8 ms·

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 cleane

by 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
    > evidence indicated that rationality and clear arguments weren't winning On what grounds do you base your own sense of "rationality and clear argument" as superior to that of the apparent majority of people that you refer to as "the cesspool"?
    - amanaplanacanal 7y ago
      How did you get the idea that the majority are the cesspool from that? In my experience, the majority is "I don't have any interest in arguing." Leaving the cesspool to those few who do want to argue.
    - clucas 7y ago
      The whole conversation is a bit abstract at this point, so maybe it wasn't clear: the "cesspool" I'm referring to are virulent racists. If you believe that either (a) arguments against such people less clear and rational than the racists' arguments, or (b) such people are actually in the majority, then I believe we disagree on things so fundamental we can't have a constructive debate about Reddit's policies.
  - finnthehuman 7y ago
    >But I don't think we live in that world. We might not, but denying the possibility only guarantees we move further away from it.
  - satokema 7y ago
    >evidence in this case, user/advertiser metrics
  - Gibbon1 7y ago
    > I think Reddit probably agreed with you for most of its existence, but evidence indicated that rationality and clear arguments weren't winning It's even darker than that. There is an organized effort to destroy any public forum that is a place of discourse. For the people and organization paying for the bots, troll farms and social media influencers discourse is exactly what they paying to get rid of. Considering that reddit doesn't have any other business model they had to start fighting back.
    - pmarreck 7y ago
      Evidence for this?
- jonnydubowsky 7y ago
  You've laid the groundwork for one part of what would be a valuable media psychology study. You've identified an example where being part of the open conversation led to a woman leaving a hate-driven community. Other comments point to a scenario where it could be harder for people to find these communities online, as they would have to have significant motivation to find them. I've seen "playbooks" for white nationalist groups where they describe a slow ramping up of ideology that gradually indoctrinates people outside the overton window. The question is, is the outcome more or less hate crimes if this type of hate speech is deplatformed? You point to examples in Germany where the effect of deplatforming was negative. Current forms of media, attention and culture are significantly different. I'm not sure how to go about this research when each platform simply aims to maintain their own private, profit driven goals?
- NullPrefix 7y ago
  >with some success How do you measure it?
- meko 7y ago
  You're assuming that the basis for their hate is rationality. If they were rational people, they wouldn't be racists/fascists/hate groups/etc. Assuming you're correct that having "some success" removed people from such a path, it's still just drops in a bucket. Recycling the contents of a dumpster won't stop climate change.
  - pmarreck 7y ago
    This might shock you but speaking as a person that has rationally argued with racists, they have plenty of empirical data to back them up and they believe their position is rational. That does not mean it isn’t an arguable position, such as criticizing their data as being cherry-picked.
- Retra 7y ago
  The best way to get rid of bad ideas is to not give a megaphone to the people who want to spread them. The fundamental fallacy you're making is that you're conflating the act of judgement with the act of sentencing. What a fine world it would be if your justice system were forbidden to sentence people under the expectation that the purpose of a trial were simply to convince the accused to never do it again. It is irrational to declare that some behavior is 'bad', yet forbid anyone from suffering meaningful consequence for engaging in it.
  - pmarreck 7y ago
    You’re conflating “bad ideas” with “bad sctions.”
    - Retra 7y ago
      No, I'm generalizing over both using an analogy. If I believe in something you consider bad, I will be gleeful that you defend my right to say it as I consistently refuse to defend yours. I will be thoroughly satisfied that you've tied your hands with rational argument as I tear apart your standing and support through every irrational means available. Rational debate is how you decide which ideas are worth keeping. It is not how you kill the ones that aren't. (You've found that it works sometimes, but you should bet actual counter-actions work far more often.)
DataWorker 7y ago
Like removing homeless people from your neighborhood by moving them to another?
- clucas 7y ago
  No, not like that at all. Could you explain the line of thinking that lead you to such a question?
- faissaloo 7y ago
  Homeless people are not undeserving of things based o their actions, fascists are.
  - whenchamenia 7y ago
    Nobody deserves to be deprived based on their political beliefs. Only actions. Thoughtcrime is bullshit, and I sure as hell don't see any active facists roaming the streets.
    - X6S1x6Okd1st 7y ago
      >active facists roaming the streets. That's certainly happening these days.
    - xmunoz 7y ago
      There were two attacks on perceived minorities in California this week alone. Literal fascists are killing people in our communities right now. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/27/us/poway-synagogue-shooting.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/27/us/poway-synagogue-shooti... https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/04/27/sunnyvale-crash-police-say-driver-was-intentionally-targeting-muslims https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/04/27/sunnyvale-c...
    - faissaloo 7y ago
      If your political beliefs are a threat to my existence anything less than death is a mercy on my part. It's not just a 'thoughtcrime' if it's a stance you actively promote.
lordlimecat 7y ago
Bullshit is saying "We stand for free speech" and then later saying "the best way to deal with toxic and hateful viewpoints is to censor and hide them." Belief in free speech as a principle assumes that good and right arguments will win out every day in an open public forum.
- clucas 7y ago
  It probably isn't obvious from my posts, so I'll put it here explicitly: I'm not pro-censorship. I think ideas should be out there. My ideal world is one where there are the "big" sites with millions of DAU generally keep racist content (or at least the really nasty stuff) off their platform, but there are plenty of little sites that "keep the dream alive" so to speak. A lot of people aren't going to be willing or able to actually engage with the real logic of an anti-racist argument. Instead, people use heuristics for this sort of work. In my ideal world, the question of "was this on a big site? or some little blog and/or known racist publication?" would serve as a useful heuristic re: what arguments to bother with. This is how newspapers generally settled out. Is it in the paper? If yes, then there are at least some standards. If no, e.g. if it's some vanity publication, then squint a little harder. These sorts of things have happened every time we've had a big shift in information distribution technology. There's an explosion of ideas with no real markers to differentiate them, and mass chaos for a while as people sort it out. Then eventually people identify the signs of trustworthy info distributors, and it settles back down. If a platform allows racists to flourish, they're not going to remain a place that people can trust. I would like to see Reddit remain a place that has some amount of trust, so I'm happy they banned the really nasty racists.
  - the8472 7y ago
    > I think ideas should be out there. My ideal world is one where there are the "big" sites with millions of DAU generally keep racist content (or at least the really nasty stuff) off their platform, but there are plenty of little sites that "keep the dream alive" so to speak. But reddit is already compartmentalized. Subreddits for fringe ideas are those "plenty of little sites", especially when they are delisted from the front pages.

by clucas 7y ago

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
  > evidence indicated that rationality and clear arguments weren't winning On what grounds do you base your own sense of "rationality and clear argument" as superior to that of the apparent majority of people that you refer to as "the cesspool"?
  - amanaplanacanal 7y ago
    How did you get the idea that the majority are the cesspool from that? In my experience, the majority is "I don't have any interest in arguing." Leaving the cesspool to those few who do want to argue.
  - clucas 7y ago
    The whole conversation is a bit abstract at this point, so maybe it wasn't clear: the "cesspool" I'm referring to are virulent racists. If you believe that either (a) arguments against such people less clear and rational than the racists' arguments, or (b) such people are actually in the majority, then I believe we disagree on things so fundamental we can't have a constructive debate about Reddit's policies.
- finnthehuman 7y ago
  >But I don't think we live in that world. We might not, but denying the possibility only guarantees we move further away from it.
- satokema 7y ago
  >evidence in this case, user/advertiser metrics
- Gibbon1 7y ago
  > I think Reddit probably agreed with you for most of its existence, but evidence indicated that rationality and clear arguments weren't winning It's even darker than that. There is an organized effort to destroy any public forum that is a place of discourse. For the people and organization paying for the bots, troll farms and social media influencers discourse is exactly what they paying to get rid of. Considering that reddit doesn't have any other business model they had to start fighting back.
  - pmarreck 7y ago
    Evidence for this?
jonnydubowsky 7y ago
You've laid the groundwork for one part of what would be a valuable media psychology study. You've identified an example where being part of the open conversation led to a woman leaving a hate-driven community. Other comments point to a scenario where it could be harder for people to find these communities online, as they would have to have significant motivation to find them. I've seen "playbooks" for white nationalist groups where they describe a slow ramping up of ideology that gradually indoctrinates people outside the overton window. The question is, is the outcome more or less hate crimes if this type of hate speech is deplatformed? You point to examples in Germany where the effect of deplatforming was negative. Current forms of media, attention and culture are significantly different. I'm not sure how to go about this research when each platform simply aims to maintain their own private, profit driven goals?
NullPrefix 7y ago
>with some success How do you measure it?
meko 7y ago
You're assuming that the basis for their hate is rationality. If they were rational people, they wouldn't be racists/fascists/hate groups/etc. Assuming you're correct that having "some success" removed people from such a path, it's still just drops in a bucket. Recycling the contents of a dumpster won't stop climate change.
- pmarreck 7y ago
  This might shock you but speaking as a person that has rationally argued with racists, they have plenty of empirical data to back them up and they believe their position is rational. That does not mean it isn’t an arguable position, such as criticizing their data as being cherry-picked.
Retra 7y ago
The best way to get rid of bad ideas is to not give a megaphone to the people who want to spread them. The fundamental fallacy you're making is that you're conflating the act of judgement with the act of sentencing. What a fine world it would be if your justice system were forbidden to sentence people under the expectation that the purpose of a trial were simply to convince the accused to never do it again. It is irrational to declare that some behavior is 'bad', yet forbid anyone from suffering meaningful consequence for engaging in it.
- pmarreck 7y ago
  You’re conflating “bad ideas” with “bad sctions.”
  - Retra 7y ago
    No, I'm generalizing over both using an analogy. If I believe in something you consider bad, I will be gleeful that you defend my right to say it as I consistently refuse to defend yours. I will be thoroughly satisfied that you've tied your hands with rational argument as I tear apart your standing and support through every irrational means available. Rational debate is how you decide which ideas are worth keeping. It is not how you kill the ones that aren't. (You've found that it works sometimes, but you should bet actual counter-actions work far more often.)

DataWorker 7y ago

Like removing homeless people from your neighborhood by moving them to another?

clucas 7y ago
No, not like that at all. Could you explain the line of thinking that lead you to such a question?
faissaloo 7y ago
Homeless people are not undeserving of things based o their actions, fascists are.
- whenchamenia 7y ago
  Nobody deserves to be deprived based on their political beliefs. Only actions. Thoughtcrime is bullshit, and I sure as hell don't see any active facists roaming the streets.
  - X6S1x6Okd1st 7y ago
    >active facists roaming the streets. That's certainly happening these days.
  - xmunoz 7y ago
    There were two attacks on perceived minorities in California this week alone. Literal fascists are killing people in our communities right now. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/27/us/poway-synagogue-shooting.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/27/us/poway-synagogue-shooti... https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/04/27/sunnyvale-crash-police-say-driver-was-intentionally-targeting-muslims https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/04/27/sunnyvale-c...
  - faissaloo 7y ago
    If your political beliefs are a threat to my existence anything less than death is a mercy on my part. It's not just a 'thoughtcrime' if it's a stance you actively promote.

lordlimecat 7y ago

Bullshit is saying "We stand for free speech" and then later saying "the best way to deal with toxic and hateful viewpoints is to censor and hide them." Belief in free speech as a principle assumes that good and right arguments will win out every day in an open public forum.

clucas 7y ago
It probably isn't obvious from my posts, so I'll put it here explicitly: I'm not pro-censorship. I think ideas should be out there. My ideal world is one where there are the "big" sites with millions of DAU generally keep racist content (or at least the really nasty stuff) off their platform, but there are plenty of little sites that "keep the dream alive" so to speak. A lot of people aren't going to be willing or able to actually engage with the real logic of an anti-racist argument. Instead, people use heuristics for this sort of work. In my ideal world, the question of "was this on a big site? or some little blog and/or known racist publication?" would serve as a useful heuristic re: what arguments to bother with. This is how newspapers generally settled out. Is it in the paper? If yes, then there are at least some standards. If no, e.g. if it's some vanity publication, then squint a little harder. These sorts of things have happened every time we've had a big shift in information distribution technology. There's an explosion of ideas with no real markers to differentiate them, and mass chaos for a while as people sort it out. Then eventually people identify the signs of trustworthy info distributors, and it settles back down. If a platform allows racists to flourish, they're not going to remain a place that people can trust. I would like to see Reddit remain a place that has some amount of trust, so I'm happy they banned the really nasty racists.
- the8472 7y ago
  > I think ideas should be out there. My ideal world is one where there are the "big" sites with millions of DAU generally keep racist content (or at least the really nasty stuff) off their platform, but there are plenty of little sites that "keep the dream alive" so to speak. But reddit is already compartmentalized. Subreddits for fringe ideas are those "plenty of little sites", especially when they are delisted from the front pages.