Why do you host offensive content? • Hacker News Board

Re: Why do you host offensive content?

#151

Post by lucideer » Tue, Jul 09, 2019, 7:55 AM UTC

sdinsn wrote: post #109

lucideer wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This is exactly what I said in my comment.

I just think debating the former is meaningless (even if two parties agreed, their shared conclusion wouldn't be useful as offending someone isn't implicitly harmful).

Whereas debating what's harmful, while similarly arbitrary and subjective, at least has the implied goal of actual harm reduction.

Re: Why do you host offensive content?

#152

Post by zaarn » Tue, Jul 09, 2019, 9:01 AM UTC

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…

The public market of ideas means that the idea of a public market of ideas can be downvoted. Don't talk about ideas being public market and then in the edit complain about someone not liking your idea.

Re: Why do you host offensive content?

#153

Post by zaarn » Tue, Jul 09, 2019, 9:02 AM 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…

Libel has different definitions in different cultures and can have fairly wide definitions.

Re: Why do you host offensive content?

#154

Post by Nursie » Tue, Jul 09, 2019, 9:19 AM UTC

viklove wrote: post #101

Nursie wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

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

Nope.

First one is in reference to government, I'm not suggesting that the government should have the power to shut people down, as I've said in multiple places, I'm not sure what a good solution looks like.

The second one is about platform owners, who are not governments, but should take some more responsibility for spreading (for instance) hate by providing their platform to people.

Re: Why do you host offensive content?

#155

Post by Nursie » Tue, Jul 09, 2019, 9:23 AM UTC

mr_spothawk wrote: post #64

Nursie wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "By banning speech is to say, "I agree people are too stupid to make their own decisions. Let's make the world 'safe' for them and ban ideas I don't agree with." 1. People are stupid. Really, really stupid. Especially when given the means to surround and reinforce themselves with other idiots. See for example - antivax and alt-med in general, chemtrails any number of ridiculous conspiracy theories that propagate th…

> These people I'm not sure what group of people you just Other'd, but I am suggesting that you re-read your post and consider: a) whether you still hold the view you espoused 13 minutes ago that some group of humans are non-thinking. b) whether the message you're trying to make could be more clearly articulated. to me, it reads like you're making really broad statements which you believe to be immune to any challeng…

> I'm not sure what group of people you just Other'd,

Then try re-reading my comment.

> a) whether you still hold the view you espoused 13 minutes ago that some group of humans are non-thinking.

I said they are not thinkers, and they aren't, they aren't interested in competing ideas or what's factual, and as such high ideals as the marketplace of ideas coming true in the end are at best naive.

> b) whether the message you're trying to make could be more clearly articulated.

I was pretty clear - a lot of people are very stupid. Look at how they hurt themselves and each other, look at reality tv, look at ... hell you don'[t have to look very far.

Again, I'm not claiming to be the smartest guy in the room, neither am I claiming to have a solution. I'm just trying to point out that these abstract ideals about ideas being allowed to propagate and compete, about allowing and supporting the dissemination of hatred from your platform in order to better fight it in the open, that when you do fight them with better arguments, people will listen... these ideas are pretty demonstrably flawed.

Re: Why do you host offensive content?

#156

Post by Nursie » Tue, Jul 09, 2019, 9:24 AM UTC

throwaway8879 wrote: post #114

Nursie wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "By banning speech is to say, "I agree people are too stupid to make their own decisions. Let's make the world 'safe' for them and ban ideas I don't agree with." 1. People are stupid. Really, really stupid. Especially when given the means to surround and reinforce themselves with other idiots. See for example - antivax and alt-med in general, chemtrails any number of ridiculous conspiracy theories that propagate th…

People ought to have as much a right to be as stupid as they want, as you have the right to be as smart as you clearly are.

Really? So we should sell 'em bombs and to hell with it if they blow up the neighbourhood?

Re: Why do you host offensive content?

#157

Post by root_axis » Tue, Jul 09, 2019, 3:19 PM UTC

waterhouse wrote: post #146

root_axis wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 i…

Your hypothetical is too vague for me to answer. If you have a specific example I'd be happy to elucidate further.

I'll add that I don't regard patents, regulation, or "inconsistent enforcement of existing laws" as a reason why a company or individual should forfeit the freedom to determine what they host on a computer they own.

Re: Why do you host offensive content?

#158

Post by smsm42 » Tue, Jul 09, 2019, 5:39 PM UTC

BubRoss wrote: post #138

smsm42 wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> People don't have privilege. I don't know. If you have the power to shut down a whole product line for a trans-national corporation with a single complaint, isn't that a kind of privilege? I certainly can't do it, you probably neither. But some people can. If you have a power to decide what is allowed to be spoken and what gets you removed from the platform, who is allowed to speak and who should be met with violen…

That's not privilege, that's power.

And the difference is... ?

Re: Why do you host offensive content?

#159

Post by sdinsn » Tue, Jul 09, 2019, 6:43 PM UTC

zbyte64 wrote: post #116

sdinsn wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Is that useful though? The following requires a moral code to say it is bad: Directly advocating for sexual violence against another group.

You don't need a moral code. The pragmatic argument is that throughout history and across cultures, the rise of large civilizations was enabled by basic rule of law. Protecting people against violence brings stability and maximizes productivity.

Re: Why do you host offensive content?

#160

Post by sdinsn » Tue, Jul 09, 2019, 6:44 PM UTC

lucideer wrote: post #151

sdinsn wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

This is exactly what I said in my comment. I just think debating the former is meaningless (even if two parties agreed, their shared conclusion wouldn't be useful as offending someone isn't implicitly harmful). Whereas debating what's harmful, while similarly arbitrary and subjective, at least has the implied goal of actual harm reduction.

> This is exactly what I said in my comment.

Ooops, I think I replied to the wrong comment