5 ms·

I Thought the Web Would Stop Hate, Not Spread It

22 points by petethomas 8y ago

rasengan 8y ago
I always believed the web would stop control over the narrative from single centralized powers, not spread it.
- forapurpose 8y ago
  When corporations and governments run social media campaigns, isn't that a single centralized power influencing the narrative?
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    > When corporations and governments run social media campaigns, isn't that a single centralized power influencing the narrative? No, “corporations and governments” are not “a single centralized power”.
    - forapurpose 8y ago
      Well, they are centralized powers, but I agree they are not the only powers. Who are you thinking of?
      - dragonwriter 8y ago
        A government may be a single centralized power in some context. A corporation might be in another context. Multiple of each, however, attempting through similar media to influence the same narrative are, however, not.
        forapurpose 8y ago
        OK, so who are you referring to as the "single centralized power"?
- arkh 8y ago
  Paraphrasing Bruce Schneier: the web is a force multiplier. Understood and used by people with small power (citizens) it let them do more. Understood and used by people with a lot more power (states) it gives them a ludicrous amount of possibilities.
core-questions 8y ago
What is this dreck? Somehow it's the fault of a Saudi prince's exploratory investments that people in the USA want to use their constitutionally-protected right to free speech on the Internet? How absolute dare they! There is no such thing as hate speech. There is free speech, and there is censorship. Kara Swisher seems to be mad that there is not yet enough censorship for her tastes, which I think would extend to domain registrar or even ARIN deplatforming of any site or network that dares host the comments of someone who says something she is uncomfortable with. I find it reprehensible that anyone can even consider curtailing speech as a kneejerk reaction to violence. It's crystal clear to me that further censorship is actually going to add fuel to the fire, as those with evil opinions will have no outlet, no chance of counterargument or of being convinced toward nonviolent action, no support from other people in their emotional struggle. As though censorship will be successful this time at enabling the security of the establishment, even though it didn't work in China or Russia. We'll painfully rediscover the lessons of the past, probably with more death and mayhem. Just as much of it will be on the hands of the censors as is on the hands of those who facilitate speech; it's up to you to decide if that's a nonzero amount.
- yongjik 8y ago
  > ... no support from other people in their emotional struggle. Are you actually proposing better mental healthcare for Americans (which would be super awesome), or are you suggesting that gab.com and its likes count as "emotional support"?
  - core-questions 8y ago
    I'm absolutely in favour of better mental healthcare, including increased funding, though I'm also in favour of committing people who would otherwise end up being drug-addicted and homeless, so we may still not see eye to eye on this. I do believe that everyone needs a bit of community and a bit of emotional support. The Internet can indeed provide this for people, but there's a risk when people get into echo-chambers - regardless of whether we're talking about right wing extremists, or tumblr social justice warriors. The ideal state is one in which we're still continually introduced to things we may not completely agree with, and one in which we're all free to debate and discuss even controversial topics. Deplatforming and censorship hurt that effort, drive it underground, and further the formation of deep discontent.
olivermarks 8y ago
What a shame Swisher appears to have joined the censorship and anti free speech police
forapurpose 8y ago
She buys into an assumption that the hate speech is grassroots, meaning that it is from ordinary citizens. There is a lot of evidence that much comes from powerful parties such as governments and political actors, who seek to promote conflict, division, and/or the far right (EDIT: and others too, but the far right seems especially prominent). For example, one report I read said that the Russia government's Facebook activity for the 2016 U.S. election focused "overwhelmingly" on race,[0] and recently I read that Russian government Twitter bots sent thousands of tweets criticizing NFL anthem protestors.[1] I'm going to try to find the links and add them. (None of this is surprising: During the Cold War the Soviets tried to aggravate U.S. racial division; for example, a former officer said that they would send racist hate mail to African-American leaders, then 'leak' to the press that the leaders had received hate mail.) The real question is how powerful the technology is. How effectively can you manipulate public opinion? I hardly see that issue discussed. [0] https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/2018/05/11/what-we-found-facebook-ads-russians-accused-election-meddling/602319002/ https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/2018/05/11/what-we-found-... More coverage: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/oct/30/facebook-russia-fake-accounts-126-million https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/oct/30/facebook-... [1] https://www.si.com/nfl/2018/10/22/russian-twitter-trolls-nfl-national-anthem-protests-bots https://www.si.com/nfl/2018/10/22/russian-twitter-trolls-nfl... which links to https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-russian-trolls-inflamed-nfls-anthem-controversy-1540233979 https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-russian-trolls-inflamed-nfl... EDIT: Minor edits to make my comments more consistent with the citations.
- core-questions 8y ago
  Something tells me you haven't spent any time in the gutters of the Internet if you really think all controversial speech is funded. Plenty of people hold opinions that you might want to censor. The "they're all russian bots!" meme is getting old, and doesn't actually bear scrutiny in reality. If you don't believe me, then go and spend some time in the darker parts of the internet to see what the discourse is like. Engage with the people there if you're feeling brave.
  - forapurpose 8y ago
wickedOne 8y ago
"Technology is exciting, but people are awful, and they keep finding the worst ways to apply it." (the way the verge introduced the third series of black mirror.) i think applies to this scenario as well. personally i think the internet has outgrown it's "flower power" stage so we either should adjust our sentiment or do something about it
- core-questions 8y ago
  Consider a world where the speech that you believe in is being censored by governments and corporate powers. Would you not want there to be some protection for your ability to speak truth to power? You may disagree with the people who are doing this now, but that doesn't mean that censorship is the correct way to solve the problem. It's not going to make any of them change their minds. > we either should adjust our sentiment or do something about it What are you implying?
  - wickedOne 8y ago
    that already is the world we live in: i think every law that constitutes the right to free speech comes with limitations, so regardless there are certain rules you're expected to abide to. i'm not saying i disagree with anyone or that we should censor everything on the internet, i'm just saying that the internet is no longer that obscure thing where everything is rainbows and unicorns and has become of big corporate and political interest. so we _should_ excpect it to be like the newspaper, the television, the pamflets in your mailbox, etc. (re: "I cannot tell you how sad that is to write, because when I first saw the internet way back when, I hoped that it would help eliminate the attitudes that had fueled those horrible letters to me. I naïvely thought a lone man sending a reporter a missive of malevolence could not find such refuge on the wide-open internet, where his hate would be seen for what it was and denounced and exorcised"): lies and ways to steer you have become part of the game and it's up to you to see through that. at this point "do something about it", i think, has boiled down to "delete the internet".
    - core-questions 8y ago
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
323454 8y ago
the new york times saying that the internet is a bad thing is like the catholic church saying that the printing press is a problem

22 points by petethomas 8y ago

rasengan 8y ago

I always believed the web would stop control over the narrative from single centralized powers, not spread it.

forapurpose 8y ago
When corporations and governments run social media campaigns, isn't that a single centralized power influencing the narrative?
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > When corporations and governments run social media campaigns, isn't that a single centralized power influencing the narrative? No, “corporations and governments” are not “a single centralized power”.
  - forapurpose 8y ago
    Well, they are centralized powers, but I agree they are not the only powers. Who are you thinking of?
    - dragonwriter 8y ago
      A government may be a single centralized power in some context. A corporation might be in another context. Multiple of each, however, attempting through similar media to influence the same narrative are, however, not.
      - forapurpose 8y ago
        OK, so who are you referring to as the "single centralized power"?
arkh 8y ago
Paraphrasing Bruce Schneier: the web is a force multiplier. Understood and used by people with small power (citizens) it let them do more. Understood and used by people with a lot more power (states) it gives them a ludicrous amount of possibilities.

core-questions 8y ago

What is this dreck? Somehow it's the fault of a Saudi prince's exploratory investments that people in the USA want to use their constitutionally-protected right to free speech on the Internet? How absolute dare they! There is no such thing as hate speech. There is free speech, and there is censorship. Kara Swisher seems to be mad that there is not yet enough censorship for her tastes, which I think would extend to domain registrar or even ARIN deplatforming of any site or network that dares host the comments of someone who says something she is uncomfortable with. I find it reprehensible that anyone can even consider curtailing speech as a kneejerk reaction to violence. It's crystal clear to me that further censorship is actually going to add fuel to the fire, as those with evil opinions will have no outlet, no chance of counterargument or of being convinced toward nonviolent action, no support from other people in their emotional struggle. As though censorship will be successful this time at enabling the security of the establishment, even though it didn't work in China or Russia. We'll painfully rediscover the lessons of the past, probably with more death and mayhem. Just as much of it will be on the hands of the censors as is on the hands of those who facilitate speech; it's up to you to decide if that's a nonzero amount.

yongjik 8y ago
> ... no support from other people in their emotional struggle. Are you actually proposing better mental healthcare for Americans (which would be super awesome), or are you suggesting that gab.com and its likes count as "emotional support"?
- core-questions 8y ago
  I'm absolutely in favour of better mental healthcare, including increased funding, though I'm also in favour of committing people who would otherwise end up being drug-addicted and homeless, so we may still not see eye to eye on this. I do believe that everyone needs a bit of community and a bit of emotional support. The Internet can indeed provide this for people, but there's a risk when people get into echo-chambers - regardless of whether we're talking about right wing extremists, or tumblr social justice warriors. The ideal state is one in which we're still continually introduced to things we may not completely agree with, and one in which we're all free to debate and discuss even controversial topics. Deplatforming and censorship hurt that effort, drive it underground, and further the formation of deep discontent.

olivermarks 8y ago

What a shame Swisher appears to have joined the censorship and anti free speech police

forapurpose 8y ago

She buys into an assumption that the hate speech is grassroots, meaning that it is from ordinary citizens. There is a lot of evidence that much comes from powerful parties such as governments and political actors, who seek to promote conflict, division, and/or the far right (EDIT: and others too, but the far right seems especially prominent). For example, one report I read said that the Russia government's Facebook activity for the 2016 U.S. election focused "overwhelmingly" on race,[0] and recently I read that Russian government Twitter bots sent thousands of tweets criticizing NFL anthem protestors.[1] I'm going to try to find the links and add them. (None of this is surprising: During the Cold War the Soviets tried to aggravate U.S. racial division; for example, a former officer said that they would send racist hate mail to African-American leaders, then 'leak' to the press that the leaders had received hate mail.) The real question is how powerful the technology is. How effectively can you manipulate public opinion? I hardly see that issue discussed. [0] https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/2018/05/11/what-we-found-facebook-ads-russians-accused-election-meddling/602319002/ https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/2018/05/11/what-we-found-... More coverage: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/oct/30/facebook-russia-fake-accounts-126-million https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/oct/30/facebook-... [1] https://www.si.com/nfl/2018/10/22/russian-twitter-trolls-nfl-national-anthem-protests-bots https://www.si.com/nfl/2018/10/22/russian-twitter-trolls-nfl... which links to https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-russian-trolls-inflamed-nfls-anthem-controversy-1540233979 https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-russian-trolls-inflamed-nfl... EDIT: Minor edits to make my comments more consistent with the citations.

core-questions 8y ago
Something tells me you haven't spent any time in the gutters of the Internet if you really think all controversial speech is funded. Plenty of people hold opinions that you might want to censor. The "they're all russian bots!" meme is getting old, and doesn't actually bear scrutiny in reality. If you don't believe me, then go and spend some time in the darker parts of the internet to see what the discourse is like. Engage with the people there if you're feeling brave.
- forapurpose 8y ago

wickedOne 8y ago

"Technology is exciting, but people are awful, and they keep finding the worst ways to apply it." (the way the verge introduced the third series of black mirror.) i think applies to this scenario as well. personally i think the internet has outgrown it's "flower power" stage so we either should adjust our sentiment or do something about it

core-questions 8y ago
Consider a world where the speech that you believe in is being censored by governments and corporate powers. Would you not want there to be some protection for your ability to speak truth to power? You may disagree with the people who are doing this now, but that doesn't mean that censorship is the correct way to solve the problem. It's not going to make any of them change their minds. > we either should adjust our sentiment or do something about it What are you implying?
- wickedOne 8y ago
  that already is the world we live in: i think every law that constitutes the right to free speech comes with limitations, so regardless there are certain rules you're expected to abide to. i'm not saying i disagree with anyone or that we should censor everything on the internet, i'm just saying that the internet is no longer that obscure thing where everything is rainbows and unicorns and has become of big corporate and political interest. so we _should_ excpect it to be like the newspaper, the television, the pamflets in your mailbox, etc. (re: "I cannot tell you how sad that is to write, because when I first saw the internet way back when, I hoped that it would help eliminate the attitudes that had fueled those horrible letters to me. I naïvely thought a lone man sending a reporter a missive of malevolence could not find such refuge on the wide-open internet, where his hate would be seen for what it was and denounced and exorcised"): lies and ways to steer you have become part of the game and it's up to you to see through that. at this point "do something about it", i think, has boiled down to "delete the internet".
  - core-questions 8y ago

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

323454 8y ago

the new york times saying that the internet is a bad thing is like the catholic church saying that the printing press is a problem