You can't censor away extremism or any other problem • Hacker News Board

Re: You can't censor away extremism or any other problem

#111

Post by DubiousPusher » Fri, Mar 12, 2021, 7:07 AM UTC

vbezhenar wrote: post #26

DubiousPusher wrote: post #13

If you cannot censor away opinions, if suppression of ideas doesn't work then why in exactly these kinds of articles do people bemoan it as dangerous? I may agree that most censorship is wrong but it does work. It worked for centuries to help maintain systems of inequality. It worked for centuries to maintain familial control and enforce sexual monoculture in many countries. Information control works so well, it prev…

Of course you can do it in theory. The question is, whether you can do it today and whether those attempts will turn out more dangerous than helpful. IT achievements allows for extremely easy exchange of the information throughout the world. You can easily circumvent many kinds of blocking. You have E2E conversations available to masses, so you can't effectively censor anything centrally. Whether that's good or bad i…

> Of course you can do it in theory. The question is, whether you can do it today and whether those attempts will turn out more dangerous than helpful.

Allow me to restate my position more precisely. I believe the supresion of information has worked in the past. And based on this I will need very compelling evidence to convince me that we live in a special time when it is impossible and no longer is effective.

I'm happy to be wrong but am skeptical when people begin claiming their circumstances are special in history.

Re: You can't censor away extremism or any other problem

#112

Post by ttt0 » Fri, Mar 12, 2021, 7:07 AM UTC

k4c9x wrote: post #98

smsm42 wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are usually two steps here: 1. Declare people who disagree with you fascists 2. Declare that it's impossible to dialogue with fascists Then it all becomes very easy.

No, it's: 1. Declare people that want a fascists form of government fascists 2. there is no 2. It's not word play, it's just facts.

You mean like corporatism? I don't think I ever saw anyone arguing for that besides left-wingers. Not explicitly at least.

Or do you mean fascist as a slur, ie. anything I don't like?

Re: You can't censor away extremism or any other problem

#113

Post by NaturalPhallacy » Fri, Mar 12, 2021, 7:09 AM UTC

vladvasiliu wrote: post #87

tshaddox wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Note how “to defend your right to say it” actually makes sense in its normal context of positive and negative rights. One can in theory fight to defend every person’s right to say what they want to say, because saying something generally does not preclude anyone else from also saying something. However, these modifications doesn’t work the same way: “to defend your right to be trending on Twitter” or “to defend your…

Disclaimer: I don't really use Twitter, so my understanding of its mechanics might be wrong. Isn't "trending on Twitter" a popularity contest? As in something's "trending" because more people (users, as opposed to Twitter the company or their moderators) have chosen to interact with that tweet instead of some other? I think that "to defend your right to say it", in this context, does mean "to defend your right to be…

>Isn't "trending on Twitter" a popularity contest?

Right up until it runs into their 'trending blacklist'. An admin tool that the existence of was leaked a while back.

Re: You can't censor away extremism or any other problem

#114

Post by hef19898 » Fri, Mar 12, 2021, 7:10 AM UTC

dmingod666 wrote: post #17

My reading from the outside is, the left needs to realize (I'm sure it applies to the right equally as well) that scolding people into guilt is not a viable approach to affect action or to change perceptions when you're dealing with adults. Neither does boxing people into this, that and that category do any good. Like if all you want to do is dehumanize those guys so you can happily insult / hurt them without hurting…

[flagged]

Re: You can't censor away extremism or any other problem

#115

Post by nindalf » Fri, Mar 12, 2021, 7:10 AM UTC

I'm surprised to see people agreeing with this hypothesis ... while commenting on HN. I'm a huge fan of the site rules (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html) and the way they are applied by the moderation team. But that said, HN has the most heavy handed censorship of any site I frequent. Read all the rules from start to finish and ask yourself if you'd be ok following these rules in every Internet forum.

"Strong moderation" and "heavy censorship" are the same thing, just dependent on whether you agree with the moderation or not. If you disagree, please show me a site without moderation that still has high quality discussion.

Re: You can't censor away extremism or any other problem

#116

Post by kristopolous » Fri, Mar 12, 2021, 7:11 AM UTC

NaturalPhallacy wrote: post #93

Sohcahtoa82 wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What the right also needs is a realization that some of its beliefs are akin to extremism. And some of the right inspired policies have really really hurt and isolated a significant population. The right needs to soften it's stand on such issues. It's such a generic statement that it's meaningless and could apply to any group of opinions.

Doesn't mean it's wrong... The racists on the right know they're racists. They admit it. The racists I've encountered on the left are the racism-of-low-expectations kind with a dash of openly-racist-against-white-people, and then they go and act morally superior to people who aren't racist against any race. The sanctimony is grating.

Really? Where?

Usually I've seen forms like this

"I strongly believe in (basic description of X)"

"You know that's X, right?!"

"I'm not X"

"Alright, would you say you believe in (wikipedias first paragraph on X)?"

"Oh yes! You really understand!"

"You know I just lifted that from wikipedia article on X"

"Let me hear it again. Ok, that's not exactly right." Etc...

Try it yourself next time, it's pretty remarkable. They're not acting in bad faith or trying to deceive.

It's like an addict who believes they smoke cigarettes not because they have an addiction but because they enjoy the taste.

Most people want to believe they've made the right decisions (https://grist.org/article/80-percent-of-humans-are-delusiona...). They think racism is wrong so therefore their beliefs can't be racist.

Re: You can't censor away extremism or any other problem

#117

Post by glogla » Fri, Mar 12, 2021, 7:12 AM UTC

runarberg wrote: post #53

runarberg wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

this might be false equivalence. People far on the left (except from some nas-bols; which I’ve never encountered in the wild) call them selfs anti-facists. It is clear who their greatest enemy is. In fact far left groups (like food not bombs, etc.) often engage in social programs called mutual aid where the goal is to spread propaganda through helping the masses.

At the risk of entertaining the no true Scotsman : A leftist that doesn’t empathize with the masses, is not a true leftist.

Thats hard since sometimes the masses are fighting against being helped (because that would be socialism) while languishing in poverty.

Do they really have the right to commit suicide by policy, taking us with them via climate change?

It is realy hard to empathize with those.

Re: You can't censor away extremism or any other problem

#118

Post by _v7gu » Fri, Mar 12, 2021, 7:12 AM UTC

jackjeff wrote: post #62

I know the article spends its time describing how anti hate speech laws in Western Europe are not working. But frankly they’re not enforced. I think this is why they don’t work. I see censorship has putting dirt under the carpet. People will try again. There’s no accountability. Social media censorship would ban flashing boobs with the same enthusiasm as Nazi propaganda. The latter is not a breach of terms and condit…

> “all Mexicans are rapists” (a Trump quote)

How can any sane person claim this without even giving a source?

Re: You can't censor away extremism or any other problem

#119

Post by NaturalPhallacy » Fri, Mar 12, 2021, 7:13 AM UTC

square_usual wrote: post #55

dkjaudyeqooe wrote: post #4

Like most of these rants against "censorship" they skip over people's rights to restrict speech as a form of speech itself: there is no moral (or legal) right to give people you disagree with a forum or audience to express their view. Calling to silence others (that is, encouraging them to take your view of not giving them an audience) is fine as long as people have a choice on how to respond. If there is some notion…

> Are powerful monopolies (or near monopolies) wrong to censor? No, because they have the same speech rights as others, the problem there lies in the market power of the monopolies, not their speech. This doesn't work if every platform - whether they have market power or not - are compelled to censor by mobs. Most recently, Glenn Greenwald wrote about journalists trying to get Substack to censor its authors [1]. Well…

>There is a pardadox of tolerance with respect to free speech. We cannot expect to maintain freedom of expression if we treat everyone who actually expresses themselves as a sinner.

In every thread about free speech, the people against it cite the 'paradox of tolerance'. Or half of it anyway. They invariably leave off the back half, which is pointedly anti-censorship:

>Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — *In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise.* But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant.

-Karl Popper

Re: You can't censor away extremism or any other problem

#120

Post by hef19898 » Fri, Mar 12, 2021, 7:13 AM UTC

koonsolo wrote: post #40

dmingod666 wrote: post #17

My reading from the outside is, the left needs to realize (I'm sure it applies to the right equally as well) that scolding people into guilt is not a viable approach to affect action or to change perceptions when you're dealing with adults. Neither does boxing people into this, that and that category do any good. Like if all you want to do is dehumanize those guys so you can happily insult / hurt them without hurting…

Reminds me of some test I read in a book (can't remember which one). A teacher asks some student to stand up and raise his hands before him. The teacher stands in front of him and does the same, touching the students hands. Then the teacher starts pushing, and the student uses force to stay in place. Then the teacher uses more force, and so does the student. Finally the teacher asks: "Whay are you pushing me?". "Beca…

So in that case, the party with authority and power asked the other to do something. Then the powerful party started pushing and then complained about counter pressure. Sounds familiar.