7 ms·

There is merit to maintaining an open environment. Censorship makes the censored content seem lucratively dangerous; it looks like the powers that be are afraid

There is merit to maintaining an open environment. Censorship makes the censored content seem lucratively dangerous; it looks like the powers that be are afraid of what some people are saying. I think it is best to let bad arguments fail on their own merit. The problem is that most people are unable to recognize a bad argument.

ianleeclark 8y ago
The problem is that an open environment cannot work when there are bad faith interlocutors actively seeking to undermine that open environment. There's a famous Sartre quote that deals with the paradox of tolerance in regards to anti-semites.
- pathseeker 8y ago
  Either they are presenting valid arguments or they aren't. If you have the mental tools to analyze and quickly dismiss arguments it doesn't matter if they aren't acting in good faith.
  - DoofusOfDeath 8y ago
    > Either they are presenting valid arguments or they aren't. I agree. But one problem with bad-faith actors is they can bring productive discussion to a near standstill, due to the time / attention / emotional-energy costs.
- antt 8y ago
  And yet Jews have only been murdered in countries that did not have freedom of speech. Words are an antidote to sticks and stones which stop people from breaking others bones.
  - rhcom2 8y ago
    That's absurd. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pittsburgh_synagogue_shooting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pittsburgh_synagogue_shooting
yardie 8y ago
Except they are not censored. If these groups feel like they want to espouse these dangerous ideas they still can. They don't need Facebook to do and the rest of us can ignore them. But at the moment Facebook's and Youtube's algorithms put some of this crap front and center in your browser. To the unsuspecting this can seem like validating and endorsing those ideas.
- DuskStar 8y ago
  Are you really saying that these groups aren't going to be censored by Facebook? Censorship does not require a government.
  - jjjensen90 8y ago
    They are free to express this content on any other platform, including their own.
    - DuskStar 8y ago
      Of course! But when China says you're free to discuss the Free Tibet movement in any other country but China, we rightly call it censorship. What makes this any different? Or, I suppose, what makes the differences one of kind and not of degree? In a lot of ways, Facebook is as much of a country as the Vatican is.
      - jjjensen90 8y ago
        The analogy holds no water, it is infinitely easier to broadcast your speech on another platform (or make your own platform) than to deal with state level censorship. Publishing them on a company's dime and expecting platform neutrality is preposterous.
        willpiers 8y ago
        It's not easy to make a new platform. it's insanely difficult. These big social media companies have huge moats at this point, due to network effects and scale. When other things have such powerful network effects we force them, through the state, to treat people fairly. For instance, utilities like water and electricity are natural monopolies because of the limited physical space for the infrastructure. Social networks aren't quite the same but there are powerful similarities.
bilbo0s 8y ago
I should preface this by saying that I'm kind of a "strict Constitutionalist" so to speak. In my view all these arguments people are making about "open environments", or "bad faith actors", or extremism or what have you are completely irrelevant. A privately owned, NON-governmental, environment is allowed to be as "open" or as "closed" as they please. If a "bad faith actor" wants to act in "bad faith", (whatever that is?), then that's their prerogative. That's their Constitutional liberty. (You ever consider this? Who, exactly, is defining what "bad faith" is anyway?) And extremism in content is fine, you don't like it, don't look at it. (Or in Facebook's case, don't have it on your system. That's fine. That's FB's Constitutional liberty.) The Constitution really does provide room for obvious solutions to all of the arguments people are making. There's really no need to get bent out of shape about a lot of these things.
- djsumdog 8y ago
  The trouble is that today, these companies have a monopoly on distribution. People who are banned go to other sites that capture extremists views (Gab/Voat/4chan). At some point, platforms need to realize there is a moral value in allowing different view points so that they can discuss and be seen. Otherwise, people leave for more "open" platforms that breed exclusive extremism. It then further divides the split. The other issue is that these platforms are so big that they literally dictate narrative in many cases, or at least to their audiences.
  - bilbo0s 8y ago
    >The trouble is that today, these companies have a monopoly on distribution. People who are banned go to other sites that capture extremists views (Gab/Voat/4chan)... If the banned go to Gab and 4chan, then there is no "monopoly" on distribution. The Constitution is what allows for the alternative options to even exist. It's GOOD that we have the alternative options. That's not a "bad" thing. And what is wrong with people going to "open" platforms that "breed exclusive extremism"? I don't see anything Constitutionally wrong with that. (Keep in mind, you or I not liking something does not mean it should be Constitutionally restricted.)
  - anigbrowl 8y ago
djsumdog 8y ago
Yes, it's like book burning. It makes the banned content more enticing. This is the big issue with New Zealand banning the recent shooters manifesto. What if news organizations want to read it to report on it (even if it is just to say, this is why he's a nutjob)? Banning his manifesto grants it more important. It shows the government is afraid of it for some reason. Mein Kampf is still available for purchase in NZ. I've personally looked through his manifesto and think it should be discussed in schools, so students and teachers can explore his breaks in logic and contradictory statements. If you understand people like that, maybe you can identify them early on, or encourage attitudes in general that would prevent those xenophobic ideas from developing.
- anigbrowl 8y ago
  You can get a waiver from the NZ censor for having copies of that material if you're a scholar or researcher: https://www.classificationoffice.govt.nz/news/latest-news/christchurch-attacks-press-releases/#christchurch-attack-publication-the-great-replacement-classified-objectionable https://www.classificationoffice.govt.nz/news/latest-news/ch... it should be discussed in schools, so students and teachers can explore his breaks in logic and contradictory statements How about the explicit calls for assassination of specific individuals, among other direct incitements to terrorism?
  - driverdan 8y ago
    > You can get a waiver from the NZ censor The fact that NZ has a censor is abhorrent.
    - simple_phrases 8y ago
      US has censored fundamentalist Muslim extremist material in concert with Twitter and Google since at least 2009. Where were the free speech advocates back then? And why are they so vocal now that the extremists are a different skin color?
      - driverdan 8y ago
ratling 8y ago
You don't solve nazi ideology with reasoned debate. You don't solve it with deplatforming either but I doubt facebook is going to start throwing bricks so I'll take it.
- DoofusOfDeath 8y ago
  > You don't solve nazi ideology with reasoned debate. How did you reach that conclusion?
  - ratling 8y ago
    1940-1945
    - stevenwoo 8y ago
      There was reasoned debate from ballpark 1932-1938, when the Nazis have roughly 40% of the vote to go into a coalition government then somehow levered that into total control of the German state but that's more evidence for your argument.
      - ratling 8y ago
        Yes, exactly my point. History repeats itself and people on the left want to pretend you solve this problem with the debate club.
    - willpiers 8y ago
      Total non sequitur, low effort post. The mods are really showing their bias in this thread. People respond with their best arguments when they are confronted with bad ideas. People respond with censorship attempts and violence when they are scared that their own positions are weak.
      - ratling 8y ago
        You don't debate literal Nazis who want to kill or enslave everyone who isn't like them with ideas. You debate them with the US Military. Deplatforming is just a palatable middle ground. Go back to infowars.

ianleeclark 8y ago

The problem is that an open environment cannot work when there are bad faith interlocutors actively seeking to undermine that open environment. There's a famous Sartre quote that deals with the paradox of tolerance in regards to anti-semites.

pathseeker 8y ago
Either they are presenting valid arguments or they aren't. If you have the mental tools to analyze and quickly dismiss arguments it doesn't matter if they aren't acting in good faith.
- DoofusOfDeath 8y ago
  > Either they are presenting valid arguments or they aren't. I agree. But one problem with bad-faith actors is they can bring productive discussion to a near standstill, due to the time / attention / emotional-energy costs.
antt 8y ago
And yet Jews have only been murdered in countries that did not have freedom of speech. Words are an antidote to sticks and stones which stop people from breaking others bones.
- rhcom2 8y ago
  That's absurd. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pittsburgh_synagogue_shooting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pittsburgh_synagogue_shooting

yardie 8y ago

Except they are not censored. If these groups feel like they want to espouse these dangerous ideas they still can. They don't need Facebook to do and the rest of us can ignore them. But at the moment Facebook's and Youtube's algorithms put some of this crap front and center in your browser. To the unsuspecting this can seem like validating and endorsing those ideas.

DuskStar 8y ago
Are you really saying that these groups aren't going to be censored by Facebook? Censorship does not require a government.
- jjjensen90 8y ago
  They are free to express this content on any other platform, including their own.
  - DuskStar 8y ago
    Of course! But when China says you're free to discuss the Free Tibet movement in any other country but China, we rightly call it censorship. What makes this any different? Or, I suppose, what makes the differences one of kind and not of degree? In a lot of ways, Facebook is as much of a country as the Vatican is.
    - jjjensen90 8y ago
      The analogy holds no water, it is infinitely easier to broadcast your speech on another platform (or make your own platform) than to deal with state level censorship. Publishing them on a company's dime and expecting platform neutrality is preposterous.
      - willpiers 8y ago
        It's not easy to make a new platform. it's insanely difficult. These big social media companies have huge moats at this point, due to network effects and scale. When other things have such powerful network effects we force them, through the state, to treat people fairly. For instance, utilities like water and electricity are natural monopolies because of the limited physical space for the infrastructure. Social networks aren't quite the same but there are powerful similarities.

bilbo0s 8y ago

I should preface this by saying that I'm kind of a "strict Constitutionalist" so to speak. In my view all these arguments people are making about "open environments", or "bad faith actors", or extremism or what have you are completely irrelevant. A privately owned, NON-governmental, environment is allowed to be as "open" or as "closed" as they please. If a "bad faith actor" wants to act in "bad faith", (whatever that is?), then that's their prerogative. That's their Constitutional liberty. (You ever consider this? Who, exactly, is defining what "bad faith" is anyway?) And extremism in content is fine, you don't like it, don't look at it. (Or in Facebook's case, don't have it on your system. That's fine. That's FB's Constitutional liberty.) The Constitution really does provide room for obvious solutions to all of the arguments people are making. There's really no need to get bent out of shape about a lot of these things.

djsumdog 8y ago
The trouble is that today, these companies have a monopoly on distribution. People who are banned go to other sites that capture extremists views (Gab/Voat/4chan). At some point, platforms need to realize there is a moral value in allowing different view points so that they can discuss and be seen. Otherwise, people leave for more "open" platforms that breed exclusive extremism. It then further divides the split. The other issue is that these platforms are so big that they literally dictate narrative in many cases, or at least to their audiences.
- bilbo0s 8y ago
  >The trouble is that today, these companies have a monopoly on distribution. People who are banned go to other sites that capture extremists views (Gab/Voat/4chan)... If the banned go to Gab and 4chan, then there is no "monopoly" on distribution. The Constitution is what allows for the alternative options to even exist. It's GOOD that we have the alternative options. That's not a "bad" thing. And what is wrong with people going to "open" platforms that "breed exclusive extremism"? I don't see anything Constitutionally wrong with that. (Keep in mind, you or I not liking something does not mean it should be Constitutionally restricted.)
- anigbrowl 8y ago

djsumdog 8y ago

Yes, it's like book burning. It makes the banned content more enticing. This is the big issue with New Zealand banning the recent shooters manifesto. What if news organizations want to read it to report on it (even if it is just to say, this is why he's a nutjob)? Banning his manifesto grants it more important. It shows the government is afraid of it for some reason. Mein Kampf is still available for purchase in NZ. I've personally looked through his manifesto and think it should be discussed in schools, so students and teachers can explore his breaks in logic and contradictory statements. If you understand people like that, maybe you can identify them early on, or encourage attitudes in general that would prevent those xenophobic ideas from developing.

anigbrowl 8y ago
You can get a waiver from the NZ censor for having copies of that material if you're a scholar or researcher: https://www.classificationoffice.govt.nz/news/latest-news/christchurch-attacks-press-releases/#christchurch-attack-publication-the-great-replacement-classified-objectionable https://www.classificationoffice.govt.nz/news/latest-news/ch... it should be discussed in schools, so students and teachers can explore his breaks in logic and contradictory statements How about the explicit calls for assassination of specific individuals, among other direct incitements to terrorism?
- driverdan 8y ago
  > You can get a waiver from the NZ censor The fact that NZ has a censor is abhorrent.
  - simple_phrases 8y ago
    US has censored fundamentalist Muslim extremist material in concert with Twitter and Google since at least 2009. Where were the free speech advocates back then? And why are they so vocal now that the extremists are a different skin color?
    - driverdan 8y ago

ratling 8y ago

You don't solve nazi ideology with reasoned debate. You don't solve it with deplatforming either but I doubt facebook is going to start throwing bricks so I'll take it.

DoofusOfDeath 8y ago
> You don't solve nazi ideology with reasoned debate. How did you reach that conclusion?
- ratling 8y ago
  1940-1945
  - stevenwoo 8y ago
    There was reasoned debate from ballpark 1932-1938, when the Nazis have roughly 40% of the vote to go into a coalition government then somehow levered that into total control of the German state but that's more evidence for your argument.
    - ratling 8y ago
      Yes, exactly my point. History repeats itself and people on the left want to pretend you solve this problem with the debate club.
  - willpiers 8y ago
    Total non sequitur, low effort post. The mods are really showing their bias in this thread. People respond with their best arguments when they are confronted with bad ideas. People respond with censorship attempts and violence when they are scared that their own positions are weak.
    - ratling 8y ago
      You don't debate literal Nazis who want to kill or enslave everyone who isn't like them with ideas. You debate them with the US Military. Deplatforming is just a palatable middle ground. Go back to infowars.