our nation cannot censor its way back to cultural health

#82

Post by throwawayboise »

rossdavidh wrote: post #75
wayoutthere wrote: post #7

I believe in freedom of speech. What I do not believe in is freedom of mass speech. Your responsibility to the truth should increase in line with your reach. Have 1000 followers in twitter and want to talk about starting the next holocaust? Great, say whatever. A million followers? Yeah, that’s a problem. I don’t know how this gets enforced, but we simply cannot give every lunatic a megaphone.

Well in the example given, Stephen Douglass was free to speak to a small group, but not to a (for the times) large one. Your criterion is exactly the one that would legitimize censoring Stephen Douglass.

Frederick, not Stephen. Stephen Douglas was Lincoln's opponent in the 1860 presidential election.

Re: Our nation cannot censor its way back to cultural health

#83

Post by BobbyJo »

JetAlone wrote: post #70

I think censorship actually could help us in a huge way back to cultural health; start censoring big data, rage cycle algorithms, sexploitation, advertising. Then on top of that giving people independent, client-based, advanced AI powered tools en masse, and making sure they know how to use them and why, for accurate elected censorship on their own devices of things they personally find detrimental to their mental he…

> Then on top of that giving people independent, client-based, advanced AI powered tools en masse, and making sure they know how to use them and why, for accurate elected censorship on their own devices of things they personally find detrimental to their mental health. Basically, do what you can to allow for the censorship of the influence of the people with money, onto the people without it.

I lay blame for a lot of the bipolarism of modern discourse on the ability of people to filter the ideas to which they are exposed to a great degree. Combine that with the ability to create larger audiences than ever before, and that's exactly how the us/them dualism takes root. Echo-chamber was a big buzz word not that long ago.

Re: Our nation cannot censor its way back to cultural health

#85

Post by throwawayboise »

josephcsible wrote: post #61
Nursie wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> that doesn't make them illegitimate. neither is it illegitimate to continue to boycott something you think is likely still causing harm but is now just being quiet about it. > After he had his conversion and became Paul the Apostle, would you really continue to boycott him? Given I don't believe in any of his writings, nor that the church he helped bring into being is a force for good, sure, why not? I'm boycotting…

Okay, pick anyone else then. Someone who definitely did something bad enough to be boycott-worthy, but later completely turned over a new leaf. Would you really never forgive them?

Yes, the notion that one mistake (or even behavior over a period of time) is forever irredeemable does not forge a path to a more enlightened civility.

Re: Our nation cannot censor its way back to cultural health

#86

Post by zozbot234 »

wonnage wrote: post #79

The article never once tries to define what it thinks would be good "cultural health". You can kinda infer that the current level of vitriol and animosity is bad, but what kind of society would that look like and how would we get there? I can see three versions. First is a homogenous culture where there is nothing to fight culture wars over. I don't think such a thing is possible, nor desirable, since the author's fr…

The disturbing minority has always been there, we just didn't used to take those fringe ideas seriously. 'Compromise' with the radical fringe is not inherently required.

Re: Our nation cannot censor its way back to cultural health

#87

Post by klyrs »

josephcsible wrote: post #74
klyrs wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you can find a way to teach that without violating the Establishment Clause, sure. The only way forward I can see here would look like a comparative history of religions course, which would teach various creation stories from a neutral viewpoint. And that doesn't seem to be what those campaigning for anti-evolution education have been looking for. Curious if you've got any fresh ideas, though.

Maybe that was a bad example. What if instead of something religious, there was a class teaching some kooky conspiracy theory as fact, like a physics elective saying that perpetual motion is possible, but that the patents to make it work well enough to overcome friction have all been bought up by Big Oil and suppressed?

It would need the support of textbook companies to print it, school boards to buy into it, teachers to deliver it, and students interested in taking it. There's a whole marketplace of ideas out there, and the course you're proposing simply wouldn't survive it.

Re: Our nation cannot censor its way back to cultural health

#88

Post by ianai »

wpietri wrote: post #78
klyrs wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think this is a conservative opinion piece -- or at least, it's not well aligned to the Republican tribe. While it does mention some examples of cancellation on the left, it also devotes significant focus to legislation by Republicans attacking the freedom of speech in academia. But, sadly, it appears that most of the commenters here are responding to what they expect from the title.

It is very obviously conservative in language and origin; you only have to read French's bio or about where The Dispatch's come sfrom. Their tag line is, "Fact-based reporting and commentary on politics, policy and culture -- informed by conservative principles". 5 years ago this would have no question passed for a conservative piece. What has shifted here is the rapid Republican/Trumpist slide toward authoritarianis…

But aren’t bouncers a sign of a very popular bar? I don’t think that makes the point they’re targeting as an analogy.

Good comment though.

Re: Our nation cannot censor its way back to cultural health

#90

Post by bradleyjg »

JohnTHaller wrote: post #31
CaioAlonso wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is that a problem?

Political pieces are generally considered off-topic, especially opinion pieces: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html There's always been the odd liberal or conservative biased pieces that get posted to HN over the 11+ years I've been here. But there's been a ton of conservative pieces lately and they often seem to be from newer HN accounts. It seems similar to some of the patterns seen in some of the subr…

This is the most ideological time of my life (I’m in my 40s). Every non trivial thread on HN has comments that could be fairly characterized as political in some way.

My real world experience is not quite that extreme but it’s certainly more so than it used to be, particularly in any gathering that includes twenty-somethings.

Maybe the 60s were like this, I’d be interested to hear a comparison from someone that lived through them.

Post reply on HN