8 ms·

When this attacker explicitly says that his goal is to get the US left to censor the right in the hope the right will react strongly is one of the most disconce

When this attacker explicitly says that his goal is to get the US left to censor the right in the hope the right will react strongly is one of the most disconcerting parts of this story. Especially when it seems like the ball is rolling towards his goal. It is worthwhile to ask what the role of media, social media or traditional, is when extreme individuals on the fringes are empowered to cause us all to destruct each other.

isostatic 8y ago
So it’s now a left wi g position to not think live footage of murders should be freely broadcast in graphic details with no context or journalistic input?
- jcims 8y ago
  I would guess the idea is that this act would be used to justify further suppressing the expression of right wing positions under the guise of preventing extremism.
pjc50 8y ago
The role of media is to get clicks and monetise them into ads. The collapse of a society into violence is, in the short term, great for this, as increasingly worried people hit refresh more often. It's "you'll provide the pictures, I'll provide the war" all over again. Not to mention the sections of the traditional or social media that have been experimenting with how much they can anger people against vulnerable groups without quite printing death threats in the paper. Or just, you know, casually advocating the end of rule of law. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enemies_of_the_People_(headline) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enemies_of_the_People_(headlin... There are a lot of people in the West who, while they would refrain from pulling the trigger themselves, would happily either advocate that someone else do so, or watch someone die, simply because they're Muslim. The example that comes to mind is Katie Hopkins calling for refugees to be machinegunned.
stcredzero 8y ago
It is worthwhile to ask what the role of media, social media or traditional, is when extreme individuals on the fringes are empowered to cause us all to destruct each other. We have created conditions of perverse incentives in our media. We reward extremists. We reward unfounded accusations. We reward people saying wacko things. "If it bleeds, it leads." We need to stop allowing the extremes to "wag the dog." EDIT: This doesn't mean we should censor people. Rather, it means we need to become a little cynical and self aware of the mechanism of outrage virality itself. Specifically, we need to stop mindlessly rewarding mass murderers with attention. We need to stop mindlessly rewarding people who act extreme for attention, period.
- nemild 8y ago
  A recent quote I loved from YC's Paul Buccheit (who helped inspired "Don't be Evil at an early Google"): “[Social media] is like a game where you get 1 point for being fair and thoughtful and 1000 points for character assassination” https://twitter.com/paultoo/status/1100144882872532992 https://twitter.com/paultoo/status/1100144882872532992 This is partly why I spent so much time writing a media literacy guide to explain the incentives behind what we see in our feeds and our newspapers: https://github.com/nemild/hack-the-media/blob/master/README.md https://github.com/nemild/hack-the-media/blob/master/README....
  - stcredzero 8y ago
    I feel obliged to post this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE3j_RHkqJc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE3j_RHkqJc
  - bilbo0s 8y ago
    That's not social media, that's called "life".
    - asabjorn 8y ago
      I do not think this holds up to evidence. If you regularly treat people you are friends with badly it is generally on you and people will choose to disengage from a relationship with you. If you regularly behave in a destructive manner towards members of a real life group then you at some point run out of individuals in that group that will invite you to real life group gatherings. This is exactly why sociopaths and psychopaths quickly run out of connections and have to move around a lot.
SketchySeaBeast 8y ago
If people use "censoring a violent act" to commit a violent act, they were going to do it anyways.
fwip 8y ago
Accelerationists have always been around.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
ryanmarsh 8y ago
This. I think people who are trying to put this in context need to read his pdf/manifesto. Some people will balk at that because they feel it will give credence to his beliefs. That’s burrying your head in the sand. ISIS, Osama Bin Laden, Al Queda in Iraq, and every other effective terrorist org has telegraphed their intentions. STILL we have, time and again, fallen into the trap they set. It would be funny if it wasn’t so damn tragic.
bilbo0s 8y ago
>It is worthwhile to ask what the role of media, social media or traditional, is when extreme individuals on the fringes are empowered to cause us all to destruct each other... Just curious, are you one of the people who would say that Pewdiepie has a role in this shooting and all the division as well?
- asabjorn 8y ago
  No. We clearly have an unproductive homeostasis between the radical left and radical right, and the rest of us is uncomfortably caught in the middle. The radical left call everyone that is effective at expressing any other opinion alt-right, which is where the unfounded and silly assertion that Pewdiepie is related to any of this comes from.
  - mercer 8y ago
    I wouldn't quite put Pewdiepie in the 'caught in the middle' bucket though. First there's the jokes he's made: - using the N-word (more than once) - doing a nazi salute and dressing up in nazi garb - paying two Indians(?) to hold up a sign with 'death to all jews' on it. On top of that he not only subscribes to quite a number of radical/far right people (Stefan Molyneux, Lauren Southern), but did a shout-out to a channel that is pretty far down the far-right side of the spectrum (E;R). Then of course there's the fact that this support works two ways. The 'far right' really seems to like him a lot! To be clear, I'm not saying he is a white supremacist, a racist, or even 'far right'. I'm really not. I can't read his mind, and obviously it's true that if one wants to troll, the above is a very effective approach. (Although he could also, I dunno, mix it up by doing some far left stuff. Promote communism, make a Stalin shrine or guillotine the rich jokes. Or do any of many other things that are provocative that aren't as much associate with the far right. defend PHP?) But the least that I would argue is that he's definitely not part of the middle that is 'caught' in between all this. Not in behavior, and not in effect. And in that context I don't care too much about intent (which we can never really know).
- ressetera 8y ago
  Pewdiepie even restricted, probably temporarily, his subreddit [1] His users were creating some pretty irritating memes out of this tragedy and he took action to moderate things until things calm down. [1] https://www.reddit.com/r/PewdiepieSubmissions/ https://www.reddit.com/r/PewdiepieSubmissions/
taplogger 8y ago
Perhaps his goal was to disconcert in the exact way you describe. Consider deleting this comment.
- jcims 8y ago
  IMHO suggesting that OP delete their comment is giving that proverbial ball another nudge.
  - happytoexplain 8y ago
    Can you see the irony in all four posts? (from OP to mine)
- asabjorn 8y ago
  So instead of interpreting his intentions using a straightforward plausible explanation supported by his manifesto, you suggest that it is better to interpret his motivations using an unfounded conspiracy theory?
  - taplogger 8y ago
    I just find it unseemly to give so much headspace to whatever he said in his memo. Consider not allowing his irrelevant arguments influence how and why you are disconcerted.
FilterSweep 8y ago
That censorship isn’t real. His defense is all over social media. You, similarly, are just providing cover for these terrorists.
- notmarkus 8y ago
  > You, similarly, are just providing cover for these terrorists. That's a pretty intense claim, in what way is OP "providing cover"?
  - forgottenpass 8y ago
    As defined in Bush 43's playbook. Disagreeing with my perspective on responding to terrorism = aiding terrorists.
- asabjorn 8y ago
  Describing facts and providing insights into what someone reprehensible said is not cover. To the contrary that is how you help each other grow as individuals by integrating what each of us don't see so that we can see can create a better map of the world and become more competent. With regards to censorship I never claimed his manifesto was censored. I was pointing out the fact that he in this manifesto said that his goal was to have the left increase censorship of the right to cause a counter-reaction.
- dang 8y ago
  Personal attacks are not allowed here. We ban accounts that do that. If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and follow the rules when posting to HN in the future, we'd appreciate it.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
basch 8y ago
It seems that when an actor announces their plan and then provokes, response is to the provocation not the plan. Similar to Bin Laden's goal of bankrupting his enemies by luring them into never ending wars.
makomk 8y ago
Of course he's going to get what he wants, just like all the Islamic terrorist groups who've explicitly stated that their goal is to get the US right to go after Muslims as a whole in order to push them over to their side have in the past. That's what makes this such an evil and effective tactic.

isostatic 8y ago

So it’s now a left wi g position to not think live footage of murders should be freely broadcast in graphic details with no context or journalistic input?

jcims 8y ago
I would guess the idea is that this act would be used to justify further suppressing the expression of right wing positions under the guise of preventing extremism.

pjc50 8y ago

The role of media is to get clicks and monetise them into ads. The collapse of a society into violence is, in the short term, great for this, as increasingly worried people hit refresh more often. It's "you'll provide the pictures, I'll provide the war" all over again. Not to mention the sections of the traditional or social media that have been experimenting with how much they can anger people against vulnerable groups without quite printing death threats in the paper. Or just, you know, casually advocating the end of rule of law. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enemies_of_the_People_(headline) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enemies_of_the_People_(headlin... There are a lot of people in the West who, while they would refrain from pulling the trigger themselves, would happily either advocate that someone else do so, or watch someone die, simply because they're Muslim. The example that comes to mind is Katie Hopkins calling for refugees to be machinegunned.

stcredzero 8y ago

It is worthwhile to ask what the role of media, social media or traditional, is when extreme individuals on the fringes are empowered to cause us all to destruct each other. We have created conditions of perverse incentives in our media. We reward extremists. We reward unfounded accusations. We reward people saying wacko things. "If it bleeds, it leads." We need to stop allowing the extremes to "wag the dog." EDIT: This doesn't mean we should censor people. Rather, it means we need to become a little cynical and self aware of the mechanism of outrage virality itself. Specifically, we need to stop mindlessly rewarding mass murderers with attention. We need to stop mindlessly rewarding people who act extreme for attention, period.

nemild 8y ago
A recent quote I loved from YC's Paul Buccheit (who helped inspired "Don't be Evil at an early Google"): “[Social media] is like a game where you get 1 point for being fair and thoughtful and 1000 points for character assassination” https://twitter.com/paultoo/status/1100144882872532992 https://twitter.com/paultoo/status/1100144882872532992 This is partly why I spent so much time writing a media literacy guide to explain the incentives behind what we see in our feeds and our newspapers: https://github.com/nemild/hack-the-media/blob/master/README.md https://github.com/nemild/hack-the-media/blob/master/README....
- stcredzero 8y ago
  I feel obliged to post this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE3j_RHkqJc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE3j_RHkqJc
- bilbo0s 8y ago
  That's not social media, that's called "life".
  - asabjorn 8y ago
    I do not think this holds up to evidence. If you regularly treat people you are friends with badly it is generally on you and people will choose to disengage from a relationship with you. If you regularly behave in a destructive manner towards members of a real life group then you at some point run out of individuals in that group that will invite you to real life group gatherings. This is exactly why sociopaths and psychopaths quickly run out of connections and have to move around a lot.

SketchySeaBeast 8y ago

If people use "censoring a violent act" to commit a violent act, they were going to do it anyways.

fwip 8y ago

Accelerationists have always been around.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

ryanmarsh 8y ago

This. I think people who are trying to put this in context need to read his pdf/manifesto. Some people will balk at that because they feel it will give credence to his beliefs. That’s burrying your head in the sand. ISIS, Osama Bin Laden, Al Queda in Iraq, and every other effective terrorist org has telegraphed their intentions. STILL we have, time and again, fallen into the trap they set. It would be funny if it wasn’t so damn tragic.

bilbo0s 8y ago

>It is worthwhile to ask what the role of media, social media or traditional, is when extreme individuals on the fringes are empowered to cause us all to destruct each other... Just curious, are you one of the people who would say that Pewdiepie has a role in this shooting and all the division as well?

asabjorn 8y ago
No. We clearly have an unproductive homeostasis between the radical left and radical right, and the rest of us is uncomfortably caught in the middle. The radical left call everyone that is effective at expressing any other opinion alt-right, which is where the unfounded and silly assertion that Pewdiepie is related to any of this comes from.
- mercer 8y ago
  I wouldn't quite put Pewdiepie in the 'caught in the middle' bucket though. First there's the jokes he's made: - using the N-word (more than once) - doing a nazi salute and dressing up in nazi garb - paying two Indians(?) to hold up a sign with 'death to all jews' on it. On top of that he not only subscribes to quite a number of radical/far right people (Stefan Molyneux, Lauren Southern), but did a shout-out to a channel that is pretty far down the far-right side of the spectrum (E;R). Then of course there's the fact that this support works two ways. The 'far right' really seems to like him a lot! To be clear, I'm not saying he is a white supremacist, a racist, or even 'far right'. I'm really not. I can't read his mind, and obviously it's true that if one wants to troll, the above is a very effective approach. (Although he could also, I dunno, mix it up by doing some far left stuff. Promote communism, make a Stalin shrine or guillotine the rich jokes. Or do any of many other things that are provocative that aren't as much associate with the far right. defend PHP?) But the least that I would argue is that he's definitely not part of the middle that is 'caught' in between all this. Not in behavior, and not in effect. And in that context I don't care too much about intent (which we can never really know).
ressetera 8y ago
Pewdiepie even restricted, probably temporarily, his subreddit [1] His users were creating some pretty irritating memes out of this tragedy and he took action to moderate things until things calm down. [1] https://www.reddit.com/r/PewdiepieSubmissions/ https://www.reddit.com/r/PewdiepieSubmissions/

taplogger 8y ago

Perhaps his goal was to disconcert in the exact way you describe. Consider deleting this comment.

jcims 8y ago
IMHO suggesting that OP delete their comment is giving that proverbial ball another nudge.
- happytoexplain 8y ago
  Can you see the irony in all four posts? (from OP to mine)
asabjorn 8y ago
So instead of interpreting his intentions using a straightforward plausible explanation supported by his manifesto, you suggest that it is better to interpret his motivations using an unfounded conspiracy theory?
- taplogger 8y ago
  I just find it unseemly to give so much headspace to whatever he said in his memo. Consider not allowing his irrelevant arguments influence how and why you are disconcerted.

FilterSweep 8y ago

That censorship isn’t real. His defense is all over social media. You, similarly, are just providing cover for these terrorists.

notmarkus 8y ago
> You, similarly, are just providing cover for these terrorists. That's a pretty intense claim, in what way is OP "providing cover"?
- forgottenpass 8y ago
  As defined in Bush 43's playbook. Disagreeing with my perspective on responding to terrorism = aiding terrorists.
asabjorn 8y ago
Describing facts and providing insights into what someone reprehensible said is not cover. To the contrary that is how you help each other grow as individuals by integrating what each of us don't see so that we can see can create a better map of the world and become more competent. With regards to censorship I never claimed his manifesto was censored. I was pointing out the fact that he in this manifesto said that his goal was to have the left increase censorship of the right to cause a counter-reaction.
dang 8y ago
Personal attacks are not allowed here. We ban accounts that do that. If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and follow the rules when posting to HN in the future, we'd appreciate it.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

basch 8y ago

It seems that when an actor announces their plan and then provokes, response is to the provocation not the plan. Similar to Bin Laden's goal of bankrupting his enemies by luring them into never ending wars.

makomk 8y ago

Of course he's going to get what he wants, just like all the Islamic terrorist groups who've explicitly stated that their goal is to get the US right to go after Muslims as a whole in order to push them over to their side have in the past. That's what makes this such an evil and effective tactic.