5 ms·

In response to his Recode interview, Mark says "I believe that often the best way to fight offensive bad speech is with good speech." This would be possible to

In response to his Recode interview, Mark says "I believe that often the best way to fight offensive bad speech is with good speech." This would be possible to test empirically. One could to to identify groups of people who express racism, flat earthism, etc and require some of them to watch an educational video and answer a quiz. Ban another portion of them from posting for a set amount of time. Afterwards, compare the rate of posting about those beliefs to a control group. Personally, I believe that unchallenged false beliefs are only reinforced over time.

Barrin92 8y ago
http://comp.social.gatech.edu/papers/cscw18-chand-hate.pdf http://comp.social.gatech.edu/papers/cscw18-chand-hate.pdf This is an interesting study on a related issue, a ban of hate-speech subreddits on reddit. I think the authors found some remarkable things. Not only was hate-speech on the website reduced (which would be an achievement in and of itself but it could be argued that containment is not enough), but the real kicker was that they followed individuals who were displaced from hate-speech subreddits, and those individuals actually reduced the amount of hate speech they engaged in. That in my book is a really strong argument because it means that we can not just push hate-speech out of view, but combatting it actively reduces it. By destroying organised platforms, the ability to organise and normalise hate is reduced and when engaging with the public at large, attitude is changed.
- cellularmitosis 8y ago
  > and those individuals actually reduced the amount of hate speech they engaged in Did they reduce their amount of hate speech because they no longer had a, erm, "safe place" to express it? There's a big difference between people self-censoring due to a chilling effect, and an actual change in beliefs.
  - ceras 8y ago
    To add to that, the authors acknowledge a similar weakness of the study: "We note that while the ban may have worked for Reddit, from a macro-perspective, it may have also relocated the behavior onto other sites." Since in this discussion we're concerned about macro effects, I'd be careful not to over-index on this study.
    - fb_throwaway_99 8y ago
      > it may have also relocated the behavior onto other sites." ...thus raising the costs to share and promote the views, to the extent that Facebook is a more efficient shared-medium for exchanging ideas versus a random website without the built-in virality possible with Facebook.
  - mFixman 8y ago
    People used to engage in hate speech in every subreddit. Several months before /r/hatpeoplehate was banned, every single submission containing a fat person was flooded with insults unrelated to the topic. The same thing happened with older racist subreddits.
  - sangnoir 8y ago
    > There's a big difference between people self-censoring due to a chilling effect, and an actual change in beliefs. To society - or victims - the difference is moot. Do you care if the former rapist was genuinely reformed by a prison sentence, or are just "self-censoring"? Changing beliefs is not the goal, reducing harm is.
smt88 8y ago
I can't look them up easily now, but there are studies that show that false information persists even when it's debunked after (or even before!) being disseminated. Declarative statements, either true or false, seem to be sticky in human memory.
spamizbad 8y ago
Social psychologists who study stereotypes and prejudice have conducted experiments testing roughly what you describe. What they've largely concluded is that educational content does not significantly change anyone's views. I don't know about flat earth, but for negative stereotypes (racism) the only thing found so far to change minds has been prolonged, direct interaction with the stereotyped group. Attending a single service at a black church would probably do more to ameliorate someones racism against blacks than hundreds of hours of videos making detailed logical arguments. Keep in mind, this applies to people's views as opposed to their behavior.
- deegles 8y ago
  I agree, though the person that needs to be convinced of that is Zuck :)
- colemannugent 8y ago
  I think about this a lot: If someone arrived at at conclusion through irrational means, what makes you think that a rational argument would change their mind? I'm convinced that rational thinking is often so unhelpful for survival that humans developed this massive set of patterns to recognize (read stereotypes and logical fallacies) in order to simply keep living. Now that we are starting to push the limits of our biology we run into these anti-patterns that arise.
  - bena 8y ago
    It's not an uncommon conclusion. So common, it's been attributed to many famous thinkers over the years: You cannot reason a person out of a position they did not reason themselves into. Also, I would say you're not too far off with how we've developed. A lot of things that are useful for a more "primitive" species work against us now. Pareidolia just really messes with us now. Whereas before when the risk of being mauled by a predator was much more real, the fact that what you thought was a bear was really a funny shaped rock 9 times out of 10 will save you that 1 time it is a bear.
- brightball 8y ago
  100% agree. What people believe is reflected in what they see and have repeatedly reinforced. If they've seen someone live up to a stereotype once and then have others just talk to reinforce that same stereotype, they'll continue to believe because it's the only real exposure they have. You'll never convince someone unless they see it with their own eyes, which is one of the major reasons that internet publications built to reinforce different stereotypes are such a problem.
stevenwoo 8y ago
There was already an experiment with holocaust denial on reddit. The moderators found it was a waste of every reputable historians' time to rebut the same arguments over and over, and, the holocaust deniers were using that platform to insinuate some respectability behind their cause to recruit people so giving them a platform helped the holocaust deniers cause. https://slate.com/technology/2018/07/the-askhistorians-subreddit-banned-holocaust-deniers-and-facebook-should-too.html https://slate.com/technology/2018/07/the-askhistorians-subre...
pulisse 8y ago
> In response to his Recode interview, Mark says "I believe that often the best way to fight offensive bad speech is with good speech." There's no way to fight speech with more speech when the audience your speech reaches is determined by algorithms you have no control over or even insight into.
vkou 8y ago
Personally, I believe that false beliefs that are reinforced through a filter bubble are reinforced much faster over time. Which is precisely what happens in neo-nazi communities. When they don't have a place to organize and talk, they may retain their private viewpoints. Those viewpoints -may- strengthen over time. When they do have a place to organize and talk with like-minded individuals, these viewpoints absolutely strengthen. I'm not sure how this is controversial.
wishinghand 8y ago
> Mark says "I believe that often the best way to fight offensive bad speech is with good speech." However, there's a theory out there that's starting to congeal that to refute bullshit it takes an order of magnitude more energy to do so.
- bena 8y ago
  Bullshit has the distinct advantage of not needing to be correct. If you and I were arguing about giraffes and I could just make up random facts about giraffes. Like their long necks give them exceptional hearing because they're so much further away from everything. You'd actually have to provide research and facts to counter my bullshit. Whereas in the meantime, I could make up 10 more bullshit facts that you'd then also have to refute.
  - xenadu02 8y ago
    This is often called the "Gish Gallop", named after creationist Duane Gish. The technique is very simple: throw out as many arguments as possible to overwhelm everyone else.
gowld 8y ago
My recollection of the research is that even challenged false beliefs are only reinforced over time. Education works on the open-minded, not the openly hostile.
skocznymroczny 8y ago
What about groups that promote abortion? Should they be required to watch educational videos as well?

Barrin92 8y ago

http://comp.social.gatech.edu/papers/cscw18-chand-hate.pdf http://comp.social.gatech.edu/papers/cscw18-chand-hate.pdf This is an interesting study on a related issue, a ban of hate-speech subreddits on reddit. I think the authors found some remarkable things. Not only was hate-speech on the website reduced (which would be an achievement in and of itself but it could be argued that containment is not enough), but the real kicker was that they followed individuals who were displaced from hate-speech subreddits, and those individuals actually reduced the amount of hate speech they engaged in. That in my book is a really strong argument because it means that we can not just push hate-speech out of view, but combatting it actively reduces it. By destroying organised platforms, the ability to organise and normalise hate is reduced and when engaging with the public at large, attitude is changed.

cellularmitosis 8y ago
> and those individuals actually reduced the amount of hate speech they engaged in Did they reduce their amount of hate speech because they no longer had a, erm, "safe place" to express it? There's a big difference between people self-censoring due to a chilling effect, and an actual change in beliefs.
- ceras 8y ago
  To add to that, the authors acknowledge a similar weakness of the study: "We note that while the ban may have worked for Reddit, from a macro-perspective, it may have also relocated the behavior onto other sites." Since in this discussion we're concerned about macro effects, I'd be careful not to over-index on this study.
  - fb_throwaway_99 8y ago
    > it may have also relocated the behavior onto other sites." ...thus raising the costs to share and promote the views, to the extent that Facebook is a more efficient shared-medium for exchanging ideas versus a random website without the built-in virality possible with Facebook.
- mFixman 8y ago
  People used to engage in hate speech in every subreddit. Several months before /r/hatpeoplehate was banned, every single submission containing a fat person was flooded with insults unrelated to the topic. The same thing happened with older racist subreddits.
- sangnoir 8y ago
  > There's a big difference between people self-censoring due to a chilling effect, and an actual change in beliefs. To society - or victims - the difference is moot. Do you care if the former rapist was genuinely reformed by a prison sentence, or are just "self-censoring"? Changing beliefs is not the goal, reducing harm is.

smt88 8y ago

I can't look them up easily now, but there are studies that show that false information persists even when it's debunked after (or even before!) being disseminated. Declarative statements, either true or false, seem to be sticky in human memory.

spamizbad 8y ago

Social psychologists who study stereotypes and prejudice have conducted experiments testing roughly what you describe. What they've largely concluded is that educational content does not significantly change anyone's views. I don't know about flat earth, but for negative stereotypes (racism) the only thing found so far to change minds has been prolonged, direct interaction with the stereotyped group. Attending a single service at a black church would probably do more to ameliorate someones racism against blacks than hundreds of hours of videos making detailed logical arguments. Keep in mind, this applies to people's views as opposed to their behavior.

deegles 8y ago
I agree, though the person that needs to be convinced of that is Zuck :)
colemannugent 8y ago
I think about this a lot: If someone arrived at at conclusion through irrational means, what makes you think that a rational argument would change their mind? I'm convinced that rational thinking is often so unhelpful for survival that humans developed this massive set of patterns to recognize (read stereotypes and logical fallacies) in order to simply keep living. Now that we are starting to push the limits of our biology we run into these anti-patterns that arise.
- bena 8y ago
  It's not an uncommon conclusion. So common, it's been attributed to many famous thinkers over the years: You cannot reason a person out of a position they did not reason themselves into. Also, I would say you're not too far off with how we've developed. A lot of things that are useful for a more "primitive" species work against us now. Pareidolia just really messes with us now. Whereas before when the risk of being mauled by a predator was much more real, the fact that what you thought was a bear was really a funny shaped rock 9 times out of 10 will save you that 1 time it is a bear.
brightball 8y ago
100% agree. What people believe is reflected in what they see and have repeatedly reinforced. If they've seen someone live up to a stereotype once and then have others just talk to reinforce that same stereotype, they'll continue to believe because it's the only real exposure they have. You'll never convince someone unless they see it with their own eyes, which is one of the major reasons that internet publications built to reinforce different stereotypes are such a problem.

stevenwoo 8y ago

There was already an experiment with holocaust denial on reddit. The moderators found it was a waste of every reputable historians' time to rebut the same arguments over and over, and, the holocaust deniers were using that platform to insinuate some respectability behind their cause to recruit people so giving them a platform helped the holocaust deniers cause. https://slate.com/technology/2018/07/the-askhistorians-subreddit-banned-holocaust-deniers-and-facebook-should-too.html https://slate.com/technology/2018/07/the-askhistorians-subre...

pulisse 8y ago

> In response to his Recode interview, Mark says "I believe that often the best way to fight offensive bad speech is with good speech." There's no way to fight speech with more speech when the audience your speech reaches is determined by algorithms you have no control over or even insight into.

vkou 8y ago

Personally, I believe that false beliefs that are reinforced through a filter bubble are reinforced much faster over time. Which is precisely what happens in neo-nazi communities. When they don't have a place to organize and talk, they may retain their private viewpoints. Those viewpoints -may- strengthen over time. When they do have a place to organize and talk with like-minded individuals, these viewpoints absolutely strengthen. I'm not sure how this is controversial.

wishinghand 8y ago

> Mark says "I believe that often the best way to fight offensive bad speech is with good speech." However, there's a theory out there that's starting to congeal that to refute bullshit it takes an order of magnitude more energy to do so.

bena 8y ago
Bullshit has the distinct advantage of not needing to be correct. If you and I were arguing about giraffes and I could just make up random facts about giraffes. Like their long necks give them exceptional hearing because they're so much further away from everything. You'd actually have to provide research and facts to counter my bullshit. Whereas in the meantime, I could make up 10 more bullshit facts that you'd then also have to refute.
- xenadu02 8y ago
  This is often called the "Gish Gallop", named after creationist Duane Gish. The technique is very simple: throw out as many arguments as possible to overwhelm everyone else.

gowld 8y ago

My recollection of the research is that even challenged false beliefs are only reinforced over time. Education works on the open-minded, not the openly hostile.

skocznymroczny 8y ago

What about groups that promote abortion? Should they be required to watch educational videos as well?