8 ms·

> The word "fringe" used to mean something a lot more, well... fringe Did it? How many people do you think were interested in old school conspiracy theories li

> The word "fringe" used to mean something a lot more, well... fringe Did it? How many people do you think were interested in old school conspiracy theories like Area 51 [1] or the protocols of the elders of zion [2]? Henry ford printed half a million copies of the latter! >how exactly are Milo Yiannopolous and Paul Joseph Watson "dangerous"? I think "dangerous" is probably not quite the right word. They're dangerous in the same way that, say, anti-vax views are dangerous [3]. The views themselves won't hurt you or hurt me. They're 'just' opinions. However, at some point, allowing those views on your platform make you complicit in promoting pandemics. You're not directly responsible exactly, but you're involved somehow. Where the "line" is and how we talk about it isn't clear, but I think there is a line somewhere and I feel pretty comfortable that the people Facebook banned are probably on the other side of it. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Area_51#UFO_and_other_conspiracy_theories https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Area_51#UFO_and_other_conspira... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Protocols_of_the_Elders_of_Zion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Protocols_of_the_Elders_of... [3] https://www.cdc.gov/measles/cases-outbreaks.html https://www.cdc.gov/measles/cases-outbreaks.html Edit: I should note, lest anyone think this is all "in the past," that people still claim that "the protocols" is an authentically jewish document that describes real Jewish people.

Mirioron 8y ago
>How many people do you think were interested in old school conspiracy theories like Area 51 [1] or the protocols of the elders of zion [2]? Henry ford printed half a million copies of the latter! I think most of the people were interested in it for entertainment, just like people are interested in horoscopes for entertainment. Or would you argue that all these newspapers that had horoscopes in them pushed fringe conspiracy theories on the level of flat earth? >They're dangerous in the same way that, say, anti-vax views are dangerous [3]. You have to show some evidence for a wild claim like that, because you're insinuating that Paul Joseph Watson and Milo are getting people killed. >Where the "line" is and how we talk about it isn't clear, but I think there is a line somewhere and I feel pretty comfortable that the people Facebook banned are probably on the other side of it. Until it inevitably comes back to bite you or something you like.
- cm2012 8y ago
  Horoscropes don't have a victim. Stuff like elders of zion portrays jewish people as villains, to real and tangible consequences (did you know anti-semitic hate crimes are up around 300% of the last two years?).
  - cc81 8y ago
    How about white supremacy? Islamism? Communism? Westboro Baptist church? The more radical parts of Black Lives Matter? I don't think Facebook needs to host people who's political opinions they don't share but it can be tricky the draw the line.
    - whenchamenia 8y ago
      Why not, just allow everything that is legal? There is no need to be the arbiter of what is right for the world.
      - drak0n1c 8y ago
        That's Gab's approach. Allow everything that is legal, and crack down on what is illegal. Unfortunately, Gab being perceived as a haven for the alt-right is a self-fulfilling prophecy. The incessant media coverage against it and platform bans (Google and Apple banned their app, Chrome and Firefox banned their browser extension) are designed to scare normal people off from using it (and makes it even more notorious and alluring in the eyes of racists). If the wider population actually started using Gab and Minds without hesitation like they use Facebook and Twitter, the extremists would be immediately drowned out and only constitute a tiny fraction of 1%, the same as in reality, and their threads would be filled with counter-arguments rather than reaffirmations.
        abacadaba 8y ago
        > the extremists would be immediately drowned out and only constitute a tiny fraction of 1%, the same as in reality, and their threads would be filled with counter-arguments rather than reaffirmations. no they would still be by far the loudest and stupidest, while all the mentally stable people realize that there's no point in arguing with the deranged and find better things to do.
whatshisface 8y ago
>allowing those views on your platform make you complicit Every faction since the dawn of history has said that the views of the other factions are objectively harmful. What is it that blesses SV neo-something-or-other as the one true faction that has finally discovered the objective truth?
- jesterman81 8y ago
  Finally somebody gets it!!!! This is refreshing!
  - mindslight 8y ago
    Rest assured many people do get it, but the mob rolls on. Power is one hell of a drug.
- aeturnum 8y ago
  I don't think I made a claim that SV (or anyone) is an objective arbiter of truth. I said: 1) At some point, if you allow a view to be expressed on your platform, you become somewhat implicated in that view spreading. 2) I believe (and I think FB believes) that the views these people promote are harmeful. Now, should we trust Facebook? No! Facebook has banned many people and groups for far less than these people were banned. The reason Facebook is pushing this news so hard is that they have been letting things slide again and again because these people were prominent figures (see also how Twitter keeps not banning trump despite his many threats of violence).
  - avn2109 8y ago
    I am not the author of the parent comment that you're replying to, but I appreciate your civil reply in a flamebait-y thread. That said, his point seems to be that FB is banning e.g. Farrakhan without making any effort at disproving Farrakhan's claims, and furthermore that many of the commenters in this thread are similarly dismissive of Farrakhan's claims without offering anything resembling a good-faith disproof of those claims. (Note that the parent and I are not making any statement about Farrakhan's correctness or incorrectness, but are instead merely noting the widespread absence of proofs about this correctness). Personally I know essentially nothing about Farrakhan and his claims, but I like to believe that I can think critically enough to evaluate his claims on their merits, and do not need to be "protected" from hearing them by Facebook or anyone else. I (and perhaps the parent poster) would like to participate in an agora of ideas where everyone is welcome to promulgate his claims, no matter how allegedly outlandish, and the strongest ideas will win on their merits. Contrast this to a situation wherein the winning ideas win because their rivals are excluded from the agora. Of course I don't mean this just about Farrakhan. Similarly, I have never read the Protocols of Zion, which are mentioned several times elsewhere in this thread, and I have no clue whether they are related to a Jewish conspiracy for world domination etc. But many commenters here are asserting claims about the Protocols, without offering any attempt at a proof beyond a link to Wikipedia, which personally I find very unconvincing as a matter of principle, on this and any other topic. In general I am not convinced by assertions/bannings, and prefer evidence.
naasking 8y ago
> They're dangerous in the same way that, say, anti-vax views are dangerous [3]. The views themselves won't hurt you or hurt me. They're 'just' opinions. However, at some point, allowing those views on your platform make you complicit in promoting pandemics. Are they? We have plenty of rigourous evidence supporting the dangers of anti-vaxx, but I've seen little data on Yiannopolous or Watson or even Alex Jones causing anything like a comparable social pandemic. Unless you can provide this evidence, your analogy fails.
- matt4077 8y ago
  The whole idea of free speech rights rests on the assumption that speech can cause action. There have been quite a few recent shooting sprees where the perpetrators either explicitly referenced online personae, or the investigation revealed they consumed these sources predominantly. That’s not to mention the obviously far larger number of people who don’t get radicalized to the degree where they livestream mass murder, but where society still suffer because they live out their hatred in less obvious ways. The idea that people aren’t influenced by what they read seems somewhat indefensible, anyway. Because if it were true, we could shut down the non-transactional parts of the internet without it having any effect.
  - naasking 8y ago
    > The whole idea of free speech rights rests on the assumption that speech can cause action. No, free speech is a natural right. The recognition of free speech is not contingent on any outside factors aside from the recognition that humans speak just like they breath. > There have been quite a few recent shooting sprees where the perpetrators either explicitly referenced online personae, or the investigation revealed they consumed these sources predominantly. So? Did these shooters also go to the grocery store? It's ridiculous to ban Coca Cola because a shooter predominantly drank diet coke. You're a) inferring a spurious causation simply because you want there to be one, and b) even if there were a causation, that does not entail that the online personnae are in any way responsible for the shooter's actions. > The idea that people aren’t influenced by what they read seems somewhat indefensible, anyway. Who's defending that? The issue I'm raising is who's responsible for someone's actions. Speech is not action. The most widely recognized limitation on free speech is treating incitement to violence as violence. That's perfectly reasonable. Is that the case here? Doesn't seem like it, because if it were, they'd be charged with crimes.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
maximus1983 8y ago
I like watching a lot of conspiracy theory "documentaries" because it is like science fiction. Also suppressing information makes it "sexy" it is the same as the Barbra Streisand effect it amplifies it. Also lets not forget trusted sources aren't that great either. Remember the Iraq War and WMD? We didn't find any. So I haven't seen any evidence that suppressing these is "healthy". All you are doing is creating a new clergy.
roenxi 8y ago
I really wanted to disagree with both 'fringe' and 'dangerous', but it must be said your argument in favour of fringe is compelling. 'Dangerous' is still unsettling. Mark Zuckerberg has been floated as a possible-but-out-there presidential candidate and he isn't likely to run on the Republican ticket. Words like 'dangerous' with justifications like yours ('well, they aren't directly responsible but they might ...') can be used, with minor variations, to justify suppression of: * Any major religion * Any racially coordinated group that trys to organise to better their social poisition * Any innovative business model that threatens established companies If Facebook bans show an ideological bias then that is bad even if it is legal. It isn't like the left is free of dangerous idiots inspired by rabid media [0]. There is going to be some bias in some direction - obviously - but this is a space to watch for evidence of a real problem. Facebook should not be shaping political dialog in the borderline cases, that isn't something they are known to be good at. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Congressional_baseball_shooting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Congressional_baseball_sh...

Mirioron 8y ago

>How many people do you think were interested in old school conspiracy theories like Area 51 [1] or the protocols of the elders of zion [2]? Henry ford printed half a million copies of the latter! I think most of the people were interested in it for entertainment, just like people are interested in horoscopes for entertainment. Or would you argue that all these newspapers that had horoscopes in them pushed fringe conspiracy theories on the level of flat earth? >They're dangerous in the same way that, say, anti-vax views are dangerous [3]. You have to show some evidence for a wild claim like that, because you're insinuating that Paul Joseph Watson and Milo are getting people killed. >Where the "line" is and how we talk about it isn't clear, but I think there is a line somewhere and I feel pretty comfortable that the people Facebook banned are probably on the other side of it. Until it inevitably comes back to bite you or something you like.

cm2012 8y ago
Horoscropes don't have a victim. Stuff like elders of zion portrays jewish people as villains, to real and tangible consequences (did you know anti-semitic hate crimes are up around 300% of the last two years?).
- cc81 8y ago
  How about white supremacy? Islamism? Communism? Westboro Baptist church? The more radical parts of Black Lives Matter? I don't think Facebook needs to host people who's political opinions they don't share but it can be tricky the draw the line.
  - whenchamenia 8y ago
    Why not, just allow everything that is legal? There is no need to be the arbiter of what is right for the world.
    - drak0n1c 8y ago
      That's Gab's approach. Allow everything that is legal, and crack down on what is illegal. Unfortunately, Gab being perceived as a haven for the alt-right is a self-fulfilling prophecy. The incessant media coverage against it and platform bans (Google and Apple banned their app, Chrome and Firefox banned their browser extension) are designed to scare normal people off from using it (and makes it even more notorious and alluring in the eyes of racists). If the wider population actually started using Gab and Minds without hesitation like they use Facebook and Twitter, the extremists would be immediately drowned out and only constitute a tiny fraction of 1%, the same as in reality, and their threads would be filled with counter-arguments rather than reaffirmations.
      - abacadaba 8y ago
        > the extremists would be immediately drowned out and only constitute a tiny fraction of 1%, the same as in reality, and their threads would be filled with counter-arguments rather than reaffirmations. no they would still be by far the loudest and stupidest, while all the mentally stable people realize that there's no point in arguing with the deranged and find better things to do.

whatshisface 8y ago

>allowing those views on your platform make you complicit Every faction since the dawn of history has said that the views of the other factions are objectively harmful. What is it that blesses SV neo-something-or-other as the one true faction that has finally discovered the objective truth?

jesterman81 8y ago
Finally somebody gets it!!!! This is refreshing!
- mindslight 8y ago
  Rest assured many people do get it, but the mob rolls on. Power is one hell of a drug.
aeturnum 8y ago
I don't think I made a claim that SV (or anyone) is an objective arbiter of truth. I said: 1) At some point, if you allow a view to be expressed on your platform, you become somewhat implicated in that view spreading. 2) I believe (and I think FB believes) that the views these people promote are harmeful. Now, should we trust Facebook? No! Facebook has banned many people and groups for far less than these people were banned. The reason Facebook is pushing this news so hard is that they have been letting things slide again and again because these people were prominent figures (see also how Twitter keeps not banning trump despite his many threats of violence).
- avn2109 8y ago
  I am not the author of the parent comment that you're replying to, but I appreciate your civil reply in a flamebait-y thread. That said, his point seems to be that FB is banning e.g. Farrakhan without making any effort at disproving Farrakhan's claims, and furthermore that many of the commenters in this thread are similarly dismissive of Farrakhan's claims without offering anything resembling a good-faith disproof of those claims. (Note that the parent and I are not making any statement about Farrakhan's correctness or incorrectness, but are instead merely noting the widespread absence of proofs about this correctness). Personally I know essentially nothing about Farrakhan and his claims, but I like to believe that I can think critically enough to evaluate his claims on their merits, and do not need to be "protected" from hearing them by Facebook or anyone else. I (and perhaps the parent poster) would like to participate in an agora of ideas where everyone is welcome to promulgate his claims, no matter how allegedly outlandish, and the strongest ideas will win on their merits. Contrast this to a situation wherein the winning ideas win because their rivals are excluded from the agora. Of course I don't mean this just about Farrakhan. Similarly, I have never read the Protocols of Zion, which are mentioned several times elsewhere in this thread, and I have no clue whether they are related to a Jewish conspiracy for world domination etc. But many commenters here are asserting claims about the Protocols, without offering any attempt at a proof beyond a link to Wikipedia, which personally I find very unconvincing as a matter of principle, on this and any other topic. In general I am not convinced by assertions/bannings, and prefer evidence.

naasking 8y ago

> They're dangerous in the same way that, say, anti-vax views are dangerous [3]. The views themselves won't hurt you or hurt me. They're 'just' opinions. However, at some point, allowing those views on your platform make you complicit in promoting pandemics. Are they? We have plenty of rigourous evidence supporting the dangers of anti-vaxx, but I've seen little data on Yiannopolous or Watson or even Alex Jones causing anything like a comparable social pandemic. Unless you can provide this evidence, your analogy fails.

matt4077 8y ago
The whole idea of free speech rights rests on the assumption that speech can cause action. There have been quite a few recent shooting sprees where the perpetrators either explicitly referenced online personae, or the investigation revealed they consumed these sources predominantly. That’s not to mention the obviously far larger number of people who don’t get radicalized to the degree where they livestream mass murder, but where society still suffer because they live out their hatred in less obvious ways. The idea that people aren’t influenced by what they read seems somewhat indefensible, anyway. Because if it were true, we could shut down the non-transactional parts of the internet without it having any effect.
- naasking 8y ago
  > The whole idea of free speech rights rests on the assumption that speech can cause action. No, free speech is a natural right. The recognition of free speech is not contingent on any outside factors aside from the recognition that humans speak just like they breath. > There have been quite a few recent shooting sprees where the perpetrators either explicitly referenced online personae, or the investigation revealed they consumed these sources predominantly. So? Did these shooters also go to the grocery store? It's ridiculous to ban Coca Cola because a shooter predominantly drank diet coke. You're a) inferring a spurious causation simply because you want there to be one, and b) even if there were a causation, that does not entail that the online personnae are in any way responsible for the shooter's actions. > The idea that people aren’t influenced by what they read seems somewhat indefensible, anyway. Who's defending that? The issue I'm raising is who's responsible for someone's actions. Speech is not action. The most widely recognized limitation on free speech is treating incitement to violence as violence. That's perfectly reasonable. Is that the case here? Doesn't seem like it, because if it were, they'd be charged with crimes.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

maximus1983 8y ago

I like watching a lot of conspiracy theory "documentaries" because it is like science fiction. Also suppressing information makes it "sexy" it is the same as the Barbra Streisand effect it amplifies it. Also lets not forget trusted sources aren't that great either. Remember the Iraq War and WMD? We didn't find any. So I haven't seen any evidence that suppressing these is "healthy". All you are doing is creating a new clergy.

roenxi 8y ago

I really wanted to disagree with both 'fringe' and 'dangerous', but it must be said your argument in favour of fringe is compelling. 'Dangerous' is still unsettling. Mark Zuckerberg has been floated as a possible-but-out-there presidential candidate and he isn't likely to run on the Republican ticket. Words like 'dangerous' with justifications like yours ('well, they aren't directly responsible but they might ...') can be used, with minor variations, to justify suppression of: * Any major religion * Any racially coordinated group that trys to organise to better their social poisition * Any innovative business model that threatens established companies If Facebook bans show an ideological bias then that is bad even if it is legal. It isn't like the left is free of dangerous idiots inspired by rabid media [0]. There is going to be some bias in some direction - obviously - but this is a space to watch for evidence of a real problem. Facebook should not be shaping political dialog in the borderline cases, that isn't something they are known to be good at. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Congressional_baseball_shooting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Congressional_baseball_sh...