7 ms·

I know people on here will disagree with this, but I think many of these events indicate that online censorship is needed. I believe it's becoming increasingly

I know people on here will disagree with this, but I think many of these events indicate that online censorship is needed. I believe it's becoming increasingly clear that merely allowing far-right dialogue online is essentially responsible for ease of radicalization, and that proactive censorship would be the best approach to forestall this.

refurb 8y ago
It's amazing how quickly people will give up fundamental rights in the name of safety.
- eg5fv4 8y ago
  Thanks to this particular incident I've clearly seen the hypocrisy of many people regarding these matters.
  - marcinzm 8y ago
    Hypocrisy? Why do you assume that censorship will be used to block far-right material rather than leftist material? The right is gaining more and more political power and historically (at least in the US) is the side most willing to use censorship for it's own benefit.
    - eg5fv4 8y ago
      I've read many people for too long opposing censorship, because it was always used by those in power for many things, from oppressing the political will of people to protecting copyright. Think of China, Russia on one side and the West on the other. But now that some political power that we don't like is emerging, well, a lil censorship never hurt anyone huh?
      - amanaplanacanal 8y ago
        I oppose censorship when the government does it. However, I fully expect to be able to boot any content that displeases me off my own website. Which is what Facebook is trying to do. This very discussion forum is moderated, and very well as far as I can see. Do you think it would somehow be better if the mods weren't here?
        Nadya 8y ago
        Facebook is the only reliable or affordable form of internet access at all. I think the measure of "own website" changes once you reach a certain mass and especially when that "own website" is not a personal website but a corporate one. Not to mention the government influences that can and are made against these corporations. It gets morally messy when you consider scale. At what point does it cross over from reasonable moderation to censorship? If Facebook were a country, it would the largest country in the world. Is it okay to censor two billion people because Facebook is not an "official government"? I'm not against moderation at all but at a certain scale does it cease being only moderation? I would argue yes, but at what point? That's trickier to answer and I can't really say I know.
- shittyadmin 8y ago
  It really deeply bothers me, I wish there was something I could do to help protect my rights from this sort of reactionary response. Does the ACLU still put up a fight in cases like this? They used to back in the day, but I'm not sure they would now... EDIT: To make my view clear here, Facebook and others are free to remove the videos, I'd prefer if they age-gated and put a warning on them instead, but that's their choice. What I don't like is the way that that some police agencies have been suggesting that mere possession of the video is illegal. The worst part here is that the attacker himself was suggesting that by hitting on ideas like free speech and the right to bear arms he'd be able to "accelerate" the deepening of political divides. I do not want to be put in a place where I'm forced to choose between fundamental rights and respect for entire races of people, but at this rate I fear that decision time may be approaching. Given time I hope cooler heads will prevail.
marcinzm 8y ago
>I believe it's becoming increasingly clear that merely allowing far-right dialogue online is essentially responsible for ease of radicalization, and that proactive censorship would be the best approach to forestall this. Because of course, censorship only blocks the material you personally don't want others to view and never material you personally would want others to view. I can see a lot of politicians, especially those getting elected nowadays, wanting to block any discussion of minority rights, LGTBQ+ rights, trans rights, drug reform, abortion, women's health, women's rights, climate change, non-christian religion discussions, etc, etc, etc. edit: Note that this isn't a straw man argument. All it takes is one to look at the censorship that happened in the US in the 50s and 60s (comic code, movie/television code, mccarthyism, etc. ) to see what is possible.
- ben_w 8y ago
  This is why my own position is not settled. Publications, preachers, performances, etc. change people’s behaviour and beliefs — if they didn’t, nobody would advertise or campaign. That change can be ‘good’ or ‘bad’ depending on your point of view. I want the spread of harmful memes to be slowed (and, if possible, prevented), but I also ask myself “What if I’m wrong about what is harmful?” — for example, I don’t believe in the Christian god, and have seen harm done in his name, but what if he actually does exist and banning Christian memes condemns people to hell? Or sexuality? I know people whose sexuality has been outlawed this decade in much of western Europe, as a result of campaigns by people totally convinced that their preferences are innately harmful, which side is right? I think solving this is also an important part of safe A.I., so it would still be a very important problem for me even if I didn’t know people directly affected.
- foobandit 8y ago
  You don't need to go back in history to see this. In many countries where such speech laws exist today, they're used by majority groups in order to stop minority groups from speaking out publicly about injustices. This is common in Asian countries right now. Regardless, censorship on the internet is inherently ineffective. If this speech is banned from Facebook, it will move to other forums. If it's made illegal, it will move to the "dark web". The only real solution to combat this sort of thinking is to debate it directly, refuting arguments rather than shutting them down entirely.
fhcm8o3x4h 8y ago
As with any idea, people come to believe and subscribe to ideologies because they are genuinely pursuasive and they are persuasive because they contain substantial - and often meaningful/relevant - truths (if biased and omitting other relevant truths). However, censorship is exactly the wrong thing to do. If these pockets of knowledge are cordoned off, and inaccessible to causal observers then fewer people will know about them. There will be less people who are well versed in the ideas, and as a result fewer who are able to identify and explain their limits and context. This makes it far easier to radicalize folks. It's also super intuitive, of course censorship increases radicalization. That's why a corrupt government censors, to have better control of and more precisely manipulate their beliefs. Something that wouldn't be possible if everyone had more information. So yeah, I disagree.
- djflutt3rshy 8y ago
  Do you have any data supporting this assertion that access to and ability to freely communicate information leads to less radicalization, rather than more? I look at the Internet, and wherever there is no censorship, there is not wisdom; just hate and chaos. 4chan (and even more so, 8chan) are the pure essence of no censorship, yet everything from Holocaust denial to rampant racism and sexism thrive and fester and spread. The most persuasive ideas are those that are short, easy to digest, and blame someone who's not you for your misery. The truth, well, it can be messy and complicated, and I'm not sure you can get there without shutting down the puerile voices screaming memes of hatred.
  - vuln 8y ago
    That’s two websites. If you asked 1000 people about 4chan maybe 25% would know what is and would say it’s a troll website if they even what what it is. I think less know about 8chan. The media has driven so much traffic to the site. It’s almost as if they want people to radicalize because it will make great news. I digress just because we know what 4/8chan are I doubt most internet users do or care. we shouldn’t sign off on whole sale internet censorship because of 2 websites. Right?
    - 8y ago
armitron 8y ago
Radicalization happens a lot quicker when groups are forced into ideological bubbles that have no pressure release valves. I feel as if we have two real choices here: + We fundamentally change how the Internet works and introduce an omnipotent overseer that enforces norms and behavior. We have to go all the way with this in order to reap the security benefits, half-measures - what we have today - won't work. If we do go all the way, we find ourselves living in a hellish dystopia. This is the top-down, centralized approach. + We realize that the only way out is through and ride the wave of rapid information propagation on the Internet, waiting for bottom-up reorganization to take place and the emergence of something new. Censorship has no place here. Extreme points of view should be allowed to diffuse-disperse by exposing them to the rest of the system. This is the decentralized, cybernetic approach.
- fzeroracer 8y ago
  If that decentralized approach worked, then the various chans should've never been taken over by white supremacists. Can you offer an explanation as to how that fits your model?
  - tomp 8y ago
    You do realise that 4/8chans are full of trolls, right? They post offensive stuff to offend people like you, who take them seriously.
  - armitron 8y ago
    One reason "white supremacists" end up congregating in the various chans is because they've been banished from everywhere else. In the US, the overton window has shrank dramatically in the last decade and it keeps on shrinking. More to the point, it is my view that events many will see as extreme will keep on happening regardless of which way we choose to go. Today, we are not dealing with increased discussion and development of new ideas (printing press). The feedback loops are getting short enough to give rise to cognitive metasystems. It follows that some blowback will occur. We are watching force projection/meatspace interaction from cognitively dissonant emergent hive minds. This is exactly what bottom-up reorganization looks like. Expect it to intensify.
bluthru 8y ago
Overall society is becoming safer by the year, right? Something as drastic as censorship doesn't seem to be necessary.
ilkkao 8y ago
I read that it was a live stream. Not sure how even technically those can be fully moderated. Probably one employee can watch up to ten streams at time but it still doesn't sound scalable enough. The cost would be too high.
- XorNot 8y ago
  No ones calling to block live streams in real time. But allowing the continued assault on the victims by rebroadcasting their last moments, without the consent of the families or the individuals is an assault.
michaelbuckbee 8y ago
I recently came across the concept of a "data void" that we have these gaps in our electronic communication platforms where: 1. Platforms weight/select for content that is updated frequently and drives views. 2. Established/agreed upon information is much less likely to get that fed to you. Consider the flat earth folks, they are churning out thousands of videos on that topic. How often are spherical earthers updating their YouTube channels? And I see similar happening with extremist communities: a flood of ideas and video that just seem unhinged and I'd rather ignore, but in doing so it furthers this gap.
feanaro 8y ago
No. If anything should be disallowed, it is discussions about allowing censorship. We have quite enough historical examples of the horrible things that happen under censorship.
swiley 8y ago
Personally I'm more tempted to blame AI content curation pushing people into echo chambers than a lack of censorship. If we want less division we should be listening more to each other not less.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- ipython 8y ago
  Oh I think it’s more about what’s being said than who is listening to who. For better or worse, human discourse is optimized for face to face interaction. It seems that widespread, anonymous speech turns even the most mild mannered individual into a raging maniac. On a similar note I recently watched this video: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rE3j_RHkqJc https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rE3j_RHkqJc and completely agree with its premise.
megous 8y ago
Well, bannings, also serve as a rallying call. They will put out a "Critical message from Whoever" video, and talk about how they're under attack from the media, and corporations, and how now, more than ever it is important for people who believe the same as them to spring into action (donate more to the cause), etc. ...
fucking_tragedy 8y ago
> I believe it's becoming increasingly clear that merely allowing far-right dialogue online is essentially responsible for ease of radicalization, and that proactive censorship would be the best approach to forestall this. People are going to jump on you for this, but I feel it's necessary to put this in perspective. Ten years ago, the threat of domestic radicalization was a hot topic, except it concerned radicalization towards fundamentalist Islamic terrorism. Twitter, Google et al. devoted resources towards identifying Islamic terrorist propaganda, accounts and networks, and then silenced them all. Today, the threat of domestic radicalization comes from the far right. We should at least be honest and consistent when considering the threat and how we've handled such threats in the past.
tenpies 8y ago
> merely allowing far-right dialogue online is essentially responsible for ease of radicalization The shooter was self described as an eco-fascist and claimed his motivation were two events covered widely by the mainstream media. He was very clearly "of the internet", but are you convinced that deleting "far-right dialogue" would have stopped him? What about the current state of journalism and politics, which was also very clearly something he aimed to exploit and seems to have manipulated at a far more effective level than past attacks?
- redisman 8y ago
  I wish we would look more at what he did. Killed 50 muslims. Not what his rambling troll "manifesto" said.
  - sadris 8y ago
    If you want it to not happen again, then you should look at the why, not the what.
    - fucking_tragedy 8y ago
      He said why, in fact, he said it three times in the very first three sentences of his manifesto: "It’s the birthrates." x 3. Where do we hear conspiracy theories about "the great replacement"[1] coming from? CNN or people like Lauren Southern[2][3]? Or, the fact that he literally states what he wants (it's the 14 words): > What do you want? > We must ensure the existence of our people, and a future for white children. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Replacement_conspiracy_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Replacement_conspira... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lauren_Southern https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lauren_Southern [3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OTDmsmN43NA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OTDmsmN43NA
- fucking_tragedy 8y ago
  > The shooter was self described as an eco-fascist Did you forget the dozen or so pages ranting about "white genocide" and "the great replacement"? What about the 49 Muslim people he murdered?
fiblye 8y ago
You realize their big argument is that they’re speaking “truth” and are thus being censored, right? When little bits of what they say slip through the cracks and people know that it’s supposed to be censored, you realize you’re validating their statements right? Make people know they’re right in one aspect, and people will think they’re right in the other aspects as well. Give yourself a legal ability to censor them, and the day they seize power (and don’t try to pretend the people you like will be in power forever, because they won’t), they will use it against you.
whiddershins 8y ago
Interesting. Do you feel that statements of the far-right (by whatever definition you are using) are the exclusive source of incitement to hatred and violence on the internet? Or was that just an example of one of many kids of dialogue that might be dangerous and need to be proactively censored?
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
wtdata 8y ago
It is highly distressful and should give us all a big scare, when we arrived a point where you can expressly call for censorship and direct it solely to the political view opposed to yours. If you were calling for censorship against both far right and far left, sure, I would probably disagree but would concede it was a coherence point of view. But calling for censorship solely against one side, makes someone by definition a totalitarian.

refurb 8y ago

It's amazing how quickly people will give up fundamental rights in the name of safety.

eg5fv4 8y ago
Thanks to this particular incident I've clearly seen the hypocrisy of many people regarding these matters.
- marcinzm 8y ago
  Hypocrisy? Why do you assume that censorship will be used to block far-right material rather than leftist material? The right is gaining more and more political power and historically (at least in the US) is the side most willing to use censorship for it's own benefit.
  - eg5fv4 8y ago
    I've read many people for too long opposing censorship, because it was always used by those in power for many things, from oppressing the political will of people to protecting copyright. Think of China, Russia on one side and the West on the other. But now that some political power that we don't like is emerging, well, a lil censorship never hurt anyone huh?
    - amanaplanacanal 8y ago
      I oppose censorship when the government does it. However, I fully expect to be able to boot any content that displeases me off my own website. Which is what Facebook is trying to do. This very discussion forum is moderated, and very well as far as I can see. Do you think it would somehow be better if the mods weren't here?
      - Nadya 8y ago
        Facebook is the only reliable or affordable form of internet access at all. I think the measure of "own website" changes once you reach a certain mass and especially when that "own website" is not a personal website but a corporate one. Not to mention the government influences that can and are made against these corporations. It gets morally messy when you consider scale. At what point does it cross over from reasonable moderation to censorship? If Facebook were a country, it would the largest country in the world. Is it okay to censor two billion people because Facebook is not an "official government"? I'm not against moderation at all but at a certain scale does it cease being only moderation? I would argue yes, but at what point? That's trickier to answer and I can't really say I know.
shittyadmin 8y ago
It really deeply bothers me, I wish there was something I could do to help protect my rights from this sort of reactionary response. Does the ACLU still put up a fight in cases like this? They used to back in the day, but I'm not sure they would now... EDIT: To make my view clear here, Facebook and others are free to remove the videos, I'd prefer if they age-gated and put a warning on them instead, but that's their choice. What I don't like is the way that that some police agencies have been suggesting that mere possession of the video is illegal. The worst part here is that the attacker himself was suggesting that by hitting on ideas like free speech and the right to bear arms he'd be able to "accelerate" the deepening of political divides. I do not want to be put in a place where I'm forced to choose between fundamental rights and respect for entire races of people, but at this rate I fear that decision time may be approaching. Given time I hope cooler heads will prevail.

marcinzm 8y ago

>I believe it's becoming increasingly clear that merely allowing far-right dialogue online is essentially responsible for ease of radicalization, and that proactive censorship would be the best approach to forestall this. Because of course, censorship only blocks the material you personally don't want others to view and never material you personally would want others to view. I can see a lot of politicians, especially those getting elected nowadays, wanting to block any discussion of minority rights, LGTBQ+ rights, trans rights, drug reform, abortion, women's health, women's rights, climate change, non-christian religion discussions, etc, etc, etc. edit: Note that this isn't a straw man argument. All it takes is one to look at the censorship that happened in the US in the 50s and 60s (comic code, movie/television code, mccarthyism, etc. ) to see what is possible.

ben_w 8y ago
This is why my own position is not settled. Publications, preachers, performances, etc. change people’s behaviour and beliefs — if they didn’t, nobody would advertise or campaign. That change can be ‘good’ or ‘bad’ depending on your point of view. I want the spread of harmful memes to be slowed (and, if possible, prevented), but I also ask myself “What if I’m wrong about what is harmful?” — for example, I don’t believe in the Christian god, and have seen harm done in his name, but what if he actually does exist and banning Christian memes condemns people to hell? Or sexuality? I know people whose sexuality has been outlawed this decade in much of western Europe, as a result of campaigns by people totally convinced that their preferences are innately harmful, which side is right? I think solving this is also an important part of safe A.I., so it would still be a very important problem for me even if I didn’t know people directly affected.
foobandit 8y ago
You don't need to go back in history to see this. In many countries where such speech laws exist today, they're used by majority groups in order to stop minority groups from speaking out publicly about injustices. This is common in Asian countries right now. Regardless, censorship on the internet is inherently ineffective. If this speech is banned from Facebook, it will move to other forums. If it's made illegal, it will move to the "dark web". The only real solution to combat this sort of thinking is to debate it directly, refuting arguments rather than shutting them down entirely.

fhcm8o3x4h 8y ago

As with any idea, people come to believe and subscribe to ideologies because they are genuinely pursuasive and they are persuasive because they contain substantial - and often meaningful/relevant - truths (if biased and omitting other relevant truths). However, censorship is exactly the wrong thing to do. If these pockets of knowledge are cordoned off, and inaccessible to causal observers then fewer people will know about them. There will be less people who are well versed in the ideas, and as a result fewer who are able to identify and explain their limits and context. This makes it far easier to radicalize folks. It's also super intuitive, of course censorship increases radicalization. That's why a corrupt government censors, to have better control of and more precisely manipulate their beliefs. Something that wouldn't be possible if everyone had more information. So yeah, I disagree.

djflutt3rshy 8y ago
Do you have any data supporting this assertion that access to and ability to freely communicate information leads to less radicalization, rather than more? I look at the Internet, and wherever there is no censorship, there is not wisdom; just hate and chaos. 4chan (and even more so, 8chan) are the pure essence of no censorship, yet everything from Holocaust denial to rampant racism and sexism thrive and fester and spread. The most persuasive ideas are those that are short, easy to digest, and blame someone who's not you for your misery. The truth, well, it can be messy and complicated, and I'm not sure you can get there without shutting down the puerile voices screaming memes of hatred.
- vuln 8y ago
  That’s two websites. If you asked 1000 people about 4chan maybe 25% would know what is and would say it’s a troll website if they even what what it is. I think less know about 8chan. The media has driven so much traffic to the site. It’s almost as if they want people to radicalize because it will make great news. I digress just because we know what 4/8chan are I doubt most internet users do or care. we shouldn’t sign off on whole sale internet censorship because of 2 websites. Right?
  - 8y ago

armitron 8y ago

Radicalization happens a lot quicker when groups are forced into ideological bubbles that have no pressure release valves. I feel as if we have two real choices here: + We fundamentally change how the Internet works and introduce an omnipotent overseer that enforces norms and behavior. We have to go all the way with this in order to reap the security benefits, half-measures - what we have today - won't work. If we do go all the way, we find ourselves living in a hellish dystopia. This is the top-down, centralized approach. + We realize that the only way out is through and ride the wave of rapid information propagation on the Internet, waiting for bottom-up reorganization to take place and the emergence of something new. Censorship has no place here. Extreme points of view should be allowed to diffuse-disperse by exposing them to the rest of the system. This is the decentralized, cybernetic approach.

fzeroracer 8y ago
If that decentralized approach worked, then the various chans should've never been taken over by white supremacists. Can you offer an explanation as to how that fits your model?
- tomp 8y ago
  You do realise that 4/8chans are full of trolls, right? They post offensive stuff to offend people like you, who take them seriously.
- armitron 8y ago
  One reason "white supremacists" end up congregating in the various chans is because they've been banished from everywhere else. In the US, the overton window has shrank dramatically in the last decade and it keeps on shrinking. More to the point, it is my view that events many will see as extreme will keep on happening regardless of which way we choose to go. Today, we are not dealing with increased discussion and development of new ideas (printing press). The feedback loops are getting short enough to give rise to cognitive metasystems. It follows that some blowback will occur. We are watching force projection/meatspace interaction from cognitively dissonant emergent hive minds. This is exactly what bottom-up reorganization looks like. Expect it to intensify.

bluthru 8y ago

Overall society is becoming safer by the year, right? Something as drastic as censorship doesn't seem to be necessary.

ilkkao 8y ago

I read that it was a live stream. Not sure how even technically those can be fully moderated. Probably one employee can watch up to ten streams at time but it still doesn't sound scalable enough. The cost would be too high.

XorNot 8y ago
No ones calling to block live streams in real time. But allowing the continued assault on the victims by rebroadcasting their last moments, without the consent of the families or the individuals is an assault.

michaelbuckbee 8y ago

I recently came across the concept of a "data void" that we have these gaps in our electronic communication platforms where: 1. Platforms weight/select for content that is updated frequently and drives views. 2. Established/agreed upon information is much less likely to get that fed to you. Consider the flat earth folks, they are churning out thousands of videos on that topic. How often are spherical earthers updating their YouTube channels? And I see similar happening with extremist communities: a flood of ideas and video that just seem unhinged and I'd rather ignore, but in doing so it furthers this gap.

feanaro 8y ago

No. If anything should be disallowed, it is discussions about allowing censorship. We have quite enough historical examples of the horrible things that happen under censorship.

swiley 8y ago

Personally I'm more tempted to blame AI content curation pushing people into echo chambers than a lack of censorship. If we want less division we should be listening more to each other not less.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
ipython 8y ago
Oh I think it’s more about what’s being said than who is listening to who. For better or worse, human discourse is optimized for face to face interaction. It seems that widespread, anonymous speech turns even the most mild mannered individual into a raging maniac. On a similar note I recently watched this video: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rE3j_RHkqJc https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rE3j_RHkqJc and completely agree with its premise.

megous 8y ago

Well, bannings, also serve as a rallying call. They will put out a "Critical message from Whoever" video, and talk about how they're under attack from the media, and corporations, and how now, more than ever it is important for people who believe the same as them to spring into action (donate more to the cause), etc. ...

fucking_tragedy 8y ago

> I believe it's becoming increasingly clear that merely allowing far-right dialogue online is essentially responsible for ease of radicalization, and that proactive censorship would be the best approach to forestall this. People are going to jump on you for this, but I feel it's necessary to put this in perspective. Ten years ago, the threat of domestic radicalization was a hot topic, except it concerned radicalization towards fundamentalist Islamic terrorism. Twitter, Google et al. devoted resources towards identifying Islamic terrorist propaganda, accounts and networks, and then silenced them all. Today, the threat of domestic radicalization comes from the far right. We should at least be honest and consistent when considering the threat and how we've handled such threats in the past.

tenpies 8y ago

> merely allowing far-right dialogue online is essentially responsible for ease of radicalization The shooter was self described as an eco-fascist and claimed his motivation were two events covered widely by the mainstream media. He was very clearly "of the internet", but are you convinced that deleting "far-right dialogue" would have stopped him? What about the current state of journalism and politics, which was also very clearly something he aimed to exploit and seems to have manipulated at a far more effective level than past attacks?

redisman 8y ago
I wish we would look more at what he did. Killed 50 muslims. Not what his rambling troll "manifesto" said.
- sadris 8y ago
  If you want it to not happen again, then you should look at the why, not the what.
  - fucking_tragedy 8y ago
    He said why, in fact, he said it three times in the very first three sentences of his manifesto: "It’s the birthrates." x 3. Where do we hear conspiracy theories about "the great replacement"[1] coming from? CNN or people like Lauren Southern[2][3]? Or, the fact that he literally states what he wants (it's the 14 words): > What do you want? > We must ensure the existence of our people, and a future for white children. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Replacement_conspiracy_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Replacement_conspira... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lauren_Southern https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lauren_Southern [3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OTDmsmN43NA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OTDmsmN43NA
fucking_tragedy 8y ago
> The shooter was self described as an eco-fascist Did you forget the dozen or so pages ranting about "white genocide" and "the great replacement"? What about the 49 Muslim people he murdered?

fiblye 8y ago

You realize their big argument is that they’re speaking “truth” and are thus being censored, right? When little bits of what they say slip through the cracks and people know that it’s supposed to be censored, you realize you’re validating their statements right? Make people know they’re right in one aspect, and people will think they’re right in the other aspects as well. Give yourself a legal ability to censor them, and the day they seize power (and don’t try to pretend the people you like will be in power forever, because they won’t), they will use it against you.

whiddershins 8y ago

Interesting. Do you feel that statements of the far-right (by whatever definition you are using) are the exclusive source of incitement to hatred and violence on the internet? Or was that just an example of one of many kids of dialogue that might be dangerous and need to be proactively censored?

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

wtdata 8y ago

It is highly distressful and should give us all a big scare, when we arrived a point where you can expressly call for censorship and direct it solely to the political view opposed to yours. If you were calling for censorship against both far right and far left, sure, I would probably disagree but would concede it was a coherence point of view. But calling for censorship solely against one side, makes someone by definition a totalitarian.