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

91–100 of 863 posts

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

#91

Post by Nasrudith »

ofrzeta wrote: post #5

I never understood the point of Strafgesetzbuch section 86a. It does not make any sense to outlaw using Nazi symbols. It's like outlawing symptoms instead of caring for the illness. People will just take it underground and you will have a harder time tracking it down.

Its purpose was somewhat historic in that it kills any attempt to invoke their symbolism or terrible power for "legitimacy".

While nearly everyone rightfully recognizes it as terrible some see that as fear and a source of power. Fascism is a death cult which conflates its ability to commit travesties with strength and vicarious empowerment to its supporters to make crimes against humanity heroic. Stopping the death cults from drawing upon resources for their twisted in-group is a purpose.

The constitution embedded ban means any resurrectionists can be hammered down without any credible slippery slope worries.

It is true that a new set could emerge eventually. However having to neuter their own symbols undermines their twisted claim to strength and makes them look pathetic in the same way the battle of Cable Street undermined their claims of strength - even with their warped doublethink trying to be both mighty victor against overwhelming odds and crying victim after they lost is too much.

Gangs get impressionable recruits by dealing violence to demonstrate power not being seen getting laid out after they try to attack somebody and get decked in the face.

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

#92

Post by esja »

Bud wrote: post #61
bopbeepboop wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“Free speech” in the moral sense is exactly that people who operate civil infrastructure shouldn’t use their privilege for censorship. So... people who believe in “free speech” as a moral value will disagree with your first paragraph — and hence, your entire post. You assume your conclusion, so your argument fails to be persuasive. “I disagree with what you say, but I’ll fight to the death to defend your right to say…

We don't have a "moral duty" to force corporations to allow Nazis on their platform, though. The Nazis are perfectly capable of building their own platform.

What percentage of the people being kicked off these platforms are actually Nazis? It seems very close to zero.

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

#93

Post by NaturalPhallacy »

Sohcahtoa82 wrote: post #66
zapdrive wrote: post #56

What the left also needs is a realization that some of its beliefs are akin to extremism. And some of the left inspired policies have really really hurt and isolated a significant population. The left needs to soften it's stand on such issues.

What the right also needs is a realization that some of its beliefs are akin to extremism. And some of the right inspired policies have really really hurt and isolated a significant population. The right needs to soften it's stand on such issues. It's such a generic statement that it's meaningless and could apply to any group of opinions.

Doesn't mean it's wrong... The racists on the right know they're racists. They admit it. The racists I've encountered on the left are the racism-of-low-expectations kind with a dash of openly-racist-against-white-people, and then they go and act morally superior to people who aren't racist against any race. The sanctimony is grating.

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

#94

Post by devwastaken »

Much of the assumptions of the article are the opposite of the titles conclusion.

Racism and hate did not go away. People were much less capable of organizing it and normalizing it's behavior before the internet. You actually had to go vast distances to get people together before. Now, it's a facebook group or 'conservative social media' platform away.

With the dawn of anonymity began the demonstration of human nature when it does not receive local social pressures. A completely new and unique prototype of communications that bypass our evolutionary social ques.

Without identity, pressure from peers, and authority, humans are left with the freedom to choose any way they want to conduct themselves.

Sadly, humans chose to conduct themselves poorly. A result a 2nd grader could also predict. Instead of caring about the truth they care about superiority. Instead of honesty they care about being on a team.

We can censor people. Governments can absolutely create a great firewall where only approved businesses are licensed and given access by ISP's to receive incoming socket connection requests. ISP's prevent this all the time due to multi layer NAT. ISP's can lock down ports and prevent two subscribers from communicating without a server that is explicitly allowed on their IP range to do so.

Certainly, we could. But anonymity has benefits. People can discuss important matters without that social threat. People cannot seek a recourse when they are offended, cannot censor information, etc.

Ghost in the Shell had a very interesting scenario in which people would VR dive into a group chat to discuss controversial events - and it all went mostly professional and fact seeking. This prediction is so far away from what we actually have now - actual fabrication of facts and cults that surround them. People entirely uninterested in reasoning or being reasoned with. Just a room full of people reinforcing each other without any basis in fact.

Also the author disagreeing "hate crimes" being a thing: the reason for hate crimes is that individuals would organize to intimidate the lives of others that belong to specific ethnic groups. People have a right to be free from that, and it's absolutely the purpose of government to uphold that right. Organized crime has always received special laws targeting it to deter it.

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

#95

Post by tshaddox »

vladvasiliu wrote: post #87
tshaddox wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Note how “to defend your right to say it” actually makes sense in its normal context of positive and negative rights. One can in theory fight to defend every person’s right to say what they want to say, because saying something generally does not preclude anyone else from also saying something. However, these modifications doesn’t work the same way: “to defend your right to be trending on Twitter” or “to defend your…

Disclaimer: I don't really use Twitter, so my understanding of its mechanics might be wrong. Isn't "trending on Twitter" a popularity contest? As in something's "trending" because more people (users, as opposed to Twitter the company or their moderators) have chosen to interact with that tweet instead of some other? I think that "to defend your right to say it", in this context, does mean "to defend your right to be…

I think you’re making a common mistake, which is to assume there’s some “natural” algorithm that determines which tweets trend, and that human intervention is “unnatural” and unfair.

But on the contrary, Twitter’s trending feature (and indeed all distribution on all public social media networks I’m aware of) is active promotion of speech. Humans at Twitter are deciding which tweets trend, regardless of whether they’re doing so manually or using algorithms (which they designed) to automate the process.

Even a very simple change to a very simple ranking algorithm, like changing the relative value of likes/comments/etc. or the time decay of whatever values are being counted, can significantly change which content gets promoted. These are choices that humans make at Twitter.

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

#97

Post by smsm42 »

Zardoz84 wrote: post #27

You can't dialog with fascist.

If you want a definite proof you're wrong, read this: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/kkk-klu-kl...

This is the story of Daryl Davis, a black man who convinced 200 KKK members (yes, real violent racists, not just people who disagreed with you on tax rates) to change their ways. If a black man can do it by talking to KKK members, maybe it's after all possible for you to dialogue with your neighbor about tax rates?

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

#98

Post by k4c9x »

smsm42 wrote: post #59
Zardoz84 wrote: post #27

You can't dialog with fascist.

There are usually two steps here: 1. Declare people who disagree with you fascists 2. Declare that it's impossible to dialogue with fascists Then it all becomes very easy.

No, it's:

1. Declare people that want a fascists form of government fascists

2. there is no 2.

It's not word play, it's just facts.

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

#100

Post by Clubber »

jackjeff wrote: post #62

I know the article spends its time describing how anti hate speech laws in Western Europe are not working. But frankly they’re not enforced. I think this is why they don’t work. I see censorship has putting dirt under the carpet. People will try again. There’s no accountability. Social media censorship would ban flashing boobs with the same enthusiasm as Nazi propaganda. The latter is not a breach of terms and condit…

>“all Mexicans are rapists” (a Trump quote)

Except he didn't actually say that. It's actually Tim Kaine misquoting Trump, so technically it's a Kaine quote.

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2016/aug/08/tim-kaine/...

By enforcement, I assume you mean arrest and jail people for speech. It will probably work for a while, as it does it more dictatorial countries. At least until the cities start burning down.

Post reply on HN