3 ms·

> Perhaps a possible explanation is that such speech is already disallowed on many popular networks - Reddit, Twitter or Facebook, for instance. Antisemitism i

> Perhaps a possible explanation is that such speech is already disallowed on many popular networks - Reddit, Twitter or Facebook, for instance. Antisemitism isn't new, it predates Reddit and Facebook and Twitter and we've already been through periods of history where antisemitism had widespread exposure in the public discourse yet democracy still defeated it. Antisemitism (and discrimination in general) is a bad idea for reasons that ordinary people can understand, and practically every democracy agrees. Evidently, we didn't need YouTube to save us from the magical techniques of persuasion that Sartre describes. > the support shown for this conspiracy theory shown through posts and upvotes on those posts serves to show this is not as marginal of an opinion. I don't doubt that certain places have a "healthy" amount of antisemitism, but it has no serious grip on democracy, mainstream society, or its chosen laws. There will always be people who believe in things that others consider harmful. I find it difficult to believe that you can or should realistically stop that with censorship.

claudiawerner 8y ago
>we've already been through periods of history where antisemitism had widespread exposure in the public discourse yet democracy still defeated it. Sartre was writing right after France was liberated from the Nazis, so from his own position in history he'd laugh if he were to hear you say that. Arguably anti-semitism has not enjoyed a popular resurgence since the downfall of the Nazis and I'd hazard a guess that it's because its effects were so evident, as was its proliferation among ordinary "thinking" people in the Nazis's rise to power. Perhaps with new generations who don't have memory of the effects of anti-semitism, who are only acquainted through it by the school system which they may be (rightly) distrustful of, there is much less of a buffer, and perhaps that's a buffer Youtube can aid in providing. >There will always be people who believe in things that others consider harmful. I find it difficult to believe that you can or should realistically stop that with censorship. Arguably it can be minimized; some researches point out that speech itself in its function as speech, what makes it such a powerful concept, can harm[0]. [0] https://global.oup.com/academic/product/speech-and-harm-9780199236275?cc=gb&lang=en&# https://global.oup.com/academic/product/speech-and-harm-9780...
- themacguffinman 8y ago
  The "buffer" you want YouTube to raise at the cost of freedom of speech is...ignorance? I can quote famous people too: Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. And of course speech can harm, but that doesn't mean it can or should be stopped with censorship. Who decides what to censor? How can you realistically censor ideas in a free society with advanced communication tools? What kind of society will you create when its main defence against bad ideas is ignorance? I hope that citizens ask these questions before resorting to the childish solution of hiding bad things away.

claudiawerner 8y ago

>we've already been through periods of history where antisemitism had widespread exposure in the public discourse yet democracy still defeated it. Sartre was writing right after France was liberated from the Nazis, so from his own position in history he'd laugh if he were to hear you say that. Arguably anti-semitism has not enjoyed a popular resurgence since the downfall of the Nazis and I'd hazard a guess that it's because its effects were so evident, as was its proliferation among ordinary "thinking" people in the Nazis's rise to power. Perhaps with new generations who don't have memory of the effects of anti-semitism, who are only acquainted through it by the school system which they may be (rightly) distrustful of, there is much less of a buffer, and perhaps that's a buffer Youtube can aid in providing. >There will always be people who believe in things that others consider harmful. I find it difficult to believe that you can or should realistically stop that with censorship. Arguably it can be minimized; some researches point out that speech itself in its function as speech, what makes it such a powerful concept, can harm[0]. [0] https://global.oup.com/academic/product/speech-and-harm-9780199236275?cc=gb&lang=en&# https://global.oup.com/academic/product/speech-and-harm-9780...

themacguffinman 8y ago
The "buffer" you want YouTube to raise at the cost of freedom of speech is...ignorance? I can quote famous people too: Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. And of course speech can harm, but that doesn't mean it can or should be stopped with censorship. Who decides what to censor? How can you realistically censor ideas in a free society with advanced communication tools? What kind of society will you create when its main defence against bad ideas is ignorance? I hope that citizens ask these questions before resorting to the childish solution of hiding bad things away.