Our nation cannot censor its way back to cultural health • Hacker News Board

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

#121

Post by londgine » Mon, Feb 07, 2022, 4:59 AM UTC

klyrs wrote: post #34

josephcsible wrote: post #2

One major distinction this glosses over is the difference between making it so you can't read something (e.g., banning it), and making it so you aren't required to read something (e.g., removing it from the curriculum). Only the former is censorship.

> Why does Professor Sachs make this assertion? On November 12, the governor signed a bill that makes it unlawful to include “instruction relating to critical race theory in any portion of the district's required curriculum ... or any other curriculum offered by the district or school .” Now do the steel man (emphasis mine)

Let's make an analogy. I suspect there are some teachers who may teach evolution as "just a theory" and add creationism to what they teach. I don't mind if children learn about creationism, but during their required hours at state sponsored schools, I don't want the time to be wasted teaching creationism. So I would like to restrict creationism from the curriculum.

Or how about this analogy, Zambia is a real county with real history. However, I care about what American kids learn. While they can spend a week learning about Zambia (and Tajikistan, Gabon, Kiribati, and all 200 world countries [taking 4 years]), I would prefer that they spend that time doing something else more important just as US history. So I would like to restrict the amount of world history from the curriculum.

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

#122

Post by mLuby » Mon, Feb 07, 2022, 4:59 AM UTC

ReactiveJelly wrote: post #97

BobbyJo wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

I wonder if this is true. Is there any guide to finding these ideas that I might be sheltering myself from, that I should not be sheltering myself from?

Figure out who your tribe considers "the enemy" and then sneak over to the "enemy's camp" to see what they're talking about. 3 tactics, from trivial to dangerous:

1) Use a private or different browser, VPN, or Tor to exit your personal filter bubble, then search for news or trends and see what the algorithms serve to fresh faces.

2) US-specific example: If you're a Democrat/Republican, read the Fox News/NY Times politics or opinion section. If you know some big names on the "enemy side" go consume some of their content. It'd also be a good idea to read some news stories from outside the US; they don't have much stake in the fight and have some distance, so it's good for perspective.

3) Ask that family member (the one your other family members proudly blocked on Facebook) what their news sources are. Just a word of warning: they may take this as a sign you're "defecting" and talk your ear off, so try to come up with a way to time-limit it, like "it's for a school paper."

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

#123

Post by gpm » Mon, Feb 07, 2022, 5:04 AM UTC

tomlockwood wrote: post #40

wayoutthere wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s not censorship, it’s editorial oversight.

Editors censor things!

No, editors choose not to have the organization they work for say things, censoring things is stopping other people and organizations from saying things, not stopping the organization you are part of from saying things.

This is just a bit strange on the internet, because so much of what we see is one organization exactly repeating what someone else said on their request, so it's the organization saying it, but it feels like maybe it isn't.

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

#124

Post by fallingknife » Mon, Feb 07, 2022, 5:04 AM UTC

asveikau wrote: post #42

refurb wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I come to HN for a diversity of opinion. I'm more interested in the ideas than the ideology of the authors. Good ideas can come from anywhere.

I feel like the recent thread on Joe Rogan was a bit less "diversity of opinion" and more "a large crowd expressing fringe narratives". While most people in other places were talking about Joe Rogan's support for ivermectin, telling people to avoid vaccines, or platforming the guy who calls pandemic response "mass psychosis", over here, the story was that Spotify was censoring him, and what an outrage that is.

At this point covid is endemic. This means that your probability of catching it is 1. "Mass psychosis" is a good term for continuing to impose restrictions on society which no medical experts think will halt the spread of the virus.

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

#125

Post by BobbyJo » Mon, Feb 07, 2022, 5:05 AM UTC

vba616 wrote: post #110

BobbyJo wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

>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. The ability? I think the lack of ability. I think it's wrong to assign agency to people over what they see just because they provide inputs to the algorithms.

Its not just the black boxes though. You pick who you follow and hear from as well. Someone who is all in on Bernie probably isn't following many right wing publications and vice-versa. Not many people out there are interested in even being exposed to the other side of things.

When public discourse was a physical event, you were forced to hear both sides as they exist in your neighborhood. Now you can choose to ignore your entire state and, instead, listen to a small cult on the other side of the planet if it so suits you. Take, for instance, those few who have left the west to join ISIS.

It's the picking and choosing that allows people to leave their reality behind, for better or worse.

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

#126

Post by polski-g » Mon, Feb 07, 2022, 5:12 AM UTC

Pxtl wrote: post #100

The reason 21st century young people have come around against free speech is quite simply because they've experienced it in its purest form: the 2000s internet. The upside: we all pirated a crapload of good music. The downside: new era of fascism. And it's worth noting that the piracy, which is in itself a form of speech, was shut down... But the racism wasn't. Like, if I copied and pasted the above Dispatch article…

No post body was provided.

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

#127

Post by asveikau » Mon, Feb 07, 2022, 5:19 AM UTC

fallingknife wrote: post #124

asveikau wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel like the recent thread on Joe Rogan was a bit less "diversity of opinion" and more "a large crowd expressing fringe narratives". While most people in other places were talking about Joe Rogan's support for ivermectin, telling people to avoid vaccines, or platforming the guy who calls pandemic response "mass psychosis", over here, the story was that Spotify was censoring him, and what an outrage that is.

At this point covid is endemic. This means that your probability of catching it is 1. "Mass psychosis" is a good term for continuing to impose restrictions on society which no medical experts think will halt the spread of the virus.

Despite good news lately I do not believe we're at endemicity quite, or that probably of catching is 1. It will probably take time for governments to discover and adjust to a changing situation.

Aside from that, I have been close to people who suffer psychosis. I'd say you're pretty wrong on that too.

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

#128

Post by somenameforme » Mon, Feb 07, 2022, 5:26 AM UTC

Nursie wrote: post #18

The rants about "cancel culture" from the US right are hilarious, given their long history of boycotts of brands they dislike and escalating hate and fear for everything up to actual book burnings of material like Harry Potter. I'm not saying that the accusations of cancel culture are unfounded, I'm saying they are wildly hypocritical. (It's good that efforts at censorship on the right are raised in the article as a…

I think there would by hypocrisy if you had the same people who supported censorship in the past now opposing it, though even then it begs the question of whether that is hypocrisy or simply an evolution of views. But as for parties, in the US there are, for all intents and purposes, only two parties. And as the views of society change, these parties change out of necessity.

To give another example, as recently as 2004 [1] the majority of those within the "US left" to use your phrasing, opposed gay marriage, and as recently as 2012 leading "US left" politicians were publicly opposed to it. Then in a remarkably brief period of time LGBT rights (including marriage) become a fundamental cornerstone of the party's political identity. It's not really hypocrisy so much as the fact that in order to maintain electoral dominance, the parties need to adopt to society. They (the parties) can then do the mental gymnastics to rationalize on their platforms how big war and surveillance is small government, or how censorship is liberal, afterwards.

And this isn't just a contemporary phenomena. Sometime from the mid 19th to early 20th century the parties swapped their positions on nearly everything. And this was entirely organic - it's not like the groups just made an official decision to nameswap. I could illustrate this with details, but it's much easier to just use an example. Abraham Lincoln was a republican, and every single confederate state was democrat. The transition from democrats becoming republicans and vice versa is something you can find plentiful hits online for if you're interested in more details.

[1] - https://news.gallup.com/poll/350486/record-high-support-same...

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

#129

Post by bruce511 » Mon, Feb 07, 2022, 5:33 AM UTC

londgine wrote: post #121

klyrs wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why does Professor Sachs make this assertion? On November 12, the governor signed a bill that makes it unlawful to include “instruction relating to critical race theory in any portion of the district's required curriculum ... or any other curriculum offered by the district or school .” Now do the steel man (emphasis mine)

Let's make an analogy. I suspect there are some teachers who may teach evolution as "just a theory" and add creationism to what they teach. I don't mind if children learn about creationism, but during their required hours at state sponsored schools, I don't want the time to be wasted teaching creationism. So I would like to restrict creationism from the curriculum. Or how about this analogy, Zambia is a real county w…

You fall into the trap here of having someone decide for others what is and is not valuable to learn.

Once you take this step you legitimise the idea that there is an authority with the power to censor - ostensibly for good reasons - and sooner or later that power will bend somewhere else.

It's important that children learn about everything, especially about opposing ideas because only then can they form their own opinions and develop critical thinking, and most importantly the ability to reevaluate an idea based on changing data.

To paraphrase your analogy I prefer my children to only learn about the US healthcare system, and not waste time learning about how other countries do it for better outcomes with less money.

And this is the problem with your post - who decides what is OK, and what is a waste of time?

Ps - I am upvoting you not because you are right, but because you add a valuable perspective to the conversation, and I support your willingness to bring it.

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

#130

Post by jimmygrapes » Mon, Feb 07, 2022, 5:40 AM UTC

mLuby wrote: post #122

ReactiveJelly wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder if this is true. Is there any guide to finding these ideas that I might be sheltering myself from, that I should not be sheltering myself from?

Figure out who your tribe considers "the enemy" and then sneak over to the "enemy's camp" to see what they're talking about. 3 tactics, from trivial to dangerous: 1) Use a private or different browser, VPN, or Tor to exit your personal filter bubble, then search for news or trends and see what the algorithms serve to fresh faces. 2) US-specific example: If you're a Democrat/Republican, read the Fox News/NY Times poli…

I would add that when doing this recon, steelman their ideas. Try to justify them, however horrible they seem to you. Drop your guard and prejudices enough to understand why they have those ideas. You don't have to accept them in the end, but you'll never know how to make amends or talk to somebody you refuse to understand.