5 ms·

> When I was a teenager online - early 2000s - extreme violence was hidden behind obscure websites, not even indexed by search engines. I had friends who had "s

by Maken 8y ago

> When I was a teenager online - early 2000s - extreme violence was hidden behind obscure websites, not even indexed by search engines. I had friends who had "shocking videos" - think videos of actual killings - and I really tried to stay as far as I could. And having access to them caused them any kind of incurable psychological damage or something? Because most of the time I doubt the usefulness of any of those "we need to protect the children at all costs" regulations.

hn_throwaway_99 8y ago
Not arguing one way or the other for these regulations, but I think dismissing the negative effects of this type of online content is a huge mistake, as it does cause real, sizable problems. ISIS probably wouldn't have been able to exist without their propaganda videos. Multiple mass shootings had direct connections to the perpetrators' radicalization in online forums. Fake, foreign-state-sponsored news had an impact in democratic elections from the 2016 US presidential election to Brexit. It's one thing to argue these regulations will have negative (unintended or otherwise) consequences, but it's quite another to just pretend the porblem doesn't exist.
- acct1771 8y ago
  ISIS probably wouldn't have been able to exist without ___: https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/aramroston/blowback-isis-got-a-powerful-missile-the-cia-secretly https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/aramroston/blowback-isi... https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-12-15/weapons-went-cia-isis-less-two-months-new-study-reveals https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-12-15/weapons-went-cia-i...
- hellisothers 8y ago
  ISIS and other “bad things” you’re probably right to some extent, but what about all the good things that wouldn’t exist either? Awareness of police brutality, corporate corruption, country wide revolutions, marginalized people’s rights, an individual blossoming in an online community. The list goes on, there is much debate to the point that this type of regulation will cause “takedown by default” for all content and push the good and bad to the fringe.
  - hn_throwaway_99 8y ago
    I absolutely agree, but as you point out you need to honestly look at both sides of the coin, not pretend that one side of the coin has no negatives at all.
dredmorbius 8y ago
It's extraordinarily difficult to argue both ways: that free speech is crucial to liberal democracy and that hate speech / propaganda / disinformation / advertising have no results or consequences. And yet that seems to be much of the anti-regulation debate position, including as I read, yours. My view is that speech is consequential, and that we should, with extreme care, be prepared for some regulation.

by Maken 8y ago

hn_throwaway_99 8y ago

Not arguing one way or the other for these regulations, but I think dismissing the negative effects of this type of online content is a huge mistake, as it does cause real, sizable problems. ISIS probably wouldn't have been able to exist without their propaganda videos. Multiple mass shootings had direct connections to the perpetrators' radicalization in online forums. Fake, foreign-state-sponsored news had an impact in democratic elections from the 2016 US presidential election to Brexit. It's one thing to argue these regulations will have negative (unintended or otherwise) consequences, but it's quite another to just pretend the porblem doesn't exist.

acct1771 8y ago
ISIS probably wouldn't have been able to exist without ___: https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/aramroston/blowback-isis-got-a-powerful-missile-the-cia-secretly https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/aramroston/blowback-isi... https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-12-15/weapons-went-cia-isis-less-two-months-new-study-reveals https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-12-15/weapons-went-cia-i...
hellisothers 8y ago
ISIS and other “bad things” you’re probably right to some extent, but what about all the good things that wouldn’t exist either? Awareness of police brutality, corporate corruption, country wide revolutions, marginalized people’s rights, an individual blossoming in an online community. The list goes on, there is much debate to the point that this type of regulation will cause “takedown by default” for all content and push the good and bad to the fringe.
- hn_throwaway_99 8y ago
  I absolutely agree, but as you point out you need to honestly look at both sides of the coin, not pretend that one side of the coin has no negatives at all.

dredmorbius 8y ago

It's extraordinarily difficult to argue both ways: that free speech is crucial to liberal democracy and that hate speech / propaganda / disinformation / advertising have no results or consequences. And yet that seems to be much of the anti-regulation debate position, including as I read, yours. My view is that speech is consequential, and that we should, with extreme care, be prepared for some regulation.