7 ms·
There is no such thing as harmful content. There are only harmful consumers of content. Removal of any amount or type of content can not rehabilitate these ha
by otakucode 8y ago
There is no such thing as harmful content. There are only harmful consumers of content. Removal of any amount or type of content can not rehabilitate these harmful consumers. For as long as they lack the motive and personal integrity to practice critical thinking on a constant and ongoing basis, no content can ever be safe from them. They will be harmed by even the most direct, fact-based, and honest content. Their interpretation of it will be wrong, driven by their motives and desire for a particular thing to be true or false, and even that honest and direct content will be called for removal. This isn't a trite or insignificant observation, I think it is the whole heart of the issue. In one audience of people, there is a madman ranting on a corner about anti-Semitism and being ignored. In another, he is raised on their shoulders and made a leader. The difference is not the availability of the 'bad content.' The difference is the willingness (some might argue ability, but I think critical thinking is such a basic and simple skill that almost all, including children, are capable of it) of the audience to practice critical thinking. And without that willingness, nothing can be done.
- TheSpiceIsLife 8y agoThis is a very narrow view of human psychology. How do you reconcile this opinion with the knowledge that copycat crime¹ occurs. One would imagine that an adult with critical thinking skills ought be able to observe that some people are easily influenced at least some of the time. Elsewise we wouldn't be here having this conversation. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copycat_crime https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copycat_crime
- hyperdunc 8y agoWe could always let governments and tech giants decide what people are allowed to see and read - there's no way that responsibility will be abused. There's no perfect answer to this problem, but censoring information just because it might reach a few unstable people is not the way to go.
- TheSpiceIsLife 8y agoRegulation doesn’t necessarily mean complete censorship. One example that comes to mind is the film and TV rating system.
- Nasrudith 8y agoThe problem with that is that if you set the standards to 'can cause someone to commit bad things' that can apply to literally everything. Plenty of reactionary assholes have been triggered to violence by disparaged groups having the gall to think of themselves as equals or transgress their taboos against things like interracial marriages. Heck, under that standard we should ban irrational numbers because they caused Pythagorean to drown their discoverer!
- TheSpiceIsLife 8y agoI didn’t intend to suggest we should ban certain content. It does seem reasonable that there might be scope for regulation at least in the form of viewing guidelines. I don’t know what that would look like in practice.
- otakucode 8y agoI don't understand the leap from my comment to concluding that I'm suggesting people can't be easily influenced. I was specifically talking about people who can be easily influenced, and the impossibility of shielding those people from content which would influence them negatively. The way a bit of content influences a person is not tied to the content so much as it is tied to the person consuming it. This is supported by research on confirmation bias and similar work. The idea that there exists content which is, independent from the mindset of the audience, not possible to be interpreted in a negative manner is what I dispute.