4 ms·

I think the hypothetical that people like me on the left need to consider is the following. Our current vice president is extremely anti-abortion. It's no stret

by tgb 9y ago

I think the hypothetical that people like me on the left need to consider is the following. Our current vice president is extremely anti-abortion. It's no stretch of the imagination to see that portion of the country growing in strength to be there dominant view in power within ten years. In their view abortion doctors are literal baby killers, websites arguing the benefits of abortion are literally advocating the killing of babies. In their eyes, this is literally as bad as Hitler. If you set the standard at "ban everything that the populace deems to be as bad as Hitler" then today we get rid of Nazi sites and tell KKK members they can't use our gyms, but tomorrow who will be condemned? (Note that this isn't even a slippery slope argument: it's saying that who gets to define the slope changes.) The other argument is that if Google and co have never ever bowed to political pressure to remove something except as required by law, that gives them a great argument to push back against some of the less progressive governments which they must work with. If Assad starts demanding that internet companies in Syria ban his political opponents, then Google could reply "we didn't even ban Nazis, why the hell would you expect us to ban anyone for you?" And in case this all seems hypothetical, remember that the current US government recently requested all visitor logs for an anti-Trump website.

Icedcool 9y ago
Well said.
eli_gottlieb 9y ago
The missing distinction here is between a public utility with monopoly privileges (more like Google) and just some business (GoDaddy or some gym). Nazis should be able to use public utilities, but the thing is, if we decide Google is a public utility, then so should communists, pornographers, drug dealers, criminal gangs, et al. And in fact, great, let's do that! Let's pass those statutes, let's break up the internet monopolies, let's decentralize and encrypt everything we can, all the time. But let's also make sure that up until the very moment those statutes pass, we're not giving Nazis special favors.
- leereeves 9y ago
  The problem is what happens in the meantime, when Google is effectively a public utility but not regulated as one.
  - ForRealsies 9y ago
    We're already seeing freedom of speech liberties clashing with social media 'public utilities' (Twitter, Facebook, etc).
  - eli_gottlieb 9y ago
    A grand unity coalition of leftist and rightist activists gather together to push for public utility classification together? (I know, I know, but God forbid we all admit when we really do have common goals?)
danharaj 9y ago
> If you set the standard at "ban everything that the populace deems to be as bad as Hitler" then today we get rid of Nazi sites and tell KKK members they can't use our gyms, but tomorrow who will be condemned? You should count the number of bombings of abortion clinics over the last decade or two, count the number of laws restricting access to abortion in the last 5, and then decide whether inaction today will prevent action tomorrow. What is the causal relationship of this argument? If I condemn nazis today, and say the nazis come into power, does my past action magically make it easier for nazis in power to be, well nazis? If I don't stand against nazis today and they come into power, will that magically shield me? Rhetorical consistency has no physical power. > Google could reply "we didn't even ban Nazis, why the hell would you expect us to ban anyone for you?" Or they could just do it anyway. Being rhetorically consistent has never been a requirement for taking actual action. Just remember that the United States government has already colluded with business leaders to suppress political beliefs [1]. After the Fowley Square Trial, the United States government actually disbarred and jailed any attorney who defended the communists they charged. They then passed a law forbidding picketing of courthouses. The ACLU supported that law. Pandora's box has already been opened. It's always really funny how it's the far right who have their rights vociferously defended by centrists but those very same centrists always stood by while communists were rounded up and exterminated. By the way, this happened too in Germany. All of the people who publicly opposed the Nazis before they came into power were condemned with the same exact centrist "both sides are wrong" rhetoric we hear today. The more things change, the more they stay the same. These very exact arguments were being made in the 1930's. They were being made back in the days of Usenet, BBS and vBulletin forums. They will be made so long as there exist people who want to maintain some abstract virtue at the cost of other peoples' material safety. So long as someone is not directly materially threatened by the white nationalist political program, they will indefinitely stave off any concrete opposition to that program. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_Act_trials_of_Communist_Party_leaders https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_Act_trials_of_Communist_...
- rad88 9y ago
  On the other hand you have people who are not materially threatened by white nationalism deciding to kick the hornets nest because they're in a bad mood. That was bullshit and should be condemned. The far right's persecution complex is directly tied to their violence and oppression against more vulnerable groups, so when some tech CEO validates that complex needlessly it really is counterproductive and harmful. The position of "don't pull this bullshit because it comes back on us" is not abstract, although the people who pulled the bullshit might not be the ones who see it come back around. Ideological consistency and abstract virtue are things for the far-left/right almost by definition. If a centrist is protesting or standing around doing nothing it's for another reason. That might span from "actually believes it protects peoples' material safety better" to "is completely clueless" or "doesn't want to speak up and face extermination themselves", etc. You're basically calling it virtue signalling but that is often just a way to dismiss someone's authentic concerns or motivation.

by tgb 9y ago

Icedcool 9y ago

Well said.

eli_gottlieb 9y ago

The missing distinction here is between a public utility with monopoly privileges (more like Google) and just some business (GoDaddy or some gym). Nazis should be able to use public utilities, but the thing is, if we decide Google is a public utility, then so should communists, pornographers, drug dealers, criminal gangs, et al. And in fact, great, let's do that! Let's pass those statutes, let's break up the internet monopolies, let's decentralize and encrypt everything we can, all the time. But let's also make sure that up until the very moment those statutes pass, we're not giving Nazis special favors.

leereeves 9y ago
The problem is what happens in the meantime, when Google is effectively a public utility but not regulated as one.
- ForRealsies 9y ago
  We're already seeing freedom of speech liberties clashing with social media 'public utilities' (Twitter, Facebook, etc).
- eli_gottlieb 9y ago
  A grand unity coalition of leftist and rightist activists gather together to push for public utility classification together? (I know, I know, but God forbid we all admit when we really do have common goals?)

danharaj 9y ago

> If you set the standard at "ban everything that the populace deems to be as bad as Hitler" then today we get rid of Nazi sites and tell KKK members they can't use our gyms, but tomorrow who will be condemned? You should count the number of bombings of abortion clinics over the last decade or two, count the number of laws restricting access to abortion in the last 5, and then decide whether inaction today will prevent action tomorrow. What is the causal relationship of this argument? If I condemn nazis today, and say the nazis come into power, does my past action magically make it easier for nazis in power to be, well nazis? If I don't stand against nazis today and they come into power, will that magically shield me? Rhetorical consistency has no physical power. > Google could reply "we didn't even ban Nazis, why the hell would you expect us to ban anyone for you?" Or they could just do it anyway. Being rhetorically consistent has never been a requirement for taking actual action. Just remember that the United States government has already colluded with business leaders to suppress political beliefs [1]. After the Fowley Square Trial, the United States government actually disbarred and jailed any attorney who defended the communists they charged. They then passed a law forbidding picketing of courthouses. The ACLU supported that law. Pandora's box has already been opened. It's always really funny how it's the far right who have their rights vociferously defended by centrists but those very same centrists always stood by while communists were rounded up and exterminated. By the way, this happened too in Germany. All of the people who publicly opposed the Nazis before they came into power were condemned with the same exact centrist "both sides are wrong" rhetoric we hear today. The more things change, the more they stay the same. These very exact arguments were being made in the 1930's. They were being made back in the days of Usenet, BBS and vBulletin forums. They will be made so long as there exist people who want to maintain some abstract virtue at the cost of other peoples' material safety. So long as someone is not directly materially threatened by the white nationalist political program, they will indefinitely stave off any concrete opposition to that program. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_Act_trials_of_Communist_Party_leaders https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_Act_trials_of_Communist_...

rad88 9y ago
On the other hand you have people who are not materially threatened by white nationalism deciding to kick the hornets nest because they're in a bad mood. That was bullshit and should be condemned. The far right's persecution complex is directly tied to their violence and oppression against more vulnerable groups, so when some tech CEO validates that complex needlessly it really is counterproductive and harmful. The position of "don't pull this bullshit because it comes back on us" is not abstract, although the people who pulled the bullshit might not be the ones who see it come back around. Ideological consistency and abstract virtue are things for the far-left/right almost by definition. If a centrist is protesting or standing around doing nothing it's for another reason. That might span from "actually believes it protects peoples' material safety better" to "is completely clueless" or "doesn't want to speak up and face extermination themselves", etc. You're basically calling it virtue signalling but that is often just a way to dismiss someone's authentic concerns or motivation.