3 ms·

To play devil's advocate.... Saying that we've 'had terrorism for ages' is like saying that we 'had war for ages' and so firearms didn't change anything. I ha

To play devil's advocate.... Saying that we've 'had terrorism for ages' is like saying that we 'had war for ages' and so firearms didn't change anything. I have no idea what the 'official' idea is around trying to lock down 'safe spaces' on the internet, but the idea that the reduction of the availability of certain material may reduce the impact of certain material isn't beyond the realms of reason. We legislate against all sorts of things that should have no effect if everyone were a level-headed rational actor. In days of old, the only way you could recruit people to your cause was likely in person. Now you can do this in a much more distributed way over the internet. When a certain (admittedly vanishingly small) proportion of the population is susceptible to certain arguments, for whatever reason, with lethal consequences, then is suggesting that those arguments should be suppressed a bad idea? (note: this is not the position I hold)

coldtea 9y ago
>Saying that we've 'had terrorism for ages' is like saying that we 'had war for ages' and so firearms didn't change anything. For the comparison to be apt, firearms should play the same role in war that the internet (or lack of it) plays in terrorism. Which I don't think is the case. My point is, even without access to modern telecommunications at all, terrorisms could be as effective, if not more, back in decades past. So suddenly tapping the internet would stop them? >I have no idea what the 'official' idea is around trying to lock down 'safe spaces' on the internet, but the idea that the reduction of the availability of certain material may reduce the impact of certain material isn't beyond the realms of reason. Well, it has worked wonders for alcohol (the prohibition), drugs, pornography, and everywhere else this concept has been tried. >In days of old, the only way you could recruit people to your cause was likely in person. Now you can do this in a much more distributed way over the internet. Which doesn't matter much, since you still need lots of in person checking out the person, plus meetings give them physical equipment they'll need (guns or whatever). Unless they fed-ex those...
- joncrocks 9y ago
  (again, only playing devil's advocate :-) ) > For the comparison to be apt, firearms should play the same role in war that the internet (or lack of it) plays in terrorism. I used the example of firearms as it's a force multiplier (and yeah, it's not a great analogy I admit). This allows a single person to have a potentially much larger impact by reaching more people, some of which may be susceptible to the message. The internet allows lots of people with similar opinions/interests to communicate (and find each other) which either would not have not been possible in the past, or very difficult. You see this played out in all sorts of places where there are communities built up online that wouldn't have been possible before, in all sorts of niche interests. > Well, it has worked wonders for alcohol (the prohibition), drugs, pornography, and everywhere else this concept has been tried. Did less (in number) people drink during prohibition than before/after? Would less people do drugs if they were legalised? Any reasonable argument would suggest that you obviously can't prevent all 'bad' communication, but you want to try and reduce the ease of availability of propaganda. Although I admit there is an obvious parallel with the 'gateway drugs' argument that's frequently made :-) > Which doesn't matter much, since you still need lots of in person checking out the person, plus meetings give them physical equipment they'll need (guns or whatever). Unless they fed-ex those... For a good number of recent attacks, this isn't necessarily true. Attackers use everyday items (vehicles, knifes etc.) and you don't need to 'check anyone out' because it's not a conversation, it's just a 'go out and kill people' message.

coldtea 9y ago

>Saying that we've 'had terrorism for ages' is like saying that we 'had war for ages' and so firearms didn't change anything. For the comparison to be apt, firearms should play the same role in war that the internet (or lack of it) plays in terrorism. Which I don't think is the case. My point is, even without access to modern telecommunications at all, terrorisms could be as effective, if not more, back in decades past. So suddenly tapping the internet would stop them? >I have no idea what the 'official' idea is around trying to lock down 'safe spaces' on the internet, but the idea that the reduction of the availability of certain material may reduce the impact of certain material isn't beyond the realms of reason. Well, it has worked wonders for alcohol (the prohibition), drugs, pornography, and everywhere else this concept has been tried. >In days of old, the only way you could recruit people to your cause was likely in person. Now you can do this in a much more distributed way over the internet. Which doesn't matter much, since you still need lots of in person checking out the person, plus meetings give them physical equipment they'll need (guns or whatever). Unless they fed-ex those...

joncrocks 9y ago
(again, only playing devil's advocate :-) ) > For the comparison to be apt, firearms should play the same role in war that the internet (or lack of it) plays in terrorism. I used the example of firearms as it's a force multiplier (and yeah, it's not a great analogy I admit). This allows a single person to have a potentially much larger impact by reaching more people, some of which may be susceptible to the message. The internet allows lots of people with similar opinions/interests to communicate (and find each other) which either would not have not been possible in the past, or very difficult. You see this played out in all sorts of places where there are communities built up online that wouldn't have been possible before, in all sorts of niche interests. > Well, it has worked wonders for alcohol (the prohibition), drugs, pornography, and everywhere else this concept has been tried. Did less (in number) people drink during prohibition than before/after? Would less people do drugs if they were legalised? Any reasonable argument would suggest that you obviously can't prevent all 'bad' communication, but you want to try and reduce the ease of availability of propaganda. Although I admit there is an obvious parallel with the 'gateway drugs' argument that's frequently made :-) > Which doesn't matter much, since you still need lots of in person checking out the person, plus meetings give them physical equipment they'll need (guns or whatever). Unless they fed-ex those... For a good number of recent attacks, this isn't necessarily true. Attackers use everyday items (vehicles, knifes etc.) and you don't need to 'check anyone out' because it's not a conversation, it's just a 'go out and kill people' message.