5 ms·
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 lo
by 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 agoThat’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?
- fzeroracer 8y agoYou're avoiding the point. As he mentioned, 4chan and co are the epitome of no-censorship and entirely free debate. Under the assumptions made in this thread, the free market of ideas should squash ideologues and people who choose to believe in things such as white supremacy or conspiracy theories. Yet this is not the case. Why?
- vuln 8y agoWell in the US Facebook / Twitter / 4chan / 8chan are all protected by safe harbor[1]. These sites / cannot be legally held liable for content their users post. Facebook isn’t required by law to pull down the video. They pull down the video because it’s not profitable (shareholders) [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safe_harbor_(law) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safe_harbor_(law)
- fzeroracer 8y agoYou're going off on wild tangents. I didn't ask about whether or not the sites would be held liable for their content, nor did I muse on whether or not facebook is required by law to pull down their videos. I have a very specific question that I want answers for and I don't want any further misdirection. 4chan is an example of a pure free market of ideas. Yet only the most toxic of ideologies seem to survive. Why is this the case?
- reader5000 8y agoHow is 4chan more toxic than e.g. the New York Times?
- dang 8y agoPlease don't do this here.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- reader5000 8y agoDo what exactly?
- dang 8y agoPlease do not take HN threads on trollish flamewar tangents. It's a form of vandalism.
- vuln 8y agoBacteria only grows in environments it can survive. You can find the same content on reddit that you find in 4chan. The difference is Condé Nast will remove subreddits because it looks bad and hurts their bottom line. 4chan doesn’t have share holders, they barely have advertisers. Toxic ideologies survives on the Chan because there is no one worried about profit there’s no one to answer to. The entire internet use to be the same way.
- a-non 8y agoPerhaps they contain an inconvenient grain of truth.