13 ms·

Everyone decried censorship, but always fails to provide an alternative to try and stop extremism online.

by ausbah 7y ago

Kalium 7y ago
What kind of alternative would you like to see? How do you propose to evaluate if it's preferable to censorship?
- ausbah 7y ago
  That's the thing, I can't recommend an alternative other than censorship. All I know is that violent extremist groups or identities like ISIS, white nationalism, and others can be linked in part to a good chunk of the mass shootings and other acts of mass violence that many parts of the world have experienced over the past 10-15 years.
  - Kalium 7y ago
    Those are excellent points. The rise of extremism is very worrying. Have you considered the possibility that this is might not be unprecedented, and that censorship may have been tried previously? It may be worth considering that it might be acceptable to not choose censorship as a policy. Some might opine that an inability to find an alternative should not be construed as support for censorship, and that this is merely the politicians syllogism at work.
- devmunchies 7y ago
  I don't know that you can prevent hostility after combining large groups of people from different cultures. Maybe throttle the stream of immigrants from different cultures so people can assimilate? Better than censorship.
  - icebraining 7y ago
    What if that throttling involves a good percentage of them dying? Is that still better than censorship?
    - devmunchies 7y ago
      Preserve our freedom AND limit population growth? Sounds like a win win.
BonesJustice 7y ago
What constitutes ‘extremism’? It’s a term so vague as to be practically meaninglessness.
- solotronics 7y ago
  Extremism seemt to match up closely with an opinion that is opposite those in power.
  - BonesJustice 7y ago
    And yet those in power are the ones who get to decide what the term means.
- krapp 7y ago
  > What constitutes ‘extremism’? It’s a term so vague as to be practically meaninglessness. No, it isn't. Inevitably someone like yourself will come into threads like these and attempt to start a slippery slope argument by trying to imply that the subject at hand is meaningless and, therefore, all attempts to address it are arbitrary. It really is strange how, for certain subjects, people just forget how English works. So let's begin with the word itself. "Extremism" is a noun. The root of the word is "extreme." A dictionary will define "extremism" as "the holding of extreme political or religious views; fanaticism." Synonyms:fanaticism, radicalism, zealotry, zeal, fundamentalism, dogmatism, bigotry, militancy, activism; Now, let us address the article to provide further context: Tech company and world leaders have signed an unprecedented Christchurch Call agreement to eliminate terrorist and violent extremist content online. Here we have a reference to Christchurch, a terrorist event. The common understanding of "extremism," as it relates to political speech, and specifically in relation to the events at Christchurch and the article posted, would understand the shooting of mosques by white supremacists to be an extremist act. So we can see that in the context of the article, and the call to action mentioned, "extremism" is not vague, nor meaningless, but specifically related to the dissemination of violent and terroristic material and propaganda, as was similarly done in the aforementioned terrorist incident. Although this is Hacker News, and I know it's futile here to suggest that standing in the way of bigots and extremists is anything but a slippery slope towards an Orwellian dystopian nightmare of fascism and thought-police and boots crushing our heads forever, there is nothing in this article, or the call to action it describes, which would suggest an intent to censor all arbitrary political speech, nor is the meaning of, "extremist" not well defined within.
basetop 7y ago
I rather live with the remote threat of extremism rather than live in a censored world. Would you rather live in North Korea with no extremism? You have a greater chance of getting struck by lightning than dying from extremism and yet you'd give up your right to free speech for some remote threat? That kind of thinking is the cause of north korea and nazi germany. Authoritarians always use remote threats to justify taking your rights away.
- adbge 7y ago
  It's also produced Singapore.
  - int_19h 7y ago
    I would argue that Singapore is an example of a benevolent dictatorship. The problem with all such, that was already noted by Ancient Greeks, is that you have no guarantees that the next dictator is going to be benevolent.
- ploika 7y ago
  That's a pretty silly example. North Korea is North Korea precisely because of the extremism.
  - ameister14 7y ago
    I don't understand that statement. I believe North Korea is a totalitarian state with concentrated power in few hands and no tolerance for dissidence. Are you saying they allow non-state actors to speak and take action freely to promote extreme ideologies there?
    - atoav 7y ago
      The poster probably means that NK is NK, because of its own extremist ideology. So the only way to really get rid of extremists seems to be to become more extreme than them.
snarf21 7y ago
Okay, I'll bite. Here is an alternative. Make it illegal for any "news" agency to publicly name the group or individual that commits any "terrorist" act. Make it a multi-million dollar fine per instance. We need to stop giving these people their 15 minutes of fame or infamy. All coverage must be about the victims only. We also need to collectively care about stopping extremism with other approaches. One thing that is that most people who commit these heinous acts have reached a point where their lives have to perceived value. They are then easily radicalized. (See blue collar America blaming all their jobs lost to automation on Mexicans) People who have money for their family and are generally happy don't go around killing for some cause. Addressing wealth inequality can help. The challenge of supporting this kind of "good censorship" is always who will watch the watchers? What passes for terrorism in the US is different than in a country like Russia or North Korea or .... A lot of people (even in the US) are very careful about what they post on socials. What happens if people who attack a certain viewpoint or organization are suddenly declared "evil" and the cause of all our ills? Is someone on a bowling team with a closet Nazi or KKK member also guilty? You only need to look back at McCarthyism to see how easily "good" people can be weaponized into something terrible.
- pnw_hazor 7y ago
  Great plan. All it takes is a government to designate a group as terrorists and any mention of them results in mega-fines. nit- Among others, neither the 9/11 gang nor the Christchurch shooter were poor.
- tathougies 7y ago
  That is unconstitutional in most countries, because you have a right to a public trial. In the United States, it's especially illegal, since the press has a right to free reporting, including public trial. The danger here is the government starting to weaponize this 'freedom', by designating mundane crimes as 'terrorism' and then holding secret trials. Given that this is precedented, and leads to significantly worse outcomes (including full-on genocide), it seems that it's probably better to just accept that there will be mass shootings. After all, even adding up all the mass shootings in the world, you will still not come close to the slaughter's perpetrated by governments holding secret trials of dissidents
uabstraction 7y ago
Moderating discussion forums is not censorship.
- commandlinefan 7y ago
  It is, by definition, censorship. It's not _government_ censorship, but it's still censorship.
  - bilbo0s 7y ago
    Yeah, but so what? Companies need censorship to make money. They shouldn't have to lose money simply to satisfy your or my idea of not censoring. Now the government? Yeah. That's a whole other issue.
    - stcredzero 7y ago
      Yeah, but so what? Companies need to trample on your human rights to make money. Now the government? Yeah. That's a whole other issue. False. Freedom of speech outweighs property rights and the right of corporations' "Freedom of association." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBozijndSLc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBozijndSLc
    - int_19h 7y ago
      It becomes a political issue when all companies start engaging with it, especially when they do so under external political pressure ("We really don't want to pass a law - how about you self-regulate?"). Consider the situation in Australia, where all ISPs acted in concert to block websites. It's technically not government censorship, but the effect is the same - so any utilitarian rationale behind restrictions on government censorship should apply here equally. Or maybe this should just be considered a form of illegal cartel.
  - prolepunk 7y ago
    I'm going into nitpicking rabbit hole, but the definition of 'censorship' is government censorship. The word comes from Roman republic position of 'censor'. "The censor was a magistrate in ancient Rome who was responsible for maintaining the census, supervising public morality, and overseeing certain aspects of the government's finances." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_censor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_censor When its not government censorship it's called self-censorship or something entirely different.
odiroot 7y ago
The bigger problem is how selective is stopping the extremism in many venues. This is really worrying. Here in Germany it's very popular to talk about, chastise and silence "Nazis" (be it real or assumed), which sort of makes sense knowing Germany's history. From my perspective -- of a Slav whose people were exterminated en masse by real Nazis. At the same time various, frequently militant, extremists (e.g. anarchists, AntiFas, Islamists) are allowed to speak their mind, openly recruit and even spread calls to violence against their political opponents. Mind you, Wahhabist groups were literally spreading their message just a few years ago (still in 2017) in front of shopping malls here in Berlin.
- qball 7y ago
  >Here in Germany it's very popular to talk about, chastise and silence "Nazis" (be it real or assumed), which sort of makes sense knowing Germany's history. And yet it doesn't even prevent the core of the problem, which is that the supreme law of the land is easily abusable as a weapon once the Nazis get in power (and if the German economy tanks to the point where people can no longer buy bread for a day's work, which was true in the Weimar Republic, they will). Anti-speech laws have never been about stopping Nazis. It's all about the feeling that they stop Nazis, which (especially in majoritarian-biased politics) is all that really matters.
- atoav 7y ago
  > Mind you, Wahhabist groups were literally spreading their message just a few years ago (still in 2017) in front of shopping malls here in Berlin. So do Neo-Nazis quite regularily. But the problem runs deeper. I find it acceptable for a society to say, that it doesn't want certain types of messages to be brought forward. E.g. if your political message is to basically disallow any other political message other than your own, why should society tolerate your message? Or if you are going in all inflamatory and start to divide people and spell out goals of genozide – why would any society that wants to remain civilized not in some form penalize that kind of behaviour? As much as I am for free speech, censorship in any form (be it your collegues who stop interacting with you because of your shitty ideas) fulfilled certain societal functions and a lot of the change we saw in the recent years has also to do with the fact, that this censorship is not only gone, but the polar oposite: 30 years ago extreme opinions would have drowned out in the sea of mainstream opinions. Today we have digital systems that penalize mainstream opinions and reward extreme opinions on the fringes. This leads to entirely different discourses and also ultimately to the need of more censorship to retain social stability. The crucial question is how this censorship looks like once it comes (and it will).
sixplusone 7y ago
So "we must do something, this is something, we must do it"? My lack of an alternative doesn't make your idea good.
- atoav 7y ago
  If your bad idea is better than doing nothing and nobody can come up with something better, you could do it. The problem is youtubes recommendation algorithm, which rides users ever deeper into weirder and more outrageous videos, if they are susceptible to it. It's a bit like balancing on a knifes edge, and that very system feeds directly into those generating revenue from it. It is a system that rewards cheap outrageous lies over intelligent and balanced truths. In today's age where every truth will be declared to be just an opinion while every opinion will be presented as the truth, we don't need such a social experiment.
  - pathseeker 7y ago
    > If your bad idea is better than doing nothing and nobody can come up with something better, you could do it. Where is the evidence that this is better than the status quo?
    - atoav 7y ago
      If your problem as a society is the spread of extremist content and ideology (in parts because social media algorithms reward everything that provokes reactions), than "doing things" to avoid specifically extremist content linked to terrorists might not be a bad start? Isn't this the way the US government treats islamist terrorist propaganda too? I am not sure why we should treat rightwing terrorists different. Both are inhumane, cruel and undemocratic ideologies, that would end free speech as soon as they get in power. Note that this is meant to target right wing extremism, not right wing ideas per se. I am all open for discussion, but when people start promoting violence, genocide and hate, maybe a society is better off not protecting them unconditionally. Free speech is also a cultural issue, e.g. in Europe you could shock some people with explicit violence, while nobody cares about exposed female nipples. In the US it is exactly the other way round – they are extremely open to violence, while in other areas free speech doesn't seem to count as much.
stcredzero 7y ago
Everyone decried censorship, but always fails to provide an alternative to try and stop extremism online. The same as always. Criticize it. Maintain our freedoms. Continue to live as free people. It's only when we sacrifice our freedoms for security that the terrorists win. Unfortunately, we have been doing exactly the wrong thing by dribs and drabs for going on 2/3rds of a century now.
xfitm3 7y ago
You can’t stop it.
sadris 7y ago
Saudi Arabia considers athiesm to be extremist. Many people consider child mutilation ("gender surgery") to be extremism. Some people consider Zionism to be extremism. Some people consider border security to be extremism. Some people consider abortion restrictions to be extremism. So now, what is extremism?

Everyone decried censorship, but always fails to provide an alternative to try and stop extremism online.

by ausbah 7y ago

Everyone decried censorship, but always fails to provide an alternative to try and stop extremism online.

Kalium 7y ago

What kind of alternative would you like to see? How do you propose to evaluate if it's preferable to censorship?

ausbah 7y ago
That's the thing, I can't recommend an alternative other than censorship. All I know is that violent extremist groups or identities like ISIS, white nationalism, and others can be linked in part to a good chunk of the mass shootings and other acts of mass violence that many parts of the world have experienced over the past 10-15 years.
- Kalium 7y ago
  Those are excellent points. The rise of extremism is very worrying. Have you considered the possibility that this is might not be unprecedented, and that censorship may have been tried previously? It may be worth considering that it might be acceptable to not choose censorship as a policy. Some might opine that an inability to find an alternative should not be construed as support for censorship, and that this is merely the politicians syllogism at work.
devmunchies 7y ago
I don't know that you can prevent hostility after combining large groups of people from different cultures. Maybe throttle the stream of immigrants from different cultures so people can assimilate? Better than censorship.
- icebraining 7y ago
  What if that throttling involves a good percentage of them dying? Is that still better than censorship?
  - devmunchies 7y ago
    Preserve our freedom AND limit population growth? Sounds like a win win.

BonesJustice 7y ago

What constitutes ‘extremism’? It’s a term so vague as to be practically meaninglessness.

solotronics 7y ago
Extremism seemt to match up closely with an opinion that is opposite those in power.
- BonesJustice 7y ago
  And yet those in power are the ones who get to decide what the term means.
krapp 7y ago
> What constitutes ‘extremism’? It’s a term so vague as to be practically meaninglessness. No, it isn't. Inevitably someone like yourself will come into threads like these and attempt to start a slippery slope argument by trying to imply that the subject at hand is meaningless and, therefore, all attempts to address it are arbitrary. It really is strange how, for certain subjects, people just forget how English works. So let's begin with the word itself. "Extremism" is a noun. The root of the word is "extreme." A dictionary will define "extremism" as "the holding of extreme political or religious views; fanaticism." Synonyms:fanaticism, radicalism, zealotry, zeal, fundamentalism, dogmatism, bigotry, militancy, activism; Now, let us address the article to provide further context: Tech company and world leaders have signed an unprecedented Christchurch Call agreement to eliminate terrorist and violent extremist content online. Here we have a reference to Christchurch, a terrorist event. The common understanding of "extremism," as it relates to political speech, and specifically in relation to the events at Christchurch and the article posted, would understand the shooting of mosques by white supremacists to be an extremist act. So we can see that in the context of the article, and the call to action mentioned, "extremism" is not vague, nor meaningless, but specifically related to the dissemination of violent and terroristic material and propaganda, as was similarly done in the aforementioned terrorist incident. Although this is Hacker News, and I know it's futile here to suggest that standing in the way of bigots and extremists is anything but a slippery slope towards an Orwellian dystopian nightmare of fascism and thought-police and boots crushing our heads forever, there is nothing in this article, or the call to action it describes, which would suggest an intent to censor all arbitrary political speech, nor is the meaning of, "extremist" not well defined within.

basetop 7y ago

I rather live with the remote threat of extremism rather than live in a censored world. Would you rather live in North Korea with no extremism? You have a greater chance of getting struck by lightning than dying from extremism and yet you'd give up your right to free speech for some remote threat? That kind of thinking is the cause of north korea and nazi germany. Authoritarians always use remote threats to justify taking your rights away.

adbge 7y ago
It's also produced Singapore.
- int_19h 7y ago
  I would argue that Singapore is an example of a benevolent dictatorship. The problem with all such, that was already noted by Ancient Greeks, is that you have no guarantees that the next dictator is going to be benevolent.
ploika 7y ago
That's a pretty silly example. North Korea is North Korea precisely because of the extremism.
- ameister14 7y ago
  I don't understand that statement. I believe North Korea is a totalitarian state with concentrated power in few hands and no tolerance for dissidence. Are you saying they allow non-state actors to speak and take action freely to promote extreme ideologies there?
  - atoav 7y ago
    The poster probably means that NK is NK, because of its own extremist ideology. So the only way to really get rid of extremists seems to be to become more extreme than them.

snarf21 7y ago

Okay, I'll bite. Here is an alternative. Make it illegal for any "news" agency to publicly name the group or individual that commits any "terrorist" act. Make it a multi-million dollar fine per instance. We need to stop giving these people their 15 minutes of fame or infamy. All coverage must be about the victims only. We also need to collectively care about stopping extremism with other approaches. One thing that is that most people who commit these heinous acts have reached a point where their lives have to perceived value. They are then easily radicalized. (See blue collar America blaming all their jobs lost to automation on Mexicans) People who have money for their family and are generally happy don't go around killing for some cause. Addressing wealth inequality can help. The challenge of supporting this kind of "good censorship" is always who will watch the watchers? What passes for terrorism in the US is different than in a country like Russia or North Korea or .... A lot of people (even in the US) are very careful about what they post on socials. What happens if people who attack a certain viewpoint or organization are suddenly declared "evil" and the cause of all our ills? Is someone on a bowling team with a closet Nazi or KKK member also guilty? You only need to look back at McCarthyism to see how easily "good" people can be weaponized into something terrible.

pnw_hazor 7y ago
Great plan. All it takes is a government to designate a group as terrorists and any mention of them results in mega-fines. nit- Among others, neither the 9/11 gang nor the Christchurch shooter were poor.
tathougies 7y ago
That is unconstitutional in most countries, because you have a right to a public trial. In the United States, it's especially illegal, since the press has a right to free reporting, including public trial. The danger here is the government starting to weaponize this 'freedom', by designating mundane crimes as 'terrorism' and then holding secret trials. Given that this is precedented, and leads to significantly worse outcomes (including full-on genocide), it seems that it's probably better to just accept that there will be mass shootings. After all, even adding up all the mass shootings in the world, you will still not come close to the slaughter's perpetrated by governments holding secret trials of dissidents

uabstraction 7y ago

Moderating discussion forums is not censorship.

commandlinefan 7y ago
It is, by definition, censorship. It's not _government_ censorship, but it's still censorship.
- bilbo0s 7y ago
  Yeah, but so what? Companies need censorship to make money. They shouldn't have to lose money simply to satisfy your or my idea of not censoring. Now the government? Yeah. That's a whole other issue.
  - stcredzero 7y ago
    Yeah, but so what? Companies need to trample on your human rights to make money. Now the government? Yeah. That's a whole other issue. False. Freedom of speech outweighs property rights and the right of corporations' "Freedom of association." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBozijndSLc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBozijndSLc
  - int_19h 7y ago
    It becomes a political issue when all companies start engaging with it, especially when they do so under external political pressure ("We really don't want to pass a law - how about you self-regulate?"). Consider the situation in Australia, where all ISPs acted in concert to block websites. It's technically not government censorship, but the effect is the same - so any utilitarian rationale behind restrictions on government censorship should apply here equally. Or maybe this should just be considered a form of illegal cartel.
- prolepunk 7y ago
  I'm going into nitpicking rabbit hole, but the definition of 'censorship' is government censorship. The word comes from Roman republic position of 'censor'. "The censor was a magistrate in ancient Rome who was responsible for maintaining the census, supervising public morality, and overseeing certain aspects of the government's finances." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_censor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_censor When its not government censorship it's called self-censorship or something entirely different.

odiroot 7y ago

The bigger problem is how selective is stopping the extremism in many venues. This is really worrying. Here in Germany it's very popular to talk about, chastise and silence "Nazis" (be it real or assumed), which sort of makes sense knowing Germany's history. From my perspective -- of a Slav whose people were exterminated en masse by real Nazis. At the same time various, frequently militant, extremists (e.g. anarchists, AntiFas, Islamists) are allowed to speak their mind, openly recruit and even spread calls to violence against their political opponents. Mind you, Wahhabist groups were literally spreading their message just a few years ago (still in 2017) in front of shopping malls here in Berlin.

qball 7y ago
>Here in Germany it's very popular to talk about, chastise and silence "Nazis" (be it real or assumed), which sort of makes sense knowing Germany's history. And yet it doesn't even prevent the core of the problem, which is that the supreme law of the land is easily abusable as a weapon once the Nazis get in power (and if the German economy tanks to the point where people can no longer buy bread for a day's work, which was true in the Weimar Republic, they will). Anti-speech laws have never been about stopping Nazis. It's all about the feeling that they stop Nazis, which (especially in majoritarian-biased politics) is all that really matters.
atoav 7y ago
> Mind you, Wahhabist groups were literally spreading their message just a few years ago (still in 2017) in front of shopping malls here in Berlin. So do Neo-Nazis quite regularily. But the problem runs deeper. I find it acceptable for a society to say, that it doesn't want certain types of messages to be brought forward. E.g. if your political message is to basically disallow any other political message other than your own, why should society tolerate your message? Or if you are going in all inflamatory and start to divide people and spell out goals of genozide – why would any society that wants to remain civilized not in some form penalize that kind of behaviour? As much as I am for free speech, censorship in any form (be it your collegues who stop interacting with you because of your shitty ideas) fulfilled certain societal functions and a lot of the change we saw in the recent years has also to do with the fact, that this censorship is not only gone, but the polar oposite: 30 years ago extreme opinions would have drowned out in the sea of mainstream opinions. Today we have digital systems that penalize mainstream opinions and reward extreme opinions on the fringes. This leads to entirely different discourses and also ultimately to the need of more censorship to retain social stability. The crucial question is how this censorship looks like once it comes (and it will).

sixplusone 7y ago

So "we must do something, this is something, we must do it"? My lack of an alternative doesn't make your idea good.

atoav 7y ago
If your bad idea is better than doing nothing and nobody can come up with something better, you could do it. The problem is youtubes recommendation algorithm, which rides users ever deeper into weirder and more outrageous videos, if they are susceptible to it. It's a bit like balancing on a knifes edge, and that very system feeds directly into those generating revenue from it. It is a system that rewards cheap outrageous lies over intelligent and balanced truths. In today's age where every truth will be declared to be just an opinion while every opinion will be presented as the truth, we don't need such a social experiment.
- pathseeker 7y ago
  > If your bad idea is better than doing nothing and nobody can come up with something better, you could do it. Where is the evidence that this is better than the status quo?
  - atoav 7y ago
    If your problem as a society is the spread of extremist content and ideology (in parts because social media algorithms reward everything that provokes reactions), than "doing things" to avoid specifically extremist content linked to terrorists might not be a bad start? Isn't this the way the US government treats islamist terrorist propaganda too? I am not sure why we should treat rightwing terrorists different. Both are inhumane, cruel and undemocratic ideologies, that would end free speech as soon as they get in power. Note that this is meant to target right wing extremism, not right wing ideas per se. I am all open for discussion, but when people start promoting violence, genocide and hate, maybe a society is better off not protecting them unconditionally. Free speech is also a cultural issue, e.g. in Europe you could shock some people with explicit violence, while nobody cares about exposed female nipples. In the US it is exactly the other way round – they are extremely open to violence, while in other areas free speech doesn't seem to count as much.

stcredzero 7y ago

Everyone decried censorship, but always fails to provide an alternative to try and stop extremism online. The same as always. Criticize it. Maintain our freedoms. Continue to live as free people. It's only when we sacrifice our freedoms for security that the terrorists win. Unfortunately, we have been doing exactly the wrong thing by dribs and drabs for going on 2/3rds of a century now.

xfitm3 7y ago

You can’t stop it.

sadris 7y ago

Saudi Arabia considers athiesm to be extremist. Many people consider child mutilation ("gender surgery") to be extremism. Some people consider Zionism to be extremism. Some people consider border security to be extremism. Some people consider abortion restrictions to be extremism. So now, what is extremism?