31–40 of 169 posts
I couldn't find any, but I'm also not familiar with the site.
There's "offensive" as in thinks I don't like, or even hateful statements ... but to me threats of violence and etc fall into another area.
> "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…
When you catch a cold, it is because viruses have used a bunch of subtle hacks to convince some of your cells to stop being part of you and start making more viruses instead. Your immune system comes in and stops them from doing this. Sometimes it makes mistakes, sometimes it can be co-opted and used as a viral host itself (see HIV for instance), but on the whole it keeps your cells busy being a part of you rather than striking out on their own agenda, whether it's one they arrived at by random mutations like most cancers, or one that crawled in under their normal defenses like a virus.
Running a platform that gives a voice to anyone and everyone, up to the limits of "whatever gets the platform-runner hauled into court and fined for more money than they make off of spreading the view that got them in trouble", is like actively providing places for diseases to grow.
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.
Waving your hand and declaring "Fallacy!" isn't really a refutation. It's a cheap way to avoid actually addressing the argument.
> "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…
I agree that uncensored speech is good, but when I read this I knew it would come up as problematic. I think we've all seen a lot of bad arguments sneak their axioms into the conversation with a line like this (but again, I agree with what's written here). Does uncensored speech fall into the category of "it goes without saying"? Perhaps I should learn more about censorship so I can effectively advocate against it, just like the article says.
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
“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 rea…
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's a fallacy when there isn't a plausible mechanism that allows each step along a path to make future steps easier. Lots of things actually are slippery slopes. Censorship is almost certainly one of those things. From a comment I made last week regarding YouTube's "let's ban hacking videos" decision:
> ... "slippery slope" holds when each change makes it easier to enact further change in the same direction, and that seems to be the case here. "censor CP" + "censor porn" is an easier sell than the original "censor CP" step was, thanks to infrastructure already being in place. Adding copyright on top of that was easier still. And then violent content, and then aid to terrorism, and then politics we don't like, and gun repair videos, and ammo reloading, and...
> "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…
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Offensive to whom Offensive to those, who can make enough noise about it.
Which would typically be privileged people, non-ironically complaining about other people’s privilege.
Say you walk into a store and are followed or stopped quite often for a receipt check. If you're black in certain parts of the world, this is quite common, but much more rare if you're not black.
The privilege is a result of a system. You cannot say x people have privilege, and likewise people get offended when people yell at them for having privilege saying, "It's not something I choose." Is one person from one ethnic group responsible for all the ills cast upon others? Are we responsible for the debts of our fathers?
Privilege is a result of a system, and it is a system that grants privilege and socialite (and often subconscious) level, and that system of beliefs is what needs to be changed. So fighting against privilege involves changing the narrative of the system we live in. It takes time and it takes diligence and it takes careful and critical thought. It's not as easy as throwing a word or blame around.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
“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 rea…