Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

You can't censor away extremism or any other problem

freddiedeboer.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

731–740 of 863 posts

Re: You can't censor away extremism or any other problem

#731

Post by jackson1442 »

Ajedi32 wrote: post #663
jackson1442 wrote: post #644

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When did Dr. Seuss become hate speech? Last I checked, my extended family still reads Dr. Seuss books with their small children. Yes, Seuss's family pulled a few books from production but I don't recall anyone decrying them.

I'm guessing GP is referring to how eBay banned third parties from selling used copies of the Dr. Seuss books in question. See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26347654

Hm. I think it would have been in better taste to just have a flag on the items stating that the family has discontinued distribution for xyz reason.

Re: You can't censor away extremism or any other problem

#732

Post by thinkingemote »

It's almost likeky that no one will read this, but for what it's worth the main thing is understanding.

Ask your opposite "why do I think like this".

Seems to me, that, at least in the commentaries, that the right understands why someone is left than the left understands why someone is right.

10 years ago the left wing understood things. Now they just label and other their opposition

Re: You can't censor away extremism or any other problem

#733

Post by airhead969 »

claudiawerner wrote: post #717
bleah1000 wrote: post #530

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is just a few people explaining how they de-radicalized. Now imagine the opposite, someone with some slightly bad opinion suddenly finds themselves shut out of the main platforms because of hate speech rules. They now become more radicalized. Due to the number of people constantly being suspended/banned I think there is a greater chance that these people will become radicalized, than someone will realize they ha…

>Now imagine the opposite, someone with some slightly bad opinion suddenly finds themselves shut out of the main platforms because of hate speech rules. They now become more radicalized. This is a bad argument; it is a fact, for example, that child pornography by being censored creates a taboo around it. It's also true that some people will seek it out because of its taboo nature - something it would not be (or only…

> Why should it be society's burden to deradicalize people?

Because your neighbor's problem eventually becomes your problem. Cases in point: Saudi Arabia helps 9/11 terrorists; US meddling in South American politics promoting fascists, death squads, and the War on Drugs fueling powerful gangs and cartels; Western-caused climate change refugees fleeing Africa, the Middle East, and South America; Dec 8, 1947.

> Does this work at scale?

No. It doesn't matter if something is difficult or not if it is a moral duty to counter. "I do not fight fascists because I will win. I fight fascists because they are fascists." ― Chris Hedges." It is a moral imperative for anyone and everyone in a potential capacity of mentorship to dispel and debunk faulty ideas that neighborhood youth get involved with. No one can be an island onto themselves and local community is essential (although all-but-dissolved in most modern city life). (Boston Marathon Bombers)

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" - The Friends of Voltaire by Beatrice Hall

When you start editorializing an individual's speech rather than debating them, it's a slippery-slope down the road to censorship and fascism. There are some costs to having an open society, like the risks of being open. You might hear some idea you might not like, or find absolutely repugnant. Having venues that can debate and debunk bad ideas with better better ones is preferable to preaching to the choir. Someone can't influence or the change minds of people they refuse to talk or listen to. Society will eventually come to a head if there become separate, hermetically-sealed ideological camps persist for much longer; this is a very dangerous phenomenon for social stability.

Re: You can't censor away extremism or any other problem

#734

Post by a1369209993 »

tablespoon wrote: post #716
a1369209993 wrote: post #700

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> on your lawn? Twitter and Facebook are common carriers[0], not private residences. Edit: 0: By which I mean that are common carriers in practice , not that they are legally recognized as such.

> Twitter and Facebook are common carriers, not private residences. Except they aren't actually common carriers. Some people are of the opinion they should be, but having an opinion doesn't make it so.

> Some people are of the opinion they should be

I think (based on this) that you mean they aren't legally recognized as common carriers (which isn't what I said, but fair enough; edited to clarify).

Re: You can't censor away extremism or any other problem

#735

Post by orthecreedence »

JPKab wrote: post #666
11thEarlOfMar wrote: post #647

I keep coming back to whether people in general still think open mindedness is a virtue. By open mindedness, I mean open to new experience, open to new ideas, open to new people. Practicing openness means observing and hearing and then evaluating for yourself whether you want to assimilate the experience or idea into your life. Open mindedness also means being open to new information, even if it contradicts a basis f…

You are describing a core concept called liberalism. As a liberal myself, we've become increasingly unwelcome in the United States' only viable left of center political party. We've allowed regressive, illiberal religious fanatics to take over our party. Just like the Republicans allowed regressive, illiberal religious fanatics to take over their party in the 80s. In both cases, they were considered useful idiots to…

I've been fairly silent about all this the past few years. It's interesting because I come from the perspective of economic left (libertarian communism/socialism) and seeing the people around me fall pray to this obsession with identity hasn't been easy. More recently I've starting speaking out about it more, because it's getting to the point where it's effectively McCarthy-era.

I do have some thoughts on your post though.

> The wokies have increasingly demanded Mao-like public concessions from elites

Ultra-wokies are created by elites as a divisive mechanism of the working classes. There aren't workers anymore: there are oppressed black workers and privileged white workers. Round one: fight!

CRT and post-truth (whether on the cultural left or cultural right) are an arm of the ruling class itself. It's hard for people to realize they're being grifted when they can't even have a conversation without being scolded for breaking some constantly-shifting amorphous blob of contradicting rules.

> Trump's voters aren't going to just go away because the tech companies have banned them.

Agreed. They'll start to discover decentralization and p2p systems eventually, then they won't be able to be controlled at all. The cultural left (and I say "cultural" because the economic left is alive and well and still exists alongside this late identity craze) is making an error: you don't want to stamp out 100% of wrongthink, just 80% of it! If you try to do more, you risk entire networks forming ouside of your control. And this is what will happen, and they will lose ALL of their control.

This in itself might be a good thing. Although Trump's cult of personality might be damaging to the nation, they might end up forming communications infrastructures resistant to censorship, which might ultimately be a net-benefit to humanity.

Re: You can't censor away extremism or any other problem

#736

Post by Alupis »

hef19898 wrote: post #728
Alupis wrote: post #725

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point was those polices were not Censorship. I can buy Nazi paraphernalia today, read about Nazism on Wikipedia, purchase newly printed copies of Mein Kumpf, watch Hitler's speeches on Youtube, and more. The ideals of Nazism were defeated by openly exposing, and combating them with freely available information. Censorship would have been to pretend Nazism never happened, and banning of anything that might encroac…

I'm confused now. Either the German laws against hate speach are censorship, as claimed in the original linked blo pst, or they are not. And funny enough, we Germans are usually hammered by the right for over working on our historical gilt. Especially by the German right wing.

Modern day Germany is censoring Nazism as far as I'm aware (it's illegal to call yourself a Nazi in Germany, no?).

The parent post asserted the Allies propaganda campaign after the war was censorship - it's flatly not, particularly since everywhere else in the world you can freely call yourself a Nazi with no repercussions. At no point was it illegal anywhere outside Germany to possess a copy of Mein Kumpf, even if it was signed by Hitler himself.

I don't think outlawing Nazism in Germany was a good thing, nor productive. Nazism could be (and very successfully was) destroyed through exposing it's ideals for what they were.

We often forget there was a Nazi movement here in the US leading up to the war - that was also stamped out not by censorship, but through exposing the evils of the Nazi regime.

Re: You can't censor away extremism or any other problem

#737

Post by xuhu »

wnoise wrote: post #680
11thEarlOfMar wrote: post #647

I keep coming back to whether people in general still think open mindedness is a virtue. By open mindedness, I mean open to new experience, open to new ideas, open to new people. Practicing openness means observing and hearing and then evaluating for yourself whether you want to assimilate the experience or idea into your life. Open mindedness also means being open to new information, even if it contradicts a basis f…

An open mind is like a fortress with its gates unbarred and unguarded.

More like a country that accepts visas.

Re: You can't censor away extremism or any other problem

#738

Post by Veen »

claudiawerner wrote: post #717
bleah1000 wrote: post #530

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is just a few people explaining how they de-radicalized. Now imagine the opposite, someone with some slightly bad opinion suddenly finds themselves shut out of the main platforms because of hate speech rules. They now become more radicalized. Due to the number of people constantly being suspended/banned I think there is a greater chance that these people will become radicalized, than someone will realize they ha…

>Now imagine the opposite, someone with some slightly bad opinion suddenly finds themselves shut out of the main platforms because of hate speech rules. They now become more radicalized. This is a bad argument; it is a fact, for example, that child pornography by being censored creates a taboo around it. It's also true that some people will seek it out because of its taboo nature - something it would not be (or only…

> child pornography by being censored creates a taboo around it

Surely it's the other way around. It is censored because there is a taboo around it. The taboo comes first.

Re: You can't censor away extremism or any other problem

#739

Post by orthecreedence »

alacombe wrote: post #489
thomastjeffery wrote: post #312

The censorship we are talking about is not censorship: it's moderation. Every forum worth using has moderation. The problem today is that most people aren't using user-moderated forums. Instead, they are using corporate-moderated social networks.

"moderation" is censorship.

If you make a post full of cat photos on an auto-mechanic forum and it's removed as off-topic, that's moderation, not censorship.

If you make a post talking about how Ford engines are terrible on that same forum and it's removed, that is much closer to censorship.

Re: You can't censor away extremism or any other problem

#740

Post by SuoDuanDao »

_y5hn wrote: post #727
SuoDuanDao wrote: post #724

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I raised that example to illustrate the problem with censorship as a social engineering tool, there seems to be a lack of nuance around the question. People talk as if the question of whether to censor is identical to whether there are viewpoints that are harmful. That's the wrong question IMHO, of course some viewpoints are harmful. Harmful enough that it would be better if they weren't shared, we can all imagine so…

Yeah, it's a good point. There is however a problem when lies and tribalism take over the agenda, rather than fairness and justice for all. The laws and rule must apply to all, so we must resist unfair special treatment (and you may see this regards to all). The very notion of sides, is false (ie. right vs left). So bribes, threats, falsehoods, abuse need to be exposed for what it is.

Yes. The ability to spread truth must not be compromised to stop the spread of lies.
Post reply on HN