Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Our nation cannot censor its way back to cultural health

frenchpress.thedispatch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 366 posts

Re: Our nation cannot censor its way back to cultural health

#221

Post by encryptluks2 »

FpUser wrote: post #41
encryptluks2 wrote: post #26

While I don't agree with censorship, I think that companies are smart in censoring any fringe ideas, even if those viewpoints ultimately the accepted norm. As soon as a business takes a political stand, then they paint a huge target on their back from legislators and the majority who are fine with them just toeing the line somewhere in the middle. Statistically (which I'm sure they've done studies) it doesn't work in…

>"As soon as a business takes a political stand, then they paint a huge target on their back" Well it does not seem to scare big gorillas of companies. Their type of censorship screams "political stand"

It does to an extent, but the majority of users complaining about it are like the Twitter users complaining about it on Twitter and the YouTubers complaining about censorship on YouTube. In order for those companies to change their strategy they would have to see a mass exodus of users due to their actions. With the number one priority of large corporations being profit, they will continue to justify the censorship of a few until it impacts their profits.

Re: Our nation cannot censor its way back to cultural health

#222

Post by pjc50 »

pyuser583 wrote: post #174
josephcsible wrote: post #2

One major distinction this glosses over is the difference between making it so you can't read something (e.g., banning it), and making it so you aren't required to read something (e.g., removing it from the curriculum). Only the former is censorship.

I think we really need to have a “who controls the curriculum” conversation. When I was a teacher, we could chose from whatever the books the school had a ton of lying around. Not a good way to make a selection. At the same time, people are freaking out when parents want a say I what books their children are evaluated on. If it was up to me, we’d focus on the classics: Homer, Virgil, Shakespeare, Milton, Dickens, Dos…

Important to not accidentally let any 20th century books into the curriculum, let alone any 21st century ones?

Re: Our nation cannot censor its way back to cultural health

#223

Post by janto »

keithnz wrote: post #198
issa wrote: post #139

I have a foreign wife and it really drives home one truth: America is a very nuanced place. We have this idea of almost unlimited free speech. Which sounds great, but in practice, it is not really true. Because ultimately, Americans do not have equal rights. We see this over and over in different aspects of society. The Frederick Douglas example from Boston in the article is a great example of why free speech is good…

liberty and free speech tends to overly concern Americans when they have more pressing and bigger problems. The big mistake with the title is "way back to cultural health", stop looking backwards. If you do want to look back to the idea that founded your republic, look back and see a whole bunch of people trying to look forward. Do that. Fix your system of government, a two party system is bad for you, you've become…

Without their First Amendment rights, it is unlikely that Americans would even figure out if many parties might be a good idea. They'd also be unable to bring those into existence without it: freedom of expression, assembly, and the right to petition are the primary mechanism towards presenting a better future to others.

Americans should be super concerned about attempts at eroding dialog between its citizens. The government, corporations and activists have done everything they can to create a forced discourse.

Re: Our nation cannot censor its way back to cultural health

#224

Post by Nursie »

teddyh wrote: post #212
Nursie wrote: post #18

The rants about "cancel culture" from the US right are hilarious, given their long history of boycotts of brands they dislike and escalating hate and fear for everything up to actual book burnings of material like Harry Potter. I'm not saying that the accusations of cancel culture are unfounded, I'm saying they are wildly hypocritical. (It's good that efforts at censorship on the right are raised in the article as a…

An accusation of hypocricy is not an argument in the debate; it is a simple ad-hominem, and as such it is a fallacy which can be disregarded.

Pointing out that the person decrying behaviour in others is in fact excusing or even ignoring the actions of their own side (whom they consider more virtuous) is not an ad-hominem, it's an inconsistency or an error in their argument.

The accusation of hypocrisy, and blindness to the faults of their favoured group is pertinent and relevant to the arguments being put forward.

(Further, I am not expressing a logical disagreement with the premise of the article, merely laughing at the bald-facedness and ignorance of it. Are we not allowed to laugh without logical consistency these days?)

Re: Our nation cannot censor its way back to cultural health

#225

Post by pjc50 »

jimmygrapes wrote: post #130
mLuby wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Figure out who your tribe considers "the enemy" and then sneak over to the "enemy's camp" to see what they're talking about. 3 tactics, from trivial to dangerous: 1) Use a private or different browser, VPN, or Tor to exit your personal filter bubble, then search for news or trends and see what the algorithms serve to fresh faces. 2) US-specific example: If you're a Democrat/Republican, read the Fox News/NY Times poli…

I would add that when doing this recon, steelman their ideas. Try to justify them, however horrible they seem to you. Drop your guard and prejudices enough to understand why they have those ideas. You don't have to accept them in the end, but you'll never know how to make amends or talk to somebody you refuse to understand.

I used to do this. Over the 20 years I've been doing "discourse" on the internet. In recent years I've seen a marked collapse in the willingness of the other side to do the same - or even, in many cases, to make an argument that I could actually understand. For example, back in the days of campaigning against gay marriage there were people claiming that it would be bad for straight marriage, none of whom bothered to articulate why, and of course it's turned out that wasn't the case at all.

Re: Our nation cannot censor its way back to cultural health

#226

Post by abirch »

raxxorrax wrote: post #206
TulliusCicero wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also, when it comes to publication, plenty of stuff used to be essentially banned by 'platforms', it just wasn't obvious because "user-generated content" was barely a thing (letters to the editor) in comparison to people posting on Facebook and Youtube and Twitter and Tiktok. Random people being able to post content for thousands or even millions to immediately see, with no explicit gatekeepers prior to submission; t…

Facebook and Twitter ban for political reasons, which is entirely different than banning spam. Banning spam is a strawman in this discussion. I don't think there is constructive discussion on that basis. Free speech protects good faith debates.

Just out of curiosity what are the political posts that have caused people to be banned?

I see Jo Jorgensen, Ron Paul, Bernie Sanders, Ted Cruz, Mark Rubio, Mitch McConnell, etc. I've never seen anyone banned for saying to end the Fed. To cut taxes. To have family values.

Re: Our nation cannot censor its way back to cultural health

#227

Post by raxxorrax »

suslik wrote: post #213
dusted wrote: post #178

The application of censorship itself, not what is being censored, is the main symptom of the declining cultural health. The mentality that there are so universally wrong and right things that the right ones must be forced upon any mind, no matter the context, and the wrong ones must be extinguished no matter the context.

Unfortunately, this. Censorship on moral grounds, amplified by a lack of epistemic humility, is a key characteristic of modern western culture. Not only western, and modern, of course - I suspect that the feeling that 'I am more correct than the other' is a natural property of consciousness itself; an understanding of one's own mind is always more intuitive than a theory of mind. Anyways, I feel - and would be great…

> epistemic humility

Doesn't mix with political speech too well since most political cultures punish uncertainty, which is always prevalent in any intellectual discourse.

I too believe there is no technical solution for or against censorship. Luckily digital infrastructure is at least robust against censorship because some very wise people could look beyond the horizon.

But people asking for content control need to have their education improved. And to a degree they also have to be demasked, because arguing against freedom of expressions in the name of minorities is beyond reasonable.

Re: Our nation cannot censor its way back to cultural health

#228

Post by originalvichy »

dirtyid wrote: post #199

"he noted that there exists not just a right to speak but a right to hear" Is that so? I don't see why a speaker is entitled to an audience, let alone access to mass private communication.

That’s not what he means by right to hear. The government or anyone else barring one from entering a lecture is preventing one’s freedom to hear.

It’s pretty obvious that freedom of speech also implies freedom to attend speeches

Re: Our nation cannot censor its way back to cultural health

#229

Post by dustymcp »

pyuser583 wrote: post #175
issa wrote: post #139

I have a foreign wife and it really drives home one truth: America is a very nuanced place. We have this idea of almost unlimited free speech. Which sounds great, but in practice, it is not really true. Because ultimately, Americans do not have equal rights. We see this over and over in different aspects of society. The Frederick Douglas example from Boston in the article is a great example of why free speech is good…

I’m a bit confused. Is your wife from a more less equal/free place than America?

Most places according to incarceration rate is more free than USA

Re: Our nation cannot censor its way back to cultural health

#230

Post by raxxorrax »

abirch wrote: post #226
raxxorrax wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Facebook and Twitter ban for political reasons, which is entirely different than banning spam. Banning spam is a strawman in this discussion. I don't think there is constructive discussion on that basis. Free speech protects good faith debates.

Just out of curiosity what are the political posts that have caused people to be banned? I see Jo Jorgensen, Ron Paul, Bernie Sanders, Ted Cruz, Mark Rubio, Mitch McConnell, etc. I've never seen anyone banned for saying to end the Fed. To cut taxes. To have family values.

I don't really know anything about the people you mentioned, I am not from the US. I know Sanders and Cruz but not about any instances of censorship.

Who do you think is the target of deplatforming which the current US government promotes? There are also articles about how deplatforming allegedly works, so it has to target some people I guess.

Post reply on HN