6 ms·

there's a better way to deal with the mentally ill and disenfranchised Enabling them is not a good way to deal with them. Allowing easily discoverable safe spa

there's a better way to deal with the mentally ill and disenfranchised Enabling them is not a good way to deal with them. Allowing easily discoverable safe spaces with which to reinforce their neuroses and paranoia only adds to the problem as new users can more easily be recruited, preyed upon, etc. This goes for much more than just violent white supremacists, it also applies to things like pro-ana, which creates an extremely dangerous feedback loop for vulnerable, damaged people. Private sites not only have no obligation to provide the resources for these extreme codependent communities, but as we're learning, they actually hold a moral obligation to remove them when they form in order to prevent their growth.

KGIII 9y ago
I'd argue they have no moral obligation to do any such thing. However, they should probably make a pretty clear warning sign. I fear we will digress too far. In short, I'm very pro freedom of expression. I'm glad voat exists, for example. The people there are often horrible, that is true. But, they still deserve to express themselves freely.
- michaelchisari 9y ago
  I don't understand why anyone deserves server space and labor resources. They are free to express themselves, but the cost of running a service is not free, and they have no right to those costs. They can stand in a public square and say what they like. They can have debates in their own living room. They can print up manifestos on their own dime. They have a right to do all of that, and nobody's arguing against that.
  - KGIII 9y ago
    It's a bit of a problem, really. They take URLs away, they refuse to host them, etc... So, I'd say what good are rights if you can't reasonably exercise them? Don't get me wrong, I really don't like Nazis. They are pretty much the definition of bad people. So, I try to empathize. We all want to belong to something. They like firearms. Me too. I love a good explosion, though I'd much prefer it not actually hurt anyone. If I can humanize them, I can understand that they too deserve basic human rights.
    - michaelchisari 9y ago
      Reddit is not a basic human right. You have a right to free speech, but society has no obligation to provide you a megaphone and a soapbox.
      - KGIII 9y ago
        You didn't read what I wrote. Reddit is absolutely free to do this. Voat exists, if they want a place to speak.
        michaelchisari 9y ago
        I did read what you wrote. You are not arguing for the right to free speech, you are arguing for a right to a platform (yet referring to such as an appeal to free speech). And there is no such thing. There is no right to a platform for your speech. You are allowed to say it, but nobody has any obligation to repeat, produce, disseminate or validate your speech.
        KGIII 9y ago
        Again, I ask what good is a right if one can not reasonably exercise it? I also suggest we are veering too far from the topic. To be very, very clear - Reddit is under no obligation to allow anything they do not wish to allow.
        uoaei 9y ago
        No one's rights are being infringed upon. The right to free speech is certainly still in their hands. Their audience is then anyone within earshot. Your question seems to me to be a red herring, and doesn't seem relevant in the discussion surrounding web-based fora. While "the internet" in some abstract form could be construed as a human right in this modern technological world of ours, the World Wide Web as it stands today very much is not that. The infrastructure is privately maintained, and as such is not granted the protections that the 1st amendment provides. Likewise the services that are built upon the physical infrastructure, namely websites and data-transmission services, are not obligated to enforce rights.
  - 0x4f3759df 9y ago
    A group could set up their own server, but then their DNS provider drops them, so they solicit funds but then payment processors drop them. Sometimes the post stops delivering physical mail to your house because you wrote a book they don't like. There are a lot of choke-points.
- sighwhatnow 9y ago
  > But, they still deserve to express themselves freely. Um, why. What makes you think this. If someone's opinions are stupid and abhorrent, why should they not experience an immediate and firm response, in ban-hammer form. Why do you want to give ignorant idiots a platform to spread their ignorant idiocy to other ignorant idiots (and e.g. provoke easily influenced mentally ill idiots who might want to drive cars into crowds).
  - KGIII 9y ago
    Because we as a society have decided even the least among us deserve a base amount of human rights and freedoms and those aren't taken away without due process in a just society. I don't expect to change your mind. It's okay. I'm just really, really pro human rights. I've seen places with massive deprivations of rights. That's not okay.
    - sighwhatnow 9y ago
      Please explain what human rights have to do with anything in this thread. As another commenter pointed out, there is no human right to post racist bullshit on a privately run online forum.
      - KGIII 9y ago
        I don't think you actually read what I said. Please do so. You will note that I point out that no rights are violated and even provide an alternative. You asked a question, I gave you the answer. Please, really, read all the words and what I write, not what you think I write. Start from the top post, as all my replies are contextual.
        sighwhatnow 9y ago
        I read what you wrote, and I read the whole thread, and the context. You brought up human rights in the context of this discussion more than once, what else are we supposed to take from that, than that you think 'human rights' are remotely relevant to the topic of banning nazis from reddit, which they aren't.
aaron-lebo 9y ago
The effect your are talking about seems legit. The flip side about that is if you force these groups out of the public and then into the shadows, that's only proving the paranoia. Does that radicalize things even more? The same kind of viewpoints existed in the mid 90s, underground, and that lead to OKC which was one of the worst terrorist incidents in US history. Is it better or worse that this is happening in public?
- amigoingtodie 9y ago
  It is worse. Before it took a bit of effort to work in the shadows, but technology has facilitated a disproportionatly loud 'voice' with little effort. It would be considered crazy to even have this conversation a decade ago.
  - notyourday 9y ago
    That's because a decade ago we pretended that it did not exist by trying to muzzle them. In the absence of the avenues for us to see those nutcases the so called "educated population" believed it was a totally fringe group as no traces of them were visible in the liberal coastal towns not because 10% of their neighbors were not barbarians but because NYT acted as a gate keeper preventing barbarians at the gate from entering. So the population did not realize there were barbarians at the gate. 10 years later, NYT failed as a gatekeeper and there they were, pillaging. Now instead of saying "Ok, there are barbarians here, we should deal with it reality" we say "Hey, we have a new set of gatekeepers - put on these glasses and you won't see the barbarians raping and pillaging"
- PhasmaFelis 9y ago
  I'm really torn on this. On the one hand, these are humans, not monsters; their views can be changed, perhaps, but not if we force them into hiding and radicalize them. On the other hand, giving them power and influence in public spaces, the ability to disrupt other people's discourse and lives at will, is not okay. I'm not sure there is one best solution. We need to give bigots a chance to change their views, and we also need to protect their victims and potential victims, and those things are sometimes mutually exclusive.

KGIII 9y ago

I'd argue they have no moral obligation to do any such thing. However, they should probably make a pretty clear warning sign. I fear we will digress too far. In short, I'm very pro freedom of expression. I'm glad voat exists, for example. The people there are often horrible, that is true. But, they still deserve to express themselves freely.

michaelchisari 9y ago
I don't understand why anyone deserves server space and labor resources. They are free to express themselves, but the cost of running a service is not free, and they have no right to those costs. They can stand in a public square and say what they like. They can have debates in their own living room. They can print up manifestos on their own dime. They have a right to do all of that, and nobody's arguing against that.
- KGIII 9y ago
  It's a bit of a problem, really. They take URLs away, they refuse to host them, etc... So, I'd say what good are rights if you can't reasonably exercise them? Don't get me wrong, I really don't like Nazis. They are pretty much the definition of bad people. So, I try to empathize. We all want to belong to something. They like firearms. Me too. I love a good explosion, though I'd much prefer it not actually hurt anyone. If I can humanize them, I can understand that they too deserve basic human rights.
  - michaelchisari 9y ago
    Reddit is not a basic human right. You have a right to free speech, but society has no obligation to provide you a megaphone and a soapbox.
    - KGIII 9y ago
      You didn't read what I wrote. Reddit is absolutely free to do this. Voat exists, if they want a place to speak.
      - michaelchisari 9y ago
        I did read what you wrote. You are not arguing for the right to free speech, you are arguing for a right to a platform (yet referring to such as an appeal to free speech). And there is no such thing. There is no right to a platform for your speech. You are allowed to say it, but nobody has any obligation to repeat, produce, disseminate or validate your speech.
        KGIII 9y ago
        Again, I ask what good is a right if one can not reasonably exercise it? I also suggest we are veering too far from the topic. To be very, very clear - Reddit is under no obligation to allow anything they do not wish to allow.
        uoaei 9y ago
        No one's rights are being infringed upon. The right to free speech is certainly still in their hands. Their audience is then anyone within earshot. Your question seems to me to be a red herring, and doesn't seem relevant in the discussion surrounding web-based fora. While "the internet" in some abstract form could be construed as a human right in this modern technological world of ours, the World Wide Web as it stands today very much is not that. The infrastructure is privately maintained, and as such is not granted the protections that the 1st amendment provides. Likewise the services that are built upon the physical infrastructure, namely websites and data-transmission services, are not obligated to enforce rights.
- 0x4f3759df 9y ago
  A group could set up their own server, but then their DNS provider drops them, so they solicit funds but then payment processors drop them. Sometimes the post stops delivering physical mail to your house because you wrote a book they don't like. There are a lot of choke-points.
sighwhatnow 9y ago
> But, they still deserve to express themselves freely. Um, why. What makes you think this. If someone's opinions are stupid and abhorrent, why should they not experience an immediate and firm response, in ban-hammer form. Why do you want to give ignorant idiots a platform to spread their ignorant idiocy to other ignorant idiots (and e.g. provoke easily influenced mentally ill idiots who might want to drive cars into crowds).
- KGIII 9y ago
  Because we as a society have decided even the least among us deserve a base amount of human rights and freedoms and those aren't taken away without due process in a just society. I don't expect to change your mind. It's okay. I'm just really, really pro human rights. I've seen places with massive deprivations of rights. That's not okay.
  - sighwhatnow 9y ago
    Please explain what human rights have to do with anything in this thread. As another commenter pointed out, there is no human right to post racist bullshit on a privately run online forum.
    - KGIII 9y ago
      I don't think you actually read what I said. Please do so. You will note that I point out that no rights are violated and even provide an alternative. You asked a question, I gave you the answer. Please, really, read all the words and what I write, not what you think I write. Start from the top post, as all my replies are contextual.
      - sighwhatnow 9y ago
        I read what you wrote, and I read the whole thread, and the context. You brought up human rights in the context of this discussion more than once, what else are we supposed to take from that, than that you think 'human rights' are remotely relevant to the topic of banning nazis from reddit, which they aren't.

aaron-lebo 9y ago

The effect your are talking about seems legit. The flip side about that is if you force these groups out of the public and then into the shadows, that's only proving the paranoia. Does that radicalize things even more? The same kind of viewpoints existed in the mid 90s, underground, and that lead to OKC which was one of the worst terrorist incidents in US history. Is it better or worse that this is happening in public?

amigoingtodie 9y ago
It is worse. Before it took a bit of effort to work in the shadows, but technology has facilitated a disproportionatly loud 'voice' with little effort. It would be considered crazy to even have this conversation a decade ago.
- notyourday 9y ago
  That's because a decade ago we pretended that it did not exist by trying to muzzle them. In the absence of the avenues for us to see those nutcases the so called "educated population" believed it was a totally fringe group as no traces of them were visible in the liberal coastal towns not because 10% of their neighbors were not barbarians but because NYT acted as a gate keeper preventing barbarians at the gate from entering. So the population did not realize there were barbarians at the gate. 10 years later, NYT failed as a gatekeeper and there they were, pillaging. Now instead of saying "Ok, there are barbarians here, we should deal with it reality" we say "Hey, we have a new set of gatekeepers - put on these glasses and you won't see the barbarians raping and pillaging"
PhasmaFelis 9y ago
I'm really torn on this. On the one hand, these are humans, not monsters; their views can be changed, perhaps, but not if we force them into hiding and radicalize them. On the other hand, giving them power and influence in public spaces, the ability to disrupt other people's discourse and lives at will, is not okay. I'm not sure there is one best solution. We need to give bigots a chance to change their views, and we also need to protect their victims and potential victims, and those things are sometimes mutually exclusive.