4 ms·

As much as I can't stand hate speech rants on social media. I would much rather have these people in plain sight, where their views can be somewhat challenged,

As much as I can't stand hate speech rants on social media. I would much rather have these people in plain sight, where their views can be somewhat challenged, rather than sentencing them to the dark echo-chamber corners of the internet for them to brew up storms. Just my two sense. It's hurtful to hear some extreme views, but ignoring and ostracizing these people is not equivalent to eliminating hate.

spiderfarmer 8y ago
Allowing these people in plain sight without any pushback normalizes their views. And by allowing them to have a large platform they can freely spread their "free-from-facts" propaganda that will speak to a subset of people who are easily misled. Challenging them in public will not help when they're also convincing people that critics are the enemies that are out to destroy them. Free speech is being abused, plain and simple.
- oldsklgdfth 8y ago
  I don't know that limiting free speech addresses such abuses. Maybe the spread of "free-form-facts" propaganda is not as significant, as that there is a large subset of people who are easily misled. If you can't judge and think critically about the stuff you hear you're basically a house plant with complicated emotions. Also how do you know what is propaganda and what is not if you've never been exposed to it?
  - spiderfarmer 8y ago
    "free speech" or "freedom of expression" was never without limits. The version of Article 19 in the ICCPR amends the "freedom of expression" by stating that the exercise of these rights carries "special duties and responsibilities" and may "therefore be subject to certain restrictions" when necessary "[f]or respect of the rights or reputation of others" or "[f]or the protection of national security or of public order (order public), or of public health or morals". https://web.archive.org/web/20080705115024/http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/ccpr.htm https://web.archive.org/web/20080705115024/http://www2.ohchr...
    - oldsklgdfth 8y ago
      That's a strong point. I have always thought of freedoms being limited by the effect they have on others' freedoms. You can't use your freedoms at the expense of someone else's freedom. E.g. you can't kill someone because you are restricting their right to live. That being said, speech is kinda nuanced. Because, spoken word does not directly affect other freedoms. In extreme cases, like shouting "fire" in the theater or "bomb" in an airport, speech is limited because of the direct link between it and the result. But that's not really the case with propaganda, even if it is the goal to misled. To conclude, we are victims to our own freedom of speech if it can be used against us. If someone can say outrageous things and there are people that hear it and don't immediately think "huh, that's crazy" and walk away that is a different problem. But I don't think the solution is telling him to go sit in the corner, I feel like this wrong and also polarizing.
    - leereeves 8y ago
      The ICCPR allows Thailand to make insulting the king illegal, Pakistan to make blasphemy illegal, and Israel to ban boycotts. It allows so many "certain restrictions" that the freedom effectively ceases to exist.
      - spiderfarmer 8y ago
        As I commented elsewhere: If the article was worded differently, would it make any difference when there is no way of holding bad-faith regimes accountable? There are strict limits on free speech in Germany, showing it can work as intended. If anything, it shows that free speech can be abused by bigots on both sides.
        leereeves 8y ago
        No, it shows that restrictions on freedom of speech can be abused, and that abuse usually takes the form of banning opposition to the ruling party or their ideas. And as I pointed out in my response to your other comment, Germany has been governed by the SPD/CDU coalition since 1974. Banning opposition works.
freehunter 8y ago
On the other hand, putting those views out there to be seen by others also has the effect of encouraging others to either subscribe to those viewpoints or to feel comfortable expressing those viewpoints as well. If it's allowed on SOCIAL_MEDIA_X, it's implicitly socially acceptable. If SOCIAL_MEDIA_X shuts it down, it sends a message that it's not socially acceptable. The rate of cigarette smoking among young people has dropped dramatically over the past few decades. This isn't because of any change in scientific finding, we've known cigarettes are harmful and cause cancer for decades prior to that. What changed is we stopped advertising them on TV and putting cigarettes in kids cartoons and movies. We stopped letting people smoke them in restaurants/airplanes/schools/hospitals/etc. Cigarettes became uncool, became socially unacceptable. In one generation, smoking went from the coolest thing you could do to one of the least cool things you could do. Because it was made abundantly clear that it wasn't socially acceptable anymore, and that message was sent by banning smoking from public view.
- oldsklgdfth 8y ago
  >> If SOCIAL_MEDIA_X shuts it down, it sends a message that it's not socially acceptable. If you are the one being censored it sends the message that you are not welcome here, so you find another outlet. I hadn't hear of Gab until yesterday and my initial impression that it was a cool idea to have a social media platform that is pro free-speech, but obviously the community is very polarized and not very diverse in non-hate ideas (still don't have a complete picture of that site). >>smoking went from the coolest thing you could do to one of the least cool things you could do That's the power of marketing you're referring to. I was thinking about an individuals freedom to say what's on their mind. And if someone has super confused ideas, I would like for them to be able to express them so they can be addressed.
  - freehunter 8y ago
    I would encourage you to go to reddit.com/r/the_donald and try to "address" their "super confused" ideas. Or find Alex Jones and see if your words can change his opinion. Or taking it to the farthest extremes imaginable, maybe even fly to Syria and see if you can talk some sense into ISIS. I'm sure their "super confused ideas" can be "addressed" if they're allowed to continue. It's not censorship to shut down hate speech any more than it's censorship when `dang tells me I'm not allowed to call someone an idiot on Hacker News. It sets the tone for the conversation we're all having, and you know, after I got warned a few times I stopped calling people idiots because I know that kind of behavior doesn't fly here. If people have to leave Twitter and go to Gab in order to spread their message of hate, that's fantastic. Because everyone knows Twitter, everyone uses Twitter, but no one's ever heard of Gab. And then when they visit Gab, they find it's full of hate speech and extreme opinions and never visit again. Bad business model for Gab, but a huge win for everyone else.
anarazel 8y ago
It's not realistically possible to challenge them. If you do, you'll be brigaded for weeks (hopefully just online). And a lot of it is not exposed to anybody challenging their views, but largely just to people at least vulnerable to their views. Look at the twitter feed of journos, especially female jewish ones, that have tried to report anywhere close to something in that area. De-platforming by very central actors (In order of my currently perceived descending danger: tld operators, credit card companies, payment processors, end-user dns registries, hosting platforms) is dangerous, but so is just letting entities like gab, the daily stormer etc continue largely unchallenged.
- Zuider 8y ago
  I challenge them all the time. I think it is a moral duty to monitor them and push back against them. Anonymously, of course, because I don't want one of them turning up at my front door with a chainsaw. In my experience, they are like the proverbial paper tiger, a lot more fragile in the face of pressure than you think, and they do fold. You will also find that there is a silent majority which also despises them. They are aware of this and it frightens them.
archagon 8y ago
I am exhausted from having these people be in constant sight over the last two years. Hate speech is a fire that feeds on emotions, and there seem to be a lot of feelings in the air these days.
- oldsklgdfth 8y ago
  So am I. Extremely tired of it all. But I don't think they should be banished.
  - tptacek 8y ago
    They're not "banished". Stormfront is still on the Internet. Gab will be too, at least for a while. They're just going to have to work with companies that don't mind helping white supremacists.
    - oldsklgdfth 8y ago
      I meant banished from the mainstream. If I understand it correctly Gab started in response to Twitter banning hate-speech. I feel like it's more difficult to radicalize out in the open than it is in an echo-chamber. And those places only have power when people are banned from the mainstream. Obviously, these are companies that offer products and they can tailor them anyway they want. But I'm making this as a broader statement about our culture.
      - tptacek 8y ago
        This is the story Gab likes to tell, but is anyone actually considering it critically? Twitter is full of out-and-proud white nationalists. Its AUP restricts violent and harassing hate speech, going out of its way to refine the definition to targeted harassment. Richard Spencer has an active Twitter account. For that matter, so does Gab itself, which until recently was also an out-and-proud white nationalist account. Gab has a blue checkmark! What seems to have happened with Gab is that its founder got kicked out of YC for harassing batch-mates, got some publicity for that, and decided to use it to capitalize on the "alt-right". Is there any indication anywhere that Torba is doing anything more interesting than trying to sell neo-Nazis a monorail?
panarky 8y ago
> ostracizing these people is not equivalent to eliminating hate Eliminating hate is impossible, so that's not the goal. It is possible to reduce the percentage of people who are consumed by attacking others with words, memes, threats and violence. Isolating them reduces their reach and reduces their reproduction rate so that their numbers decrease. Ostracizing works.
- oldsklgdfth 8y ago
  It works in what way? If I follow now you have the general populace with less hate and the group of ostracized - which are still members of the society - which probably hate more. I guess I could see ostracism working if you removed them from society and kept them separate. Which doesn't work with the internet well.

spiderfarmer 8y ago

Allowing these people in plain sight without any pushback normalizes their views. And by allowing them to have a large platform they can freely spread their "free-from-facts" propaganda that will speak to a subset of people who are easily misled. Challenging them in public will not help when they're also convincing people that critics are the enemies that are out to destroy them. Free speech is being abused, plain and simple.

oldsklgdfth 8y ago
I don't know that limiting free speech addresses such abuses. Maybe the spread of "free-form-facts" propaganda is not as significant, as that there is a large subset of people who are easily misled. If you can't judge and think critically about the stuff you hear you're basically a house plant with complicated emotions. Also how do you know what is propaganda and what is not if you've never been exposed to it?
- spiderfarmer 8y ago
  "free speech" or "freedom of expression" was never without limits. The version of Article 19 in the ICCPR amends the "freedom of expression" by stating that the exercise of these rights carries "special duties and responsibilities" and may "therefore be subject to certain restrictions" when necessary "[f]or respect of the rights or reputation of others" or "[f]or the protection of national security or of public order (order public), or of public health or morals". https://web.archive.org/web/20080705115024/http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/ccpr.htm https://web.archive.org/web/20080705115024/http://www2.ohchr...
  - oldsklgdfth 8y ago
    That's a strong point. I have always thought of freedoms being limited by the effect they have on others' freedoms. You can't use your freedoms at the expense of someone else's freedom. E.g. you can't kill someone because you are restricting their right to live. That being said, speech is kinda nuanced. Because, spoken word does not directly affect other freedoms. In extreme cases, like shouting "fire" in the theater or "bomb" in an airport, speech is limited because of the direct link between it and the result. But that's not really the case with propaganda, even if it is the goal to misled. To conclude, we are victims to our own freedom of speech if it can be used against us. If someone can say outrageous things and there are people that hear it and don't immediately think "huh, that's crazy" and walk away that is a different problem. But I don't think the solution is telling him to go sit in the corner, I feel like this wrong and also polarizing.
  - leereeves 8y ago
    The ICCPR allows Thailand to make insulting the king illegal, Pakistan to make blasphemy illegal, and Israel to ban boycotts. It allows so many "certain restrictions" that the freedom effectively ceases to exist.
    - spiderfarmer 8y ago
      As I commented elsewhere: If the article was worded differently, would it make any difference when there is no way of holding bad-faith regimes accountable? There are strict limits on free speech in Germany, showing it can work as intended. If anything, it shows that free speech can be abused by bigots on both sides.
      - leereeves 8y ago
        No, it shows that restrictions on freedom of speech can be abused, and that abuse usually takes the form of banning opposition to the ruling party or their ideas. And as I pointed out in my response to your other comment, Germany has been governed by the SPD/CDU coalition since 1974. Banning opposition works.

freehunter 8y ago

On the other hand, putting those views out there to be seen by others also has the effect of encouraging others to either subscribe to those viewpoints or to feel comfortable expressing those viewpoints as well. If it's allowed on SOCIAL_MEDIA_X, it's implicitly socially acceptable. If SOCIAL_MEDIA_X shuts it down, it sends a message that it's not socially acceptable. The rate of cigarette smoking among young people has dropped dramatically over the past few decades. This isn't because of any change in scientific finding, we've known cigarettes are harmful and cause cancer for decades prior to that. What changed is we stopped advertising them on TV and putting cigarettes in kids cartoons and movies. We stopped letting people smoke them in restaurants/airplanes/schools/hospitals/etc. Cigarettes became uncool, became socially unacceptable. In one generation, smoking went from the coolest thing you could do to one of the least cool things you could do. Because it was made abundantly clear that it wasn't socially acceptable anymore, and that message was sent by banning smoking from public view.

oldsklgdfth 8y ago
>> If SOCIAL_MEDIA_X shuts it down, it sends a message that it's not socially acceptable. If you are the one being censored it sends the message that you are not welcome here, so you find another outlet. I hadn't hear of Gab until yesterday and my initial impression that it was a cool idea to have a social media platform that is pro free-speech, but obviously the community is very polarized and not very diverse in non-hate ideas (still don't have a complete picture of that site). >>smoking went from the coolest thing you could do to one of the least cool things you could do That's the power of marketing you're referring to. I was thinking about an individuals freedom to say what's on their mind. And if someone has super confused ideas, I would like for them to be able to express them so they can be addressed.
- freehunter 8y ago
  I would encourage you to go to reddit.com/r/the_donald and try to "address" their "super confused" ideas. Or find Alex Jones and see if your words can change his opinion. Or taking it to the farthest extremes imaginable, maybe even fly to Syria and see if you can talk some sense into ISIS. I'm sure their "super confused ideas" can be "addressed" if they're allowed to continue. It's not censorship to shut down hate speech any more than it's censorship when `dang tells me I'm not allowed to call someone an idiot on Hacker News. It sets the tone for the conversation we're all having, and you know, after I got warned a few times I stopped calling people idiots because I know that kind of behavior doesn't fly here. If people have to leave Twitter and go to Gab in order to spread their message of hate, that's fantastic. Because everyone knows Twitter, everyone uses Twitter, but no one's ever heard of Gab. And then when they visit Gab, they find it's full of hate speech and extreme opinions and never visit again. Bad business model for Gab, but a huge win for everyone else.

anarazel 8y ago

It's not realistically possible to challenge them. If you do, you'll be brigaded for weeks (hopefully just online). And a lot of it is not exposed to anybody challenging their views, but largely just to people at least vulnerable to their views. Look at the twitter feed of journos, especially female jewish ones, that have tried to report anywhere close to something in that area. De-platforming by very central actors (In order of my currently perceived descending danger: tld operators, credit card companies, payment processors, end-user dns registries, hosting platforms) is dangerous, but so is just letting entities like gab, the daily stormer etc continue largely unchallenged.

Zuider 8y ago
I challenge them all the time. I think it is a moral duty to monitor them and push back against them. Anonymously, of course, because I don't want one of them turning up at my front door with a chainsaw. In my experience, they are like the proverbial paper tiger, a lot more fragile in the face of pressure than you think, and they do fold. You will also find that there is a silent majority which also despises them. They are aware of this and it frightens them.

archagon 8y ago

I am exhausted from having these people be in constant sight over the last two years. Hate speech is a fire that feeds on emotions, and there seem to be a lot of feelings in the air these days.

oldsklgdfth 8y ago
So am I. Extremely tired of it all. But I don't think they should be banished.
- tptacek 8y ago
  They're not "banished". Stormfront is still on the Internet. Gab will be too, at least for a while. They're just going to have to work with companies that don't mind helping white supremacists.
  - oldsklgdfth 8y ago
    I meant banished from the mainstream. If I understand it correctly Gab started in response to Twitter banning hate-speech. I feel like it's more difficult to radicalize out in the open than it is in an echo-chamber. And those places only have power when people are banned from the mainstream. Obviously, these are companies that offer products and they can tailor them anyway they want. But I'm making this as a broader statement about our culture.
    - tptacek 8y ago
      This is the story Gab likes to tell, but is anyone actually considering it critically? Twitter is full of out-and-proud white nationalists. Its AUP restricts violent and harassing hate speech, going out of its way to refine the definition to targeted harassment. Richard Spencer has an active Twitter account. For that matter, so does Gab itself, which until recently was also an out-and-proud white nationalist account. Gab has a blue checkmark! What seems to have happened with Gab is that its founder got kicked out of YC for harassing batch-mates, got some publicity for that, and decided to use it to capitalize on the "alt-right". Is there any indication anywhere that Torba is doing anything more interesting than trying to sell neo-Nazis a monorail?

panarky 8y ago

> ostracizing these people is not equivalent to eliminating hate Eliminating hate is impossible, so that's not the goal. It is possible to reduce the percentage of people who are consumed by attacking others with words, memes, threats and violence. Isolating them reduces their reach and reduces their reproduction rate so that their numbers decrease. Ostracizing works.

oldsklgdfth 8y ago
It works in what way? If I follow now you have the general populace with less hate and the group of ostracized - which are still members of the society - which probably hate more. I guess I could see ostracism working if you removed them from society and kept them separate. Which doesn't work with the internet well.