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

241–250 of 366 posts

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

#241

Post by raxxorrax »

TameAntelope wrote: post #200
EricE wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>"I don’t know how this gets enforced, but we simply cannot give every lunatic a megaphone." At least in the US you can't enforce it - and yes, any lunatic can grab a megaphone if they want. The best way to handle problematic speech is more speech, NOT less. Trying to pretend lunatics don't exist is irrational and often a pretext to just block people that others disagree with. Screw that. Safest place for lunatics is…

Except censorship of radical ideas has been shown to be effective, over and over again. I’m on my phone, but there’s a whole bunch of studies that show the effects of banning radical speech on Twitter (think ISIS), and the outcome was, unsurprisingly, less radical speech on Twitter. It didn’t return, it didn’t evolve, it just… died. Free speech is an important concept, but it’s important at both ends; it’s also free…

These studies are pretty much worthless. Of course it "works" if you remove your political opposition. At least in the short term. Why do a study if you could have just asked any other dictator?

What does "working" even mean? More support for a political party? Less resistance?

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

#242

Post by jacquesm »

YEwSdObPQT wrote: post #237
jacquesm wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

He says exactly what he would do. I am under no illusions of what these people are like (my step brother is affiliated with such groups). That does not mean his analysis of the free speech debate is incorrect If you are alluding to restricting people's speech of views that are unpopular. Those powers will be used against the general population when it becomes politically expedient or will be abused by the authorities…

No post body was provided.

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

#243

Post by raxxorrax »

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…

Well, you are right that conservatives are hypocritical about it, but why should that excuse the behavior of their opposition which has much more grasp on large tech companies that provide platforms for content.

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

#244

Post by zozbot234 »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #140
zozbot234 wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The First Amendment expressly provides for freedom of the press, which was the earliest form of mass speech and the one most directly comparable to publishing something to your "1000 Twitter followers". The only form of "mass speech" that's broadly government-regulated in the U.S. is communication that's broadcasted via the radio spectrum, which is inherently a scarce resource.

> the earliest form of mass speech and the one most directly comparable to publishing something to your "1000 Twitter followers" But that's not what they're calling mass speech. It's not helpful to take someone's post and change the definitions out from under them. To rephrase it without that term: Printing press scale speech is great. This new ability that twitter gives us, trivially reaching millions, was not fores…

Something that's published to "a million followers" will attract criticism very quickly if at all merited. Remember Trump's Twitter feed? That's the scale you're talking about.

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

#245

Post by zozbot234 »

scotty79 wrote: post #220
raxxorrax wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The Weimar Republic maintained a number of criminal provisions for hate crimes and anti-Semitic expression. > The aim of censorship under the Nazi regime was simple: to reinforce Nazi power and to suppress opposing viewpoints and information I believe Goebbels said something that the mistake was giving them free speech in the first place. He didn't like free speech at all, but he was also a propaganda expert and kn…

When Nazi regime came to power it was already too late. And protections against ant-Semitic expression were too weak as evidenced by Nazi regime coming to power by being elected in democratic process. Another source: https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/nazi-propa... "When the Nazis came to power in 1933, the German constitution guaranteed freedom of speech and freedom of the press. Through decrees and l…

> "When the Nazis came to power in 1933, the German constitution guaranteed freedom of speech and freedom of the press."

Note that these rights were not at all guaranteed pre-1919. Censorship of speech and of the press was practically institutionalized in the German Empire. It makes no sense to argue that the rabid anti-Semitism of late-19th c. and early-20th c. Germany was a result of too much freedom; on the contrary, it was directly carried over from previous authoritarian government, The Weimar constitution ultimately came too late to really improve on that state of things.

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

#246

Post by abirch »

raxxorrax wrote: post #230
abirch wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just out of curiosity what are the political posts that have caused people to be banned? I see Jo Jorgensen, Ron Paul, Bernie Sanders, Ted Cruz, Mark Rubio, Mitch McConnell, etc. I've never seen anyone banned for saying to end the Fed. To cut taxes. To have family values.

I don't really know anything about the people you mentioned, I am not from the US. I know Sanders and Cruz but not about any instances of censorship. Who do you think is the target of deplatforming which the current US government promotes? There are also articles about how deplatforming allegedly works, so it has to target some people I guess.

These other people that were mentioned are from all areas of the political spectrum.

After the Capitol Attack in 2021, Twitter deplatformed then President of the United States for inciting violence. Who in the US Government do you think is leading the deplatforming?

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

#247

Post by YEwSdObPQT »

jacquesm wrote: post #242
YEwSdObPQT wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He says exactly what he would do. I am under no illusions of what these people are like (my step brother is affiliated with such groups). That does not mean his analysis of the free speech debate is incorrect If you are alluding to restricting people's speech of views that are unpopular. Those powers will be used against the general population when it becomes politically expedient or will be abused by the authorities…

Quoted post unavailable.

The argument you have presented is a classic tactic that the state uses to justify censorship and its abuse of power. Present scary group of people and then use it to justify taking away everyone's rights.

it is a nonsense because. Firstly There simply isn't enough for these people to be politically relevant. The number of KKK members in the US IIRC is approximately 10,000 in a country of ~350 million. That is 0.002% of the population. Nobody likes these people, they are abrasive and have abhorrent views. They are not going to gain power and start a genocide through airing their views.

The hate speech laws in the UK was sold to the public as stopping islamic extremists, however many of the people that have been affected are ordinary people that pose no threat to anyone saying stupid stuff on social media, usually while drunk. That was not the original intent of the legislation yet it has been abused (and we were promised this wouldn't happen).

Secondly most abuses of power come from the state that is already in power. Over the last two years they have made it illegal in some cases to leave your home or not to wear a mask under the guise of the "greater good". In some cases people been have arrested people for organising protests against such measures, or even been visited by the police for questioning the orthodoxy of the state mandates on social media. In the US I heard they can literally take your property if they suspect (have no proof) that it might be used in illegal activity.

This childish idea of white nationalists taking over the western world if you don't curtail speech is simply the state justifying why it can take away your liberty. You shouldn't be worried about white nationalists they are a statistical anomaly now. What you should be afraid of is how the state is going to abuse its power with new legislation.

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

#248

Post by scotty79 »

zozbot234 wrote: post #245
scotty79 wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When Nazi regime came to power it was already too late. And protections against ant-Semitic expression were too weak as evidenced by Nazi regime coming to power by being elected in democratic process. Another source: https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/nazi-propa... "When the Nazis came to power in 1933, the German constitution guaranteed freedom of speech and freedom of the press. Through decrees and l…

> "When the Nazis came to power in 1933, the German constitution guaranteed freedom of speech and freedom of the press." Note that these rights were not at all guaranteed pre-1919. Censorship of speech and of the press was practically institutionalized in the German Empire. It makes no sense to argue that the rabid anti-Semitism of late-19th c. and early-20th c. Germany was a result of too much freedom; on the contra…

What was too little too late was not the freedom of speech, but laws against anti-Semitic expressions. They were too limited and mellow. Goebbels was sentenced for anti-Semitic expressions which didn't stop him at all.

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

#249

Post by scotty79 »

belorn wrote: post #238
scotty79 wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

The Rwanda civil war was partially the outcome of colonialism by Germany and later Belgian administration, creating a class society where the rich minority group of Tutsi ruled supreme over the more poor Hutu. Belgium introduced identity cards classifying each individual as Tutsi, Hutu, Twa or Naturalised. Pretty obviously, such state of affairs wasn't stable. After world war 2 there were several riots and violence,…

In open, freely expressed incitment to genocide that led to it and extended its scale.

Free speech apart from its all wonderfull qualities is an excelent tool for demagogues. They all are pro free speech of things they like.

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

#250

Post by teddyh »

Nursie wrote: post #224
teddyh wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An accusation of hypocricy is not an argument in the debate; it is a simple ad-hominem, and as such it is a fallacy which can be disregarded.

Pointing out that the person decrying behaviour in others is in fact excusing or even ignoring the actions of their own side (whom they consider more virtuous) is not an ad-hominem, it's an inconsistency or an error in their argument. The accusation of hypocrisy, and blindness to the faults of their favoured group is pertinent and relevant to the arguments being put forward. (Further, I am not expressing a logical di…

> is not an ad-hominem, it's an inconsistency or an error in their argument.

If your position is that one person can make an argument and be wrong because of other things that other person did, you are not denying that the same argument could, possibly, be made by another person and be right. Therefore, this is not arguing against the argument, it is simply opposing the person making it. Hence, ad hominem.

> The accusation of hypocrisy, and blindness to the faults of their favoured group is pertinent

Well, maybe. But at best it’s a tangential issue to the actual argument put forward.

> relevant to the arguments being put forward.

No. Bad things are wrong, and you shouldn’t need to resort to personal attacks in order to argue against them.

> I am not expressing a logical disagreement with the premise of the article, merely laughing at the bald-facedness and ignorance of it.

Sure, but take care that you do not lower the discource down to “Well, you’re ugly!”. Try to argue the points, not the people.

Post reply on HN