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

Why do you host offensive content?

nearlyfreespeech.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 169 posts

Re: Why do you host offensive content?

#81

Post by klyrs »

ulzeraj wrote: post #11
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…

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.

> ...now the same people and institutions are asking for the head of individuals like Phillip DeFranco.

I'm fairly lefty, and haven't heard of this Phillip DeFranco before. Surely if I consult my biased google bubble, it will show me the dirt on him? Well, not really:

> “Hey, writer here,” Roose responded. “This collage is just a sample from his viewing history. Some far-right, some not.” [1]

And reading the original NYT article... they aren't asking for anybody's head. And this is where it gets really interesting from a free speech perspective. Phillip got offended because he was in a collage of somebody's viewing history. He might have been a step along somebody's slippery slope, whose politics are/were too extreme for his comfort -- or it might just be correlation without causation. The article didn't dig into Phillip and denounce him.

In fact, the thrust of the NYT article is that YouTube's recommendations take folks from moderate content, and send them on a spiral to more extreme content.

You're free to describe all of that as 'asking for heads,' but that really doesn't seem to be the case here.

[1] https://www.dexerto.com/entertainment/youtuber-philip-defran...

Re: Why do you host offensive content?

#82

Post by waynecochran »

komali2 wrote: post #51
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…

Why should some content be illegal?

This requires nuance and discussion, but things like the following are generally not productive and not protected by free speech.

    Defamation against private individual (including libel and slander)
    Child pornography
    Blackmail
    Incitement to imminent violence
    Solicitations to commit crimes
I think any discussion concerning "ideas" is fair game. It gets murky when dealing with individuals. None of the things on the list above are an "idea."

Re: Why do you host offensive content?

#83

Post by dlivingston »

root_axis wrote: post #70
dlivingston wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And who is to be the censor? Would you be so complacent if I were the censor, dictating what you can and cannot read, see, and hear?

The censor is the owner of the platform broadcasting the content. If I didn't like your censorship practices then I wouldn't use your platform.

Just to be clear, are you advocating for censorship on a platform (i.e. Facebook) level, or a governmental level as well?

Re: Why do you host offensive content?

#84

Post by Nursie »

djsumdog wrote: post #45
Nursie wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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…

The atmosphere of open denigration of others certainly seems to be contributing to the rash of violent alt-right and white-supremacist incidents we're seeing yes.

Do I 'blame' 4chan? Not in any absolute sense, especially as he did his live broadcast to 8chan. But I'm willing to say that I think participation in these online communities contributed, yes.

Re: Why do you host offensive content?

#85

Post by stcredzero »

root_axis wrote: post #47

> censorship is always bad This isn't true. A few examples. If I post your naked photos online and they are censored, that isn't bad. If I post your address online next to a photo of your house and it is censored, that isn't bad. If I post the source code of your personal project online and it is censored, that isn't bad. If I post the contents of your diary online and it is censored, that isn't bad. If I post the co…

This isn't true. A few examples.

If you have to resort to extreme examples, then it shows the weakness of your position. Those examples are mostly illegal. It's not "censorship" in the context of Free Speech if one is counteracting illegal activity. The serious societal problems come in when there is censorship on an ideological basis.

This idea that "free speech" means everyone has to agree to let everything appear on the internet is false.

If Free Speech applies to the Internet, then it means precisely that everyone has to agree to let everything appear on the Internet. In 2019, saying that people can have Free Speech, just not on the Internet, is like saying people can have Free Speech, just not with mechanized printing. In 2019, publishing has to include the Internet, and suppressing publishing on an ideological basis is suppressing the principle of Free Speech.

Re: Why do you host offensive content?

#86

Post by Nursie »

dlivingston wrote: post #80
Nursie wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "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'.

Not what I claimed, I'm not saying I have a solution here, or that anyone should be empowered to arbitrate. Merely that the idealist position is also pretty wrongheaded.

Re: Why do you host offensive content?

#87

Post by stcredzero »

jchw wrote: post #15

My favorite bit here is not the content policy, it’s the MFFAM bit, which is clever and amusing. https://www.nearlyfreespeech.net/about/faq#BecauseFuckNazisT...

The SPLC has done good work in the past, but they've published outright falsehoods recently. They've even had to retract, apologize, and pay a legal settlement. Much of their activity of late seems to be about political expedience and tribe, less about principle.

Re: Why do you host offensive content?

#88

Post by root_axis »

dlivingston wrote: post #83
root_axis wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The censor is the owner of the platform broadcasting the content. If I didn't like your censorship practices then I wouldn't use your platform.

Just to be clear, are you advocating for censorship on a platform (i.e. Facebook) level, or a governmental level as well?

I am not "advocating for censorship", I am "advocating" for the freedom to determine what content is hosted on a computer you own.

A computer owned by the government is a different story since government property is paid for by the tax-payer, so it should not be able to act unilaterally in matters of removing content.

Re: Why do you host offensive content?

#89

Post by [deleted] »

waynecochran wrote: post #25
stronglikedan wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Free Speech for bad ideas is as important as free speech for good ideas. I would argue that it's more important. > Phillip DeFranco Edit regarding your edit: Complaining about downvotes is cringe inducing.

I don't care about downvotes -- it was the immediacy of it.

[deleted]

Re: Why do you host offensive content?

#90

Post by waynecochran »

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 is especially important for the more abhorrent ideas like "genocidal racism" to be exposed. Silencing it and driving it underground will have the opposite effect of what we want.

The reasons racism is wrong needs to be constantly reposted -- we forget and repeat our mistakes too often. That is why we have holocaust museums. In fact the dangers of racism become more obvious when you let the racists speak! Let them. Teach your children from them. Show them the effect.

Post reply on HN