Why do you host offensive content? • Hacker News Board

Re: Why do you host offensive content?

#21

Post by captainredbeard » Mon, Jul 08, 2019, 5:04 PM UTC

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.”

Maybe you’re wrong?

Re: Why do you host offensive content?

#22

Post by captainredbeard » Mon, Jul 08, 2019, 5:05 PM UTC

munificent wrote: post #18

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.

> it never stops where you think it should. Friendly reminder that "slippery slope" is a fallacy . 100% censorship is obviously bad. It remains to be shown that 0.1% censorship inevitably leads to it.

Fallacies are sometimes correct, e.g. “with this therefore because of this” isn’t a bad starting point when triaging. Relying upon a fallacy as your sole argument is a problem.

Re: Why do you host offensive content?

#23

Post by mar77i » Mon, Jul 08, 2019, 5:06 PM UTC

munificent wrote: post #18

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.

> it never stops where you think it should. Friendly reminder that "slippery slope" is a fallacy . 100% censorship is obviously bad. It remains to be shown that 0.1% censorship inevitably leads to it.

Speaking of fallacies... Beware of potential recursion. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Fallacy_fallacy

Re: Why do you host offensive content?

#24

Post by waynecochran » Mon, Jul 08, 2019, 5:08 PM UTC

jakelazaroff wrote: post #17

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…

> 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.

Re: Why do you host offensive content?

#25

Post by waynecochran » Mon, Jul 08, 2019, 5:09 PM UTC

stronglikedan wrote: post #12

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. 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.

Re: Why do you host offensive content?

#26

Post by djsumdog » Mon, Jul 08, 2019, 5:09 PM UTC

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…

There was a time when the cesspit were all the people promoting the debauchery of homosexuality, or the idea that blacks were somehow equal to whites in intelligence and genetic disposition. These were greatly offensive statements at one time. People were ridiculed and deplatformed for having them.

Translate the Bible into a barbaric language like German or English? That caused great offense. People were excommunicated and even killed for that (like Wycliffe).

The book "The Coddling of the American Mind" goes into this concept that ideas and speech are not violent. We do a huge disservice to young people today by teaching them to fear ideas and block speakers at Universities they don't agree with. Listening to other viewpoints and challenging them makes us better thinkers. 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."

I highly recommend Brendan O'Neill's video on offensiveness:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BtWrljX9HRA

Re: Why do you host offensive content?

#27

Post by duxup » Mon, Jul 08, 2019, 5:10 PM UTC

jchw wrote: post #15

My favorite bit here is not the content policy, it’s the MFFAM bit, which is clever and amusing. https://www.nearlyfreespeech.net/about/faq#BecauseFuckNazisT...

It's a great idea... provided it is used frequently.

Re: Why do you host offensive content?

#28

Post by harimau777 » Mon, Jul 08, 2019, 5:11 PM UTC

munificent wrote: post #18

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.

> it never stops where you think it should. Friendly reminder that "slippery slope" is a fallacy . 100% censorship is obviously bad. It remains to be shown that 0.1% censorship inevitably leads to it.

It is a fallacy to say that the slippery slope will always occur. However, that does not mean that it is invalid to argue that in a given situation a slippery slope is likely to occur. In cases such as this I think we can reasonably assume that the "never" in "it never stops where you think it should" is not meant to be taken literally but is instead being used as a figure of speech for "very unlikely".

Re: Why do you host offensive content?

#29

Post by Zaskoda » Mon, Jul 08, 2019, 5:11 PM 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…

> Offensive to whom?

This is exactly the comment I clicked through to add. Without someone to be offended, nothing is offensive. When a service provider crosses the line and polices a piece of media, they are now responsible for defining that line moving forward. That's an insanely hard task.

Most people who want "offensive" content taken down do not understand the complexity of what they are asking for.

Re: Why do you host offensive content?

#30

Post by Nursie » Mon, Jul 08, 2019, 5:11 PM UTC

captainredbeard wrote: post #21

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.” Maybe you’re wrong?

Tell that to the people gunned down in NZ with a rifle covered in 'chan slogans ... ?

I'm not saying censorship is good, let's go full-on NewSpeak here, or even that I have any sort of solution to propose.

I just don't think this ideal, that censorship is necessarily always bad and that the best, only way to fight evil ideas is with discussion and better ideas ... I don't think holds up to scrutiny in the face of reality.