12 ms·

> It "worked" only if the definition is "it removed it from Reddit". As the article mentions, these people did not just disappear or change their mind. They jus

> It "worked" only if the definition is "it removed it from Reddit". As the article mentions, these people did not just disappear or change their mind. They just moved to more obscure places, where they can continue and be evem more motivated, because now they have been censored. What about all of the new people who would have more easily stumbled into those cesspools, but now have to take quite a bit more effort, and go out of their way, to go to other sites? Sunlight isn't always the best disinfectant. Sometimes the disease requires treating things at a lower level, stopping the roots of the trauma, and not only treating the symptoms. De-platforming is an important and necessary component of fighting hate online.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
sethammons 7y ago
> the disease requires treating them things at a lower level I feel that the anti-vaccine movement had such a large resurgence because they had very public platforms. So, yeah, I agree with you.
- posterboy 7y ago
  Or they had very large plattforms, because it had a great resurgence? Both is true, if there's a feedback loop. GP notes that there are root causes that one should care about in favour of those already aching.
- colordrops 7y ago
  So you are suggesting any discussion about the merits of vaccination should be forcefully stifled. That's a pretty low bar and opens up the shaping of public discourse on countless topics because they are "dangerous".
  - dondawest 7y ago
    If the anti vaxx bullshit were LITERALLY NOT ALLOWED, i for one would be SO MUCH MORE INTERESTED IN IT and about 200000x more likely to become a crazy anti vaxxer. Banning “fat people hate” makes hating fat people seem totally radical, fringe, and thus badass.
posterboy 7y ago
For a steady state analysis such first order black and white approach may hold. The metaphor is brilliant at that. But punishment is a multifaceted thing. It serves for protection, but also virtue signaling and creating incentive. There's eye for an eye, too, the taliation principle, and that's what the grand parent comment lamments, I guess. There are different theories of punishment. Satisfaction from reciprocating pain shouldn't be the goal, at any rate. Getting nevertheless to letting somebody have a taste of their own medicine as a way of irony, is much more difficult, but much more effective than selectively accepting the legitimacy of the method and forcing the taste.
pmarreck 7y ago
I would like to see evidence that “deplatforming” actually reduces hate globally instead of simply moving it elsewhere, because I haven’t seen any, and until then this is simply an unfounded belief (i.e., “bullshit”)
- clucas 7y ago
  The thing is, Reddit isn't responsible for, and couldn't possibly begin be responsible for, hate in the whole world. They banned it on their site, and it cleaned up their corner of the world, and they're happy that the place they have control over has less hate. That's not bullshit. Bullshit is saying "well, we can't possibly get rid of it, so may as well let it stay where ever it shows up."
  - pmarreck 7y ago
    Except that you can get rid of it. I’ve rationally argued against racism with some success. (And often while getting comments autoblocked for hate speech. Can’t clean up manure without getting your hands a little dirty, unfortunately.) “Bullshit” is taking the easy way out by mass-automatic-deplatforming instead of addressing the bad thought head-on.
    - clucas 7y ago
      That's a much better argument than I thought you were making, so my apologies for misunderstanding. I still disagree though - I think Reddit probably agreed with you for most of its existence, but evidence indicated that rationality and clear arguments weren't winning, and the virality of these ideas was too potent to be overcome by a few people who were willing to wade into the cesspool. So they drained the cesspool. I agree with you that, if we could be sure that there would always be enough people to argue against racists, and do so calmly and rationally, then we would be better off not censoring racism, and instead letting the debate play out. But I don't think we live in that world.
      - reader5000 7y ago
dcolkitt 7y ago
I feel like you're disregarding the concept of the "marketplace of ideas". Pretty much the entire corpus of post-enlightenment thought rests on the (IMO well-founded) belief that good ideas will naturally win over bad ideas when presented on equal footing. Someone from 1500 would be very much concerned about censoring "heresies", because they'd believe that people are easily swayed and manipulated by evil. I think we know that dumb ideas, are just that, dumb. There's a reason why these types of extreme ideologies, are just that, fringe beliefs. Because the vast majority of people recognize that them for the idiocy that they are. If we can tradeoff exposing normal people to extreme ideas, and extremists to mainstream thought, that's a great tradeoff. Many, many more of the latter will be convinced than the former.
- charlesism 7y ago
  I'm not convinced that "good ideas will naturally win over bad ideas" applies to twelve year old children. My assumption is that a sizable contingent of tweens explains the tone of many of the internet's worst places.
- sagichmal 7y ago
  > I feel like you're disregarding the concept of the "marketplace of ideas". I’m not disregarding it at all. I’m directly confronting it, and calling it both naïve and insufficient as a strategy for improving society. Bad actors have weaponized our elevation of “the marketplace of ideas” to an ends rather than a means, and so it’s both necessary and appropriate to recontextualize it, and where it makes sense to call forth.
- croon 7y ago
  I can produce hundreds of posts from a chosen narrative and filtered or manufactured truths before you can construct a well sourced and thought out counter argument. Good ideas don't naturally win, for the simple reason that the energy cost is asymmetrical, and people's rationality is dependant on access to facts, which further adds energy cost to the good idea side. Bad ideas only need to spread, not worry about facts or reasoning.
meko 7y ago
"Sunlight is the best disinfectant" Unless, of, course, the disease is cancer.
ta2542938 7y ago
I'm pretty sure this is what the Nazis said about the Jews?
denkmoon 7y ago
Googling "8chan" is not a high bar to entry. Don't even get started on the information that is shared through private discords and other smaller private communities. It isn't hard to find the community for you in the age of the internet.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

sethammons 7y ago

> the disease requires treating them things at a lower level I feel that the anti-vaccine movement had such a large resurgence because they had very public platforms. So, yeah, I agree with you.

posterboy 7y ago
Or they had very large plattforms, because it had a great resurgence? Both is true, if there's a feedback loop. GP notes that there are root causes that one should care about in favour of those already aching.
colordrops 7y ago
So you are suggesting any discussion about the merits of vaccination should be forcefully stifled. That's a pretty low bar and opens up the shaping of public discourse on countless topics because they are "dangerous".
- dondawest 7y ago
  If the anti vaxx bullshit were LITERALLY NOT ALLOWED, i for one would be SO MUCH MORE INTERESTED IN IT and about 200000x more likely to become a crazy anti vaxxer. Banning “fat people hate” makes hating fat people seem totally radical, fringe, and thus badass.

posterboy 7y ago

For a steady state analysis such first order black and white approach may hold. The metaphor is brilliant at that. But punishment is a multifaceted thing. It serves for protection, but also virtue signaling and creating incentive. There's eye for an eye, too, the taliation principle, and that's what the grand parent comment lamments, I guess. There are different theories of punishment. Satisfaction from reciprocating pain shouldn't be the goal, at any rate. Getting nevertheless to letting somebody have a taste of their own medicine as a way of irony, is much more difficult, but much more effective than selectively accepting the legitimacy of the method and forcing the taste.

pmarreck 7y ago

I would like to see evidence that “deplatforming” actually reduces hate globally instead of simply moving it elsewhere, because I haven’t seen any, and until then this is simply an unfounded belief (i.e., “bullshit”)

clucas 7y ago
The thing is, Reddit isn't responsible for, and couldn't possibly begin be responsible for, hate in the whole world. They banned it on their site, and it cleaned up their corner of the world, and they're happy that the place they have control over has less hate. That's not bullshit. Bullshit is saying "well, we can't possibly get rid of it, so may as well let it stay where ever it shows up."
- pmarreck 7y ago
  Except that you can get rid of it. I’ve rationally argued against racism with some success. (And often while getting comments autoblocked for hate speech. Can’t clean up manure without getting your hands a little dirty, unfortunately.) “Bullshit” is taking the easy way out by mass-automatic-deplatforming instead of addressing the bad thought head-on.
  - clucas 7y ago
    That's a much better argument than I thought you were making, so my apologies for misunderstanding. I still disagree though - I think Reddit probably agreed with you for most of its existence, but evidence indicated that rationality and clear arguments weren't winning, and the virality of these ideas was too potent to be overcome by a few people who were willing to wade into the cesspool. So they drained the cesspool. I agree with you that, if we could be sure that there would always be enough people to argue against racists, and do so calmly and rationally, then we would be better off not censoring racism, and instead letting the debate play out. But I don't think we live in that world.
    - reader5000 7y ago

dcolkitt 7y ago

I feel like you're disregarding the concept of the "marketplace of ideas". Pretty much the entire corpus of post-enlightenment thought rests on the (IMO well-founded) belief that good ideas will naturally win over bad ideas when presented on equal footing. Someone from 1500 would be very much concerned about censoring "heresies", because they'd believe that people are easily swayed and manipulated by evil. I think we know that dumb ideas, are just that, dumb. There's a reason why these types of extreme ideologies, are just that, fringe beliefs. Because the vast majority of people recognize that them for the idiocy that they are. If we can tradeoff exposing normal people to extreme ideas, and extremists to mainstream thought, that's a great tradeoff. Many, many more of the latter will be convinced than the former.

charlesism 7y ago
I'm not convinced that "good ideas will naturally win over bad ideas" applies to twelve year old children. My assumption is that a sizable contingent of tweens explains the tone of many of the internet's worst places.
sagichmal 7y ago
> I feel like you're disregarding the concept of the "marketplace of ideas". I’m not disregarding it at all. I’m directly confronting it, and calling it both naïve and insufficient as a strategy for improving society. Bad actors have weaponized our elevation of “the marketplace of ideas” to an ends rather than a means, and so it’s both necessary and appropriate to recontextualize it, and where it makes sense to call forth.
croon 7y ago
I can produce hundreds of posts from a chosen narrative and filtered or manufactured truths before you can construct a well sourced and thought out counter argument. Good ideas don't naturally win, for the simple reason that the energy cost is asymmetrical, and people's rationality is dependant on access to facts, which further adds energy cost to the good idea side. Bad ideas only need to spread, not worry about facts or reasoning.

meko 7y ago

"Sunlight is the best disinfectant" Unless, of, course, the disease is cancer.

ta2542938 7y ago

I'm pretty sure this is what the Nazis said about the Jews?

denkmoon 7y ago

Googling "8chan" is not a high bar to entry. Don't even get started on the information that is shared through private discords and other smaller private communities. It isn't hard to find the community for you in the age of the internet.