9 ms·

Which makes me ask the question: do you, gentle Hacker News reader, really want diversity of opinion and why? Do you have unpopular opinions and if so, would yo

Which makes me ask the question: do you, gentle Hacker News reader, really want diversity of opinion and why? Do you have unpopular opinions and if so, would you get fired or ostracized for sharing them? Are you practicing crimethink? After all, the only people actually working on alternatives to Google and Facebook are the alt-right who have been de-platformed. Gab.ai is so de-platformed that google doesn't even let them put their app in the play store! Unlike the Pirate Bay and scihub, gab.ai is actually not violating the law. You aren't one of those filthy alt-righters who voted for Trump are you? Are you a person who raises uncomfortable questions that cause mental pain by triggering or creating cognitive dissonance in ideologically defenseless individuals you wish to torture with your arguments? Anyway.... I don't think most of you want the Internet Facebook and Google insulate you all from. Why the heck are you complaining?

eli_gottlieb 9y ago
Stop being snide. I know exactly where to find 8chan. I just don't go there because I don't like it.
danaliv 9y ago
I dunno about "diversity of opinion" but I'd certainly appreciate the wholesale destruction of tribalism. (I know; not holding my breath.)
AKrumbach 9y ago
> Which makes me ask the question: do you, gentle Hacker News reader, really want diversity of opinion and why? I speak only for myself, but the answer is an absolute, complete and emphatic YES. The reason is quite simple: in all of human history, there have been only three "families", broadly speaking, of epistemological methods[1]: * Mysticism: you have been told what is true by an unquestionable (and often distant) authority. Think Moses descending from the mountain--only he can safely speak to God. While God is ultimately the original [claimed] source of the knowledge, it must be funneled through Moses first. * Socratic debate: two humans can talk about the topic, trying to apply abstract reason to determine the "best" answer. Note that in a "pure" Socratic debate, only logic and not any evidence is used. * Scientific study: humans can attempt direct inquiry of an answer from the physical universe. Note that logic need not apply to scientific answers: the results of many particle physics experiments such as the delayed choice quantum eraser are not "logical" in that they violate what "common sense" tells us the universe should allow. Now, there no reason I had to use a religious example for the first family, but they do not exist for the other two: literally, both debate and science cannot work correctly if you do not admit the possibility of contrarian or "heretical" ideas. Since I wish to live in a society jointly directed by reason and science, I must allow (and to some small extent, seek) contrarian and heretical ideas. 1: I'm speaking of epistemology not in the definition taught in philosophical classes (e.g., "How do we know what is real or what is knowledge?"), but a far more direct, literal, and practical application of how knowledge is generated and transmitted between societies/individuals.
- narrator 9y ago
  The thing about Socratic debate is that to do it well, and actually produce NEW information that's not the two sides yelling stuff they already believe at each other, the two sides need to agree to not engage in any of the informal or logical fallacies. Not a lot of people are familiar with the informal fallacies. Since they are arguments that can be used to support any argument, when I'm debating something online and I'm in the mood for putting work into it, I will use fallacies used against me to prove the exact opposite of the argument the fallacy user is trying to make. Anybody who has some education in rhetoric can adopt this technique. It makes arguing on internet forums kind of fun because it at least allows for an opportunity to demonstrate the reasons behind rhetorical rules. This is what these free speech platforms are good for, because you can really get into it with people in a debate before it gets cut off for not being polite enough to popularly held fallacious ideas. For example, I sometimes go on to right wing forum and argue that the Jews are unfairly targeted for criticism as a group. It's a challenge to bring people around, but for some reason I kind of enjoy it. It's like fight club for my brain. I think the fallacious arguments are getting more automated lately. I was once on a thread where there was some sort of auto-insult bot that would just hurl insults. I would reply with the insult back with the terms switched around. The lazy shill, or the bot would reply back. This went back and forth for a while until I asked the other guy if he was a bot and then it stopped.
ravenstine 9y ago
You're making a good point, and I would suspect that it's valid in general. I've definitely had unpopular opinions, and even when I don't, my questioning of the basis of a given argument is often misinterpreted as holding the opposite(and objectionable) belief. This isn't because I knowingly hold some dogma, but that I care about whether something is true or not. Even though I do think global warming is a real issue, I'm careful to point out whether or not a piece of evidence is specious because too often I've been classified as right wing or anti-science. What I used to value about the internet was how I could have no-holds-barred debates with people from around the world and not be worried about my life being destroyed. From about the age of 11, I visited lots of anarchist and free-speech forums, sites about drug use, politics, etc., and ended up learning quite a bit having to argue with both total fools and those more savvy than I was. Even that young, what I valued was not the "criminal" aspect of these channels but the ability for myself and others to express their true selves, or at least the personae that people portrayed. That's the internet I miss, but it's also the internet that took some skill to use and was far less profitable than it is today. Now that everyone is on it, the people want a level of safety that is dubious and stifles what originally made the web great. Joe Hacker inherently saw the value of libre speech, but the average person either doesn't understand that value or is afraid of being judged for holding that belief. The internet isn't really different from anything else that we censor as a society. I don't believe that the same people who value freedom of speech on the internet would keep around entities like the FCC that quite obviously do not exist to protect the public from anything. The average person either doesn't understand what the FCC is for, or they would shrug and say that it's not such a bad thing. I suspect that HN has a greater than average population of individuals who want an end to censorship online, but I would still agree with narrator in that most of us don't actually want a diversity of opinion. The reality is that most people are self-interested, and that usually doesn't mean that they're interested in hearing different opinions. They want the freedom to express their own opinions, but are still appalled when someone holds a radically different one. People are not very principled and they will move the goal posts out of convenience. We may never see the old internet ever again.
kombucha2 9y ago
GAB.ai is sooo lame.
- narrator 9y ago
  Considering that it was done on a shoestring budget, it isn't that bad.
  - kombucha2 9y ago
    Not the site itself but that front page content...blaming ANTIFA for the Amtrak Derailment...claiming UN Peacekeepers are to occupy Chicago etc..
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
ThrowawayR2 9y ago
> Are you practicing crimethink? -A few hundred years ago, being an atheist was "crimethink", as was religious tolerance towards Jews, Muslims, and so forth. -A few hundred years ago, questioning the divine right of kings to rule was "crimethink". -In the early 1600s, Galileo stood trial and was condemned for the "crimethink" of saying the Earth moved around the Sun, in contradiction to the teachings of the Church. -As little as 200 years ago, advocating racial equality was "crimethink", as was equal rights for women. -As little as 60 years ago, in the McCarthy era, being a leftist or socialist was "crimethink" and people lost their jobs and/or were jailed because of it. I do want diversity of opinion because I believe in the values of the Enlightenment, which include the ability to openly voice dissent without fear of reprisal and I have the strength of character to listen to the beliefs of others without feeling threatened; in short, I want diversity of opinion because I am a liberal.
- AnimalMuppet 9y ago
  "The only ideas I'm afraid of letting people say are the ones that I think may be true and that I don't like." - Sam Altman
  - kps 9y ago
    > - Sam Altman … whose company's forum makes unpopular opinions literally fade away to nothing. Actions speak louder than words.
- ithilglin909 9y ago
  You say you want diversity of opinion because you are a "liberal" but mainstream liberalism has next to nothing to do with classical liberalism. Your average urban, coastal "liberal" adheres to their orthodoxies with about the level openness to other opinions as a stereotypical religious zealot.
  - supernovae 9y ago
    Without context what you are saying is meaningless. Sure, "liberals" seem closed minded in not accepting racism, bigotry or hate speech but in accepting people for who they are, it's hard to say their opinions are stereotypical at all... I mean the democrats/liberals/progressives agree to disagree more often than not.
cryptonector 9y ago
I want diversity of opinions, yes. I want people with opinions I vehemently disagree with to have a platform. In particular, I don't want censors because I don't want other people deciding what I should be exposed to. The solution to speech one does not like is more speech.
xr4ti 9y ago
Humans are social mammals. If you want the benefits of herd membership, then that requires some degree of conformity and surrender of autonomy. That is the price we all must pay. If you want to be independent and go another way then do so and don't cry about the consequences of your choice. Don't show up to a high end night club wearing swimming trunks and crocs and expect the bouncer to let you in. Don't go to a klan rally preaching racial tolerance and expect to be invited back. Don't hang out in a diverse, multi-ethnic environment preaching white supremacy and expect people to pat you on the head.
drngdds 9y ago
What an insufferably smug post. But anyway, Mastodon exists as a good Twitter alternative, and it's not made by alt-righters. It's decentralized so no company or politically-motivated group can censor it.
oglopf 9y ago
>>After all, the only people actually working on alternatives to Google and Facebook are the alt-right who have been de-platformed. That's just false. You paint this as either one or the other missing the point that someone like me might like many.
coolgeek 9y ago
> You aren't one of those filthy alt-righters who voted for Trump are you? Yeah, nice try. No platform is banning people "who voted for Trump" They're banning people who are openly trying to recreate Nazism, the KKK, and other such violently prejudicial entities
nova22033 9y ago
gab.ai fanboys: we basically created western civilization Also gab.ai fanboys: We can't survive without google hosting our services.
pimmen 9y ago
I would say Facebook and Google does the exact opposite of insulating people from alt-right media, it hobbles their competition quite a bit leaving alt-right media spread unhindered. Serious publications spend a lot of money on research, distribution, and marketing that alt right publications like Breitbart and their smaller, European counterparts don't need to bother with because their material distributes itself. All they need is a headline that makes you angry at minorities and social media does all the legwork for them, people are not even going to open the article before they click "share" or interact with a reaction that promotes it in the personalization algorithms. So, when Facebook and Google are basically the only digital players who have increasing ad revenues we have a serious problem.

eli_gottlieb 9y ago

Stop being snide. I know exactly where to find 8chan. I just don't go there because I don't like it.

danaliv 9y ago

I dunno about "diversity of opinion" but I'd certainly appreciate the wholesale destruction of tribalism. (I know; not holding my breath.)

AKrumbach 9y ago

> Which makes me ask the question: do you, gentle Hacker News reader, really want diversity of opinion and why? I speak only for myself, but the answer is an absolute, complete and emphatic YES. The reason is quite simple: in all of human history, there have been only three "families", broadly speaking, of epistemological methods[1]: * Mysticism: you have been told what is true by an unquestionable (and often distant) authority. Think Moses descending from the mountain--only he can safely speak to God. While God is ultimately the original [claimed] source of the knowledge, it must be funneled through Moses first. * Socratic debate: two humans can talk about the topic, trying to apply abstract reason to determine the "best" answer. Note that in a "pure" Socratic debate, only logic and not any evidence is used. * Scientific study: humans can attempt direct inquiry of an answer from the physical universe. Note that logic need not apply to scientific answers: the results of many particle physics experiments such as the delayed choice quantum eraser are not "logical" in that they violate what "common sense" tells us the universe should allow. Now, there no reason I had to use a religious example for the first family, but they do not exist for the other two: literally, both debate and science cannot work correctly if you do not admit the possibility of contrarian or "heretical" ideas. Since I wish to live in a society jointly directed by reason and science, I must allow (and to some small extent, seek) contrarian and heretical ideas. 1: I'm speaking of epistemology not in the definition taught in philosophical classes (e.g., "How do we know what is real or what is knowledge?"), but a far more direct, literal, and practical application of how knowledge is generated and transmitted between societies/individuals.

narrator 9y ago
The thing about Socratic debate is that to do it well, and actually produce NEW information that's not the two sides yelling stuff they already believe at each other, the two sides need to agree to not engage in any of the informal or logical fallacies. Not a lot of people are familiar with the informal fallacies. Since they are arguments that can be used to support any argument, when I'm debating something online and I'm in the mood for putting work into it, I will use fallacies used against me to prove the exact opposite of the argument the fallacy user is trying to make. Anybody who has some education in rhetoric can adopt this technique. It makes arguing on internet forums kind of fun because it at least allows for an opportunity to demonstrate the reasons behind rhetorical rules. This is what these free speech platforms are good for, because you can really get into it with people in a debate before it gets cut off for not being polite enough to popularly held fallacious ideas. For example, I sometimes go on to right wing forum and argue that the Jews are unfairly targeted for criticism as a group. It's a challenge to bring people around, but for some reason I kind of enjoy it. It's like fight club for my brain. I think the fallacious arguments are getting more automated lately. I was once on a thread where there was some sort of auto-insult bot that would just hurl insults. I would reply with the insult back with the terms switched around. The lazy shill, or the bot would reply back. This went back and forth for a while until I asked the other guy if he was a bot and then it stopped.

ravenstine 9y ago

You're making a good point, and I would suspect that it's valid in general. I've definitely had unpopular opinions, and even when I don't, my questioning of the basis of a given argument is often misinterpreted as holding the opposite(and objectionable) belief. This isn't because I knowingly hold some dogma, but that I care about whether something is true or not. Even though I do think global warming is a real issue, I'm careful to point out whether or not a piece of evidence is specious because too often I've been classified as right wing or anti-science. What I used to value about the internet was how I could have no-holds-barred debates with people from around the world and not be worried about my life being destroyed. From about the age of 11, I visited lots of anarchist and free-speech forums, sites about drug use, politics, etc., and ended up learning quite a bit having to argue with both total fools and those more savvy than I was. Even that young, what I valued was not the "criminal" aspect of these channels but the ability for myself and others to express their true selves, or at least the personae that people portrayed. That's the internet I miss, but it's also the internet that took some skill to use and was far less profitable than it is today. Now that everyone is on it, the people want a level of safety that is dubious and stifles what originally made the web great. Joe Hacker inherently saw the value of libre speech, but the average person either doesn't understand that value or is afraid of being judged for holding that belief. The internet isn't really different from anything else that we censor as a society. I don't believe that the same people who value freedom of speech on the internet would keep around entities like the FCC that quite obviously do not exist to protect the public from anything. The average person either doesn't understand what the FCC is for, or they would shrug and say that it's not such a bad thing. I suspect that HN has a greater than average population of individuals who want an end to censorship online, but I would still agree with narrator in that most of us don't actually want a diversity of opinion. The reality is that most people are self-interested, and that usually doesn't mean that they're interested in hearing different opinions. They want the freedom to express their own opinions, but are still appalled when someone holds a radically different one. People are not very principled and they will move the goal posts out of convenience. We may never see the old internet ever again.

kombucha2 9y ago

GAB.ai is sooo lame.

narrator 9y ago
Considering that it was done on a shoestring budget, it isn't that bad.
- kombucha2 9y ago
  Not the site itself but that front page content...blaming ANTIFA for the Amtrak Derailment...claiming UN Peacekeepers are to occupy Chicago etc..

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

ThrowawayR2 9y ago

> Are you practicing crimethink? -A few hundred years ago, being an atheist was "crimethink", as was religious tolerance towards Jews, Muslims, and so forth. -A few hundred years ago, questioning the divine right of kings to rule was "crimethink". -In the early 1600s, Galileo stood trial and was condemned for the "crimethink" of saying the Earth moved around the Sun, in contradiction to the teachings of the Church. -As little as 200 years ago, advocating racial equality was "crimethink", as was equal rights for women. -As little as 60 years ago, in the McCarthy era, being a leftist or socialist was "crimethink" and people lost their jobs and/or were jailed because of it. I do want diversity of opinion because I believe in the values of the Enlightenment, which include the ability to openly voice dissent without fear of reprisal and I have the strength of character to listen to the beliefs of others without feeling threatened; in short, I want diversity of opinion because I am a liberal.

AnimalMuppet 9y ago
"The only ideas I'm afraid of letting people say are the ones that I think may be true and that I don't like." - Sam Altman
- kps 9y ago
  > - Sam Altman … whose company's forum makes unpopular opinions literally fade away to nothing. Actions speak louder than words.
ithilglin909 9y ago
You say you want diversity of opinion because you are a "liberal" but mainstream liberalism has next to nothing to do with classical liberalism. Your average urban, coastal "liberal" adheres to their orthodoxies with about the level openness to other opinions as a stereotypical religious zealot.
- supernovae 9y ago
  Without context what you are saying is meaningless. Sure, "liberals" seem closed minded in not accepting racism, bigotry or hate speech but in accepting people for who they are, it's hard to say their opinions are stereotypical at all... I mean the democrats/liberals/progressives agree to disagree more often than not.

cryptonector 9y ago

I want diversity of opinions, yes. I want people with opinions I vehemently disagree with to have a platform. In particular, I don't want censors because I don't want other people deciding what I should be exposed to. The solution to speech one does not like is more speech.

xr4ti 9y ago

Humans are social mammals. If you want the benefits of herd membership, then that requires some degree of conformity and surrender of autonomy. That is the price we all must pay. If you want to be independent and go another way then do so and don't cry about the consequences of your choice. Don't show up to a high end night club wearing swimming trunks and crocs and expect the bouncer to let you in. Don't go to a klan rally preaching racial tolerance and expect to be invited back. Don't hang out in a diverse, multi-ethnic environment preaching white supremacy and expect people to pat you on the head.

drngdds 9y ago

What an insufferably smug post. But anyway, Mastodon exists as a good Twitter alternative, and it's not made by alt-righters. It's decentralized so no company or politically-motivated group can censor it.

oglopf 9y ago

>>After all, the only people actually working on alternatives to Google and Facebook are the alt-right who have been de-platformed. That's just false. You paint this as either one or the other missing the point that someone like me might like many.

coolgeek 9y ago

> You aren't one of those filthy alt-righters who voted for Trump are you? Yeah, nice try. No platform is banning people "who voted for Trump" They're banning people who are openly trying to recreate Nazism, the KKK, and other such violently prejudicial entities

nova22033 9y ago

gab.ai fanboys: we basically created western civilization Also gab.ai fanboys: We can't survive without google hosting our services.

pimmen 9y ago

I would say Facebook and Google does the exact opposite of insulating people from alt-right media, it hobbles their competition quite a bit leaving alt-right media spread unhindered. Serious publications spend a lot of money on research, distribution, and marketing that alt right publications like Breitbart and their smaller, European counterparts don't need to bother with because their material distributes itself. All they need is a headline that makes you angry at minorities and social media does all the legwork for them, people are not even going to open the article before they click "share" or interact with a reaction that promotes it in the personalization algorithms. So, when Facebook and Google are basically the only digital players who have increasing ad revenues we have a serious problem.