5 ms·

Good luck understanding the whole picture when everybody is so fucking keen on censorship! I'm fed up of this. Censorship is never the answer. Publish a correct

Good luck understanding the whole picture when everybody is so fucking keen on censorship! I'm fed up of this. Censorship is never the answer. Publish a correction. Publish a retraction. What the fuck is this!?

gnarbarian 8y ago
It's simple, many people are fine with censorship as long as they're in charge of what should be censored.
- jamesrcole 8y ago
  I think it's slightly different. They're fine with censorship of ideas they disagree with.
  - cmiles74 8y ago
    Why wouldn't you censor ideas that you know are false, harmful or both?
    - aidenn0 8y ago
      Because you might consider it immoral?
      - cmiles74 8y ago
        My thinking is that if you really think that an idea is false or harmful or both, you would feel morally compelled to remove that idea. That is, morality is often the first justification for censorship.
        aidenn0 8y ago
        Sorry, my pronoun might have been unclear. I'm saying that you might consider censorship itself to be immoral.
        cmiles74 8y ago
        That's the real crux of it, isn't it?
        sverige 8y ago
        No, when I think that an idea is false or harmful or both, I feel morally compelled to present the reasons I think that as clearly and cogently as possible in an effort to provide additional information both to the person presenting the false and/or harmful idea and anyone else who might be observing the exchange. Censorship is inherently immoral. My hope is to persuade others that the initial idea is false and/or harmful, not to prevent others from hearing the bad idea. If I succeed, the bad idea still exists, but others can understand why the idea is bad and recognize similarly bad ideas in the future. If you simply censor the bad idea, at least two bad things happen as a consequence: 1) the bad idea is not refuted, and so is likely to be reintroduced later with fewer people who understand why it is a bad idea; and 2) the person who originated the bad idea does not have any reason to change their mind, but rather is more likely to resent being censored and so hold that bad idea more tenaciously and attempt to spread it more surreptitiously. I am frankly frightened by this relatively recent promotion of the idea that preventing the public utterance of bad ideas and distasteful speech is good for society. Based on my understanding of history, it is, in fact, a precursor to totalitarian society.
        deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
        sdrinf 8y ago
        While I do agree on the social harm of censorship, unfortunately your approach is susceptible to asymmetric info-attacks under adversarial conditions. Specifically, under the condition where the debate actually matters, your compulsion can be exploited by putting out any number of variedly wrong ideas, for which you pay an asymmetrically higher cost to refute, and an opportunity cost of not being able to present ideas of your own. The debate can this way be framed to either never reach "consensus", or to do so at the counterparty's favored position. The widespread use of this strategy is a reason why society is falling back on censorship as opposed to reason.
        simias 8y ago
        This thread is surrealistic to me in light of the NPR retraction. They didn't retract the article because it was some fringe opinion they didn't stand by, they retracted it because it was factually wrong. It would be as if they published an article saying "water is a yellow gas" then later removed it saying "actually that was a load of crap, nevermind". So instead you'd prefer if they had kept the original article but added after each sentence "except it probably didn't happen that way"? >I am frankly frightened by this relatively recent promotion of the idea that preventing the public utterance of bad ideas and distasteful speech is good for society. There's nothing recent about that, it's as old as humanity itself. Every culture has its taboos and its sacred cows. I don't think there's any society where you could say absolutely anything you want and stay out of trouble. The USA is extremely permissive but there's still slander, libel and hate speech at the very least. In most countries in the EU it's forbidden to be a nazi, that's an opinion you're simply not allowed to have.
    - jamesrcole 8y ago
      Lots of people think they know ideas are false, harmful or both, even though they don't. Take any belief you think is objectively false or harmful, and there'll be plenty of people who think it's objectively true and good. So making censorship acceptable is pretty dangerous. It just favours whoever is currently in a position of power. And I tend to think it's counterproductive to censor ideas. You can't stop people from believing them, and trying to censor them can increase divisions between groups. Argument and education seem better approaches in general.
- simias 8y ago
  Does it even make sense to talk about censorship if you remove your own content? If you delete your comment are you censoring anything? If you think that NPR shouldn't have made the original story unavailable I see your point but I really fail to see how that's censorship, especially when they pinpoint precisely why they did it and how exceptional it is.
moate 8y ago
It looks like them publishing a retraction. Who do you feel is censoring them in this instance?
- DoctorOetker 8y ago
  You are not the same person as a year ago, it is perfectly possible for a person to try and censor their past opinions.
throwawayjava 8y ago
> Publish a retraction. What the fuck is this!? ...this is a retraction?

gnarbarian 8y ago

It's simple, many people are fine with censorship as long as they're in charge of what should be censored.

jamesrcole 8y ago
I think it's slightly different. They're fine with censorship of ideas they disagree with.
- cmiles74 8y ago
  Why wouldn't you censor ideas that you know are false, harmful or both?
  - aidenn0 8y ago
    Because you might consider it immoral?
    - cmiles74 8y ago
      My thinking is that if you really think that an idea is false or harmful or both, you would feel morally compelled to remove that idea. That is, morality is often the first justification for censorship.
      - aidenn0 8y ago
        Sorry, my pronoun might have been unclear. I'm saying that you might consider censorship itself to be immoral.
        cmiles74 8y ago
        That's the real crux of it, isn't it?
      - sverige 8y ago
        No, when I think that an idea is false or harmful or both, I feel morally compelled to present the reasons I think that as clearly and cogently as possible in an effort to provide additional information both to the person presenting the false and/or harmful idea and anyone else who might be observing the exchange. Censorship is inherently immoral. My hope is to persuade others that the initial idea is false and/or harmful, not to prevent others from hearing the bad idea. If I succeed, the bad idea still exists, but others can understand why the idea is bad and recognize similarly bad ideas in the future. If you simply censor the bad idea, at least two bad things happen as a consequence: 1) the bad idea is not refuted, and so is likely to be reintroduced later with fewer people who understand why it is a bad idea; and 2) the person who originated the bad idea does not have any reason to change their mind, but rather is more likely to resent being censored and so hold that bad idea more tenaciously and attempt to spread it more surreptitiously. I am frankly frightened by this relatively recent promotion of the idea that preventing the public utterance of bad ideas and distasteful speech is good for society. Based on my understanding of history, it is, in fact, a precursor to totalitarian society.
        deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
        sdrinf 8y ago
        While I do agree on the social harm of censorship, unfortunately your approach is susceptible to asymmetric info-attacks under adversarial conditions. Specifically, under the condition where the debate actually matters, your compulsion can be exploited by putting out any number of variedly wrong ideas, for which you pay an asymmetrically higher cost to refute, and an opportunity cost of not being able to present ideas of your own. The debate can this way be framed to either never reach "consensus", or to do so at the counterparty's favored position. The widespread use of this strategy is a reason why society is falling back on censorship as opposed to reason.
        simias 8y ago
        This thread is surrealistic to me in light of the NPR retraction. They didn't retract the article because it was some fringe opinion they didn't stand by, they retracted it because it was factually wrong. It would be as if they published an article saying "water is a yellow gas" then later removed it saying "actually that was a load of crap, nevermind". So instead you'd prefer if they had kept the original article but added after each sentence "except it probably didn't happen that way"? >I am frankly frightened by this relatively recent promotion of the idea that preventing the public utterance of bad ideas and distasteful speech is good for society. There's nothing recent about that, it's as old as humanity itself. Every culture has its taboos and its sacred cows. I don't think there's any society where you could say absolutely anything you want and stay out of trouble. The USA is extremely permissive but there's still slander, libel and hate speech at the very least. In most countries in the EU it's forbidden to be a nazi, that's an opinion you're simply not allowed to have.
  - jamesrcole 8y ago
    Lots of people think they know ideas are false, harmful or both, even though they don't. Take any belief you think is objectively false or harmful, and there'll be plenty of people who think it's objectively true and good. So making censorship acceptable is pretty dangerous. It just favours whoever is currently in a position of power. And I tend to think it's counterproductive to censor ideas. You can't stop people from believing them, and trying to censor them can increase divisions between groups. Argument and education seem better approaches in general.
simias 8y ago
Does it even make sense to talk about censorship if you remove your own content? If you delete your comment are you censoring anything? If you think that NPR shouldn't have made the original story unavailable I see your point but I really fail to see how that's censorship, especially when they pinpoint precisely why they did it and how exceptional it is.

moate 8y ago

It looks like them publishing a retraction. Who do you feel is censoring them in this instance?

DoctorOetker 8y ago
You are not the same person as a year ago, it is perfectly possible for a person to try and censor their past opinions.

throwawayjava 8y ago

> Publish a retraction. What the fuck is this!? ...this is a retraction?