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

201–210 of 366 posts

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

#201

Post by ithkuil »

TulliusCicero wrote: post #165
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.

Also, when it comes to publication, plenty of stuff used to be essentially banned by 'platforms', it just wasn't obvious because "user-generated content" was barely a thing (letters to the editor) in comparison to people posting on Facebook and Youtube and Twitter and Tiktok. Random people being able to post content for thousands or even millions to immediately see, with no explicit gatekeepers prior to submission; t…

I agree. It doesn't help that these platforms themselves want to be all things for all people and have partially succeeded. That's why most people just don't see the parallel with publishing and its rules. For them Twitter and Facebook are the internet

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

#202

Post by enriquto »

synaesthesisx wrote: post #197
dusted wrote: post #178

The application of censorship itself, not what is being censored, is the main symptom of the declining cultural health. The mentality that there are so universally wrong and right things that the right ones must be forced upon any mind, no matter the context, and the wrong ones must be extinguished no matter the context.

Censorship is inherently dangerous because it can be weaponized to silence dissenting minorities.

> Censorship is inherently dangerous because it can be weaponized to silence dissenting minorities.

It's its main purpose. The word "can" in your sentence is a bit too generous.

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

#203

Post by 6510 »

bushbaba wrote: post #166
issa wrote: post #139

I have a foreign wife and it really drives home one truth: America is a very nuanced place. We have this idea of almost unlimited free speech. Which sounds great, but in practice, it is not really true. Because ultimately, Americans do not have equal rights. We see this over and over in different aspects of society. The Frederick Douglas example from Boston in the article is a great example of why free speech is good…

We should remember that the term free speech was coined many hundreds of years ago. During that timeframe, talking against the current ruler could lead to one’s death.

What you say still has consequences. Those might not be ideal at any time. The question is if you should be allowed to say it. If the line would be drawn there we must then discuss what you are allowed to think.

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

#204

Post by raxxorrax »

bryanrasmussen wrote: post #192
raxxorrax wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I doubt you will find any example where minorities suffered from too much free speech. The truth it that there are always some people who pretend to know better and put pressure on officials. These people are not friendly to any minority and should be disregarded. The people in power currently try everything to restrict speech, but it is also welcomed by a certain sheltered demographic whose worst part of the day is…

>I doubt you will find any example where minorities suffered from too much free speech. people of minority X are subhumans and should not be allowed the same rights as the rest of us! Yes, minorities did not suffer from having free speech; they did suffer from others having it.

My ethnicity is often called subhuman on the internet. I don't mind it because those that utter such statements are punished enough with being themselves that I don't feel it a necessity to even react to it. I also don't have to read it. I don't believe their position is popular in a way that it is in any way relevant.

It doesn't phase me as much as others speaking in my stead or far worse, alleging a indemonstrable hatred or bias towards other ethnicities. People I like very much have been accused of hating me because some didn't like their politics. That is way more offensive to me than the usual vulgar bloke that tries to get a reaction for his self-confidence.

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

#205

Post by bruce511 »

roenxi wrote: post #145
bruce511 wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 op…

He's talking about this at a school. The fundamental premise of a school is that someone is going to decide what is and is not valuable to learn. And that there is an authority (embodied in the teacher) who has the power to decide what will and will not be discussed in class. Assuming you mean what you wrote, you may be arguing for abolishing the public school system. In principle that seems like an interesting idea,…

So yes, clearly there is a carriculim, and someone has to set that, and there will be a flavor to that carriculim based on the social environment.

I don't have a problem with that, and I don't have a problem with teachers bringing their own personality to the classroom. I am not vegan, but if my kid has a vegan teacher that would be valuable in exposing them to that world-view.

I do object to political interference in education. When the govt decided what material is OK, and what is not, then you remove the variety of thought which exists in the world. And ultimately that leads to a lack of personal critical thinking which leads young (and older) adults to belive anything.

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

#206

Post by raxxorrax »

TulliusCicero wrote: post #165
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.

Also, when it comes to publication, plenty of stuff used to be essentially banned by 'platforms', it just wasn't obvious because "user-generated content" was barely a thing (letters to the editor) in comparison to people posting on Facebook and Youtube and Twitter and Tiktok. Random people being able to post content for thousands or even millions to immediately see, with no explicit gatekeepers prior to submission; t…

Facebook and Twitter ban for political reasons, which is entirely different than banning spam.

Banning spam is a strawman in this discussion. I don't think there is constructive discussion on that basis.

Free speech protects good faith debates.

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

#207

Post by 0x4d464d48 »

TulliusCicero wrote: post #165
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.

Also, when it comes to publication, plenty of stuff used to be essentially banned by 'platforms', it just wasn't obvious because "user-generated content" was barely a thing (letters to the editor) in comparison to people posting on Facebook and Youtube and Twitter and Tiktok. Random people being able to post content for thousands or even millions to immediately see, with no explicit gatekeepers prior to submission; t…

"I think that for platforms like Twitter and Facebook, perhaps it may make more sense to end up a situation more like newspapers, where you have more reputable papers like the NYT, WaPo, and WSJ that have stricter rules, and then you also have the National Enquirer or other random outlets that have little to no standards."

Don't forget, media outlets can get the pants sued off of them for knowlingly publishing false and defamatory information. I think we're well past the point of websites being held liable for the content they host, user generated or not, and make public/promote algorithmically.

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

#208

Post by scotty79 »

raxxorrax wrote: post #187
issa wrote: post #139

I have a foreign wife and it really drives home one truth: America is a very nuanced place. We have this idea of almost unlimited free speech. Which sounds great, but in practice, it is not really true. Because ultimately, Americans do not have equal rights. We see this over and over in different aspects of society. The Frederick Douglas example from Boston in the article is a great example of why free speech is good…

I doubt you will find any example where minorities suffered from too much free speech. The truth it that there are always some people who pretend to know better and put pressure on officials. These people are not friendly to any minority and should be disregarded. The people in power currently try everything to restrict speech, but it is also welcomed by a certain sheltered demographic whose worst part of the day is…

Didn't jewish minority suffer because of too much of free speech in Germany at some point?

What about too much of free speech Hutu enjoyed in Rwanda at some point?

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

#209

Post by TulliusCicero »

raxxorrax wrote: post #206
TulliusCicero wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also, when it comes to publication, plenty of stuff used to be essentially banned by 'platforms', it just wasn't obvious because "user-generated content" was barely a thing (letters to the editor) in comparison to people posting on Facebook and Youtube and Twitter and Tiktok. Random people being able to post content for thousands or even millions to immediately see, with no explicit gatekeepers prior to submission; t…

Facebook and Twitter ban for political reasons, which is entirely different than banning spam. Banning spam is a strawman in this discussion. I don't think there is constructive discussion on that basis. Free speech protects good faith debates.

> Banning spam is a strawman in this discussion. I don't think there is constructive discussion on that basis.

It's not a strawman, as many people assert that platforms should just let anything not-illegal stay up. You may not believe this, but there are others who I've seen assert it.

> Facebook and Twitter ban for political reasons, which is entirely different than banning spam.

It's not the same, but the issue is that once you're past the border of "we'll only ban illegal stuff", you're now in the realm of much more subjective decisionmaking. In practice, many forms of speech could be classified as both political, and harassment/bullying/other bad stuff, which is what usually happens with Facebook.

In their case, they don't want to get into the political sphere, but they do want to bad blatant misinformation, and in practice that does overlap with politics.

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

#210

Post by raxxorrax »

scotty79 wrote: post #208
raxxorrax wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I doubt you will find any example where minorities suffered from too much free speech. The truth it that there are always some people who pretend to know better and put pressure on officials. These people are not friendly to any minority and should be disregarded. The people in power currently try everything to restrict speech, but it is also welcomed by a certain sheltered demographic whose worst part of the day is…

Didn't jewish minority suffer because of too much of free speech in Germany at some point? What about too much of free speech Hutu enjoyed in Rwanda at some point?

No, that was certainly not the reason, on the contrary.

Speech was severely restricted at the time and Germany also had hate speech laws. That probably had a severe negative effect because people became more radical as they were disallowed to vent their grievances. Those that demanded restraint often did it because of their own vanity.

Open hate speech with government propaganda which discriminated against Jews came later. At that point the Nazis already felt justified in their actions.

I cannot say anything to Rwanda because I don't know the conflict. I tend to disbelieve those that said it was because of hateful speech.

Post reply on HN