5 ms·
> The slippery slope fallacy isn't really a fallacy. History shows that in the context of policy, especially that of a non-democratic authority, it isn't alway
by wjn0 8y ago
> The slippery slope fallacy isn't really a fallacy.
History shows that in the context of policy, especially that of a non-democratic authority, it isn't always a fallacy.
It seems absolutely absurd to me that YouTube should ban gun assembly videos. If the idea is to prevent "mass shooting"-type events (e.g. lone gunman, nonspecific victims targeted by social group), why would a website want to drive these videos further into the underground? It strikes me as sort of "selfish" - avoid responsibility, so a news anchor can't say "so-and-so learned how to assemble his AR-15 by watching videos on YouTube", much to the horror of the liberal retirees who still watch the news (/s).
I hope it doesn't become a trend.
- gnarbarian 8y agoTotally agree. Gun education, practice, and information make people with guns FAR SAFER. When I buy a new stock/trigger/bolt carrier group I sure as hell appreciate a video showing me how to properly install it. Hiding this information is the gun control equivalent of "abstinence only sex education".
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- yuchi 8y agoI have to agree with you — even if I am positively an anti-gun italian non-activist. There’s a little problem in the fact that those video promote the ownership of guns, and makes them socially acceptable, which could be stated as one of the reasons shootings happen.
- gnarbarian 8y agoIn most of the US gun ownership is socially acceptable and even celebrated. I think that's a good thing. If it were socially unacceptable we would have fewer people/representatives who were willing to stand up and support our gun rights publicly.
- commandlinefan 8y agoI think what he means is that the slippery slope concept isn't a fallacy, by the definition of the word. It may be wrong, but it's not a fallacy - that means something else.
- russdpale 8y agoIt isnt the news they are scared of, its tort they are afraid of.
- Zak 8y agoVideo sharing sites are generally protected from that kind of liability by section 230 of the CDA.
- wjn0 8y agoInterestingly, from what I understand, by policing content, they actually open themselves up to MORE legal issues. Unfortunately I can't find a source for that right now, but I recall hearing about it in the context of DMCA takedowns, IIRC. Effectively, the argument is, if they have the ability to censor specific kinds of videos, they have to be equally stringent with every video uploaded. Or something.
- systoll 8y agoThe DMCA contains 'safe harbor' exemptions from copyright laws for platforms that allow uploading of user generated content without prior approval, so long as the platform complies with 'DMCA takedown requests'. But that's just the DMCA. Most laws don't contain provisions like that.
- tokyodude 8y agowasn't that law just gutted by SESTA/FOSTA https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/03/how-congress-censored-internet https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/03/how-congress-censored-...
- systoll 8y agoNope. The DMCA had and continues to protect service providers from copyright infringement claims when they reproduce user-submitted content, so long their services follow certain procedures. FOSTA has absolutely nothing to do with copyright. FOSTA does, however, amend & weaken the safe harbour provisions of the Communications Decency Act. But those protections were never subject to the idea that monitoring users makes you more liable.
- s2g 8y agoBecause banning undesirable communities works. It works well. It doesn't drive them underground, it destroys their ability to easily congregate and damages them. It hurts their ability to casually attract new members. It causes them to lose members who don't know how to get back. It's disruptive.
- ShabbosGoy 8y agoThe Nazi Party and SA were banned organizations in Weimar Germany.
- vkou 8y agoThe Nazi party was banned in 1923, and the ban was lifted in 1925. So, not really.
- remarkEon 8y ago...and you don’t think that those two events are related?
- vkou 8y agoIt was a time-gated, 2 year ban. It wasn't lifted 'just because.' During the period that they were banned, they formed a shell party, the National Socialist Freedom Movement, which won a stunning 6%, followed by 3% of the vote (In the two 1924 elections). After the ban was lifted, the next election was in 1928, where they won 2.8% of the vote. Much good that ban did them, eh? I'm not sure how your point follows from the facts.
- remarkEon 8y agoPoint taken. The meta point still seems to stand though, which is that bans are ineffective.
- walshemj 8y agoBy a compliant judge as was the trial of the putschists Hitler was allowed to use the trial as propaganda and got a very soft sentence.