Why do you host offensive content? • Hacker News Board

Re: Why do you host offensive content?

#71

Post by stcredzero » Mon, Jul 08, 2019, 5:40 PM UTC

gowld wrote: post #5

The difference between something like NearlyFreeSpeech and something like YouTube, which is often lost in the noise, is that NearlyFreeSpeech is a hosting provider, while YouTube has, in addition, also an active editorial system and recommendation engine that promotes "offensive" content. Just as NFS is justified in hosting content and requiring uploaders to back it up with their real identity, so that those uploader…

people are justified in judging YouTube management for the content that YouTube management uploads

You mean "promotes." People are free to judge. However, by granting discovery/virality selectively, rather than going by pure interest and numbers, YouTube is exercising editorial judgement. This makes them into a publisher, not a platform. People are free to urge YouTube to become a publisher. YouTube is free to follow suit or not and take the rewards and consequences of their actions.

Re: Why do you host offensive content?

#72

Post by dlivingston » Mon, Jul 08, 2019, 5:40 PM UTC

ketzo wrote: post #63

I see this argument so, so frequently -- that repugnant views need to be given a platform, that heinous and disgusting content must be allowed a space, so that everyone can see it and fight against it! Since when the fuck is that how the internet works? If Stormfront hosts a site on NFS.net, who do you think visits that site? Bright young progressives valiantly carrying a banner of social justice? No. Fucking neo-Naz…

Where do you, personally, define the line though? And how do you ensure that line won't be changed to fight against you once your enemies are in power?

Re: Why do you host offensive content?

#73

Post by waterhouse » Mon, Jul 08, 2019, 5:40 PM UTC

djsumdog wrote: post #39

josteink wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which would typically be privileged people, non-ironically complaining about other people’s privilege.

People don't have privilege. People toss around that word a lot and it's used incorrectly, as it is here. 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 p…

"I’ve postulated before that “privilege” is a classic motte-and-bailey term. The motte, the uncontroversial and attractive definition, is “some people have built-in advantages over other people, and it might be hard for them to realize these advantages even exist”. Under this definition, it’s easy to agree that, let’s say, Aaronson has the privilege of not having to deal with slut-shaming, and Penny has the privilege of not having to deal with the kind of creep-shaming that focuses on male nerds.

The bailey, the sneaky definition used to push a political point once people have agreed to the motte, is that privilege is a one-dimensional axis such that for any two people, one has privilege over the other, and that first person has it better in every single way, and that second person has it worse in every single way.

This is of course the thing everyone swears they don’t mean when they use the word privilege, which is of course how the motte-and-bailey fallacy works. But as soon as they are not being explicitly challenged about the definition, this is the way they revert back to using the word."

https://slatestarcodex.com/2015/01/01/untitled/

Re: Why do you host offensive content?

#74

Post by luckylion » Mon, Jul 08, 2019, 5:40 PM UTC

egypturnash wrote: post #32

Nursie wrote: post #7

> "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 have come to the point of view that what radical free speech people deride as "censorship" is often better described as "an immune system". 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 c…

To keep the analogy: if you live in a quarantined clean room to protect your immune system from the bad germs, viruses etc, you're going to end up with a very weak immune system. If you expose your immune system to the world, it's going to learn how to fight specific threats it'll encounter.

Re: Why do you host offensive content?

#75

Post by root_axis » Mon, Jul 08, 2019, 5:42 PM UTC

stcredzero wrote: post #71

gowld wrote: post #5

The difference between something like NearlyFreeSpeech and something like YouTube, which is often lost in the noise, is that NearlyFreeSpeech is a hosting provider, while YouTube has, in addition, also an active editorial system and recommendation engine that promotes "offensive" content. Just as NFS is justified in hosting content and requiring uploaders to back it up with their real identity, so that those uploader…

people are justified in judging YouTube management for the content that YouTube management uploads You mean "promotes." People are free to judge. However, by granting discovery/virality selectively, rather than going by pure interest and numbers, YouTube is exercising editorial judgement. This makes them into a publisher, not a platform. People are free to urge YouTube to become a publisher. YouTube is free to follow…

> This makes them into a publisher, not a platform.

Says who? "Publisher" and "Platform" are not mutually exclusive identities.

Re: Why do you host offensive content?

#76

Post by gnaritas » Mon, Jul 08, 2019, 5:42 PM UTC

UncleMeat wrote: post #55

waynecochran wrote: post #10

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…

We've known how to refute genocidal racism for ages. The ideas aren't new and the reasons why they are garbage aren't new. Yet these ideas still exist and still spread. Why has the market of ideas not destroyed these ideas? If the market cannot destroy even the most terrible ideas that humans have ever devised, what does that really say about the market?

It says it works. The notion that bad ideas should be destroyed is a false premise.

Re: Why do you host offensive content?

#77

Post by djsumdog » Mon, Jul 08, 2019, 5:42 PM UTC

Frondo wrote: post #61

djsumdog wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you blame 4chan? Really? An emotionally disturbed person may have more input today in the Internet age, but the majority of 4chan users don't go out shooting mosques. This was one fucked up Australian, from a country of over 30 million; and the first Aussie to commit a mass shooting since 1996. I do not think it's right to place the blame on a bunch of random people saying things. They didn't murder all those peop…

Speech leads to violence, and even a somewhat limited reading of the history of genocides in the 20th century ought to make it difficult to dispute that. If the Hutus hadn't been broadcasting anti-Tutsi sentiment for a few hundred days before the violence, it's tough to say that the Hutus would've suddenly risen up to kill about 70% of the Tutsi population there all of a sudden.

Speech also leads to civil rights, Gandi's campaign to free Indian from the Raj .. and sure you can say, "Well that speech didn't advocate violence."

What about The American Revolution? or unions/strikes? There are times in history where speech lead people to push through those tipping points, and sometimes they resulted in violent revolution and others in non-violent revolution. (and we're generally okay with the violent revolutions, so long as the 'right' side wins).

Even in your Hutus/Tutsi example, you're suggesting the Hutus used speech to persuade their people to commit violence? It's still the choice of the individuals, and eventually the group, to act violently.

Unless you're saying that with enough advertising, you remove peoples' agency. That in the face of constant advertising, individuals have less of a choice and subscribe more to group think.

Maybe freewill is an illusion and you can get people do do whatever you want with enough speech, propaganda and averts. But that's a much bigger issue of human will than speech.

Re: Why do you host offensive content?

#78

Post by HeroOfAges » Mon, Jul 08, 2019, 5:43 PM UTC

xgulfie wrote: post #44

waynecochran wrote: post #10

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…

This attitude that "to be offended you have to allow it" is ridiculous. You can't simply turn your emotions on and off unless you are a sociopath.

How old are you? I'm curious because I thought along those lines when I was a younger man. You are right that we have almost no control over our immediate emotional reactions to something we have just observed. You do control your train of thought about that observation going forward.

Re: Why do you host offensive content?

#79

Post by gnaritas » Mon, Jul 08, 2019, 5:43 PM UTC

xgulfie wrote: post #44

waynecochran wrote: post #10

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…

This attitude that "to be offended you have to allow it" is ridiculous. You can't simply turn your emotions on and off unless you are a sociopath.

Or an adult. Offense is always a choice, adults learn to laugh off this shit rather than be offended by it. You are responsible for your own emotions and how you react to them; it's no one's fault you're offended but your own. Offense is taken, not given.

Re: Why do you host offensive content?

#80

Post by dlivingston » Mon, Jul 08, 2019, 5:43 PM UTC

Nursie wrote: post #41

djsumdog wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There was a time when the cesspit were all the people promoting the debauchery of homosexuality, or the idea that blacks were somehow equal to whites in intelligence and genetic disposition. These were greatly offensive statements at one time. People were ridiculed and deplatformed for having them. Translate the Bible into a barbaric language like German or English? That caused great offense. People were excommunicat…

> "By banning speech is to say, "I agree people are too stupid to make their own decisions. Let's make the world 'safe' for them and ban ideas I don't agree with." 1. People are stupid. Really, really stupid. Especially when given the means to surround and reinforce themselves with other idiots. See for example - antivax and alt-med in general, chemtrails any number of ridiculous conspiracy theories that propagate th…

> People are stupid. Really, really stupid.

But thank god you and I are smart - really, really smart. So smart, in fact, that we should take it upon ourselves to police the thoughts and words of the 'lessers'.