3 ms·

I don't think so. Most people ( and a lot of people on HN) really believe that online platforms should be able to suppress such unlawful videos. And it's not a

I don't think so. Most people ( and a lot of people on HN) really believe that online platforms should be able to suppress such unlawful videos. And it's not a completely unreasonable position.

4ntonius8lock 8y ago
You are right. Personally, I question how many people would support authoritarianism if we didn't have the regulatory capture environment we currently have. There is such a powerful system of indoctrination in the US. But then I think of experiments that deal with human nature. Of how 65%~ of people in the milgram experiment gave the dangerous shocks even while hearing people plea... It paints a picture of human nature I guess I want to blame on something 'out there' and not 'in here'.
stcredzero 8y ago
Most people ( and a lot of people on HN) really believe that online platforms should be able to suppress such unlawful videos. "Such unlawful videos." So basically, the government should be able to declare content "unlawful" and it's okay so long as public sentiment goes along with it? Basically, you've simply thrown out Free Speech. I can understand why someone would find the video of the shooting shocking. Personally, I've chosen not to view it. However, if Free Speech isn't an absolute right, then it's simply broken. Habeas corpus, the Presumption of Innocence, and due process -- what if the government could just suspend those things when it felt like it? Those human rights would simply be broken. The difference between a just society and an unjust one, is that the just society extends the same rights and protections to all its citizens, no infringements, no exceptions. A society with Free Speech extends the right of speech and the right to read/hear that speech to everyone without infringement as well. The interesting thing about the Weimar Republic, is that almost all of the laws covering human rights had an "out" for the government, allowing them to suspend the right, "for the common good" in emergency situations. As a result, the subsequent regime didn't have to change many laws to operate as a totalitarian regime.
- enitihas 8y ago
  Nowhere did I say Government should be able to throw out free speech. I am just acknowledging what I have observed. If you think my observations are incorrect, please feel free to go through the relevant HN threads (e.g, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19414591 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19414591) You will find a lot of comments saying such censorship is needed. I agree with you that free speech is important, and I think this contradiction between free speech and society trying to prevent the spread of radicalisation is an important question of our times.
  - stcredzero 8y ago
    Suppressing Free Speech creates more radicalization. If certain radicals are really bad, then more Free Speech ultimately gets rid of them. Suppression just gives them more ammunition. This is the lesson from across just about all of history. In 2019, governments and big tech have essentially been tricked into replacing societal backlash against nonsense with societal backlash against suppression. What governments and big tech should be doing is protecting the integrity of speech. On a level playing field, Bad Actors will reveal themselves. It's on a tilted playing field where things dysfunction, and the crowd cries foul and declares the game invalid. In short, in 2019, for governments and big tech to have the Bad Actors fail, they need to stop doing end-runs around the law and principles of Human Rights. They need to stop giving ammunition to Bad Actors by being bad actors themselves.
    - ABCLAW 8y ago
      >Suppressing Free Speech creates more radicalization. Most quantitative reviews on deplatforming and and other social moderation efforts have shown the opposite. Maybe in the long-term social view of the issue you're right but on a platform by platform basis this doesn't seem to be the case.
      - BigBlueBanjo 8y ago
        Sure, censoring racists on YouTube means less racists on YouTube. But it does NOT mean less racists in the world.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

I don't think so. Most people ( and a lot of people on HN) really believe that online platforms should be able to suppress such unlawful videos. And it's not a completely unreasonable position.

4ntonius8lock 8y ago

You are right. Personally, I question how many people would support authoritarianism if we didn't have the regulatory capture environment we currently have. There is such a powerful system of indoctrination in the US. But then I think of experiments that deal with human nature. Of how 65%~ of people in the milgram experiment gave the dangerous shocks even while hearing people plea... It paints a picture of human nature I guess I want to blame on something 'out there' and not 'in here'.

stcredzero 8y ago

Most people ( and a lot of people on HN) really believe that online platforms should be able to suppress such unlawful videos. "Such unlawful videos." So basically, the government should be able to declare content "unlawful" and it's okay so long as public sentiment goes along with it? Basically, you've simply thrown out Free Speech. I can understand why someone would find the video of the shooting shocking. Personally, I've chosen not to view it. However, if Free Speech isn't an absolute right, then it's simply broken. Habeas corpus, the Presumption of Innocence, and due process -- what if the government could just suspend those things when it felt like it? Those human rights would simply be broken. The difference between a just society and an unjust one, is that the just society extends the same rights and protections to all its citizens, no infringements, no exceptions. A society with Free Speech extends the right of speech and the right to read/hear that speech to everyone without infringement as well. The interesting thing about the Weimar Republic, is that almost all of the laws covering human rights had an "out" for the government, allowing them to suspend the right, "for the common good" in emergency situations. As a result, the subsequent regime didn't have to change many laws to operate as a totalitarian regime.

enitihas 8y ago
Nowhere did I say Government should be able to throw out free speech. I am just acknowledging what I have observed. If you think my observations are incorrect, please feel free to go through the relevant HN threads (e.g, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19414591 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19414591) You will find a lot of comments saying such censorship is needed. I agree with you that free speech is important, and I think this contradiction between free speech and society trying to prevent the spread of radicalisation is an important question of our times.
- stcredzero 8y ago
  Suppressing Free Speech creates more radicalization. If certain radicals are really bad, then more Free Speech ultimately gets rid of them. Suppression just gives them more ammunition. This is the lesson from across just about all of history. In 2019, governments and big tech have essentially been tricked into replacing societal backlash against nonsense with societal backlash against suppression. What governments and big tech should be doing is protecting the integrity of speech. On a level playing field, Bad Actors will reveal themselves. It's on a tilted playing field where things dysfunction, and the crowd cries foul and declares the game invalid. In short, in 2019, for governments and big tech to have the Bad Actors fail, they need to stop doing end-runs around the law and principles of Human Rights. They need to stop giving ammunition to Bad Actors by being bad actors themselves.
  - ABCLAW 8y ago
    >Suppressing Free Speech creates more radicalization. Most quantitative reviews on deplatforming and and other social moderation efforts have shown the opposite. Maybe in the long-term social view of the issue you're right but on a platform by platform basis this doesn't seem to be the case.
    - BigBlueBanjo 8y ago
      Sure, censoring racists on YouTube means less racists on YouTube. But it does NOT mean less racists in the world.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]