Why do you host offensive content? • Hacker News Board

Re: Why do you host offensive content?

#101

Post by viklove » Mon, Jul 08, 2019, 6:05 PM UTC

Nursie wrote: post #86

dlivingston wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> People are stupid. Really, really stupid. But thank god you and I are smart - really, really smart. So smart, in fact, that we should take it upon ourselves to police the thoughts and words of the 'lessers'.

Not what I claimed, I'm not saying I have a solution here, or that anyone should be empowered to arbitrate. Merely that the idealist position is also pretty wrongheaded.

> I'm not saying [...] that anyone should be empowered to arbitrate.

> I think those providing speech platforms [...] should probably take more responsibility for what they propagate.

Hmm... It seems like that's exactly what you said earlier. Walking it back now?

Re: Why do you host offensive content?

#102

Post by stcredzero » Mon, Jul 08, 2019, 6:06 PM UTC

klyrs wrote: post #81

ulzeraj wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But who decides and points out what should be removed. What is “far right” from the point of view from someone who is “far left”? It began with Alex Jones and that kinda made sense but now the same people and institutions are asking for the head of individuals like Phillip DeFranco. The thing about censorship is that it never stops where you think it should.

> ...now the same people and institutions are asking for the head of individuals like Phillip DeFranco. I'm fairly lefty, and haven't heard of this Phillip DeFranco before. Surely if I consult my biased google bubble, it will show me the dirt on him? Well, not really: > “Hey, writer here,” Roose responded. “This collage is just a sample from his viewing history. Some far-right, some not.” [1] And reading the original…

You're free to describe all of that as 'asking for heads,' but that really doesn't seem to be the case here.

It's a staple of the Far Left in 2019, to vilify purely through association. For example, every time I've asked for proof that Tim Pool is "Alt-Right," I've only ever received vilification through association as "proof." The same pseudo logic is used to claim that Ben Shapiro (a devout yamaka wearing adherent of Judaism and arguably a top target of the Alt Right) is "Alt-Right."

In fact, the thrust of the NYT article is that YouTube's recommendations take folks from moderate content, and send them on a spiral to more extreme content.

As far as I can tell, this is just more of the tactic of moving the Overton Window left, by re-labeling the center as "Far Right." It's dishonest and manipulative. I say this as a lifelong Democratic voter and someone who tests center-left on the Political Compass test.

Re: Why do you host offensive content?

#103

Post by mikestew » Mon, Jul 08, 2019, 6:11 PM UTC

waynecochran wrote: post #25

stronglikedan wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Free Speech for bad ideas is as important as free speech for good ideas. I would argue that it's more important. > Phillip DeFranco Edit regarding your edit: Complaining about downvotes is cringe inducing.

I don't care about downvotes -- it was the immediacy of it.

That just means that a person inclined to downvote your comment saw it within seconds after posting. It’s not like there’s a shot clock for posts.

Re: Why do you host offensive content?

#104

Post by stcredzero » Mon, Jul 08, 2019, 6:11 PM UTC

mayniac wrote: post #97

Nursie wrote: post #7

> "Finally, censorship is always bad, for a variety of well understood reasons that we don't need to repeat here. But in the case of some types of content, it has special dangers. When you censor a web site based on the extreme or dangerous views of its creator(s), you haven't stopped those people from thinking that way. You haven't made them go away. You certainly haven't stopped the people who hold those views from…

>The idea that good ideas will win, and that common sense and rationality will take the day, are not really supported by what we see around the net. Instead the greater internet fuckwad theorem holds more true, and the spread of vile, violent ideologies is enabled. The anti-vax movement and climate change deniers are better examples of this than Nazis and similar shitheads, IMO. There's easily accessible, scientifica…

The anti-vax movement and climate change deniers are better examples of this

The Anti-Vax movement is a prime example of the Free Marketplace of Ideas working!

https://slate.com/technology/2019/06/measles-outbreak-anti-v...

Nazis and similar shitheads are in the same boat. I would agree that Climate Change Deniers are an example of the Free Marketplace of Ideas not having worked yet. However, suppressing them just gives them ammunition. Best to just keep debunking: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ugwqXKHLrGk

(Re: The potholer54 video: If you dislike Steven Crowder, you should be glad he's a Climate Change Denier. That's just about the biggest hole in his hull!)

Re: Why do you host offensive content?

#105

Post by jakelazaroff » Mon, Jul 08, 2019, 6:16 PM UTC

whiddershins wrote: post #69

jakelazaroff wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, but recognize that the line is entirely arbitrary. The only difference between child pornography, libel, white supremacist content and being mean is that people got together and said "you know what, this seems like just a bit too far". This doesn't mean that we shouldn't draw lines between speech we're okay with and speech we're not. Literally every human being on the planet does it! This is why I don't like "m…

I am not sure you are correct. Libel has a pretty narrow definition and clearly leaves the realm of opinions and ideas to a different realm of willfully lying about someone with the intent to harm them personally. The fact that we remove libel protections from public figures including politicians already makes this an extremely narrow subset of speech. Arguing that this is just another example of an arbitrary line wi…

But the point is, why is libel illegal at all? I can mislead someone in order to get someone to buy something from me, but if I lie about a person it's not okay? Why is reputational damage worse than monetary?

The fact that it's okay to libel a public figure (a fact I didn't know until now!) further underscores how arbitrary it is. At what level of renown are you a "public figure"? How is it measured?

We should be as stringent as possible in legal exceptions to freedom of speech. But there's no moral obligation to protect any given speech from social consequences (such as getting kicked from your web host). No one is actually a free speech absolutist.

Re: Why do you host offensive content?

#106

Post by waynecochran » Mon, Jul 08, 2019, 6:17 PM UTC

komali2 wrote: post #93

waynecochran wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This requires nuance and discussion, but things like the following are generally not productive and not protected by free speech. Defamation against private individual (including libel and slander) Child pornography Blackmail Incitement to imminent violence Solicitations to commit crimes I think any discussion concerning "ideas" is fair game. It gets murky when dealing with individuals. None of the things on the list…

I admit I was playing devil's advocate, but I appreciate the good faith response. I genuinely do have trouble unifying my instinct that nazi propaganda, for example, should be censored, against my understanding that what constitutes "solicitation to commit crimes" is relative to what a society considers "good" or "bad," which is (somewhat) arbitrary. Take your list as an example. Any action that is damaging to the St…

Yes I think it is impossible to completely codify a list. I can always think of exceptions, grey areas, ways to exploit individuals, and ways individuals can create "loop holes."

I think the main problem is the human heart ... but that is a different discussion.

Re: Why do you host offensive content?

#107

Post by stcredzero » Mon, Jul 08, 2019, 6:18 PM UTC

Frondo wrote: post #54

Nursie wrote: post #7

> "Finally, censorship is always bad, for a variety of well understood reasons that we don't need to repeat here. But in the case of some types of content, it has special dangers. When you censor a web site based on the extreme or dangerous views of its creator(s), you haven't stopped those people from thinking that way. You haven't made them go away. You certainly haven't stopped the people who hold those views from…

I used to be much more of a free-speech absolutist. It wasn't til I started reading about how genocides start that that started to change for me. There is a pretty direct line drawn between speech and violence against out-groups; anyone who says otherwise would do well to read about the Rwandan genocide and their 200 days of public radio broadcasting demonizing the Tutsis prior to the genocide itself. After all, if t…

There is a pretty direct line drawn between speech and violence against out-groups; anyone who says otherwise would do well to read about the Rwandan genocide and their 200 days of public radio broadcasting demonizing the Tutsis prior to the genocide itself.

If you're concerned about the "pretty direct line drawn between speech and violence against out-groups" then you should be paying keen attention to the normalization of political intimidation and violence in the past several years.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aC4u1zo6OpQ

The fact that the media have been giving groups tacit support, by not or minimally covering their assaults and vandalism, while even giving them positive spin, should raise some concern.

I haven't often seen the position that incitements to violence should also be protected speech

They should not be. "Punch a Nazi" -- despite the vileness of the purported targets -- shouldn't be allowed. "Milkshaking" is incitement to assault. The fact that Twitter allows those to continue shows a groupthink bias at operation there.

Re: Why do you host offensive content?

#108

Post by jakelazaroff » Mon, Jul 08, 2019, 6:23 PM UTC

waynecochran wrote: post #67

UncleMeat wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, and to lots of us we believe that certain ideas are simply harmful with no benefit. We don't disagree on the principles. We disagree on where the lines are drawn.

Some have suggested one place a line can be drawn: It's always OK to "attack" an "idea" but never to "attack" an individual.

But again, there's nothing that makes this line objectively better than any other. It makes sense to me, even though it's kind of vague — but the point is that it's still subjective.

Re: Why do you host offensive content?

#109

Post by sdinsn » Mon, Jul 08, 2019, 6:23 PM UTC

lucideer wrote: post #46

falcolas wrote: post #4

Honest, but leading, question in return: Offensive to whom? 90% of the population? Wouldn't that block out the Church of Satan's distributed materials (that is, coloring books)? To 80% of the population? Wouldn't that be the Book of Mormon? To 60%? The Quran? I think this part of their answer is a great response: "Of course, the simplest reason is that it's not up to us to decide what the rest of the world should or…

Slightly more pragmatic reframing of the question: > "Why do you host harmful content?" To which your returned question would be similarly open-ended: Harmful to whom? Define harmless content. Etc. ... but probably a little more "down to earth" in terms of discussing the bounds of such definitions. The root of being "offended" may often be grounded in an agenda to silence and control, but it's typically defended by r…

I disagree. Both "offensive" and "harmful" are up to debate based on arbitrary views / moral codes.

Re: Why do you host offensive content?

#110

Post by stcredzero » Mon, Jul 08, 2019, 6:24 PM UTC

root_axis wrote: post #95

stcredzero wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn't true. A few examples. If you have to resort to extreme examples, then it shows the weakness of your position. Those examples are mostly illegal. It's not "censorship" in the context of Free Speech if one is counteracting illegal activity. The serious societal problems come in when there is censorship on an ideological basis. This idea that "free speech" means everyone has to agree to let everything appear…

> If you have to resort to extreme examples, then it shows the weakness of your position What is extreme about them? An example of an extreme would be "child porn" or "your credit card number" or "the password to your email". The examples I listed are pretty mundane and actually quite common. Either way, you haven't actually explained why any of the examples I listed would be "bad". > Those examples are mostly illega…

What is extreme about them?

Many of them are illegal.

An example of an extreme would be "child porn" or "your credit card number" or "the password to your email".

Also illegal.

None of those examples are illegal

Most of those examples would constitute evidence of illegal activity.

If it's illegal does that mean it's not censorship to remove it?

If it's illegal, then it's no longer protected by the principle of Free Speech. The issue isn't censorship. It's the principle of Free Speech.

Based on that logic you should never be able to delete a comment from your personal blog because you're censoring the critics.

No. Ethically, that would be wrong. So too, would not taking down a dox or an illegally obtained naked photo. Neither taking down a dox or an illegally obtained naked photo would be examples of the suppression of Free Speech.

Basically, you're engaging in the dishonest conceit of equating Free Speech and censorship. They are not the same thing. At issue is the subset of censorship which abrogates Free Speech.