The Next Chapter – moot retires from 4chan • Hacker News Board

Re: The Next Chapter – moot retires from 4chan

#291

Post by wpietri » Fri, Jan 23, 2015, 9:23 AM UTC

Crito wrote: post #247

wpietri wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're confusing censorship with freedom of association and freedom to chose your customers. If an ISP won't take the KKK's money, that is not censorship. Censorship would be if the government banned every ISP from serving the KKK whether or not they wanted to. Requiring all ISPs (or forums or whatever) to accept and retransmit the KKK's propaganda is just as much a limit on freedom as banning the stuff.

If I configure my home router to use OpenDNS, such that my children cannot access internet pornography or extremist forums (such as 4chan or 8chan for example), that is a form of censorship, yes? It is a form of censorship that the government is not involved in. It is legal, and it is well within my rights to do. Hell, I'd go so far as to say it is the appropriate thing to do. It's still censorship though. I don't kn…

I gave a government example, as that's what we were talking about. Censorship just requires power, and government power is the most important and obvious kind because governments are monopolies over large numbers of people. But yes, you also, having power over your kids, can censor what they see.

But if every individual ISP refuses to host the KKK because they'd just rather not do business with bigots, then that's not censorship. It's just freedom of association.

If the 8chan guy tomorrow decided to shut down and nobody else wanted to host the pedophiles, that isn't censorship. They can buy a piece of land and make a pedophile clubhouse. They can buy a printer, make pedophilia leaflets, and distribute them in the town square. But if nobody wants to help them do that, it isn't censorship, because nobody is exercising power over the pedophiles, just over themselves.

Re: The Next Chapter – moot retires from 4chan

#292

Post by wpietri » Fri, Jan 23, 2015, 7:53 PM UTC

smasuch wrote: post #255

pervycreeper wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>If 8chan didn't keep calling the police on people 8chan is actually not a person, and no evidence has been presented that a user of the site has done any such thing. I have noticed a couple of posters in this thread posting a gish-gallop of links (mostly from discredited sources) purporting to prove something, but one sees upon inspection that they in fact do nothing of the sort.

It's like talking to a climate-change denier.

I'm not sure why you're getting downvoted. I think the epistemic closure among the remaining GamerGate partisans is exactly like the sort of thing you see at the core of plenty of movements. MRAs, climate change deniers, biblical fundamentalists, hardcore marxists, truthers, conspiracy theorists, et cetera, ad nauseam.

Promoting a worldview is a tricky thing. To be really good at it, you have to believe, and the more unorthodox your worldview, the harder you have to work to maintain that worldview in the face of widespread resistance. The easy thing is to refuse to even consider anything to the contrary, to only talk with people who share your views.

This pattern happens over and over in tech, too; it's not like we're exempt. Look at the dot-com bubble, for example. It was an article of faith that the Internet would change everything. That it turned out to be true eventually didn't matter; enough people took leave of their senses that we wasted billions.

Re: The Next Chapter – moot retires from 4chan

#293

Post by wpietri » Fri, Jan 23, 2015, 8:13 PM UTC

current_call wrote: post #207

vertex-four wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're still giving them a platform to do so - it doesn't matter the exact details of how much is user-generated and how much isn't. If you allowed anybody in the world to put an ad in your newspaper, for example, you would be responsible when ISIS use it as a recruitment or propaganda tool - they wouldn't have that reach otherwise. Same with imageboards, reddit, or HN.

If I can say anything I want, but I have no infrastructure, then I can't communicate my ideas effectively. People who provide neutral infrastructure allow others to exercise their right to free speech. People who oppose neutral providers want to make communication difficult for people they disagree with. Removing neutral infrastructure is restricting free speech through social conventions instead of through governmen…

It is definitely not censorship. Nobody is under any obligation to help, say, pedophiles, promote their ideas. To say otherwise is to deny freedom of action and freedom of association.

If you have an ideological attachment to the existence of neutral providers, nobody can stop you from creating one. But as 8chan is discovering, people are free to criticize them for who they are helping and what effects that has.

Re: The Next Chapter – moot retires from 4chan

#294

Post by current_call » Sat, Jan 24, 2015, 12:18 AM UTC

wpietri wrote: post #291

Crito wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I configure my home router to use OpenDNS, such that my children cannot access internet pornography or extremist forums (such as 4chan or 8chan for example), that is a form of censorship, yes? It is a form of censorship that the government is not involved in. It is legal, and it is well within my rights to do. Hell, I'd go so far as to say it is the appropriate thing to do. It's still censorship though. I don't kn…

I gave a government example, as that's what we were talking about. Censorship just requires power, and government power is the most important and obvious kind because governments are monopolies over large numbers of people. But yes, you also, having power over your kids, can censor what they see. But if every individual ISP refuses to host the KKK because they'd just rather not do business with bigots, then that's no…

But if every individual ISP refuses to host the KKK because they'd just rather not do business with bigots, then that's not censorship. It's just freedom of association.

No, that is censorship.

transitive verb : to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable ; also : to suppress or delete as objectionable http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/censoring

Re: The Next Chapter – moot retires from 4chan

#295

Post by current_call » Sat, Jan 24, 2015, 12:23 AM UTC

wpietri wrote: post #293

current_call wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I can say anything I want, but I have no infrastructure, then I can't communicate my ideas effectively. People who provide neutral infrastructure allow others to exercise their right to free speech. People who oppose neutral providers want to make communication difficult for people they disagree with. Removing neutral infrastructure is restricting free speech through social conventions instead of through governmen…

It is definitely not censorship. Nobody is under any obligation to help, say, pedophiles, promote their ideas. To say otherwise is to deny freedom of action and freedom of association. If you have an ideological attachment to the existence of neutral providers, nobody can stop you from creating one. But as 8chan is discovering, people are free to criticize them for who they are helping and what effects that has.

Nobody is under any obligation to provide infrastructure, but not providing infrastructure is different from trying to stop providers.

People are of course free to try and stop neutral providers. They are also free to lobby for a government that will censor them.

Re: The Next Chapter – moot retires from 4chan

#296

Post by wpietri » Sun, Jan 25, 2015, 7:42 PM UTC

current_call wrote: post #294

wpietri wrote: post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I gave a government example, as that's what we were talking about. Censorship just requires power, and government power is the most important and obvious kind because governments are monopolies over large numbers of people. But yes, you also, having power over your kids, can censor what they see. But if every individual ISP refuses to host the KKK because they'd just rather not do business with bigots, then that's no…

But if every individual ISP refuses to host the KKK because they'd just rather not do business with bigots, then that's not censorship. It's just freedom of association. No, that is censorship. transitive verb : to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable ; also : to suppress or delete as objectionable http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/censoring

That's a ridiculous interpretation. People don't have an obligation to uncritically pass on any and all messages. That a publisher only publishes certain books is not censorship of all the other books. That you promote your own views without simultaneously mentioning all other views is not censorship.

Freedom of speech means that you can put up your own lawn signs in your lawn. It doesn't mean that you get to put your lawn signs in other people's yards. It certainly doesn't mean that they are obligated to print and put up your signs in their yard.

Re: The Next Chapter – moot retires from 4chan

#297

Post by wpietri » Sun, Jan 25, 2015, 7:45 PM UTC

current_call wrote: post #295

wpietri wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is definitely not censorship. Nobody is under any obligation to help, say, pedophiles, promote their ideas. To say otherwise is to deny freedom of action and freedom of association. If you have an ideological attachment to the existence of neutral providers, nobody can stop you from creating one. But as 8chan is discovering, people are free to criticize them for who they are helping and what effects that has.

Nobody is under any obligation to provide infrastructure, but not providing infrastructure is different from trying to stop providers. People are of course free to try and stop neutral providers. They are also free to lobby for a government that will censor them.

Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences. If people are free to speak, I am also free to speak out against them. If people support particular speakers, I am also free to speak out against those supporters, and to shun them.

If you don't believe me, maybe you'll believe a lawyer who does a lot of free-speech work: https://www.popehat.com/2013/09/10/speech-and-consequences/

Re: The Next Chapter – moot retires from 4chan

#298

Post by current_call » Mon, Jan 26, 2015, 12:47 AM UTC

wpietri wrote: post #296

current_call wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But if every individual ISP refuses to host the KKK because they'd just rather not do business with bigots, then that's not censorship. It's just freedom of association. No, that is censorship. transitive verb : to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable ; also : to suppress or delete as objectionable http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/censoring

That's a ridiculous interpretation. People don't have an obligation to uncritically pass on any and all messages. That a publisher only publishes certain books is not censorship of all the other books. That you promote your own views without simultaneously mentioning all other views is not censorship. Freedom of speech means that you can put up your own lawn signs in your lawn. It doesn't mean that you get to put you…

That's a ridiculous interpretation. It's the correct interpretation.

People don't have an obligation to uncritically pass on any and all messages. True.

That a publisher only publishes certain books is not censorship of all the other books. True.

That you promote your own views without simultaneously mentioning all other views is not censorship. True.

Freedom of speech means that you can put up your own lawn signs in your lawn. It doesn't mean that you get to put your lawn signs in other people's yards. It certainly doesn't mean that they are obligated to print and put up your signs in their yard. True.

These are all true, but irrelevant. Refusing to help spread a message is different than trying to stop other people help spread a message. I've been repeating this for a while now. If you're still confused, try rereading our discussion until you see the difference.

Re: The Next Chapter – moot retires from 4chan

#299

Post by current_call » Mon, Jan 26, 2015, 12:49 AM UTC

wpietri wrote: post #297

current_call wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobody is under any obligation to provide infrastructure, but not providing infrastructure is different from trying to stop providers. People are of course free to try and stop neutral providers. They are also free to lobby for a government that will censor them.

Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences. If people are free to speak, I am also free to speak out against them. If people support particular speakers, I am also free to speak out against those supporters, and to shun them. If you don't believe me, maybe you'll believe a lawyer who does a lot of free-speech work: https://www.popehat.com/2013/09/10/speech-and-consequences/

Yes, it is legal to do many immoral things.

Edit: According to you, shouldn't Twitter be at fault for letting Pax say such hurtful things? They're providing him a platform.

Re: The Next Chapter – moot retires from 4chan

#300

Post by wpietri » Mon, Jan 26, 2015, 5:25 PM UTC

current_call wrote: post #298

wpietri wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a ridiculous interpretation. People don't have an obligation to uncritically pass on any and all messages. That a publisher only publishes certain books is not censorship of all the other books. That you promote your own views without simultaneously mentioning all other views is not censorship. Freedom of speech means that you can put up your own lawn signs in your lawn. It doesn't mean that you get to put you…

That's a ridiculous interpretation. It's the correct interpretation. People don't have an obligation to uncritically pass on any and all messages. True. That a publisher only publishes certain books is not censorship of all the other books. True. That you promote your own views without simultaneously mentioning all other views is not censorship. True. Freedom of speech means that you can put up your own lawn signs in…

Ah yes, the only possible reason somebody could disagree is failure to understand your perfect words.

If my neighbor puts up your signs, I am allowed to express my opinions to him. If he decides to take down the signs, that is still not censorship. I'm even allowed to decide to not talk to him if he leaves them up. Exercising my right to freedom of speech and freedom of association is not censorship. It can't be, because otherwise the right to free speech ends up being self-contradictory.