14 ms·
That argument works well in relatively small social groups where people generally can be relied upon to act in good faith, and where there are social disincenti
by braythwayt 8y ago
That argument works well in relatively small social groups where people generally can be relied upon to act in good faith, and where there are social disincentives to clinging to bad ideas after they have been refuted.
When you have a small group with social bonds, you don't have to worry about a bad actor constantly repeating their already-refuted arguments to people who haven't heard the refutation.
But when you have the whole internet as your audience, no matter how many times you are refuted, you can say it again and a whole group of people will be hearing it for the first time.
I have been on the Internet since the 80s. What I have personally found is that a lot of its social norms were lifted from academia, and they work very well as defaults in a new social media context. Like Hacker News when it was first launched.
But eventually, every "social medium" on the Internet has its "Eternal September," when the number of new folks in any conversation outweighs the old hands. At that point, the social norms that worked for the small, cohesive group no longer work.
And worse, there are specialist parasites who exploit people's reluctance to change their social norms, and the act in outrageously bad faith.
Sites like HN have survived by changing. For all of the popularity on HN of "unrestricted free speech," HN is actually moderated, and that's why it works.
- will_dev_4_food 8y agoWhen you say it’s like this one way but not the other, you have conceded to relativism. You have basically said there is a time and place for stealing someone’s wallet, and that acting as a moral agent in society can be suspended under the right conditions.
- BugsJustFindMe 8y agoI honestly don't understand the connection between what you said and what the person you're replying to said. Can you explain it another way for me?
- coldtea 8y agoIs that a valid argument though? Of course things should be judged on a case by case basis, and not on dogmatic one size fits all rules. Even courts take context into account for the same action (e.g. whether a murder was in cold blood or premeditated, whether someone stole because they were hungry or just greedy, etc). And, yes, "there is a time and place for stealing someone’s wallet", as well.
- lylecubed 8y agoBut it's equally illegal to kill anybody based on race, class, political belief or religious belief.
- sincerely 8y agoIs that true? If the murder is racially motivated and thus a hate crime, isn't the sentence longer?
- forapurpose 8y agoIt's equally illegal to perpetrate a hate crime on anyone of any race, nationality, gender, etc. It's a bit harder to do it on people who are not in a systemically-discriminated-against class, but if you find a way then it's a hate crime like any other.
- hellbanner 8y agoTell that to the soldiers spreading democracy.
- tremon 8y agoIt's equally illegal for soldiers to kill non-combatants.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- coldtea 8y agoThat's a comparatively recent law though. Hasn't been always the case (e.g. colonialists used to have "open hunting season" for native populations at certain times and it wasn't at all like killing one of their own race). And I doubt in the 30s South killing a black person was "equally illegal" as killing a white person (if not in law, surely in practical legal outcomes -- people just getting a slap on the wrist). As for those other things (whether it's equally legally bad to kill someone regardless of "class, political belief or religious belief") all of those have been contested in actual law across societies (including western ones), even 20 and 30 years ago (and tides can always turn one way or another again).
- chc 8y agoI think most people would agree that there are indeed times and places when stealing is acceptable. It is never ideal, but sometimes the alternatives are worse. The bad sort of relativism is a weakness of principles, not the same set of principles leading you to prefer different actions in different circumstances. For another example of this kind of relativism, I would harm somebody in self-defense or the defense of another, but I would not harm somebody just because I didn't like them. The underlying principles are the same even though the right action is conditional on the situation.
- fhayde 8y agoScale affects things. An audience of 12 vs 12 million is a significant difference.
- s73v3r_ 8y agoOr, it could be that the two things being compared have entirely different contexts to them, and thus do have different rules.
- api 8y agoThis is the road to rule by men and not laws, since at that point any politician can make up whatever "context" they like to interpret the law any way they see fit. Be careful about the precedent your setting and think about who may wield these powers in the future. I'm sure President Alex Jones will think it quite necessary to make exceptions to ordinary laws and rules when taking down the global pedophile cabal is at stake.
- tinalumfoil 8y agoPeople are better off hearing a bad idea and hearing it refuted then never hearing a bad idea. You could say, "well then detractors of the idea will have to keep refuting it" and you'd be right. That's how public forums work, and I hope you don't take everything your parent's believed for granted just because their detractors have already been "refuted".
- moomin 8y agoThere are an infinite number of bad ideas in the world. No-one’s life would be improved by hearing them all.
- devtul 8y agoIn Saudi Arabia letting women drive was/is deemed a bad idea. Some cultures think it is a bad idea to not cut off the clit of girls. There are Islamic scholars that will go at length on how you should discipline physically your wife, for her own good. In those places/societies opinions against all of it would be considered wrong ideas. If you stiffen speech, you don't just stop the society from regressing, you also rob it from progress.
- anigbrowl 8y agoYes, proposing that a group have more rights that they don't currently enjoy is just like saying a group should be suppressed and have their rights curtailed.
- 0x8BADF00D 8y agoPeople don’t get more rights than others. All individuals get the same unalienable rights, and that is a universal truth which is self-evident.
- anigbrowl 8y agoI disagree, but in any case you seem to be disregarding the context of my comment above, without which it is empty of meaning.
- drb91 8y ago> But when you have the whole internet as your audience, no matter how many times you are refuted, you can say it again and a whole group of people will be hearing it for the first time. Why is that a problem? You can't force people to believe in reality. Might as well have this process happen in the open to actually provide a disincentive to believing conspiracy theories/propaganda/ads/fake news/whatever. Hell, I'll go as far to say that controversial/commonly mis believed concepts are the most worth discussing in a public forum. For instance, consider white supremacy: if you give people a choice between social groups and make them feel welcome, they can use simple, self-serving logic to join the one that meets their needs. White supremacy doesn't help white people, rationally, it's just stupid, except for very convoluted goals. See: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/22/podcasts/the-daily-transcript-derek-black.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/22/podcasts/the-daily-transc... If you don't enable conversations between white supremacists and anti-racists, there is no real choice--they'll gravitate the group where they're accepted.
- s73v3r_ 8y ago"Why is that a problem? " Ask the parents of children murdered at Sandy Hook.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- AgentME 8y ago>For instance, consider white supremacy: if you give people a choice between social groups and make them feel welcome, they can use simple, self-serving logic to join the one that meets their needs. White supremacy doesn't help white people, rationally, it's just stupid, except for very convoluted goals. Doesn't the fact that white supremacists groups still get members contradict your idea here that people won't join them?
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- 8y ago
- qop 8y agoHN is well into the territory of censoring, rather than moderation. Let's be real here. Ever since dang, it's been a free fall.
- weirdstuff 8y agoI'd add it's not just HN, but most social sites are far into self-censorship territory. I agree though, HN is much more hostile these days. WRT dang, even today he shut down a thread regarding the deepening SEC inquiry into Musk (which had new news as of this afternoon), and said that this was something along the lines of "Musk hysteria" or some such thing. I was kind of shocked at the removal of that thread as it was covering a new development, and was not, as dang put it, a dupe or hysteric.
- practice9 8y agoI rarely agree with dang, but he is correct in this case. Media should take a break with reporting about Musk, most of the recent articles are either oil-sponsored FUD about Tesla or personal attacks on him. Would be nice if Elon took a break from Twitter too...
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- tajen 8y agoMan that’s quite a good idea. Let the age of economic ostracism start.
- api 8y agoYou realize that your argument is an argument against democracy, right? If mere exposure to bad ideas is this dangerous then mass scale democracy is not viable. The viability of democracy beyond very small groups is dependent on the idea that human beings are capable of independent rational thought and of discussing and evaluating ideas on merit. If that's not the case then the neo-reactionaries are right and democracy is doomed to failure or worse. What I see here is a major freakout over Trump. IMHO feeling alarmed about Trump is justified, but throwing basic freedoms and the idea of the open flow of information out the window is not the right response. The right response is to ask how and why Trump won and address the problems, ideas, and arguments that led to it rationally. The solution is also to learn how to use this new medium better. If Jones' BS is more "viral," then more rational thinkers need to learn how to play the viral game. You must learn to communicate effectively using the media of the time. If you use social media you must learn to be viral just like previous generations had to study the art of the persuasive essay or how to do makeup properly so you don't look like a sweaty pig on a TV interview (see Nixon vs. Kennedy TV debates). If it really is true that bad ideas are inherently more viral than good ones and that cannot be combatted, I do not see how democracy can survive at all in the Information Age.
- yontherubicon 8y ago>The right response is to ask how and why Trump won and address the problems, ideas, and arguments that led to it rationally. Absolutely. > If Jones' BS is more "viral," then more rational thinkers need to learn how to play the viral game. There's an inherent danger here. Viral media is in many ways a short-attention span, high time preference sort of game. It's probably not conducive to a high level of discourse. It is IMO a race to the bottom, much the same way fast-food restaurants compete. Eventually, you need to open up a Whole Foods or two.
- stale2002 8y agoThere is a difference between thinking that a certain social medium, "works" because of moderation (such as HN), and between thinking that NO uncensored platform should ever exist. I enjoy lots moderated platforms. But I still think it is important that uncensored platforms like gab exist at all.
- carry_bit 8y agoIs it possible for a bad idea to be true?
- michaelcampbell 8y agoI think part of the implicit understanding in this thread is that part of an idea being "bad" is that it is not true.