5 ms·

Giving people freedom of speech is our only hope of engaging them at some future time in dialogue The diehard ones generally end up in jail. You can

Giving people freedom of speech is our only hope of engaging them at some future time in dialogue The diehard ones generally end up in jail. You can pay them a visit there, to engage them. In the meantime, pushing them underground means that elementary school students won't watch their videos when they auto-play after a make-up tutorial, or RDR2 gameplay video.

zzzzzzzza 8y ago
personally I avoid recommendation algorithms whenever possible because I don't like or trust them (e.g. use adblock to block youtube recommendations). Having established that I think recommendation systems are highly suspect in the first place, there is a difference between de platforming someone and avoiding giving them a platform. Not to argue for or against censorship, just saying that your example doesn't require "pushing them underground" to solve (just fixing your recommendation algorithm ... or maybe, just maybe, not trying to manipulate people in the first place). Quite possibly there are plenty of other examples that do require pushing them underground, I don't blame new zealand for blocking 4chan at all.
FakeComments 8y ago
Where do you stop? Hitler and his political organization did terrible things, and we certainly should try to stop those kinds of events from repeating. But the same could be said of Stalin or Mao: should we ban all of the neo-communist videos on YouTube?
- charlesism 8y ago
  I'm not Youtube, so it's not my call, but if they had any sense of responsibility, they should certainly ban Nazis and terrorists. Whatever they don't want on their platform beyond that is their business. If they don't like videos of baby sea lions, well, I'd have to find my baby sea lion videos elsewhere.
  - luckylion 8y ago
    Who defines the terms "Nazis" and "terrorists", who defines who to ban? Is it the original "Nazi" definition, or some modern diluted definition where the number of Nazis has skyrocketed? Do we allow content from "freedom fighters" and "rebels"?
    - charlesism 8y ago
      Who defines the terms "Nazis" and "terrorists" By your logic, Youtube would have to host child pornography, because "how do you define child pornography?" These terms are whatever the moderator says they are. If their definition does not match up with mine, I complain. If it does match, I don't.
      - spaginal 8y ago
        Hyperbolic non sense. Child porn is illegal and has a clear legal definition. We don’t argue as a society over what is or isn’t child pornography. We don’t look at puppy videos and complain to others that it’s child pornography. We do have people simply express discomfort with how our government behaves, legitimate concerns with immigration, civil rights, or other aspects of society, blanket labeled as nazi’s or extremists and banned from online forums. It’s dangerous, and it’s being used as an excuse to shutdown speech and information now, specifically more and more to one side of the debate. So he asked a legitimate question. Define nazi, because much like labeling people as communists simply because they want better access to healthcare, these terms are being used fast and loose these days to describe anyone someone else may politically disagree with, even when it bears no resemblance to the person being labeled.
        charlesism 8y ago
        There's no point continuing this.
      - luckylion 8y ago
        > By your logic, Youtube would have to host child pornography, because "how do you define child pornography?" I agree with spaginal that child pornography isn't a very grey area. If you're asking people to decide who is and isn't a Nazi, I believe you'll get much more different ideas than if you're asking about child pornography. Is Sam Harris a Nazi? Is Joe Rogan? They were named as far right-adjacent and far right influences in a report - would they be banned from Youtube under your idea?

zzzzzzzza 8y ago

personally I avoid recommendation algorithms whenever possible because I don't like or trust them (e.g. use adblock to block youtube recommendations). Having established that I think recommendation systems are highly suspect in the first place, there is a difference between de platforming someone and avoiding giving them a platform. Not to argue for or against censorship, just saying that your example doesn't require "pushing them underground" to solve (just fixing your recommendation algorithm ... or maybe, just maybe, not trying to manipulate people in the first place). Quite possibly there are plenty of other examples that do require pushing them underground, I don't blame new zealand for blocking 4chan at all.

FakeComments 8y ago

Where do you stop? Hitler and his political organization did terrible things, and we certainly should try to stop those kinds of events from repeating. But the same could be said of Stalin or Mao: should we ban all of the neo-communist videos on YouTube?

charlesism 8y ago
I'm not Youtube, so it's not my call, but if they had any sense of responsibility, they should certainly ban Nazis and terrorists. Whatever they don't want on their platform beyond that is their business. If they don't like videos of baby sea lions, well, I'd have to find my baby sea lion videos elsewhere.
- luckylion 8y ago
  Who defines the terms "Nazis" and "terrorists", who defines who to ban? Is it the original "Nazi" definition, or some modern diluted definition where the number of Nazis has skyrocketed? Do we allow content from "freedom fighters" and "rebels"?
  - charlesism 8y ago
    Who defines the terms "Nazis" and "terrorists" By your logic, Youtube would have to host child pornography, because "how do you define child pornography?" These terms are whatever the moderator says they are. If their definition does not match up with mine, I complain. If it does match, I don't.
    - spaginal 8y ago
      Hyperbolic non sense. Child porn is illegal and has a clear legal definition. We don’t argue as a society over what is or isn’t child pornography. We don’t look at puppy videos and complain to others that it’s child pornography. We do have people simply express discomfort with how our government behaves, legitimate concerns with immigration, civil rights, or other aspects of society, blanket labeled as nazi’s or extremists and banned from online forums. It’s dangerous, and it’s being used as an excuse to shutdown speech and information now, specifically more and more to one side of the debate. So he asked a legitimate question. Define nazi, because much like labeling people as communists simply because they want better access to healthcare, these terms are being used fast and loose these days to describe anyone someone else may politically disagree with, even when it bears no resemblance to the person being labeled.
      - charlesism 8y ago
        There's no point continuing this.
    - luckylion 8y ago
      > By your logic, Youtube would have to host child pornography, because "how do you define child pornography?" I agree with spaginal that child pornography isn't a very grey area. If you're asking people to decide who is and isn't a Nazi, I believe you'll get much more different ideas than if you're asking about child pornography. Is Sam Harris a Nazi? Is Joe Rogan? They were named as far right-adjacent and far right influences in a report - would they be banned from Youtube under your idea?