4 ms·

What bothers me is how literally every story about this sees a horde of comments embracing the slippery slope fallacy. Not all slopes are slippery. It is possib

What bothers me is how literally every story about this sees a horde of comments embracing the slippery slope fallacy. Not all slopes are slippery. It is possible draw lines and stick to them over time.

tlackemann 8y ago
Couldn't agree more though I am on a bit on the fence. I do not believe banning or censoring blatant misinformation is bad. We have more information at our fingertips than ever before and I personally believe that we should be able to access all that knowledge freely without censorship. There is some information better not shared though and this is where I am divided. We do not have an obligation to inform or influence anyone's decisions - but when those decisions harm childrens' lives then I think action needs to be taken. This is the most obvious action that could have been taken and I'm glad it was.
aetherson 8y ago
What line are you drawing?
wtdata 8y ago
My problem is actually: who gets to draw those lines and how can I be sure they won't use that power to serve their own personal interests.
- lovehashbrowns 8y ago
  Private companies draw those lines, as they always have done. This is GoFundMe. They also have a ToS that specifies what you're allowed to have on their service, so they've done this for as long as that ToS has existed. Anti-vax people can use some other service or create their own.
  - RobertRoberts 8y ago
    This is gimmick I keep hearing "Private companies", that is your slippery slope. The government doesn't _need_ to censoring anything if they get the companies to it for them. That is fascism.
    - bilbo0s 8y ago
      >That is fascism... So is telling private companies what they have to do with their property.
      - RobertRoberts 8y ago
        Yes, I agree, it goes both ways. 'Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power' ― Benito Mussolini
    - clucas 8y ago
      Here's an alternative slippery slope: I run a site that makes it really easy to connect people who want to give money and people who have some reason they think they should have money. I decide that I don't want people who are raising money for anti-vax campaigns on my site, so I ban them. Then, someone comes in and says "no no, you can't do that, you have to allow them to use your site." Who gets to decide that, and by what criteria? What if I also decide I don't want to allow anti-government militias to use my site to buy firearms? As soon as you force a private entity to do business with people even if they don't want to, you're also on a slippery slope. ...or maybe you're not. Maybe there are plenty of plaes to draw these lines, like, "you can't refuse service to people if you are doing so based on certain categories, like race, sex, religious belief, etc. because we as a nation have decided it's important." I think we should allow companies like GoFundMe to ban whomever they like, unless they are discriminating based on the protected categories that are already clearly defined.
      - RobertRoberts 8y ago
        I agree with you, GoFundMe should have the freedom to do whatever they want. I am just pointing out that there is no longer any real censorship any more that we are legally protected against simply because the government is never involved directly in it. So simply repeating the mantra "business can't censor" isn't really true in a strict analysis. Consider that the baker who didn't want to bake a cake with words on it that he objected to was sued (successfully). But I saw almost no support for _that_ business's freedom to choose. Censorship has turned into a mob tool of control.
- bilbo0s 8y ago
  It's obvious that private companies should draw their own lines. That's the entire point of private property, as long as it's not unconstitutional, they can do what they like. It's their property. And of course they do it in their own interests, that's the duty of a fiduciary.
- astura 8y ago
  The entities who own the platforms draw those lines on their own platforms. If they want to use that power to serve their own personal interest that's their right to do so.
  - notyourday 8y ago
    We have been down this path. It's a collusion. And it is bad. 1. Gets removed from a platform and told go makes your own platform! 2. Goes makes a platform. 3. Gets removed from the DNS. Told to become his own DNS host. 4. Makes DNS service. 5. Gets kicked off the cloud hosting. Told go make your own hosting. 6. Gets his own hosting. 7. Gets blocked at the payment processing. Gets told to figure out how be his own payment processor. Somewhere there there's also apps being pulled from Playstore and iTunes. This will bite us in the butt. Pendulum always swings both ways and we will be on a receiving side of it in future.
- JumpCrisscross 8y ago
  > who gets to draw those lines Free people. There is a legal line that circumscribes the lines that cannot be drawn. You cannot decide not to do business with someone on the basis of gender or of race, for example. But if you don't want people jerking off in your restaurant, you're free to kick them out. Same for people spreading bullshit. (Though, importantly, the government can't do anything to the bullshit-spreaders.)
- shhehebehdh 8y ago
  On one’s own property, it should be the default that one may draw the line where one pleases. Or delegate one’s authority to agents — employees — who will handle the question. As far as your personal interests go, again the presumption should be that if it isn’t your property, and you have no contracts stating otherwise, it isn’t yours to decide whether a decision is made in your own personal best interest.
hexenhammer 8y ago
I would love to believe this is true. I don’t think we can draw a line and stick to it though.
mulletbum 8y ago
I am not an anti vaxxer, but this is more of a philosophical question. If we ban them, what are we banning them for? What happens if something they say ends up magically being true? How long would it take us to shift the tides back? What if this was asbestos back in the day. "It's safe, we all use it, if it wasn't then our internal study would have told us." So they start banning anyone saying asbestos is unsafe. How long would it take us to fix all the blocks that are crying to save people from actual asbestos issues, that are 100% real. And once again, I am not saying banning anti-vaxx is bad, vaccines are proven over and over again.
- Fezzik 8y ago
  The evidence seems to be that if there was any legitimate/substantiated concern about vaccines not being effective or safe, those who say they are effective and safe based on the overwhelming and uncontroverted evidence saying so, would switch sides. So far, after nearly eradicating multiple fatal and horrible diseases, there is just no question that vaccines are fantastic.
- tntn 8y ago
  > something they say ends up magically being true Lots of things that people say in opposition to vaccines is true, or at least has some basis in fact. Polio vaccines decades ago were contaminated with sv40, which does have the potential to cause tumors. (So there is "vaccines cause cancer!") There is also probably a real link between Guillain-Barre and vaccines, but there is also a link between any infection and Guillain-Barre, do with a vaccine you essne tidally keep the risk of that very rare syndrome and lose the risk of infection. Vaccines are not risk-free, they just have such incredibly high value that the incredibly low risk is completely worth it. > if we ban them, what are we banning them for? "We" are not banning them. GoFundMe is. Call it whatever you like. "Subverting public health," maybe.
  - adamrezich 8y ago
    This is why the idea of labeling anyone who's not 100% on board with 100% of vaccines, 100% of the time, as "anti-vaxxers," and having corporations make a show of banning such speech on their private platforms is so strange to me. Let's assume that literally every current "anti-vaxxer" talking point is objectively incorrect... but, sometime in the future, some major manufacturer of vaccines somehow creates a public health risk, perhaps by contaminating a year's batch of vaccines with something toxic, or something. Would it be alright to speak out against that, or would anyone doing so get publicly labelled "anti-vaxxer!!" and prevented from spreading their legitimate concerns in various places? I just can't understand why anyone would be in favor of corporations shutting down ALL dissenting speech on a particular topic on their platform. Perhaps the "anti-vaxxers" of today are 100% wrong about everything, but that doesn't mean that 100% of criticism of vaccines now and forever more is and will always be 100% invalid. Why would anyone think that?
grandridge 8y ago
what bothers me is every wannabe communist telling me how THEY can do it correctly and will be able to maintain control. you are dangerously incorrect

tlackemann 8y ago

Couldn't agree more though I am on a bit on the fence. I do not believe banning or censoring blatant misinformation is bad. We have more information at our fingertips than ever before and I personally believe that we should be able to access all that knowledge freely without censorship. There is some information better not shared though and this is where I am divided. We do not have an obligation to inform or influence anyone's decisions - but when those decisions harm childrens' lives then I think action needs to be taken. This is the most obvious action that could have been taken and I'm glad it was.

aetherson 8y ago

What line are you drawing?

wtdata 8y ago

My problem is actually: who gets to draw those lines and how can I be sure they won't use that power to serve their own personal interests.

lovehashbrowns 8y ago
Private companies draw those lines, as they always have done. This is GoFundMe. They also have a ToS that specifies what you're allowed to have on their service, so they've done this for as long as that ToS has existed. Anti-vax people can use some other service or create their own.
- RobertRoberts 8y ago
  This is gimmick I keep hearing "Private companies", that is your slippery slope. The government doesn't _need_ to censoring anything if they get the companies to it for them. That is fascism.
  - bilbo0s 8y ago
    >That is fascism... So is telling private companies what they have to do with their property.
    - RobertRoberts 8y ago
      Yes, I agree, it goes both ways. 'Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power' ― Benito Mussolini
  - clucas 8y ago
    Here's an alternative slippery slope: I run a site that makes it really easy to connect people who want to give money and people who have some reason they think they should have money. I decide that I don't want people who are raising money for anti-vax campaigns on my site, so I ban them. Then, someone comes in and says "no no, you can't do that, you have to allow them to use your site." Who gets to decide that, and by what criteria? What if I also decide I don't want to allow anti-government militias to use my site to buy firearms? As soon as you force a private entity to do business with people even if they don't want to, you're also on a slippery slope. ...or maybe you're not. Maybe there are plenty of plaes to draw these lines, like, "you can't refuse service to people if you are doing so based on certain categories, like race, sex, religious belief, etc. because we as a nation have decided it's important." I think we should allow companies like GoFundMe to ban whomever they like, unless they are discriminating based on the protected categories that are already clearly defined.
    - RobertRoberts 8y ago
      I agree with you, GoFundMe should have the freedom to do whatever they want. I am just pointing out that there is no longer any real censorship any more that we are legally protected against simply because the government is never involved directly in it. So simply repeating the mantra "business can't censor" isn't really true in a strict analysis. Consider that the baker who didn't want to bake a cake with words on it that he objected to was sued (successfully). But I saw almost no support for _that_ business's freedom to choose. Censorship has turned into a mob tool of control.
bilbo0s 8y ago
It's obvious that private companies should draw their own lines. That's the entire point of private property, as long as it's not unconstitutional, they can do what they like. It's their property. And of course they do it in their own interests, that's the duty of a fiduciary.
astura 8y ago
The entities who own the platforms draw those lines on their own platforms. If they want to use that power to serve their own personal interest that's their right to do so.
- notyourday 8y ago
  We have been down this path. It's a collusion. And it is bad. 1. Gets removed from a platform and told go makes your own platform! 2. Goes makes a platform. 3. Gets removed from the DNS. Told to become his own DNS host. 4. Makes DNS service. 5. Gets kicked off the cloud hosting. Told go make your own hosting. 6. Gets his own hosting. 7. Gets blocked at the payment processing. Gets told to figure out how be his own payment processor. Somewhere there there's also apps being pulled from Playstore and iTunes. This will bite us in the butt. Pendulum always swings both ways and we will be on a receiving side of it in future.
JumpCrisscross 8y ago
> who gets to draw those lines Free people. There is a legal line that circumscribes the lines that cannot be drawn. You cannot decide not to do business with someone on the basis of gender or of race, for example. But if you don't want people jerking off in your restaurant, you're free to kick them out. Same for people spreading bullshit. (Though, importantly, the government can't do anything to the bullshit-spreaders.)
shhehebehdh 8y ago
On one’s own property, it should be the default that one may draw the line where one pleases. Or delegate one’s authority to agents — employees — who will handle the question. As far as your personal interests go, again the presumption should be that if it isn’t your property, and you have no contracts stating otherwise, it isn’t yours to decide whether a decision is made in your own personal best interest.

hexenhammer 8y ago

I would love to believe this is true. I don’t think we can draw a line and stick to it though.

mulletbum 8y ago

I am not an anti vaxxer, but this is more of a philosophical question. If we ban them, what are we banning them for? What happens if something they say ends up magically being true? How long would it take us to shift the tides back? What if this was asbestos back in the day. "It's safe, we all use it, if it wasn't then our internal study would have told us." So they start banning anyone saying asbestos is unsafe. How long would it take us to fix all the blocks that are crying to save people from actual asbestos issues, that are 100% real. And once again, I am not saying banning anti-vaxx is bad, vaccines are proven over and over again.

Fezzik 8y ago
The evidence seems to be that if there was any legitimate/substantiated concern about vaccines not being effective or safe, those who say they are effective and safe based on the overwhelming and uncontroverted evidence saying so, would switch sides. So far, after nearly eradicating multiple fatal and horrible diseases, there is just no question that vaccines are fantastic.
tntn 8y ago
> something they say ends up magically being true Lots of things that people say in opposition to vaccines is true, or at least has some basis in fact. Polio vaccines decades ago were contaminated with sv40, which does have the potential to cause tumors. (So there is "vaccines cause cancer!") There is also probably a real link between Guillain-Barre and vaccines, but there is also a link between any infection and Guillain-Barre, do with a vaccine you essne tidally keep the risk of that very rare syndrome and lose the risk of infection. Vaccines are not risk-free, they just have such incredibly high value that the incredibly low risk is completely worth it. > if we ban them, what are we banning them for? "We" are not banning them. GoFundMe is. Call it whatever you like. "Subverting public health," maybe.
- adamrezich 8y ago
  This is why the idea of labeling anyone who's not 100% on board with 100% of vaccines, 100% of the time, as "anti-vaxxers," and having corporations make a show of banning such speech on their private platforms is so strange to me. Let's assume that literally every current "anti-vaxxer" talking point is objectively incorrect... but, sometime in the future, some major manufacturer of vaccines somehow creates a public health risk, perhaps by contaminating a year's batch of vaccines with something toxic, or something. Would it be alright to speak out against that, or would anyone doing so get publicly labelled "anti-vaxxer!!" and prevented from spreading their legitimate concerns in various places? I just can't understand why anyone would be in favor of corporations shutting down ALL dissenting speech on a particular topic on their platform. Perhaps the "anti-vaxxers" of today are 100% wrong about everything, but that doesn't mean that 100% of criticism of vaccines now and forever more is and will always be 100% invalid. Why would anyone think that?

grandridge 8y ago

what bothers me is every wannabe communist telling me how THEY can do it correctly and will be able to maintain control. you are dangerously incorrect