> we draw the line at platforms that have demonstrated they directly inspire tragic events and are lawless by design What does "lawless by design" mean?
8chan was created to provide a platform for content that wouldn't be accepted else where.
Terminating Service for 8Chan
501–510 of 1001 posts
Re: Terminating Service for 8Chan
#502The best argument I’ve heard for being a free speech absolutist is that speech is the highest form of thought in Humans. We think via dialogue. We arrive at the truth via dialogue. Criminalizing free speech limits our ability to think and arrive at the truth, and that can’t be good for anyone long term. I haven’t heard of a good rebuttal to the above reasoning.
To extend your metaphor, imagine that part of humanity's brain is engaged in thinking about the abduction and exploitation of children. Another part is lionizing mass murderers and advocating for copy cats. A different part of the brain is contemplating the state of the art for financial and cyber crimes etc. If you come to believe that the time humanity's brain spends occupied with these pursuits leads to negative r…
That’s a good point. Thoughts can be dangerous. My post only works if you have a bias against thought-crime.
As an aside, if someone’s thoughts are ill-intentioned, you should be able to dispel them by forcing an honest examination of everything.
Re: Terminating Service for 8Chan
#503Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Given that, this seems like a reasonable exercise of that power, and that's about the best we can hope for. Maybe, this event may become the precedent for all future hosting providers of unpopular opinions and where denial of service attacks become used against these hosting providers. Losing protection from anti-ddos service(s) becomes a process to eliminate the unpopular opinions being expressed. I think this is d…
> Maybe, this event may become the precedent for all future hosting providers of unpopular opinions Maybe it won't! I feel like every time a controversial site gets shut down message boards are flooded with slippery slope arguments, but by and large I haven't seen it ever transpire.
Recently, after Youtube responded to Steven Crowder's harassment of a gay reporter who works for Vox named Carlos Maza, a number of independent youtube personalities who comment on news mentioned they had their videos demonetized. This included people who are on the left. Here's an example and someone I follow[0]. It's not quite what you're talking about, but it's an example of how trying to moderate speech or chill it affects everyone who isn't already an established player (CNN,MSNBC,etc) regardless of their ideology.
Re: Terminating Service for 8Chan
#504On the one hand, I like the idea of a free, open, and distributed internet, where no one company or government has the power to control what is distributed or discussed. As the great John Gilmore said, more aspirationally than accurately even then: "The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it." On the other hand, we don't live in that world, and I don't know how well it would work in practice if we d…
"The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it."
As if "The Net" is a perfect, neutral, self-supporting entity that behaves with mathematic predictability rather than a projection of the chaotic human society on which its existence depends.
There is a widespread habit among futurists and technologists, perhaps arising from an appreciation for semantic economy and the anonymizing instinct to downplay associations between oneself and one's assertions, to use the passive voice when concocting reductive maxims of this sort.
I believe many of the moral blind spots of technocratic thinking are connected to the peculiar tendency - revealed by this passive voice framing habit - to overlook or outright dismiss the role that human inputs play in the complex systems futurists propose as solutions to human problems.
Re: Terminating Service for 8Chan
#505Earlier quoted context omitted.
So you're willing to give unchecked control of online discourse to a private corporation?
As opposed to...what, exactly? A government funded Reddit? Which government would fund it? How would it be run?
That is perhaps not a bad idea.
If not government funded, a non-profit, like c-span.
Re: Terminating Service for 8Chan
#506If you build a system that is technically possible for someone to censor, particularly if you make it easy to do (and in fact where not doing so would cost them potentially billions of dollars in market cap in an upcoming IPO, recruiting, sales, vendors, etc), you shouldn’t be at all surprised when they do censor. It is interesting that Cloudflare has only really censored two sites (dailystormer and 8chan) outside of…
Kicking out and not providing service isn't the same thing as censoring. One is customer-driven, the other is content-driven.
You can kick a customer out because they espouse certain views or whatever, and it's fine to call it discriminatory, but it's not censorship. This isn't usually a relevant distinction, but here it is because Cloudflare hasn't built "a system that is technically possible for someone to censor".
They could, and thank fuck they don't, because that would absolutely be the day I'm getting off Cloudflare.
Re: Terminating Service for 8Chan
#507CloudFlare is not a notice board. They are practically a utility. PG&E aren’t a government, and they can’t cut off your electricity because you’re an extremist. What about ISPs? Should Cox, Comcast, Frontier, etc be liable for what flows through their pipes? Media companies say yes, but what do you do when your ISP says “bye” because you visit 4chan? Go to another ISP? In most areas of the US, you can’t
There are two connected but distinct problems this thread touches on, freedom of speech and the actual utility nature of modern internet companies. Both are problems here and of course, the internet companies don't want to face either. Although the Cloudfare case is a bit different since it isn't quite a monopoly, yet.
Re: Terminating Service for 8Chan
#508Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Until we collectively acknowledge that it's real humans behind these actions and create modern ways to identify and prevent them Surely this has no downsides at all. For example, you can rest easy because YOUR ideas and YOUR opinions will never stray off the “approved” line. ... how is it people in tech can’t see past their own noses on things like this?
because the line of reasoning you are using has been repeated over and over and over.... but it's not exactly working out well. Words have a lot of power, and we already limit what people can say through libel laws. Much of the hate speech going on is really just libel to a group of people. No one really wants to police speech, but we already know untruths targeted at individuals can be devstating and we have created…
Under your interpretation, would I be allowed to say that it’s evident that there are (nontrivial, sometimes cognitive) innate group differences between the sexes, or between racial groups? If you’re convinced that such a statement would simply be “libelous”, I can’t get on board with your idea. As far as I can tell, the current state of affairs is this: the science suggests rather strongly that there are indeed innate differences both between the sexes and among various racial groups; despite this, any statement to that effect is loudly denounced as “pseudoscience”. In other words, I believe that the current popular consensus regarding innate group differences is factually incorrect, but also believed in very strongly. So if that’s your angle, I think that your idea has reached its “dystopia scenario”—truthful speech being prohibited because it is falsely deemed libelous—right out of the gate.
Re: Terminating Service for 8Chan
#509Earlier quoted context omitted.
Except the warnings are anonymous, and don't mention who, when, or where. What's really going on is similar to what we saw with radicalization in extremist Islam forums. A large group of young, usually lonely and frustrated men, disconnected socially, often with no hope of financial status advancement, find solace and community in online forums with like people, and then act to self-reinforce some of the community's…
> What's really going on is similar to what we saw with radicalization in extremist Islam forums. A large group of young, usually lonely and frustrated men, disconnected socially, often with no hope of financial status advancement, find solace and community in online forums with like people, and then act to self-reinforce some of the community's worse inclinations, blaming their predicament on other types of people,…
Yes, it is, and that’s why the demonization of men’s rights groups is not only counterproductive, but completely irresponsible. You may disagree with specific grievances or talking points, but you shouldn’t discourage groups who feel aggrieved from airing their grievances in a nonviolent way and trying to work within the system to achieve their goals.
Re: Terminating Service for 8Chan
#510Earlier quoted context omitted.
Taking orders from gay people and hosting services for sites which support far-right terrorism aren't exactly the same though. We can be against suppressing gay people and for suppressing far-right terrorism even if the means by which the suppression happens is similar.
But don't you see how the lines blue very quickly? It's not always as clear where morality lies as when some lunatic posts terroristic threats. Arbitrary value judgements must be made when enforcing censorship so censorship always leads to conflict between groups that disagree on what should be censored. That's why the best course of action is to not censor at all and allow the system to work itself out.
> That's why the best course of action is to not censor at all and allow the system to work itself out.
I disagree with this sentiment, and upon reflection of why, it seems we've come to a real-life example of the trolly problem. Choosing to be passive and "let the system sort itself out" will almost certainly result in more deaths (edit: specifically in terms of mass shootings), but choosing to be active means the powers that be are forced to make subjective choices. I personally believe that it's worth taking on the responsibility of subjective choice.
Edit: However, I also realize that censorship oftentimes just ostracizes already-radical groups. This has the advantage of making it harder for them to find an audience, but also allows them to radicalize further while under less scrutiny, which also seems like a complicated balance to me.