311–320 of 337 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't know that you can prevent hostility after combining large groups of people from different cultures. Maybe throttle the stream of immigrants from different cultures so people can assimilate? Better than censorship.
What if that throttling involves a good percentage of them dying? Is that still better than censorship?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, a good chunk of the US anti-vax movement seems to be ultra-Orthodox Jews: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/14/nyregion/measles-vaccine-... Their religous beliefs don't permit them to have unfettered Internet access because it'd expose them to corrupting ideas (like, say, the idea that vaccines are safe).
And yet more than a good chunk of the anti-vax movement worldwide has unfettered Internet access. Ultra-orthodox Jews certainly aren't a factor here in New Zealand.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Don't you think the medium used to communicate ideas determine how fast and far they spread ? Sure I can go down in the streets, shout my hate speech at the top of my lungs, put propaganda flyers in random mailboxes, &c ... Or I can upload a video to all video hosting websites and reach more people a single day than I could do in a lifetime of organic propaganda. It's like saying internet didn't reshape the world bec…
> Sure I can go down in the streets, shout my hate speech at the top of my lungs, put propaganda flyers in random mailboxes, &c ... Or I can upload a video to all video hosting websites and reach more people a single day than I could do in a lifetime of organic propaganda. Because the printing press, newspapers, filmed movies, radio and television never existed? /s Mass media has been around for a long time.
Second, yes, they did exist, and they also did increase the reach of ideas over what was available before them, so what's your point ? You're basically extending my argument.
Progress in communication technology means increased propaganda / hate speech / whatever reach. Now you have two choices, do nothing, or try to curb down their reach. Should we be ok with live executions on twitch/yt/fb ? You're free to think that we should, but I'd argue most people are against it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Many people seem unaware of how bad the 70s were, and that definitely predates Facebook. https://www.npr.org/2015/04/05/396359930/explosive-protests-... I suspect people just like to have a boogeyman to blame so that they feel they have more understanding or control of the situation than they actually do. "It's a bad situation and we don't know what the cause is or how to fix things" isn't something you'll hear very…
and in the 80s too. anarchist &Nazi&friends in Italy were engaging in an actual bomb marathon with huge loss of innocent life, and I'd argue that if being mean on internet is action enough today for these groups so that they disregard their traditional methods, like literally bombing places, then we are all better off with that
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wait, are you saying that watching the video is considered a crime in and of itself? Not redistribution, and not even mere possession, but just seeing it?
Evidently you can't even read the manifesto (which involves possession of course. Dunno if you get in trouble for reading it over someone's shoulder). https://qz.com/1579660/new-zealands-manifesto-ban-explained-... According to that article, having a copy is worth 10 years in the pokey.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The 1 in 3,500,000 rate is for years 1975 to 2015 and includes the 9/11 attack. Since 2001, the rate is about 6 deaths per year for a total of 100 over 17 years. This gives a post 2001 rate of less than one in 50 million. See page 4 of the previously referenced document.
Ah, so you're likely using the annual rate. Parent was using lifetime risk.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Sure I can go down in the streets, shout my hate speech at the top of my lungs, put propaganda flyers in random mailboxes, &c ... Or I can upload a video to all video hosting websites and reach more people a single day than I could do in a lifetime of organic propaganda. Because the printing press, newspapers, filmed movies, radio and television never existed? /s Mass media has been around for a long time.
First off these mediums are mostly controlled by state regulated entities, meaning that it was mostly used for state sponsored propaganda. It's not like I can press 696 on my TV remote and dial on ISIS-TV with live executions. Second, yes, they did exist, and they also did increase the reach of ideas over what was available before them, so what's your point ? You're basically extending my argument. Progress in commun…
Pirate radio, printers, peer to peer sharing, digital formats in general, not controlled by the state and you can still use or access much of that equipment or content. It's not convenient or easy for people, but for the most part it is doable.
"Progress in communication technology means increased propaganda / hate speech / whatever reach. Now you have two choices, do nothing, or try to curb down their reach. Should we be ok with live executions on twitch/yt/fb ? You're free to think that we should, but I'd argue most people are against it."
Those are private entities and they can choose what they want to do on their site. Also, you have distorted the argument as against any type of action against all forms of speech. No one here is saying we should allow streaming of rape, child pornography, murder, etc. Those are already illegal and that problem is already dealt with. The issue we are talking about is allowing people's ideas to be spread.
Already in this thread within a day you see people talking about anti-vaxers and flat-earthers in a debate that is actually supposed to be about extremists and terrorists. But, as these things do, you start pondering the scope and what other bad ideas we shouldn't have let spread or could have been stopped if only we capped our freedoms.
I don't think the state should be in charge of deciding what is and isn't protected speech in this case. Once it is done, when its in the hands of the state, good luck trying to get it undone. It's the edge our understanding. We are more connected than we have ever been before and the complexity of the issue is extremely high. Rushing into the situation and putting a blanket ban on types of speech is a bad idea.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Free speech is not an absolutist position and it does not exist. There is no single country on this earth, past or present, which has held an absolutist free speech position. Yes, that includes America. It may be enshrined in our constitution, but that has never stopped us from selectively applying constitutional rights to different classes of citizens or people we consider to be non-people. The real problem is prete…
> It may be enshrined in our constitution, but that has never stopped us from selectively applying constitutional rights to different classes of citizens or people we consider to be non-people. So, because some people were denied their rights in the past, it proves that right doesn't exist and shouldn't be protected?
"The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice." --MLK
I would agree we don't do this: "Selectively applying constitutional rights to different classes of citizens or people we consider to be non-people."
Instead of forcing a power differential on people we don't like by limiting their access to things on the Internet, we need to convince them. It may take time. But that is the way of just, enlightened people. Using coercion against people by taking away viral-dissemination and discovery from them isn't any different than taking away books, taking away printing presses, or not allowing them into good schools.
It's amazing to me how political this is and how oblivious to that fact a large portion of the NZ population is. This horrible act happened on the current governments watch. I've seen more outrage and effort from the government on the spreading of the video and manifesto than introspection into how this slipped through in the first place. I suppose in a country where carrying a weapon for the purpose of self defense…
NZers have observed the USA's experiment with reducing violent crime by flooding the nation with guns, and there is very strong support across the political spectrum for trying something else: restricting access to the most dangerous guns, and deplatforming murder advocates. It is not some authoritarian ploy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, there are things you can do about it, but I didn't want to get into that when describing the incentives that make it difficult or impossible for them to censor the public discourse unilaterally, but possible to do as a cartel. If you are acknowledging that a cartel in collusion with the government is acting to censor everyone's speech, that's at least a start. No, none of the cause-and-effect relationships I de…
What leads you to believe that I presuppose the undesirability of people supposedly inevitably having access to Martin Luther King? Perhaps you aren't from the US, so you don't understand the cultural context of my example of extremism? Or did you mean that I am claiming that the formation of a censorship cartel is supposedly inevitable? I wasn't claiming that; I was claiming that in the absence of a censorship carte…
I'm tiring of your willful redirection of referents, which I think is the point of your construction. Your "logic" (that basically amounts to censorship is necessary because it's inevitable that bad people will win) smacks of the same mental gymnastics people used to "prove" the existence of god.
people will tend to move to platforms whose recommendations aren't censored
Yes, and this will eventually result in MLK (whose positions are now centrist) winning and authoritarians on both extremes losing. Your scheme uses a lot of words to attempt a pretty transparent sleight of hand.