6 ms·

The reason we're in the mess that we are is the shit show the open web was. People were delighted to have a walled garden where they only communicated with frie

The reason we're in the mess that we are is the shit show the open web was. People were delighted to have a walled garden where they only communicated with friends, instead of random drive-by trolls in the open. And frankly, it's understandable. A place that justifies bullying and hate speech as a good thing, with mumblings of "b.. b.. but free speech", is not a place where anybody wants to spend their time. (Except people who either like or don't mind bullying) And given that we're currently debating if the Overton window should include actual real-life Nazis - "because free speech" - I'm OK with it shrinking some more. Extremes in thought are indeed necessary. But they need to be followed by a realization of how far is too far, and an ability to moderate how much of that extreme thought is publicly shared, respecting other people. Maturity is a necessary tool of useful debate. "How the web was" was (and is) mostly kids screaming in the backyard, with sensible adults carving out spaces that exclude immaturity.

crdoconnor 9y ago
Goebbels was in favor of free speech for views he liked. So was Stalin. If you’re really in favor of free speech, then you’re in favor of freedom of speech for precisely the views you despise. Otherwise, you’re not in favor of free speech. Besides, censoring Nazis and other undesirable types (e.g. ISIS propaganda) is ineffective at shutting them up and endears potential recruits to them. It would likely be more effective to subtly mix their propaganda with counter-propaganda instead of playing whack-a-mole with their accounts.
- groby_b 9y ago
  You got me. In my personal environment, my house? Speech that I don't accept doesn't happen. And it turns out that that's actually perfectly fine, because free speech should only not be restricted by the government.
  - crdoconnor 9y ago
    >In my personal environment, my house? Weren't we talking about freedom of speech on the open web though? When you mentioned walled gardens I assumed you meant Twitter not your living room.
- fauigerzigerk 9y ago
  Absolute free speech is not a sustainable position, because it conflicts with other basic rights, freedoms and laws. Would you not accept that directly inciting violence against specific groups or individuals must be banned?
  - nokcha 9y ago
    Just to clarify: under Brandenburg v. Ohio (395 U.S. 444 (1969)), such speech can be punished (by the government) only if it is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action"; abstract advocacy of illegal violence is protected speech.
  - peoplewindow 9y ago
    It's better to ban nothing when it comes to speech. Any restrictions at all rapidly escalate into enormous restrictions, hypocrisy and logical contradictions. Actually by now, I automatically assume anyone who uses the phrase "hate speech" doesn't actually care about violent speech at all, just shutting down people they don't agree with. Consider that students in America keep arguing that any opinion they don't like is "violence" that makes them feel "unsafe", and of course anyone to the right of Marx is "promoting intolerance and hatred". That's a pretty bad abuse of the word violent, but if you say the only kind of speech that is banned is speech that incites violence then pretty quickly everyone is claiming any ideological enemy is "inciting violence" with whatever justification they can find. So there had better be really good reasons for such bans. But are there? I am struggling to think of cases where someone stood up and announced "kill those people" and it actually happened, outside of extremist Islamic preachers e.g. the fatwa against Salman Rushdie. That's rare, but also, the moment you say that sort of preaching isn't allowed anymore you run into the question of people's right to practice religion, as there is quite a lot of incitement to violence in basically every ancient holy book. And then there's the hate speech that doesn't get prosecuted because it's by politically important groups: https://www.salon.com/2013/05/07/twitters_latest_unfunny_trend_killallmen/ https://www.salon.com/2013/05/07/twitters_latest_unfunny_tre... In the end, when I see the apparently small amount of physical world violence definitively and directly caused by speech, vs the huge numbers of people trying to classify things they disagree with as hate speech, I am forced to conclude that the cost/benefit ratio is not worth it and the first amendment has got it right.
attalus 9y ago
I am sorry, but who is actually giving voice to these groups. Sure there are trolls that co-opt this stupidity, but it is a fact that the number of people involved in hate-groups are going down.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
malvosenior 9y ago
Sensible adults have long been a proponent of free speech. It’s the call to censorship for comfort that is new and seemingly coming from younger generations who don’t have experience with why that may be a bad idea. The ACLU has long defended all speech: https://www.aclu.org/blog/free-speech/why-we-must-defend-free-speech https://www.aclu.org/blog/free-speech/why-we-must-defend-fre...
- prophesi 9y ago
  The saddest part is how the younger generation turned college campuses, the place where radical & worldview-challenging ideas could thrive, into places wherein you're protected from any such challenging ideas.
  - attalus 9y ago
    Muh safe spaces
    - ebiester 9y ago
      I started to explain why safe spaces are necessary, but I realize that "Muh safe spaces" isn't an argument. In a world where my rights are debated, my family is attacked, where I've been afraid for my life and well being in public spaces, where some of my acquaintances have been murdered in public spaces, and where some of my safe spaces have been bombed, I don't understand why my request for a place where I don't have to fucking deal with that shit is so bad.
      - goatlover 9y ago
        Nobody should have to deal with violence or threats of violence. But that's way different than trying to shut down a speaker who holds political views different from the students or professors doing the protesting. College should physically be a safe place as much as possible, but intellectually, it's fair to ask students (and professors) to be challenged by a variety of views.
naiveai 9y ago
Didn't really work either though. Trolls gonna troll no matter what.
- otempomores 9y ago
  The walled gardener is the murderer. Zucks Algo pisses you off from time to time so you will come back for that feeling of beeing part of a superior group.
JoshMnem 9y ago
> People were delighted to have a walled garden where they only communicated with friends, instead of random drive-by trolls in the open. I spend most of my time on the open web, and don't see many drive-by trolls. I don't think that is the reason the web became closed.
Spooky23 9y ago
I never had much exposure to nazis and other scum on the open web. It’s behavior not tolerated on a place like HN, and I don’t frequent places that welcome that conduct. Facebook is a machine designed to generate reaction. I deactivated a long time ago, one of my catalysts for moving was when the platform kept trying to keep me away from things I cared about and towards things that would trigger the most base/id reaction. Thanksgiving Dinner isn’t about trolling your drunk uncle.

crdoconnor 9y ago

Goebbels was in favor of free speech for views he liked. So was Stalin. If you’re really in favor of free speech, then you’re in favor of freedom of speech for precisely the views you despise. Otherwise, you’re not in favor of free speech. Besides, censoring Nazis and other undesirable types (e.g. ISIS propaganda) is ineffective at shutting them up and endears potential recruits to them. It would likely be more effective to subtly mix their propaganda with counter-propaganda instead of playing whack-a-mole with their accounts.

groby_b 9y ago
You got me. In my personal environment, my house? Speech that I don't accept doesn't happen. And it turns out that that's actually perfectly fine, because free speech should only not be restricted by the government.
- crdoconnor 9y ago
  >In my personal environment, my house? Weren't we talking about freedom of speech on the open web though? When you mentioned walled gardens I assumed you meant Twitter not your living room.
fauigerzigerk 9y ago
Absolute free speech is not a sustainable position, because it conflicts with other basic rights, freedoms and laws. Would you not accept that directly inciting violence against specific groups or individuals must be banned?
- nokcha 9y ago
  Just to clarify: under Brandenburg v. Ohio (395 U.S. 444 (1969)), such speech can be punished (by the government) only if it is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action"; abstract advocacy of illegal violence is protected speech.
- peoplewindow 9y ago
  It's better to ban nothing when it comes to speech. Any restrictions at all rapidly escalate into enormous restrictions, hypocrisy and logical contradictions. Actually by now, I automatically assume anyone who uses the phrase "hate speech" doesn't actually care about violent speech at all, just shutting down people they don't agree with. Consider that students in America keep arguing that any opinion they don't like is "violence" that makes them feel "unsafe", and of course anyone to the right of Marx is "promoting intolerance and hatred". That's a pretty bad abuse of the word violent, but if you say the only kind of speech that is banned is speech that incites violence then pretty quickly everyone is claiming any ideological enemy is "inciting violence" with whatever justification they can find. So there had better be really good reasons for such bans. But are there? I am struggling to think of cases where someone stood up and announced "kill those people" and it actually happened, outside of extremist Islamic preachers e.g. the fatwa against Salman Rushdie. That's rare, but also, the moment you say that sort of preaching isn't allowed anymore you run into the question of people's right to practice religion, as there is quite a lot of incitement to violence in basically every ancient holy book. And then there's the hate speech that doesn't get prosecuted because it's by politically important groups: https://www.salon.com/2013/05/07/twitters_latest_unfunny_trend_killallmen/ https://www.salon.com/2013/05/07/twitters_latest_unfunny_tre... In the end, when I see the apparently small amount of physical world violence definitively and directly caused by speech, vs the huge numbers of people trying to classify things they disagree with as hate speech, I am forced to conclude that the cost/benefit ratio is not worth it and the first amendment has got it right.

attalus 9y ago

I am sorry, but who is actually giving voice to these groups. Sure there are trolls that co-opt this stupidity, but it is a fact that the number of people involved in hate-groups are going down.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

malvosenior 9y ago

Sensible adults have long been a proponent of free speech. It’s the call to censorship for comfort that is new and seemingly coming from younger generations who don’t have experience with why that may be a bad idea. The ACLU has long defended all speech: https://www.aclu.org/blog/free-speech/why-we-must-defend-free-speech https://www.aclu.org/blog/free-speech/why-we-must-defend-fre...

prophesi 9y ago
The saddest part is how the younger generation turned college campuses, the place where radical & worldview-challenging ideas could thrive, into places wherein you're protected from any such challenging ideas.
- attalus 9y ago
  Muh safe spaces
  - ebiester 9y ago
    I started to explain why safe spaces are necessary, but I realize that "Muh safe spaces" isn't an argument. In a world where my rights are debated, my family is attacked, where I've been afraid for my life and well being in public spaces, where some of my acquaintances have been murdered in public spaces, and where some of my safe spaces have been bombed, I don't understand why my request for a place where I don't have to fucking deal with that shit is so bad.
    - goatlover 9y ago
      Nobody should have to deal with violence or threats of violence. But that's way different than trying to shut down a speaker who holds political views different from the students or professors doing the protesting. College should physically be a safe place as much as possible, but intellectually, it's fair to ask students (and professors) to be challenged by a variety of views.

naiveai 9y ago

Didn't really work either though. Trolls gonna troll no matter what.

otempomores 9y ago
The walled gardener is the murderer. Zucks Algo pisses you off from time to time so you will come back for that feeling of beeing part of a superior group.

JoshMnem 9y ago

> People were delighted to have a walled garden where they only communicated with friends, instead of random drive-by trolls in the open. I spend most of my time on the open web, and don't see many drive-by trolls. I don't think that is the reason the web became closed.

Spooky23 9y ago

I never had much exposure to nazis and other scum on the open web. It’s behavior not tolerated on a place like HN, and I don’t frequent places that welcome that conduct. Facebook is a machine designed to generate reaction. I deactivated a long time ago, one of my catalysts for moving was when the platform kept trying to keep me away from things I cared about and towards things that would trigger the most base/id reaction. Thanksgiving Dinner isn’t about trolling your drunk uncle.