Why do you host offensive content? • Hacker News Board

Re: Why do you host offensive content?

#141

Post by waynecochran » Tue, Jul 09, 2019, 12:22 AM UTC

UncleMeat wrote: post #134

waynecochran wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is especially important for the more abhorrent ideas like "genocidal racism" to be exposed. Silencing it and driving it underground will have the opposite effect of what we want. The reasons racism is wrong needs to be constantly reposted -- we forget and repeat our mistakes too often. That is why we have holocaust museums. In fact the dangers of racism become more obvious when you let the racists speak! Let them.…

Precisely how is an underground movement that cannot spread their ideas in public going to repeat the holocaust? How is forcing people to stay silent about their nightmarish beliefs going to possibly be worse than what we've already witnessed? People just take it as an axiom that forcing ideas underground makes things worse but that seems like an idea that requires some support. Racism is a security vulnerability in…

I'll quote Steven Pinker

    "Sunlight is the best disinfectant," according to Justice Louis Brandeis's 
     famous case for freedom of thought and expression. If an idea really is false, 
     only by examining it openly can we determine that it is false. At that point we 
     will be in a better position to convince others that it is false than if we had 
     let it fester in private, since our very avoidance of the issue serves as a 
     tacit acknowledgment that it may be true.

     https://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/dangerous07/dangerous07_index.html

Re: Why do you host offensive content?

#142

Post by UncleMeat » Tue, Jul 09, 2019, 12:49 AM UTC

waynecochran wrote: post #141

UncleMeat wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Precisely how is an underground movement that cannot spread their ideas in public going to repeat the holocaust? How is forcing people to stay silent about their nightmarish beliefs going to possibly be worse than what we've already witnessed? People just take it as an axiom that forcing ideas underground makes things worse but that seems like an idea that requires some support. Racism is a security vulnerability in…

I'll quote Steven Pinker "Sunlight is the best disinfectant," according to Justice Louis Brandeis's famous case for freedom of thought and expression. If an idea really is false, only by examining it openly can we determine that it is false. At that point we will be in a better position to convince others that it is false than if we had let it fester in private, since our very avoidance of the issue serves as a tacit…

This is not evidence, it is merely stating it as truth.

What of ideas that we have already determined to be false? Genocidal racism is garbage. It has been known to be garbage for a long time. Yet it persists. Must we continue having public discussions about the merits of genocidal racism? Can we stop in 10 years? 100 years? 1000 years?

Re: Why do you host offensive content?

#143

Post by iamnothere » Tue, Jul 09, 2019, 1:31 AM UTC

waynecochran wrote: post #24

jakelazaroff wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> P.S. This doesn't mean that everything offensive must be posted -- there is stuff that should be illegal to post because of the harm it can cause. What stuff? Using this logic, why should anything be off-limits to the "public market of ideas"? e.g. libel should be perfectly acceptable speech — that way it can be exposed and refuted! This is a particularly insidious point of view because it frames its own line betwe…

I don't know how to codify this, but there does seem to be some things that are just simply harmful with no benefit. For example, libel against a private individual.

This isn't libel, but Robin Hanson recently put together some interesting arguments on why blackmail should be legal. I don't agree with him, but it points to the fact that there is not universal agreement on even these widely-accepted notions of what is "too harmful" to allow.

Re: Why do you host offensive content?

#144

Post by waynecochran » Tue, Jul 09, 2019, 1:40 AM UTC

iamnothere wrote: post #143

waynecochran wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know how to codify this, but there does seem to be some things that are just simply harmful with no benefit. For example, libel against a private individual.

This isn't libel, but Robin Hanson recently put together some interesting arguments on why blackmail should be legal. I don't agree with him, but it points to the fact that there is not universal agreement on even these widely-accepted notions of what is "too harmful" to allow.

Universal agreement on pretty much anything is non-existant.

Re: Why do you host offensive content?

#145

Post by waynecochran » Tue, Jul 09, 2019, 4:07 AM UTC

stcredzero wrote: post #65

waynecochran wrote: post #10

If it is offensive because it stems from "bad ideas" then it is imperative that it is posted in the "public market of ideas" so it can be exposed and refuted. If it is not posted then folks will not know how to refute it when it crops up again -- and it will. Free Speech for bad ideas is as important as free speech for good ideas. Don't be offended. That's your choice. P.S. This doesn't mean that everything offensive…

Free Speech for bad ideas is as important as free speech for good ideas. It's a good idea to be wary of the sneaking-in of bad ideas by packaging them with good ideas. In 2019, this applies to even some of the most reprehensible ones. (For example: Politics through intimidation and violent assault.) Ideologies and movements aren't monoliths. The bad parts of them can be teased apart and criticized, without making you…

Agreed.

Of course no one mentioned perhaps the most important reason for non censorship of ideas.

The censors and public at large can be wrong. Imagine living in a society where racism was the norm and the censors did not allow speech that argued for the equality of races. Instead of "hate speech" they called it "unnatural speech" or some such twisted label.

In fact, our society could be very wrong about some popular ideas. In fact, I don't think we are new or different than many societies that proceeded us -- we have been here before. We can't be so myopic that we are the generation that has discovered all the ideal points of view. Let views stand up to the test.

Also censorship is fear based. Buck up. Take on the challenge. Make sure the positive voices are heard. Don't protect adults with "safe spaces" where they will never be challenged. You are just setting them up for a fall later.

Re: Why do you host offensive content?

#146

Post by waterhouse » Tue, Jul 09, 2019, 5:44 AM UTC

root_axis wrote: post #88

dlivingston wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just to be clear, are you advocating for censorship on a platform (i.e. Facebook) level, or a governmental level as well?

I am not "advocating for censorship", I am "advocating" for the freedom to determine what content is hosted on a computer you own. A computer owned by the government is a different story since government property is paid for by the tax-payer, so it should not be able to act unilaterally in matters of removing content.

And, out of curiosity, what would you say if someone made an argument that company X, while not owned by the government, is effectively a monopoly due in significant part to government intervention? Mechanisms for this might be: patent grants, regulations that create significant barriers to entry for new competitors, lucrative contracts with a federal department, inconsistent enforcement of existing laws while the incumbent has protective connections with the enforcers, tariffs...

Re: Why do you host offensive content?

#147

Post by Elidrake24 » Tue, Jul 09, 2019, 6:20 AM UTC

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…

It's a tough question isn't it? One we've tried to answer a good many times as a species. The last sincere attempt may be considered to be the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; that an individual may live freely regardless of race, color, sex, religion, political opinion, etc. That seemed contradictory at the time, bit it was always predicated on the idea that no one could ever affect the ability of another to live their life in a free way.

It's just funny to see the same old argument brought up the thousandth time with maybe a slight context change to the last.

Re: Why do you host offensive content?

#148

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Jul 09, 2019, 6:32 AM 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.

[deleted]

Re: Why do you host offensive content?

#149

Post by jasonvorhe » Tue, Jul 09, 2019, 7:23 AM UTC

If you allow everything that isn't illegal, you're actively supporting Nazis, anti-Semitism, racism, anti-LGBTQI content which makes you an accessory.

It's censorship if a government suppresses information, if a company decides not to business with you, it's contract law.

This isn't that difficult to grasp.

Re: Why do you host offensive content?

#150

Post by AQuantized » Tue, Jul 09, 2019, 7:38 AM UTC

jasonvorhe wrote: post #149

If you allow everything that isn't illegal, you're actively supporting Nazis, anti-Semitism, racism, anti-LGBTQI content which makes you an accessory. It's censorship if a government suppresses information, if a company decides not to business with you, it's contract law. This isn't that difficult to grasp.

I think I would disagree with your definition of censorship. If almost all entities in a given sphere, be it web hosting or media, decided they would absolutely not publish or host anything related to a particular topic or form of content, it seems accurate to term that censorship. The fact that it isn't done by the government doesn't mean that particular content isn't functionally suppressed.