4 ms·

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 providin

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?
        bdcravens 8y ago
        glenda was only pointing out how free speech is misunderstood; stating fact rather than what they do or don't support.
    - hannasanarion 8y ago
      If you're yelled at, boycotted, have your show canceled, or get banned from an internet community, your free speech rights aren't being violated. It's just that the people listening think you're an asshole and they're showing you the door.
      - wycs 8y ago
        I guess I am worried that as the societal norm for allowing ideological differences to be expressed degrades that it will leak into politics in the form of hate speech laws. We are starting to have fully private struggle sessions on Twitter, using such tools to sick the mob on opponents. A new sort of bully pulpit. I am not sure any populist politician has quite realized this power. Trump has to an extent but he has no backing from anyone in media, education, or most government employees. Now that Trump has broken so many tacit rules, I fear a charismatic leftist populist would be able to nationalize these private struggle sessions and vastly amplify his or her power. The mob has not been a force in politics for a long time. I fear a resurgence.
- dvfjsdhgfv 8y ago
  > a large contingent of those users moved to another site (can't remember which though) https://voat.co/ https://voat.co/
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).

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?
      - bdcravens 8y ago
        glenda was only pointing out how free speech is misunderstood; stating fact rather than what they do or don't support.
  - hannasanarion 8y ago
    If you're yelled at, boycotted, have your show canceled, or get banned from an internet community, your free speech rights aren't being violated. It's just that the people listening think you're an asshole and they're showing you the door.
    - wycs 8y ago
      I guess I am worried that as the societal norm for allowing ideological differences to be expressed degrades that it will leak into politics in the form of hate speech laws. We are starting to have fully private struggle sessions on Twitter, using such tools to sick the mob on opponents. A new sort of bully pulpit. I am not sure any populist politician has quite realized this power. Trump has to an extent but he has no backing from anyone in media, education, or most government employees. Now that Trump has broken so many tacit rules, I fear a charismatic leftist populist would be able to nationalize these private struggle sessions and vastly amplify his or her power. The mob has not been a force in politics for a long time. I fear a resurgence.
dvfjsdhgfv 8y ago
> a large contingent of those users moved to another site (can't remember which though) https://voat.co/ https://voat.co/

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).