4 ms·

> This . . . fails to account for the fact that many segments of society disagree on what is and is not inflicting suffering on society. That's fine, we can ha

> This . . . fails to account for the fact that many segments of society disagree on what is and is not inflicting suffering on society. That's fine, we can hash it out. Throwing up our hands at even the concept of ethical judgment is both an abdication of our moral responsibility, and ceding the playing field to the worst among us.

db48x 8y ago
No, your moral responsibility is to counter hate with love, understanding, and education. If all you do is burn any words you don't like then you can't win; all you can do is hide the problem.
- sagichmal 8y ago
  > If all you do is burn any words you don't like Nobody is burning words. We are collectively stopping inarguably deleterious hate from spreading, by removing the soap box and megaphone. And, "hiding the problem" in this way, de-platforming brokers of hate, does work. Hateful people aren't born, they're bred, and platforms like G*b are how it happens. Your perspective on how to best counter hate is anachronistic and counter-effective.
  - manfredo 8y ago
    Is deplatforming effective at actually making people less hateful? Deplatforming saw a significant rise in the last half decade or so, but it seems to be correlated with a rise in polarization and hate rather than correlated against it. Case studies like Reddit's subreddit bans only measured the attitudes within their own platform, rather than in society as a whole. On the whole, I'm skeptical of the claim that a society can censor itself out of a disgruntled segment of the population, and it potentially risks reinforcing radical views (e.g. people pointing to the deplatforming of Gab as proof of conspiracies theories that some groups' manipulation of society). How often have you found yourself changing your views after, say, you get banned from a forum for speaking your mind?
    - danaris 8y ago
      The point of deplatforming isn't to make the person you take the megaphone away from change his mind. It's to make sure he can't change the mind of billions by using that megaphone.
      - leereeves 8y ago
        If it's an idea that billions of people like, should someone in power be able to suppress it?
      - Nadya 8y ago
        @danaris The parent comment is pointing out that taking away the megaphone seems to be doing the opposite. Year over year things seem to be becoming more and more polarized. When, with all this deplatforming companies have been doing, it seems to be having no impact at all. It brings legitimacy to some groups because of reasoning not to dissimilar from "To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize" or, for conspiracy theorists, "they want to hide the truth!" Not to mention it helps legitimize majority censorship over a minority. I'm sure that'll never come back to bite anyone in the ass in the future when they find themselves no longer in the majority. @sagichmal >Yes. Reddit has the latest real-world example, as far as I know, and the data to back it up. No, they have data that these bans make Reddit "less toxic" for whatever definition it is that they used for "toxic", a term I think is too loosely defined. Not the internet as a whole and not that the group banned ceases to exist. Reddit's study was just "if you take out some of the garbage that has piled up the pile becomes smaller". E: The study was done to show "If you just ban or quarantine a subreddit they'll make a new one, so it doesn't solve anything." is wrong. But, for example, I'd be interested in if banning a subreddit increases the popularity of alternatives like Voat. Which is much harder to measure without access to the statistics for alternative sites.
        danaris 8y ago
        I don't think it's a fair conclusion to draw that deplatforming doesn't work. The fact that things are still getting worse isn't anything like solid evidence for that—I mean, just because a bunch of places have taken platforms away from alt-right Nazi mouthpieces doesn't mean they don't still have places to speak. In part because of logic like yours, actually. Regarding "majority censorship"...yeah, I'm really not going to worry too much about whether the Nazis will feel justified or not in suppressing my free speech because of my suppression of theirs if they manage to truly take over. Because I think I'll have worse things to worry about in a situation like that. Because of the Nazis that are in charge in that situation. (Also because I don't think they'll think twice about suppressing my free speech if they manage to get in charge. The idea that the alt-right is genuinely composed primarily of free-speech maximalists, as opposed to simply saying what will let them continue to spread hate, seems to me to be naïve.) And regarding banning people from mainstream platforms causing them to migrate to niche platforms: Good. Isolate them. Let them know that society does not want them as long as they espouse and spread these views. Because all they have to do to become accepted again is to stop spreading hateful views. The people they preach hate against? They have no recourse. They can't change the colour of their skin, their sexuality, or their gender.
manfredo 8y ago
Sure, but the point is that judgement should be made by democratic systems of justice, not corporations motivated primarily by profit. And the law can be used to punish people who seek to inflict suffering with their speech. The threshold may be higher than you may prefer, but it does exist. Otherwise, the rules of censorship are going to be made to maximize profit for the censors, not work on society's best interest. In other words, what I'm saying is less whether we should or shouldn't alter our rules on free speech. If we want to restrict or repeal the first Amendment, we have a process to do that democratically. What I am pointing out with this second comment is that letting corporations censor us is not saying, "we can hash it out." It's saying, "we can let corporations hash it out, and keep our fingers crossed that they're acting in our best interest."

db48x 8y ago

No, your moral responsibility is to counter hate with love, understanding, and education. If all you do is burn any words you don't like then you can't win; all you can do is hide the problem.

sagichmal 8y ago
> If all you do is burn any words you don't like Nobody is burning words. We are collectively stopping inarguably deleterious hate from spreading, by removing the soap box and megaphone. And, "hiding the problem" in this way, de-platforming brokers of hate, does work. Hateful people aren't born, they're bred, and platforms like G*b are how it happens. Your perspective on how to best counter hate is anachronistic and counter-effective.
- manfredo 8y ago
  Is deplatforming effective at actually making people less hateful? Deplatforming saw a significant rise in the last half decade or so, but it seems to be correlated with a rise in polarization and hate rather than correlated against it. Case studies like Reddit's subreddit bans only measured the attitudes within their own platform, rather than in society as a whole. On the whole, I'm skeptical of the claim that a society can censor itself out of a disgruntled segment of the population, and it potentially risks reinforcing radical views (e.g. people pointing to the deplatforming of Gab as proof of conspiracies theories that some groups' manipulation of society). How often have you found yourself changing your views after, say, you get banned from a forum for speaking your mind?
  - danaris 8y ago
    The point of deplatforming isn't to make the person you take the megaphone away from change his mind. It's to make sure he can't change the mind of billions by using that megaphone.
    - leereeves 8y ago
      If it's an idea that billions of people like, should someone in power be able to suppress it?
    - Nadya 8y ago
      @danaris The parent comment is pointing out that taking away the megaphone seems to be doing the opposite. Year over year things seem to be becoming more and more polarized. When, with all this deplatforming companies have been doing, it seems to be having no impact at all. It brings legitimacy to some groups because of reasoning not to dissimilar from "To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize" or, for conspiracy theorists, "they want to hide the truth!" Not to mention it helps legitimize majority censorship over a minority. I'm sure that'll never come back to bite anyone in the ass in the future when they find themselves no longer in the majority. @sagichmal >Yes. Reddit has the latest real-world example, as far as I know, and the data to back it up. No, they have data that these bans make Reddit "less toxic" for whatever definition it is that they used for "toxic", a term I think is too loosely defined. Not the internet as a whole and not that the group banned ceases to exist. Reddit's study was just "if you take out some of the garbage that has piled up the pile becomes smaller". E: The study was done to show "If you just ban or quarantine a subreddit they'll make a new one, so it doesn't solve anything." is wrong. But, for example, I'd be interested in if banning a subreddit increases the popularity of alternatives like Voat. Which is much harder to measure without access to the statistics for alternative sites.
      - danaris 8y ago
        I don't think it's a fair conclusion to draw that deplatforming doesn't work. The fact that things are still getting worse isn't anything like solid evidence for that—I mean, just because a bunch of places have taken platforms away from alt-right Nazi mouthpieces doesn't mean they don't still have places to speak. In part because of logic like yours, actually. Regarding "majority censorship"...yeah, I'm really not going to worry too much about whether the Nazis will feel justified or not in suppressing my free speech because of my suppression of theirs if they manage to truly take over. Because I think I'll have worse things to worry about in a situation like that. Because of the Nazis that are in charge in that situation. (Also because I don't think they'll think twice about suppressing my free speech if they manage to get in charge. The idea that the alt-right is genuinely composed primarily of free-speech maximalists, as opposed to simply saying what will let them continue to spread hate, seems to me to be naïve.) And regarding banning people from mainstream platforms causing them to migrate to niche platforms: Good. Isolate them. Let them know that society does not want them as long as they espouse and spread these views. Because all they have to do to become accepted again is to stop spreading hateful views. The people they preach hate against? They have no recourse. They can't change the colour of their skin, their sexuality, or their gender.

manfredo 8y ago

Sure, but the point is that judgement should be made by democratic systems of justice, not corporations motivated primarily by profit. And the law can be used to punish people who seek to inflict suffering with their speech. The threshold may be higher than you may prefer, but it does exist. Otherwise, the rules of censorship are going to be made to maximize profit for the censors, not work on society's best interest. In other words, what I'm saying is less whether we should or shouldn't alter our rules on free speech. If we want to restrict or repeal the first Amendment, we have a process to do that democratically. What I am pointing out with this second comment is that letting corporations censor us is not saying, "we can hash it out." It's saying, "we can let corporations hash it out, and keep our fingers crossed that they're acting in our best interest."