4 ms·

This just seems short-sighted more than anything. It doesn't sound like there's anything technically wrong with the extension (indeed I have often wanted just s

by dTal 8y ago

This just seems short-sighted more than anything. It doesn't sound like there's anything technically wrong with the extension (indeed I have often wanted just such an extension), it's merely that the "wrong sort" of people use it. Well, banning it will keep the "wrong sort" of people using it. If everyone jumped on the bandwagon and started using the extension as a generic comment section, then the bright light of day would cleanse it. Instead, by "suppressing" it, they have basically gone out of their way to create a breeding ground.

madeofpalk 8y ago
> If everyone jumped on the bandwagon and started using the extension as a generic comment section, then the bright light of day would cleanse it Browser extensions aside, if we've learn anything over the past two years of 'Online', it's that this simply isn't true. You can't 'debate' hate speech away.
- busymom0 8y ago
  > You can't 'debate' hate speech away. Not sure what your definition of "hate speech" is but if it includes racism, then yes, racists can change their mind: https://www.theguardian.com/global/2018/oct/08/the-white-southerners-who-changed-their-views-on-racism https://www.theguardian.com/global/2018/oct/08/the-white-sou...
  - WAHa_06x36 8y ago
    Yes, through long-term building of trust and deep personal relationships. This is very, very different from an internet comments section, where it is basically impossible.
    - busymom0 8y ago
      I would argue that internet comments section is exactly what's needed actually. Simply banning them away is basically hiding it under the rug. But that's not going to do anything productive. Banning them will now re-enforce their beliefs and now they will just go to another platform which will be an echo chamber of even more similar "hate" views. This brings up 2 problems - 1. Now we don't even know what they are talking about / planning some extreme crime etc 2. Those people are now only exposed to views which agree to their own points and not exposed to opposing views. So there's nothing which would even allow them to change their minds. Humans aren't born racist / hateful. They learn it from the environment around them. By exposing them to more counter points, you can make them unlearn that hate too.
      - WAHa_06x36 8y ago
        You say they learn if from the environment around them. This is exactly right, and this is exactly why you ban racists from your open platforms. There will always be hardcore hateful people who hide deep in the pockets of the internet. The point is to not normalise them, not let them spread their hatred in public, and not to make people think that sort of attitude is ok. They are exposed to counterpoints constantly, and it is not changing them.
        busymom0 8y ago
        > They are exposed to counterpoints constantly, and it is not changing them. This is not correct. This very post's topic implies they aren't exposed to counterpoints. Banning them from every platform possible doesn't allow them to be exposed to counterpoints. Allowing hateful people doesn't mean we are normalizing it. Also the definition of "hate speech" is extremely vague now a days. > You say they learn if from the environment around them. This is exactly right, and this is exactly why you ban racists from your open platforms. So you are saying that not allowing these people on open platforms where they are exposed to counterpoints (let's say 5% bad + 95% good) so that they all jump to another platform (8chan for example) where they are exposed to an even higher saturation of bad (100% bad) is good? That's basically exposing them to an even worse environment now. That's exactly what's making this situation even worse. Every mass shooting etc was planned on those worse platforms (4chan, 8chan) etc.
  - Veen 8y ago
    "You can't argue people out of their beliefs" is an acceptable generalization because it's mostly true. There are exceptions, but, for the most part, when a progressive talks to a fascist, for example, there is likely to be little movement in the beliefs of either. In fact, their views are likely to become more entrenched. https://phys.org/news/2015-05-political-myths-entrench.html https://phys.org/news/2015-05-political-myths-entrench.html Long-term conversation can and does work, but not the sort of hit-and-run debates that happen on social networks and forums.
    - busymom0 8y ago
      I think this has to do more with teaching people proper debate and communication skills than simply banning a platform because you can't teach their users proper debate.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
- Grue3 8y ago
  >You can't 'debate' hate speech away. Surely you can. To believe otherwise is to believe that hate is logically sound. It's just that people's standards for what constitutes "debate" have lowered so much (thanks to Twitter and its ilk) that it no longer holds any persuasive power. Consider that most people in the West were extremely racist just a few decades ago. It didn't take free speech suppression to change this status quo.
  - rincebrain 8y ago
    I believe the view being expressed is that you cannot necessarily reason someone out of a position they did not reason themselves into. Confronting people who hold a belief for reasons that are not necessarily based on facts or logic can result in them doubling down instead of reconsidering their position.
  - dagw 8y ago
    Anybody who has done any amount of debating knows that the 'winner' of any debate is the person who is more prepared and better at the abstract skill of "debating", not the person that is 'right' in any meaningful way. As someone who did a fair amount of debating in school I'm confident I would have won/lost every debate I partook in in exactly the same way even if I was debating the other side of the argument.
    - belorn 8y ago
      That implies that election is not about values or politics, but rather which candidate is more prepared and better at the abstract skill of "debating". There is some major amount of cynicism to that world view, and I prefer to behave as if the world did not exist like that.
      - dagw 8y ago
        Far from it. I believe that values and politics are very important and specifically because of that we have to get away from overvaluing the traditional debate format which does nothing to effectively highlight either.
- dTal 8y ago
  Even if that were true, it would still be possible to drown it. Flood the extension used by racists with an Eternal September of normal people. This is how we deal with extremist views in the real world - allowing them to sequester themselves together is what leads to the amplification chambers. Banning the extension just means that the people who already care about using it will continue to do so, while new users are pushed away.
- DuskStar 8y ago
  > Browser extensions aside, if we've learn anything over the past two years of 'Online', it's that this simply isn't true. You can't 'debate' hate speech away. When debating online, there's really two groups you need to keep in mind - the person/people you're debating, and the people reading the debate. Reading without interacting is generally accepted to be far more common than actually interacting, so that's probably the largest group. So even if you can't convince the person you're debating, you might be able to convince those who are just reading and don't have a strong attachment to either side. Or you can give up, attempt to ban the badthink, and admit that your ideas do not have merit. Because that's what a lot of the watchers will interpret that refusal to engage as.
- viseztrance 8y ago
  Not many people have an argument be it in real life or online, where one changes the other's opinion 180 degrees. But at the very least your words plant the seeds of doubt. I think it's normal that changing a point of view that you've held for many years to take time.
- afiori 8y ago
  That is because of survivors bias, there will always be hate online, that does not mean it will be the same people.
WAHa_06x36 8y ago
Why exactly would people want to share a space with racists, antisemites, and every kind of vile hatred? Why would you not go to place that does not accept that kind of utter garbage instead?
- jamsch 8y ago
  Don't you think that despite being uncomfortable with people that have opinions that you perceive as immoral, that banning them will only heighten their cause and become more radical? It just seems evident to me that unpersoning them will force them in to a place that reinforces their own ideological biases which would make them more radical, and with being a social outcast, they'd have nothing to lose.
- beezischillin 8y ago
  Well, I don't use Twitter either.
- dTal 8y ago
  Rome wasn't built in a day. It might be a wretched hive of scum and villany now, but as it gets picked up by more and more people, some of those people won't be quite as extreme as the average. Unless there was someone deliberately banning users who weren't extreme enough, over time the community would inevitably become more moderate (or more likely, shrink and die). It's practically an axiom - in any community without iron-fisted moderation and gatekeeping, the original hard core will end up complaining about how great it used to be before all the normies invaded.

by dTal 8y ago

madeofpalk 8y ago

> If everyone jumped on the bandwagon and started using the extension as a generic comment section, then the bright light of day would cleanse it Browser extensions aside, if we've learn anything over the past two years of 'Online', it's that this simply isn't true. You can't 'debate' hate speech away.

busymom0 8y ago
> You can't 'debate' hate speech away. Not sure what your definition of "hate speech" is but if it includes racism, then yes, racists can change their mind: https://www.theguardian.com/global/2018/oct/08/the-white-southerners-who-changed-their-views-on-racism https://www.theguardian.com/global/2018/oct/08/the-white-sou...
- WAHa_06x36 8y ago
  Yes, through long-term building of trust and deep personal relationships. This is very, very different from an internet comments section, where it is basically impossible.
  - busymom0 8y ago
    I would argue that internet comments section is exactly what's needed actually. Simply banning them away is basically hiding it under the rug. But that's not going to do anything productive. Banning them will now re-enforce their beliefs and now they will just go to another platform which will be an echo chamber of even more similar "hate" views. This brings up 2 problems - 1. Now we don't even know what they are talking about / planning some extreme crime etc 2. Those people are now only exposed to views which agree to their own points and not exposed to opposing views. So there's nothing which would even allow them to change their minds. Humans aren't born racist / hateful. They learn it from the environment around them. By exposing them to more counter points, you can make them unlearn that hate too.
    - WAHa_06x36 8y ago
      You say they learn if from the environment around them. This is exactly right, and this is exactly why you ban racists from your open platforms. There will always be hardcore hateful people who hide deep in the pockets of the internet. The point is to not normalise them, not let them spread their hatred in public, and not to make people think that sort of attitude is ok. They are exposed to counterpoints constantly, and it is not changing them.
      - busymom0 8y ago
        > They are exposed to counterpoints constantly, and it is not changing them. This is not correct. This very post's topic implies they aren't exposed to counterpoints. Banning them from every platform possible doesn't allow them to be exposed to counterpoints. Allowing hateful people doesn't mean we are normalizing it. Also the definition of "hate speech" is extremely vague now a days. > You say they learn if from the environment around them. This is exactly right, and this is exactly why you ban racists from your open platforms. So you are saying that not allowing these people on open platforms where they are exposed to counterpoints (let's say 5% bad + 95% good) so that they all jump to another platform (8chan for example) where they are exposed to an even higher saturation of bad (100% bad) is good? That's basically exposing them to an even worse environment now. That's exactly what's making this situation even worse. Every mass shooting etc was planned on those worse platforms (4chan, 8chan) etc.
- Veen 8y ago
  "You can't argue people out of their beliefs" is an acceptable generalization because it's mostly true. There are exceptions, but, for the most part, when a progressive talks to a fascist, for example, there is likely to be little movement in the beliefs of either. In fact, their views are likely to become more entrenched. https://phys.org/news/2015-05-political-myths-entrench.html https://phys.org/news/2015-05-political-myths-entrench.html Long-term conversation can and does work, but not the sort of hit-and-run debates that happen on social networks and forums.
  - busymom0 8y ago
    I think this has to do more with teaching people proper debate and communication skills than simply banning a platform because you can't teach their users proper debate.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
Grue3 8y ago
>You can't 'debate' hate speech away. Surely you can. To believe otherwise is to believe that hate is logically sound. It's just that people's standards for what constitutes "debate" have lowered so much (thanks to Twitter and its ilk) that it no longer holds any persuasive power. Consider that most people in the West were extremely racist just a few decades ago. It didn't take free speech suppression to change this status quo.
- rincebrain 8y ago
  I believe the view being expressed is that you cannot necessarily reason someone out of a position they did not reason themselves into. Confronting people who hold a belief for reasons that are not necessarily based on facts or logic can result in them doubling down instead of reconsidering their position.
- dagw 8y ago
  Anybody who has done any amount of debating knows that the 'winner' of any debate is the person who is more prepared and better at the abstract skill of "debating", not the person that is 'right' in any meaningful way. As someone who did a fair amount of debating in school I'm confident I would have won/lost every debate I partook in in exactly the same way even if I was debating the other side of the argument.
  - belorn 8y ago
    That implies that election is not about values or politics, but rather which candidate is more prepared and better at the abstract skill of "debating". There is some major amount of cynicism to that world view, and I prefer to behave as if the world did not exist like that.
    - dagw 8y ago
      Far from it. I believe that values and politics are very important and specifically because of that we have to get away from overvaluing the traditional debate format which does nothing to effectively highlight either.
dTal 8y ago
Even if that were true, it would still be possible to drown it. Flood the extension used by racists with an Eternal September of normal people. This is how we deal with extremist views in the real world - allowing them to sequester themselves together is what leads to the amplification chambers. Banning the extension just means that the people who already care about using it will continue to do so, while new users are pushed away.
DuskStar 8y ago
> Browser extensions aside, if we've learn anything over the past two years of 'Online', it's that this simply isn't true. You can't 'debate' hate speech away. When debating online, there's really two groups you need to keep in mind - the person/people you're debating, and the people reading the debate. Reading without interacting is generally accepted to be far more common than actually interacting, so that's probably the largest group. So even if you can't convince the person you're debating, you might be able to convince those who are just reading and don't have a strong attachment to either side. Or you can give up, attempt to ban the badthink, and admit that your ideas do not have merit. Because that's what a lot of the watchers will interpret that refusal to engage as.
viseztrance 8y ago
Not many people have an argument be it in real life or online, where one changes the other's opinion 180 degrees. But at the very least your words plant the seeds of doubt. I think it's normal that changing a point of view that you've held for many years to take time.
afiori 8y ago
That is because of survivors bias, there will always be hate online, that does not mean it will be the same people.

WAHa_06x36 8y ago

Why exactly would people want to share a space with racists, antisemites, and every kind of vile hatred? Why would you not go to place that does not accept that kind of utter garbage instead?

jamsch 8y ago
Don't you think that despite being uncomfortable with people that have opinions that you perceive as immoral, that banning them will only heighten their cause and become more radical? It just seems evident to me that unpersoning them will force them in to a place that reinforces their own ideological biases which would make them more radical, and with being a social outcast, they'd have nothing to lose.
beezischillin 8y ago
Well, I don't use Twitter either.
dTal 8y ago
Rome wasn't built in a day. It might be a wretched hive of scum and villany now, but as it gets picked up by more and more people, some of those people won't be quite as extreme as the average. Unless there was someone deliberately banning users who weren't extreme enough, over time the community would inevitably become more moderate (or more likely, shrink and die). It's practically an axiom - in any community without iron-fisted moderation and gatekeeping, the original hard core will end up complaining about how great it used to be before all the normies invaded.