3 ms·
As if marking a certain brand of speech as forbidden, without being able to do more than a tiny smidgen to actually prevent its dissemination (as must be the ca
by comex 11y ago
As if marking a certain brand of speech as forbidden, without being able to do more than a tiny smidgen to actually prevent its dissemination (as must be the case given the unfiltered nature of our Internet - unlike in the past with paper materials, not that censorship worked out so well then either), would reduce its effectiveness on vulnerable young people questioning their worldviews, as opposed to making it seem more attractive!
- meowface 11y agoYeah, that's the biggest problem here. Taking down a lecture from a Muslim extremist isn't going to somehow dissuade a young, easily-influenced person from looking for it. They're going to want to learn what "the government doesn't want you to see!", and will find the video through different means. Maybe Youtube should instead modify those videos to still show them, but also provide some kind of pop-up or page inject with links to counter-arguments. This is still invasive, but a lot more reasonable, I think. When something has strong potential to turn some people into mass murderers, I think it's okay to be a little invasive.
- gizmo686 11y agoYoutube already shows you related videos, and on the home page suggests videos based on your viewing history. It would not be difficult to modify those algorithms to attempt to suggest videos with the intent of influences the viewers belief (as opposed to maximizing their time on the site). Similarly, Google can do this with their main search engine as well. Of course, when thought about in the abstract, this seems highly distopian, but the time maximizing goal also has political effects (namely, the "search bubble" and radicalization).
- meowface 11y agoIt does feel a bit dystopian, but it's not trying to prevent supposed societal "ills" like "the gays" or "socialism". Violent terrorism and extremism are real global ills and negatively impact every society. Calls for violence aren't considered valid free speech and can be directly banned. Calls for things that can eventually lead to violence are a much murkier area. They shouldn't be outright banned, but they should be mitigated.
- LyndsySimon 11y ago> Violent terrorism and extremism are real global ills and negatively impact every society. I strongly disagree, with the inclusion of "extremism" in particular. I'm an anarcho-capitalist, which I think any clear-thinking person would identify as an extreme ideology. Do you wish to silence me? Is my telling people that they should engage in voluntary association and reject the initiation of force a "real global ill"? To put it another way, in the words of Barry Goldwater: "Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice."
- meowface 11y agoMaybe extremism wasn't the right word. In this case, I meant extremist Islamic fundamentalism.