6 ms·

With Apple, Facebook and Spotify doing this (and lots of reporting about it) I'd say ... cue the Streisand effect. Sometimes it's better to just not do anythin

by tazjin 8y ago

With Apple, Facebook and Spotify doing this (and lots of reporting about it) I'd say ... cue the Streisand effect. Sometimes it's better to just not do anything, but I guess that doesn't get you PR points.

dublinben 8y ago
I think the Streisand Effect is overstated. Apple has nearly two thirds of the podcast market.[0] Together with the other platforms that have removed these podcasts, upwards of three quarters of podcast listeners will no longer be able to easily access or discover this content. Starving this show of its largest audiences is more likely to cripple it, not galvanize it. [0] https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-market-share-of-podcast-apps https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-market-share-of-podcast-ap...
vanderZwan 8y ago
Eh, no. The Streisand effect applies to getting attention to something that wouldn't have otherwise, and gaining momentum because of it. This is about providing a platform to someone who willfully spreads lies. There has been research into the effects of Reddit clamping down on hate speech a few years ago. Guess what: not giving assholes a platform actually works. It's still a cesspool but less so than it used to be.
- furyg3 8y ago
  Got a link, I'd (genuinely) like to see this research!
  - samfriedman 8y ago
    That would be this paper from Georgia Tech. http://comp.social.gatech.edu/papers/cscw18-chand-hate.pdf http://comp.social.gatech.edu/papers/cscw18-chand-hate.pdf
- tonysdg 8y ago
  Could you link if you have it? I'm genuinely curious. I'm also suspicious -- what stops the aforementioned individuals from finding another website/forum? I seem to remember hearing that after Reddit closed down several of the more unsavory/flat-out-awful subreddits, a large contingent of those users moved to another site (can't remember which though). FWIW, I support clamping down on hate speech, but only if it's accompanied by some form of education (otherwise, you're just hiding the problem).
  - foolrush 8y ago
    Social science research indicates that it isn't about "hiding" hate directed speech, but rather to consider the impact on the victims of such speech. That is, when one is able to say the word "hiding", it is spoken from the position of privilege; it is a very real existential threat to those impacted. Constricting hate speech has a notable impact on the dignity and well-being of those impacted[1]. [1] EG: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13504630.2015.1128810?src=recsys&journalCode=csid20 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13504630.2015.11...
    - wycs 8y ago
      Do you care at all about free speech? You are willing kill this beautiful freedom we have for that?
      - glenda 8y ago
        Free speech refers to the freedom to not be thrown in jail by the government for things you have said that fall under protected speech. It has nothing to do with being allowed to post anything on any website you’d like.
        wycs 8y ago
        Ok. So you don’t support laws against hate speech?
        8y ago
- foolrush 8y ago
  The inevitable discussion about the need for hate speech laws in the USA is lurking. Sadly, the USA had a chance at them a while back, but I believe it was Justice Scalia who struck it down?
- staunch 8y ago
  > Guess what: not giving assholes a platform actually works. In other words, these platforms are powerful enough to silence people. Today, it's people you agree with silencing. Tomorrow, it may be people you disagree with silencing. It's not a good thing that massively powerful private companies are deciding what speech should be allowed and what should not. The law doesn't require it, but as users, we should demand that these major platforms are open to everyone, not just the ones that the majority currently approves of.
  - KozmoNau7 8y ago
    Who gets to define what is a "major platform"? Their platform, their rules, within the confines of the law.
- TooBrokeToBeg 8y ago
  > The Streisand effect applies to getting attention to something that wouldn't have otherwise, and gaining momentum because of it. This is about providing a platform to someone who willfully spreads lies. Those aren't orthogonal. They seem to both be true in this case (what "it is about" is subjective).
mgbmtl 8y ago
I've seen Infowars regularly mocked in mainstream comedy TV shows. Shining light on Infowars misinformation / ill intent is probably a good thing. Adding barriers to passive consumption, by vulnerable (misinformed) people, is probably also a good thing. It's not being censored/outlawed, just made slightly less convenient to access. Fake news are a threat to democracy.
- jessriedel 8y ago
  "It's not outlawed, just inconvenient to access" is more than enough influence to dramatically (~90%) shape what information is consumed with no natural truth-seeking mechanism beyond your trust in the people imposing the inconvenience. There's a reason it's illegal for the government to do this, and we should demand that neutral platform organizations like Apple, Facebook, or a university don't do it either (which is not the same thing as saying that they should be forced by law to do it).
  - DanAndersen 8y ago
    >and we should demand that neutral platform organizations like Apple, Facebook, or a university don't do it either (which is not the same thing as saying that they should be forced by law to do it) What sorts of demands would be listened to or have any chance of being effective if not having the weight of force of law behind it?
    - internet_user 8y ago
      Might require another constitutional amendment.
    - jessriedel 8y ago
      The same thing that induces universities to behave reasonably well as neutral platforms. It is a combination of pressure from public esteem and the moral principles of the university (both the principles of individual administrators/professors and the principles explicitly endorsed by the organization as a whole). And all of that is interlinked. It is an awful misconceptions that the only way to effectively get other people to act differently is with law. It is lazy and leads to unnecessary use of force. Most things that are bad are not illegal (e.g., lying to your friends, being mean, abandoning your parents, cheating on your spouse) and yet occur at much lower rates than they would without the many extra-legal mechanisms that keep them in check.
zouhair 8y ago
I totally disagree. I am sure cutting these dangerous people from the mainstream website will slowly kill them.
ndespres 8y ago
Do you really think that this action is going to bring more attention to Infowars? I really doubt whether the Streisand Effect is a factor here. Anyone who didn't know what Infowars is already won't be interested in this news.
wycs 8y ago
deleted.
- pjc50 8y ago
  > Only extremists on the right will be censored. This is obviously not true. Apple has had a ridiculous "no politics" policy on the App Store for years, censoring the anti-war left. https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/538kan/apple-just-banned-the-app-that-tracks-us-drone-strikes-again https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/538kan/apple-just...
  - wycs 8y ago
    That’s pretty terrible.
- krk83je 8y ago
  It’s also factually true that human violence has enabled certain bloodlines the opportunity to advance, while hindering others. I’m leery of people who cite one scientific data point alone. It smells like an appeal to authority. And you’re throwing up a strawman with your rhetoric about blocking a communist podcast. Alex Jones himself has said in court it’s an act and he’s just an entertainer. Sometimes the act gets old and shows get canceled. Is that censorship? In this case the show isn’t even canceled. Just removed from one of dozens of podcast directories. It’s still findable at the source. Your complaint is really about the creation of a slight inconvenience. There’s no real censorship here.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
mikestew 8y ago
Lots of people don’t know where Barbara Streisand lives (despite the Streisand effect, I don’t). It would have to be a pretty deep cave you live in to not have heard of Alex Jones, especially if you stand any chance of enjoying his show.
garg 8y ago
I don't think the Streisand effect applies in this case. The site has repeatedly broken the terms of usage of all of these platforms. The ban should therefore appear reasonable to people. The Streisand effect applies when the attempt is to hide or censor information for no reason other than hiding information.
creaghpatr 8y ago
I'm most worried about Spotify, who already plays kingmaker for upcoming artists. They could use Twitter-like 'shadowban' techniques take punitive measures against 'bad' music artists. Because isn't there a lot of music that plausibly contains 'hate speech' or 'incitements of violence'? Not saying they will, because they haven't indicated that yet, but they are working with the extremist SPLC to craft a policy around 'hate' content and 'hateful' content (the latter to presumably include content that isn't hate content but could be misconstrued as hate content, perhaps?). https://newsroom.spotify.com/2018-05-10/spotify-announces-new-hate-content-and-hateful-conduct-public-policy/ https://newsroom.spotify.com/2018-05-10/spotify-announces-ne...
- pjc50 8y ago
  > extremist SPLC No.
  - nailer 8y ago
    Yes. The SPLC put reform Muslim Maajid Nawaz and anti-FGM campaigner Ayaan Hirsi Ali on their list of hate speech advocates until threatened with legal action by Nawaz. Right leaning source: http://dailycaller.com/2018/04/19/splc-maajid-nawaz-muslim-extremist/ http://dailycaller.com/2018/04/19/splc-maajid-nawaz-muslim-e... Left leaning source: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/24/opinion/southern-poverty-law-center-liberals-islam.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/24/opinion/southern-poverty-...
- maze-le 8y ago
  Already happening: http://www.metalsucks.net/2017/09/14/infant-annihilator-banned-from-spotify-for-allegedly-being-offensive/ http://www.metalsucks.net/2017/09/14/infant-annihilator-bann... That was the moment when I cancelled my spotify account. Oh and to be sure, they don't need to "working with the extremist SPLC" to do that. This ban has more to do with some sort of pseudo moral outrage, wich the right is quite capable of on their own.
untog 8y ago
Nah, the Streisand effect only applies when increased attention on a subject would result in a negative result. "Barbera Streisand wants photos of her beachfront mansion removed because she thinks it's an invasion of her privacy" reflects badly on Barbera Stresiand. "Apple is removing Infowars because it traffics in outright lies" reflects badly on Infowars.
satsuma 8y ago
arguably having infowars be high up on the "most downloaded" podcast list would be worse. especially if they categorize themselves as news or politics instead of entertainment.

by tazjin 8y ago

dublinben 8y ago

I think the Streisand Effect is overstated. Apple has nearly two thirds of the podcast market.[0] Together with the other platforms that have removed these podcasts, upwards of three quarters of podcast listeners will no longer be able to easily access or discover this content. Starving this show of its largest audiences is more likely to cripple it, not galvanize it. [0] https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-market-share-of-podcast-apps https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-market-share-of-podcast-ap...

vanderZwan 8y ago

Eh, no. The Streisand effect applies to getting attention to something that wouldn't have otherwise, and gaining momentum because of it. This is about providing a platform to someone who willfully spreads lies. There has been research into the effects of Reddit clamping down on hate speech a few years ago. Guess what: not giving assholes a platform actually works. It's still a cesspool but less so than it used to be.

furyg3 8y ago
Got a link, I'd (genuinely) like to see this research!
- samfriedman 8y ago
  That would be this paper from Georgia Tech. http://comp.social.gatech.edu/papers/cscw18-chand-hate.pdf http://comp.social.gatech.edu/papers/cscw18-chand-hate.pdf
tonysdg 8y ago
Could you link if you have it? I'm genuinely curious. I'm also suspicious -- what stops the aforementioned individuals from finding another website/forum? I seem to remember hearing that after Reddit closed down several of the more unsavory/flat-out-awful subreddits, a large contingent of those users moved to another site (can't remember which though). FWIW, I support clamping down on hate speech, but only if it's accompanied by some form of education (otherwise, you're just hiding the problem).
- foolrush 8y ago
  Social science research indicates that it isn't about "hiding" hate directed speech, but rather to consider the impact on the victims of such speech. That is, when one is able to say the word "hiding", it is spoken from the position of privilege; it is a very real existential threat to those impacted. Constricting hate speech has a notable impact on the dignity and well-being of those impacted[1]. [1] EG: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13504630.2015.1128810?src=recsys&journalCode=csid20 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13504630.2015.11...
  - wycs 8y ago
    Do you care at all about free speech? You are willing kill this beautiful freedom we have for that?
    - glenda 8y ago
      Free speech refers to the freedom to not be thrown in jail by the government for things you have said that fall under protected speech. It has nothing to do with being allowed to post anything on any website you’d like.
      - wycs 8y ago
        Ok. So you don’t support laws against hate speech?
        8y ago
foolrush 8y ago
The inevitable discussion about the need for hate speech laws in the USA is lurking. Sadly, the USA had a chance at them a while back, but I believe it was Justice Scalia who struck it down?
staunch 8y ago
> Guess what: not giving assholes a platform actually works. In other words, these platforms are powerful enough to silence people. Today, it's people you agree with silencing. Tomorrow, it may be people you disagree with silencing. It's not a good thing that massively powerful private companies are deciding what speech should be allowed and what should not. The law doesn't require it, but as users, we should demand that these major platforms are open to everyone, not just the ones that the majority currently approves of.
- KozmoNau7 8y ago
  Who gets to define what is a "major platform"? Their platform, their rules, within the confines of the law.
TooBrokeToBeg 8y ago
> The Streisand effect applies to getting attention to something that wouldn't have otherwise, and gaining momentum because of it. This is about providing a platform to someone who willfully spreads lies. Those aren't orthogonal. They seem to both be true in this case (what "it is about" is subjective).

mgbmtl 8y ago

I've seen Infowars regularly mocked in mainstream comedy TV shows. Shining light on Infowars misinformation / ill intent is probably a good thing. Adding barriers to passive consumption, by vulnerable (misinformed) people, is probably also a good thing. It's not being censored/outlawed, just made slightly less convenient to access. Fake news are a threat to democracy.

jessriedel 8y ago
"It's not outlawed, just inconvenient to access" is more than enough influence to dramatically (~90%) shape what information is consumed with no natural truth-seeking mechanism beyond your trust in the people imposing the inconvenience. There's a reason it's illegal for the government to do this, and we should demand that neutral platform organizations like Apple, Facebook, or a university don't do it either (which is not the same thing as saying that they should be forced by law to do it).
- DanAndersen 8y ago
  >and we should demand that neutral platform organizations like Apple, Facebook, or a university don't do it either (which is not the same thing as saying that they should be forced by law to do it) What sorts of demands would be listened to or have any chance of being effective if not having the weight of force of law behind it?
  - internet_user 8y ago
    Might require another constitutional amendment.
  - jessriedel 8y ago
    The same thing that induces universities to behave reasonably well as neutral platforms. It is a combination of pressure from public esteem and the moral principles of the university (both the principles of individual administrators/professors and the principles explicitly endorsed by the organization as a whole). And all of that is interlinked. It is an awful misconceptions that the only way to effectively get other people to act differently is with law. It is lazy and leads to unnecessary use of force. Most things that are bad are not illegal (e.g., lying to your friends, being mean, abandoning your parents, cheating on your spouse) and yet occur at much lower rates than they would without the many extra-legal mechanisms that keep them in check.

zouhair 8y ago

I totally disagree. I am sure cutting these dangerous people from the mainstream website will slowly kill them.

ndespres 8y ago

Do you really think that this action is going to bring more attention to Infowars? I really doubt whether the Streisand Effect is a factor here. Anyone who didn't know what Infowars is already won't be interested in this news.

wycs 8y ago

deleted.

pjc50 8y ago
> Only extremists on the right will be censored. This is obviously not true. Apple has had a ridiculous "no politics" policy on the App Store for years, censoring the anti-war left. https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/538kan/apple-just-banned-the-app-that-tracks-us-drone-strikes-again https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/538kan/apple-just...
- wycs 8y ago
  That’s pretty terrible.
krk83je 8y ago
It’s also factually true that human violence has enabled certain bloodlines the opportunity to advance, while hindering others. I’m leery of people who cite one scientific data point alone. It smells like an appeal to authority. And you’re throwing up a strawman with your rhetoric about blocking a communist podcast. Alex Jones himself has said in court it’s an act and he’s just an entertainer. Sometimes the act gets old and shows get canceled. Is that censorship? In this case the show isn’t even canceled. Just removed from one of dozens of podcast directories. It’s still findable at the source. Your complaint is really about the creation of a slight inconvenience. There’s no real censorship here.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]

mikestew 8y ago

Lots of people don’t know where Barbara Streisand lives (despite the Streisand effect, I don’t). It would have to be a pretty deep cave you live in to not have heard of Alex Jones, especially if you stand any chance of enjoying his show.

garg 8y ago

I don't think the Streisand effect applies in this case. The site has repeatedly broken the terms of usage of all of these platforms. The ban should therefore appear reasonable to people. The Streisand effect applies when the attempt is to hide or censor information for no reason other than hiding information.

creaghpatr 8y ago

I'm most worried about Spotify, who already plays kingmaker for upcoming artists. They could use Twitter-like 'shadowban' techniques take punitive measures against 'bad' music artists. Because isn't there a lot of music that plausibly contains 'hate speech' or 'incitements of violence'? Not saying they will, because they haven't indicated that yet, but they are working with the extremist SPLC to craft a policy around 'hate' content and 'hateful' content (the latter to presumably include content that isn't hate content but could be misconstrued as hate content, perhaps?). https://newsroom.spotify.com/2018-05-10/spotify-announces-new-hate-content-and-hateful-conduct-public-policy/ https://newsroom.spotify.com/2018-05-10/spotify-announces-ne...

pjc50 8y ago
> extremist SPLC No.
- nailer 8y ago
  Yes. The SPLC put reform Muslim Maajid Nawaz and anti-FGM campaigner Ayaan Hirsi Ali on their list of hate speech advocates until threatened with legal action by Nawaz. Right leaning source: http://dailycaller.com/2018/04/19/splc-maajid-nawaz-muslim-extremist/ http://dailycaller.com/2018/04/19/splc-maajid-nawaz-muslim-e... Left leaning source: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/24/opinion/southern-poverty-law-center-liberals-islam.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/24/opinion/southern-poverty-...
maze-le 8y ago
Already happening: http://www.metalsucks.net/2017/09/14/infant-annihilator-banned-from-spotify-for-allegedly-being-offensive/ http://www.metalsucks.net/2017/09/14/infant-annihilator-bann... That was the moment when I cancelled my spotify account. Oh and to be sure, they don't need to "working with the extremist SPLC" to do that. This ban has more to do with some sort of pseudo moral outrage, wich the right is quite capable of on their own.

untog 8y ago

Nah, the Streisand effect only applies when increased attention on a subject would result in a negative result. "Barbera Streisand wants photos of her beachfront mansion removed because she thinks it's an invasion of her privacy" reflects badly on Barbera Stresiand. "Apple is removing Infowars because it traffics in outright lies" reflects badly on Infowars.

satsuma 8y ago

arguably having infowars be high up on the "most downloaded" podcast list would be worse. especially if they categorize themselves as news or politics instead of entertainment.