17 ms·

>Are we setting the right precedent, because while we all likely agree that things like Daily Stormer and Gab are platforms for truly hateful people...are we em

>Are we setting the right precedent, because while we all likely agree that things like Daily Stormer and Gab are platforms for truly hateful people...are we emboldening them by driving them underground? Yes. No. I don't find the slippery slope argument compelling. As a society we can decide what is and isn't within the realm of reasonable debate and discourse. Whatever the lines are, the discussion of racial supremacy and systematic oppression and elimination of others seems like something we should all be able to agree is outside the bounds.

partiallypro 8y ago
Since there have been large crackdowns on these sites, violence and seething has ticked up across the globe, and the "far right" has taken control of more governments (and I'm not talking about Trump, I'm talking about Europe/South America where there are open threats of violence and anti-Semitism.) I am just saying that perhaps driving these people underground where they can't be monitored is not the best approach. I would argue that it is possible that cracking down on public platforms them gives them a platform in and of itself that once did not exist. It's similar to a Streisand effect. People become even -more- radicalized because they feel "oppressed." It sort of reminds me of how the ATF raid on Waco unwittingly played into their cult's idea of the apocalypse and has since bred people like McVeigh. THAT is the slippery slope.
syshum 8y ago
The problem is ofcourse your entire comment is strawman akin to "think of the children" politicians use when attempting to pass bad policy. If back here in reality the "major platforms" only ever kicked off and censored "the discussion of racial supremacy and systematic oppression and elimination of others" then you might have a point, maybe. But in reality there is an on going attack against the expression of many many viewpoints that are in any way outside the extreme Authoritarian left worldview. I am sure this will be denied, and I will be down voted (and my speech here in HN suppressed with rate limiting as it often is proving my point) but that does not change the reality.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]

partiallypro 8y ago

Since there have been large crackdowns on these sites, violence and seething has ticked up across the globe, and the "far right" has taken control of more governments (and I'm not talking about Trump, I'm talking about Europe/South America where there are open threats of violence and anti-Semitism.) I am just saying that perhaps driving these people underground where they can't be monitored is not the best approach. I would argue that it is possible that cracking down on public platforms them gives them a platform in and of itself that once did not exist. It's similar to a Streisand effect. People become even -more- radicalized because they feel "oppressed." It sort of reminds me of how the ATF raid on Waco unwittingly played into their cult's idea of the apocalypse and has since bred people like McVeigh. THAT is the slippery slope.

syshum 8y ago

The problem is ofcourse your entire comment is strawman akin to "think of the children" politicians use when attempting to pass bad policy. If back here in reality the "major platforms" only ever kicked off and censored "the discussion of racial supremacy and systematic oppression and elimination of others" then you might have a point, maybe. But in reality there is an on going attack against the expression of many many viewpoints that are in any way outside the extreme Authoritarian left worldview. I am sure this will be denied, and I will be down voted (and my speech here in HN suppressed with rate limiting as it often is proving my point) but that does not change the reality.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]