3 ms·

I have been following the issue of Internet polarization since 2014 [1], and I propose two different ways to mediate the situation on a societal level: - Have

I have been following the issue of Internet polarization since 2014 [1], and I propose two different ways to mediate the situation on a societal level: - Have a neutral platform to facilitate discourse and mutual understanding. This is hard as it requires a largely informed populace. - Complete segregation of groups having different opinions. This proves to be also hard because of incidents like this. [1] https://paradite.com/2014/11/11/internet-polarized-society/ https://paradite.com/2014/11/11/internet-polarized-society/

jbarciauskas 8y ago
What if, instead of either of these, we made it clear as a society that advocating violence against or the elimination of a class of people is unacceptable and we gave no venue for that conversation whatsoever?
- faissaloo 8y ago
  But most people believe some people should be eliminated, the only thing that changes is who depending on your political alignment.
  - ubernostrum 8y ago
    I think some people should suffer social consequences for their beliefs, which may include absolutely no-one from "polite" society being willing to associate with them unless/until they show a genuine change. Those people, in turn, tend to believe that people like me should be forcibly rounded up into camps, gassed, and then cremated or dumped into mass graves. Do you really and truly believe, deep in your heart of hearts, that these are exactly perfectly identically equivalent positions? That both of them consist of "eliminating" opponents? Because from where I'm sitting, only one "side" is advocating for actual literal violent mass extermination of the people they don't like.
  - canhascodez 8y ago
    I can see how this might be a convenient belief, but I'm having a hard time imagining a more foul lie.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
repolfx 8y ago
Sites like Gab are supposed to be that neutral platform. The problem is that some people (like "Asparagirl" in the other thread) identify providing a neutral space with supporting the enemy and immediately try to get that neutral third party shut down. They use arguments like "we found a bad user" (as in this case) or "that place is garbage it all deserves to be silenced", i.e. shooting the messenger. There actually isn't any way to end these ongoing forum-hosting-wars, beyond a complete and total cultural victory by people who are fanatical about free speech. That will probably require services like content hosting and payment processing to migrate away from California in the long run, and for companies to be set up with explicit corporate cultural values of neutrality and freedom of speech - enforced by firing anyone who doesn't agree.
- detaro 8y ago
  If your sites public relations account posts anti-semitic comments you can't really claim to be a "neutral platform" welcoming to all anymore.
- happytoexplain 8y ago
  From my own experience, Gab's founders and public facing opinions seem to support extreme, hateful content in an explicit, non-neutral manner, rather than being a neutral platform that unfortunately must host those things due to its neutrality.

jbarciauskas 8y ago

What if, instead of either of these, we made it clear as a society that advocating violence against or the elimination of a class of people is unacceptable and we gave no venue for that conversation whatsoever?

faissaloo 8y ago
But most people believe some people should be eliminated, the only thing that changes is who depending on your political alignment.
- ubernostrum 8y ago
  I think some people should suffer social consequences for their beliefs, which may include absolutely no-one from "polite" society being willing to associate with them unless/until they show a genuine change. Those people, in turn, tend to believe that people like me should be forcibly rounded up into camps, gassed, and then cremated or dumped into mass graves. Do you really and truly believe, deep in your heart of hearts, that these are exactly perfectly identically equivalent positions? That both of them consist of "eliminating" opponents? Because from where I'm sitting, only one "side" is advocating for actual literal violent mass extermination of the people they don't like.
- canhascodez 8y ago
  I can see how this might be a convenient belief, but I'm having a hard time imagining a more foul lie.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]

repolfx 8y ago

Sites like Gab are supposed to be that neutral platform. The problem is that some people (like "Asparagirl" in the other thread) identify providing a neutral space with supporting the enemy and immediately try to get that neutral third party shut down. They use arguments like "we found a bad user" (as in this case) or "that place is garbage it all deserves to be silenced", i.e. shooting the messenger. There actually isn't any way to end these ongoing forum-hosting-wars, beyond a complete and total cultural victory by people who are fanatical about free speech. That will probably require services like content hosting and payment processing to migrate away from California in the long run, and for companies to be set up with explicit corporate cultural values of neutrality and freedom of speech - enforced by firing anyone who doesn't agree.

detaro 8y ago
If your sites public relations account posts anti-semitic comments you can't really claim to be a "neutral platform" welcoming to all anymore.
happytoexplain 8y ago
From my own experience, Gab's founders and public facing opinions seem to support extreme, hateful content in an explicit, non-neutral manner, rather than being a neutral platform that unfortunately must host those things due to its neutrality.