Live data from Hacker News

Private censorship is not the best way to fight hate or defend democracy (2018)

eff.org

191–200 of 330 posts

Re: Private censorship is not the best way to fight hate or defend democracy (2018)

#191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But you want Reddit to literally adopt 8chan's moderation policy, meaning that Reddit now will become the place that inspires mass shooters instead of 8chan (which by the way, is no longer a place that inspires mass shootings, since it was killed by Cloudfare after the last one, and replaced with the impotent and unpopular 8kun).

>But you want Reddit to literally adopt 8chan's moderation policy, I want reddit to adopt the public square's policy of allowing any content that isn't illegal, which also happens to be pretty much synonymous with 8chan's policy. Do you consider the town square (which has the policy of allowing content that is not illegal) a center of inspiration for mass shootings? Could it be that the public square is not viewed as…

  "Do you consider the town square a centre of inspiration for mass shootings"
Before the internet, yes, definitely. Maybe not mass shootings specifically because that seems to be a recent fashion trend after Columbine, but violent extremism in general. How do you think Hitler managed to secure over 40 percent of the democratic vote in the early 1930s? How did Osama Bin Laden recruit extremists who were willing to put a bomb into the WTC basement? Propaganda, speech.

This idea that unfettered speech in the public town square, even if it isn't directly inciting violence, can't lead to pathological outcomes just doesn't hold up.

This isn't even an argument for government censorship. It's merely me recognizing that these type of outcomes can come about.

Nowadays almost all extremist speech is online, because that's where there is distribution and anonymity, so the analogy breaks down.

  "where they are exposed to the general ideas of the community rather than an echo chamber"
This isn't a bad argument, but you have to balance it off with the knowledge that ideas are highly, highly contagious. On balance, I think giving such ideas distribution to a billion eyes is far more harmful than pushing a fringe into echo chambers which already existed before social media censorship began anyway (such as the Stormfront forum).

Moreover you have to recognize that these isolated echo chambers would naturally self-segregate on Reddit if given free reign, and so in practice you haven't changed anything aside from giving these ideas more distribution. It's not like /r/88 or whatever would be interacting with the rest of Reddit thus helping their members deradicalize.

Re: Private censorship is not the best way to fight hate or defend democracy (2018)

#192
post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What free speech advocates ignore here is that even they generally draw a line somewhere. Death threats, defamation, pedophilia, sharing bomb making materials etc are usually accepted by everyone to not be acceptable. 'But those are different' is usually the argument here. But why though? Because they cause harm? Doesn't inciting racial hatred cause harm? Once we stop arguing over the issue being black/white but inst…

US law defines the line as speech that incites imminent lawless action. The speech must not only be encouraging such action, it must be imminent and likely. This is in practice a pretty good line. If you think that private companies should censor much more heavily, then you obviously don't really believe in free speech. There's no obvious reason why it's more acceptable because all the dominant communication platform…

you're forced to follow laws, you aren't forced to post memes on twitter.

Re: Private censorship is not the best way to fight hate or defend democracy (2018)

#193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And when you ban misinformation on your platform, that "anti-vaxxer" instead goes to 8chan where by your argument might inspire them to shoot people up.

Given the size of 8 Chan and the size is communities banned from Reddit, we know this to be untrue.

Given that Texas has greater population than Rhode Island, we know it is untrue that my uncle Bill and his friends upset with Texan policies moved from Dallas to Providence.

Re: Private censorship is not the best way to fight hate or defend democracy (2018)

#194

Harmful speech and misinformation should not have a platform.

Who defines what speech is harmful or wrong?

Democracy is a system in which your party loses elections. And when they lose, do you want them dictating what you can and can’t say?

No one has a monopoly on the truth.

In fact, our greatest scientific discoveries (the closest thing we have to Truth) have been forged by “offensive speech”. The ability to offend actually helps minimize misinformation.

Re: Private censorship is not the best way to fight hate or defend democracy (2018)

#195

2020-2021 has shown me that most people happen to be 'fair weather fans' of civil rights. Everyone claims to love free speech but when suppression of speech opposing their own worldview comes into play, they suddenly dither and fall back on other rationalizations to justify the censorship. Well, it's not free speech being violated when it's 'hate speech'. Well, it's not free speech being violated when it's 'misinform…

100% of everything you said I agree with. We're in a downright recession on freedoms.

"I now realize it's not that hard to persuade the average citizen into accepting such things."

Yes, and worse I feel it's not even that people are all too willing to go along with these things from on high, they want it, they propagate it. I'm starting to see the same behavior and mentality I imagine was common in East German where citizens police other citizens. It's not a good direction we're in at all.

Re: Private censorship is not the best way to fight hate or defend democracy (2018)

#196
post #6

Banning hate communities does work though [0]. I assume that the results are similar for twitter and facebook. "Hateful" Reddit or FB communities also don't allow "free speech". The moderators will ban people who go against the grain. There is no free exchange of ideas or disputing as if you're going against the grain you'll just get banned from that community (but not the platform). As such, either the platforms all…

> Banning hate communities does work though ... The sentence is incomplete. Banning X communities does work to achieve the goal of people not talking about X. I don't think that your linked study is really necessary, the Chinese cultural revolution worked really well (to achieve the goal of "preserving Chinese communism") [0]. Imagine if 30 years ago large digital monopolies banned what was considered unmentionable b…

> the Chinese cultural revolution worked really well

Given that the lineage in power now (the Dengists) were imprisoned under Mao during the cultural revolution, and only after Mao's death were able to perform a coup, arrest the rest of the leaders of the cultural revolution, and let the Dengists out of jail, I'm not sure that's the case.

Re: Private censorship is not the best way to fight hate or defend democracy (2018)

#197
post #7

2020-2021 has shown me that most people happen to be 'fair weather fans' of civil rights. Everyone claims to love free speech but when suppression of speech opposing their own worldview comes into play, they suddenly dither and fall back on other rationalizations to justify the censorship. Well, it's not free speech being violated when it's 'hate speech'. Well, it's not free speech being violated when it's 'misinform…

Although I don't fundamentally disagree with your point, I don't think you're framing the issue fairly. It's not a matter of most people being enemies of free speech, it's just that this is an inherently difficult problem. Everyone draws the line differently on what's acceptable and what isn't, and every platform is trying to foster a different kind of community.

The moment that any large number of people start pushing the point that ideas or speech they disagree with is actual violence, we're all a bit doomed.

Re: Private censorship is not the best way to fight hate or defend democracy (2018)

#199
post #194

Harmful speech and misinformation should not have a platform.

Who defines what speech is harmful or wrong? Democracy is a system in which your party loses elections. And when they lose, do you want them dictating what you can and can’t say? No one has a monopoly on the truth. In fact, our greatest scientific discoveries (the closest thing we have to Truth) have been forged by “offensive speech”. The ability to offend actually helps minimize misinformation.

> Who defines what speech is harmful or wrong?

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28698642

Re: Private censorship is not the best way to fight hate or defend democracy (2018)

#200
post #6

Banning hate communities does work though [0]. I assume that the results are similar for twitter and facebook. "Hateful" Reddit or FB communities also don't allow "free speech". The moderators will ban people who go against the grain. There is no free exchange of ideas or disputing as if you're going against the grain you'll just get banned from that community (but not the platform). As such, either the platforms all…

> Banning hate communities does work though

According to a single study. In general I don't think it actually does. Making it harder to find is sufficient, banning it outright just proves their point and pulls additional moderates to their cause.

Post reply on HN