4 ms·

I am too. What happened to Bat'ko (if this is the Communist you talk about) on Youtube isn't good. But I think there is a clear difference in what he was sayin

by ue_ 9y ago

I am too. What happened to Bat'ko (if this is the Communist you talk about) on Youtube isn't good. But I think there is a clear difference in what he was saying compared to, for example, The Daily Stormer. But it's possible on a matter of principle to be against Nazi speech and applaud when it is removed. Being the victim of suppression of speech designed to liberate people (Socialism) does not mean that you must also be against the suppression of speech designed to advocate genocide and racism (Nazism).

jim-jim-jim 9y ago
Yes, that's who I'm talking about. And you're absolutely right about the difference between the two. And believe me, I'm shedding no tears for the Stormer. If it never comes back we're all better off for it. I'm just unsettled by market-based countermeasures against "extremism" and the way some people seem to be cheering it on. In the case of Nazis it's not so controversial, but what if sites/accounts associated with Hezbollah or the PKK were targeted under the same terms? These are US-designated terror groups but there are plenty of people who see them as positive forces in their respective regions. Not to mention those who might have an unbiased scholarly interest in them. EDIT @ ue_/etplayer below me: Looks like people also can't directly reply to you lol. I agree with 100% of what you wrote.
- etplayer 9y ago
  I agree then; but it's partly out of the fact that we're using centralised technology to share ideas. It's right to be concerned when the discourse is controlled by a small number of peoeple who act out of the desire for profit, which is what's happening here. The quicker we can dispense of the idea that the "popular" Internet offers a "free market of ideas", the quicker we'll see people losing trust in the controllers of the "popular" Internet, from Youtube to domain registrars. Reddit and HN don't help either; they propagate this idea that if your comment is with a negative score (disapproved of by two or more people), it's not worth listening to. They do this by taking measures to obscure your comment, such as making it hard to read (on HN) or hiding it below a button (on Reddit). The idea that an idea is only worth listening to because of its popularity is only less pernicious to the idea that an idea is only worth listening to if it brings the messenger profit. Truth is being commodified. (I'm the person you replied to but this is my alternate account, because the HN moderators have put a flag on my account since many months ago which stops me from commenting too quickly; it activates if I comment more than 3 or 4 times within half an hour, and then stops me from posting more than twice every two hours. How ironic.)

by ue_ 9y ago

jim-jim-jim 9y ago

Yes, that's who I'm talking about. And you're absolutely right about the difference between the two. And believe me, I'm shedding no tears for the Stormer. If it never comes back we're all better off for it. I'm just unsettled by market-based countermeasures against "extremism" and the way some people seem to be cheering it on. In the case of Nazis it's not so controversial, but what if sites/accounts associated with Hezbollah or the PKK were targeted under the same terms? These are US-designated terror groups but there are plenty of people who see them as positive forces in their respective regions. Not to mention those who might have an unbiased scholarly interest in them. EDIT @ ue_/etplayer below me: Looks like people also can't directly reply to you lol. I agree with 100% of what you wrote.

etplayer 9y ago
I agree then; but it's partly out of the fact that we're using centralised technology to share ideas. It's right to be concerned when the discourse is controlled by a small number of peoeple who act out of the desire for profit, which is what's happening here. The quicker we can dispense of the idea that the "popular" Internet offers a "free market of ideas", the quicker we'll see people losing trust in the controllers of the "popular" Internet, from Youtube to domain registrars. Reddit and HN don't help either; they propagate this idea that if your comment is with a negative score (disapproved of by two or more people), it's not worth listening to. They do this by taking measures to obscure your comment, such as making it hard to read (on HN) or hiding it below a button (on Reddit). The idea that an idea is only worth listening to because of its popularity is only less pernicious to the idea that an idea is only worth listening to if it brings the messenger profit. Truth is being commodified. (I'm the person you replied to but this is my alternate account, because the HN moderators have put a flag on my account since many months ago which stops me from commenting too quickly; it activates if I comment more than 3 or 4 times within half an hour, and then stops me from posting more than twice every two hours. How ironic.)