12 ms·

In principle, I am opposed. I don't think hiding unwanted dialogue is very helpful in the long run. It just makes it fester somewhere else that isn't as visib

In principle, I am opposed. I don't think hiding unwanted dialogue is very helpful in the long run. It just makes it fester somewhere else that isn't as visible. If Facebook feels they have to do something about it, then I'd suggest just flagging it. That gives people more information that they can use how ever they see fit. There is also the thought of collateral damage, like your friend ran into. I also oppose it on general grounds in that I'm a big proponent of freedom of expression. Facebook can do what they want, we're not talking about the government here and I understand that, but I would rather they didn't go this route. I don't want to live in a society where what can and can't be said is strictly regulated either by force or by general consent. I seem to be one of the few that feels that way, though, any more. There is also the practical concern of what happens if the ideas of what is acceptable and what isn't changes over time? Who knows which opinions that you hold now might become anathema at a later date. For example, the opinion I'm expressing now used to be a lot more common than it is today.

skosch 8y ago
> It just makes it fester somewhere else that isn't as visible. Is that true? Would we have the anti-vax movement if it weren't for Facebook & co.?
- leereeves 8y ago
  We had the anti-vax movement before Facebook. And if it were banned, they'd just spin it as the pharma companies paying to suppress the truth. It would only further confirm their beliefs.
  - Faark 8y ago
    That "spotlight is the best disinfectant" is a very convenient narrative. I do realize in the end we all want to believe in whatever is convenient for us (notably including anti vaxxers). But is there actual scientific evidence supporting that particular narrative to work? Through all of mankind we had strong mechanisms to form consensus, including social repercussions. Those don't work anymore, since what would have become outcasts in earlier generations can now easily (for example on facebook) find like-minded communities and fulfill their social needs/get approval/etc. It'll be interesting in how different realities people can believe in before society breaks apart. I'd prefer we wont let that happen. The question is what actually works. Censoring them might reinforce their believe, but I can accept giving up on some if it does effectively stops the spread.
    - antt 8y ago
      >Through all of mankind we had strong mechanisms to form consensus, including social repercussions. And throughout history people lived to be 30 and died of plague wallowing in their own excrement thinking the devil did it. If your ideology needs thought control to work it needs to be taken out at the back of the sheds and shot. The second a society stops discussing ideas openly is the second it starts sliding towards a new dark age.
    - ThrowawayR2 8y ago
      > Through all of mankind['s history,] we had strong mechanisms to form consensus, including social repercussions. So, you're saying this mechanism is a good thing? Because mechanisms that reinforce the current social consensus, whatever it might be for that era, tend to maintain the status quo. And a desire to maintaining the status quo is a big chunk of the philosophy of, yep, that's right, ... conservatives. I've often said progressives aren't liberals because they don't agree with liberal philosophical values of the Enlightenment. Their "maintain the current societal consensus" argument is the strongest evidence of that yet.
    - nicwilson 8y ago
      > The question is what actually works. Make them pay a material cost: link vaccination to welfare benefits/family tax rebates, works well in Australia (search no jab, no pay). Also make an up to date vaccination record a requirement for enrolment into schools. They will complain and might keep on spouting shit, but at the cost of ~$10k/child/year they'll change their actions pretty quick.
      - sisu2019 8y ago
        this is what the free market would do but I thought we don't want that because 'everyone should have affordable healthcare'. Isn't an antivaxer 'everyone'? It's kind of spooky, progressives convince themselves they have no ingroup bias by making their ingroup unreasonably large but the price for that seems to be that they un-human people who have a different view.
    - sisu2019 8y ago
  - naasking 8y ago
    In fact, the anti-vaxx movement is more than a century old: https://www.historyofvaccines.org/content/articles/history-anti-vaccination-movements https://www.historyofvaccines.org/content/articles/history-a...
- ng12 8y ago
  Maybe it wouldn't be as big but I can assure you nothing gives a conspiracy theory more credence among it's followers than being deplatformed.
  - Larrikin 8y ago
    This is what people said about Alex Jones and his network. When he was deplatformed there was a surge of downloads for his app from white supremacists trying to show support and people gave your exact argument that now he has been legitimized. But what actually happened were those numbers were inflated by his followers and without the echo chamber of the larger base he had on YouTube his numbers eventually plummeted. Instead of being a regular in the news he occupies a small corner of the internet without access to the larger impressionable ever refreshing base he once had. He has now resorted to trying to sneak videos back on to you tube.
    - ThrowawayR2 8y ago
      Now imagine what would've happened had YouTube existed in the '60s and the powers that be had deplatformed MLK for his "unpopular" views that were"radicalizing" other people? See the problem now? The sword cuts both ways and if the political climate shifts so that your views are out of favor, guess who's getting deplatformed then?
      - Larrikin 8y ago
        MLK was heavily persecuted in the sixties for his views and message by private and public entities. What point are you trying to make.
        deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
        ThrowawayR2 8y ago
        > MLK was heavily persecuted in the sixties for his views and message by private and public entities. And people should be okay with his persecution by the people who had the political upper hand in that era? No? Then why should anyone be okay with deplatforming Alex Jones (as bad as he is) by whoever has the political upper hand at the moment?
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
0xEFF 8y ago
I wonder what would happen if they flagged it the same way my thermostat flags my monthly energy usage. “Most of your peers consider this post racist neonazi propaganda.”
ASinclair 8y ago
> It just makes it fester somewhere else that isn't as visible. That's a win in this case. It already festers somewhere else. White nationalists would like to spread their ideology outside of their normal bubble. They often talk about "redpilling normies." It's harder for them to do that if "normal" people have to explicitly seek out that kind of speech.
- hi5eyes 8y ago
  >It already festers somewhere else excluding people from a conversation doesn't help them learn why/how they think is wrong.. those "hidden" places that let the wrongthink fester only create more actions brought by wrongthink (guess what they talk about? wrongthink). i dont understand the logic of removing someones ability to converse if they dont understand why they're wrong.. they cant ask questions someone explain to me how banning content/people = deradicalizing
  - shigawire 8y ago
    >i dont understand the logic of removing someones ability to converse if they dont understand why they're wrong.. they cant ask questions. I don't think I've ever seen someone already radicalized reason their way out of it through conversing on the internet. I'm guessing the calculus is that exposing this content to people makes it easy to be suckered in, but we don't see the opposite affect.
    - all_factz 8y ago
      You should read this awesome New Yorker article from several years ago: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/11/23/conversion-via-twitter-westboro-baptist-church-megan-phelps-roper https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/11/23/conversion-via... That said, I think I generally agree that conversion via social media is unlikely. Still, I’m also not sure about my position on banning people. But the above article is a great read.
      - betterunix2 8y ago
naasking 8y ago
> Facebook can do what they want, we're not talking about the government here and I understand that That isn't so clear: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=139661 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=139661
joshuamorton 8y ago
> In principle, I am opposed. I don't think hiding unwanted dialogue is very helpful in the long run. It just makes it fester somewhere else that isn't as visible. Let's prod at this: - Should ISIS recruitment videos and propaganda be allowed (nay, encouraged) because deplatforming them will make them put their recruitment pamphlets elsewhere? Where else do they put their recruiting materials? - Should we publicly and loudly encourage people to self harm, ideate suicide, etc. because if we don't, they'll just find secret places to do it? - Should we consider white supremacist recruiting materials "dialogue" at all? If we're talking about dialogue, as in a formal debate between Richard Spencer and pretty much anyone else, one on one, that's potentially interesting (also embarrassing for Spencer). On the other hand, a video posted by a white supremacist isn't dialogue. It's even less dialogue when they can delete comments they can't aptly respond to, and when the people there are already interested (Richard Spencer videos weren't ever going to cross my feed). You're calling this dialogue, but it's really a one sided dog and pony show with maybe some unlucky sacrifices. Perhaps we shouldn't ban dialogue between white supremacists and normal people, but you're not advocating for dialogue, your advocating for Facebook (and whomever else) to support (distribute, platform, etc.) white supremacist propaganda and theater. >I don't want to live in a society where what can and can't be said is strictly regulated either by force or by general consent. How do you propose to create a society where people aren't allowed to dislike you? That's what you're asking for, essentially. "Freedom from consequences" is the common way of putting this, but really what you're asking for is an infringement on my freedom of association. If you piss enough people off, that'll come back to bite you. What's the alternative? That people can't hold you accountable for your previous words? That quickly devolves into a society of 4chan, which, well, I'm not sure why you'd want to live in that. >For example, the opinion I'm expressing now used to be a lot more common than it is today. How certain of this are you? Did black people or women have the freedoms you suggest 100-150 years ago in the US? Was anyone advocating for that?
- asabjorn 8y ago
  The problem is who defines what hate and a hate group is. It is usually the people you don’t want to do so, people that want to tell you what to think. Eg to some Ben Shapiro, Jordan Peterson and Thomas Sowell are considered white supremacists.
brownbat 8y ago
Scott Alexander's theory is that having an open forum has become incredibly difficult, maybe tending towards impossible. All the incentives line up to make moderation steadily more costly or steadily more draconian over time, or both: https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/02/22/rip-culture-war-thread/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/02/22/rip-culture-war-thread... It's not clear how to preserve a forum for free expression while spammers or trolls seek to suck up all the available bandwidth for their messages. You can end up with a sort of spectrum allocation problem, where if everyone is allowed to crowd the same frequency then communication on it becomes impossible. But once you start moderating content, it's really hard to find a satisfying balance. And on the margins, some trolls are indistinguishable from some people with really unbelievable opinions. I don't know what the answer is, it seems like a really complicated problem.

skosch 8y ago

> It just makes it fester somewhere else that isn't as visible. Is that true? Would we have the anti-vax movement if it weren't for Facebook & co.?

leereeves 8y ago
We had the anti-vax movement before Facebook. And if it were banned, they'd just spin it as the pharma companies paying to suppress the truth. It would only further confirm their beliefs.
- Faark 8y ago
  That "spotlight is the best disinfectant" is a very convenient narrative. I do realize in the end we all want to believe in whatever is convenient for us (notably including anti vaxxers). But is there actual scientific evidence supporting that particular narrative to work? Through all of mankind we had strong mechanisms to form consensus, including social repercussions. Those don't work anymore, since what would have become outcasts in earlier generations can now easily (for example on facebook) find like-minded communities and fulfill their social needs/get approval/etc. It'll be interesting in how different realities people can believe in before society breaks apart. I'd prefer we wont let that happen. The question is what actually works. Censoring them might reinforce their believe, but I can accept giving up on some if it does effectively stops the spread.
  - antt 8y ago
    >Through all of mankind we had strong mechanisms to form consensus, including social repercussions. And throughout history people lived to be 30 and died of plague wallowing in their own excrement thinking the devil did it. If your ideology needs thought control to work it needs to be taken out at the back of the sheds and shot. The second a society stops discussing ideas openly is the second it starts sliding towards a new dark age.
  - ThrowawayR2 8y ago
    > Through all of mankind['s history,] we had strong mechanisms to form consensus, including social repercussions. So, you're saying this mechanism is a good thing? Because mechanisms that reinforce the current social consensus, whatever it might be for that era, tend to maintain the status quo. And a desire to maintaining the status quo is a big chunk of the philosophy of, yep, that's right, ... conservatives. I've often said progressives aren't liberals because they don't agree with liberal philosophical values of the Enlightenment. Their "maintain the current societal consensus" argument is the strongest evidence of that yet.
  - nicwilson 8y ago
    > The question is what actually works. Make them pay a material cost: link vaccination to welfare benefits/family tax rebates, works well in Australia (search no jab, no pay). Also make an up to date vaccination record a requirement for enrolment into schools. They will complain and might keep on spouting shit, but at the cost of ~$10k/child/year they'll change their actions pretty quick.
    - sisu2019 8y ago
      this is what the free market would do but I thought we don't want that because 'everyone should have affordable healthcare'. Isn't an antivaxer 'everyone'? It's kind of spooky, progressives convince themselves they have no ingroup bias by making their ingroup unreasonably large but the price for that seems to be that they un-human people who have a different view.
  - sisu2019 8y ago
- naasking 8y ago
  In fact, the anti-vaxx movement is more than a century old: https://www.historyofvaccines.org/content/articles/history-anti-vaccination-movements https://www.historyofvaccines.org/content/articles/history-a...
ng12 8y ago
Maybe it wouldn't be as big but I can assure you nothing gives a conspiracy theory more credence among it's followers than being deplatformed.
- Larrikin 8y ago
  This is what people said about Alex Jones and his network. When he was deplatformed there was a surge of downloads for his app from white supremacists trying to show support and people gave your exact argument that now he has been legitimized. But what actually happened were those numbers were inflated by his followers and without the echo chamber of the larger base he had on YouTube his numbers eventually plummeted. Instead of being a regular in the news he occupies a small corner of the internet without access to the larger impressionable ever refreshing base he once had. He has now resorted to trying to sneak videos back on to you tube.
  - ThrowawayR2 8y ago
    Now imagine what would've happened had YouTube existed in the '60s and the powers that be had deplatformed MLK for his "unpopular" views that were"radicalizing" other people? See the problem now? The sword cuts both ways and if the political climate shifts so that your views are out of favor, guess who's getting deplatformed then?
    - Larrikin 8y ago
      MLK was heavily persecuted in the sixties for his views and message by private and public entities. What point are you trying to make.
      - deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
      - ThrowawayR2 8y ago
        > MLK was heavily persecuted in the sixties for his views and message by private and public entities. And people should be okay with his persecution by the people who had the political upper hand in that era? No? Then why should anyone be okay with deplatforming Alex Jones (as bad as he is) by whoever has the political upper hand at the moment?
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

0xEFF 8y ago

I wonder what would happen if they flagged it the same way my thermostat flags my monthly energy usage. “Most of your peers consider this post racist neonazi propaganda.”

ASinclair 8y ago

> It just makes it fester somewhere else that isn't as visible. That's a win in this case. It already festers somewhere else. White nationalists would like to spread their ideology outside of their normal bubble. They often talk about "redpilling normies." It's harder for them to do that if "normal" people have to explicitly seek out that kind of speech.

hi5eyes 8y ago
>It already festers somewhere else excluding people from a conversation doesn't help them learn why/how they think is wrong.. those "hidden" places that let the wrongthink fester only create more actions brought by wrongthink (guess what they talk about? wrongthink). i dont understand the logic of removing someones ability to converse if they dont understand why they're wrong.. they cant ask questions someone explain to me how banning content/people = deradicalizing
- shigawire 8y ago
  >i dont understand the logic of removing someones ability to converse if they dont understand why they're wrong.. they cant ask questions. I don't think I've ever seen someone already radicalized reason their way out of it through conversing on the internet. I'm guessing the calculus is that exposing this content to people makes it easy to be suckered in, but we don't see the opposite affect.
  - all_factz 8y ago
    You should read this awesome New Yorker article from several years ago: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/11/23/conversion-via-twitter-westboro-baptist-church-megan-phelps-roper https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/11/23/conversion-via... That said, I think I generally agree that conversion via social media is unlikely. Still, I’m also not sure about my position on banning people. But the above article is a great read.
    - betterunix2 8y ago

naasking 8y ago

> Facebook can do what they want, we're not talking about the government here and I understand that That isn't so clear: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=139661 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=139661

joshuamorton 8y ago

> In principle, I am opposed. I don't think hiding unwanted dialogue is very helpful in the long run. It just makes it fester somewhere else that isn't as visible. Let's prod at this: - Should ISIS recruitment videos and propaganda be allowed (nay, encouraged) because deplatforming them will make them put their recruitment pamphlets elsewhere? Where else do they put their recruiting materials? - Should we publicly and loudly encourage people to self harm, ideate suicide, etc. because if we don't, they'll just find secret places to do it? - Should we consider white supremacist recruiting materials "dialogue" at all? If we're talking about dialogue, as in a formal debate between Richard Spencer and pretty much anyone else, one on one, that's potentially interesting (also embarrassing for Spencer). On the other hand, a video posted by a white supremacist isn't dialogue. It's even less dialogue when they can delete comments they can't aptly respond to, and when the people there are already interested (Richard Spencer videos weren't ever going to cross my feed). You're calling this dialogue, but it's really a one sided dog and pony show with maybe some unlucky sacrifices. Perhaps we shouldn't ban dialogue between white supremacists and normal people, but you're not advocating for dialogue, your advocating for Facebook (and whomever else) to support (distribute, platform, etc.) white supremacist propaganda and theater. >I don't want to live in a society where what can and can't be said is strictly regulated either by force or by general consent. How do you propose to create a society where people aren't allowed to dislike you? That's what you're asking for, essentially. "Freedom from consequences" is the common way of putting this, but really what you're asking for is an infringement on my freedom of association. If you piss enough people off, that'll come back to bite you. What's the alternative? That people can't hold you accountable for your previous words? That quickly devolves into a society of 4chan, which, well, I'm not sure why you'd want to live in that. >For example, the opinion I'm expressing now used to be a lot more common than it is today. How certain of this are you? Did black people or women have the freedoms you suggest 100-150 years ago in the US? Was anyone advocating for that?

asabjorn 8y ago
The problem is who defines what hate and a hate group is. It is usually the people you don’t want to do so, people that want to tell you what to think. Eg to some Ben Shapiro, Jordan Peterson and Thomas Sowell are considered white supremacists.

brownbat 8y ago

Scott Alexander's theory is that having an open forum has become incredibly difficult, maybe tending towards impossible. All the incentives line up to make moderation steadily more costly or steadily more draconian over time, or both: https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/02/22/rip-culture-war-thread/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/02/22/rip-culture-war-thread... It's not clear how to preserve a forum for free expression while spammers or trolls seek to suck up all the available bandwidth for their messages. You can end up with a sort of spectrum allocation problem, where if everyone is allowed to crowd the same frequency then communication on it becomes impossible. But once you start moderating content, it's really hard to find a satisfying balance. And on the margins, some trolls are indistinguishable from some people with really unbelievable opinions. I don't know what the answer is, it seems like a really complicated problem.