4 ms·

censorship doesn't work and will never work. if you cut someone's tongue you only prove you're afraid of what he has to say. the best solution is to fight them

censorship doesn't work and will never work. if you cut someone's tongue you only prove you're afraid of what he has to say. the best solution is to fight them back by showing them the opposite ideas. don't censor Nazis, put as advertisements and suggestions to positive content highlighting why they are wrong.

raxxorrax 7y ago
The allegedly worst site of actual national socialists had some badly drawn anime comics with very questionable messages and a minuscule user base. They were at the lowest bottom of the barrel for years. Then censorship ambitions flared up and look where we are now... Not that rational arguments seem to work in this discussion...
- eesmith 7y ago
  "Nazis" in these sorts of discussions is broadly meant to include 'actual national socialists', neo-nazis, white nationalists and white supremacists, and their sympathizers, stooges, and fellow travelers. This makes it a form of metonymy. Since the broader term includes more materials than "badly drawn anime comics", it appears you do not understand what most people usually mean by "Nazis". (To confirm my suspicion, I see at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19729764 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19729764 that you used the phrase "national socialists knew very well", suggesting that you consider it as a term for people in the past, and not those in the present. How then did any of them have web sites, and were interested in anime?) By the way, many people who, seemingly hyper-pedantically narrow the use of "Nazi" for "actual national socialists" or (seen elsewhere) "members of the National Socialist German Workers' Party" are often deliberately derailing the topic. My advice is to not follow practices which might mistakenly get you labeled as a Nazi sympathizer. In any case, the HN guideline is to assume the "strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize". "Actual national socialists" is a much weaker and not really justifiable interpretation.
  - 0815test 7y ago
    Well, if we're going to do that, I think this extended "Nazi" label should also include militant Islamic anti-Semitism, as from ISIL, Hezballah, Hamas and the like. Since there is a fairly clear line of descent from the early-20th-c. anti-Semitism that Hitler drew onto, to present-day Islamic fundamentalism and extremism.
    - thrower123 7y ago
      Well, the godfather of the PLO, Amin al-Huesseini, hobnobbed with Hitler and Himmler, and tried to raise an Arab legion for the SS, before returning to fan the flames against a peaceful partition in 1947, so the link isn't all that hard to trace.
    - eesmith 7y ago
      The main thread I pointed to was one of white nationalism and related areas of white supremacy and white separatism. While that certainly includes antisemitism, most of the people in the organizations you describe do not consider themselves white, nor, I suspect, are they doing so because of a believe in some variant of Aryan racial superiority. That makes them "not Nazis". Similarly, those killed in the Holocaust included Slavs, Jehovah's Witnesses, Roma, and homosexuals. Though these were considered racially inferior, deviant, or enemy nationals, while the Jews were falsely maligned as a 'counter-race', deserving of far worse treatment. That does not make all anti-LGBT people Nazis by extension. Just like it does not make all anti-Semites Nazis.
  - raxxorrax 7y ago
    I think it wasn't made clear that I was referring to the daily stormer in the example I have given, I was reluctant to give out a name. It is very true that there are at least some differences between "classical" national socialists and neo-nazis. I just wanted to point out that I actually visited the site once and it was ridiculous from top to bottom without any significant amount of users (per page rank). They were spectacularly banned which just seems to be like upgrading the position of North Korea. Something you might want to avoid. I believe it is worth thinking about it. > My advice is to not follow practices which might mistakenly get you labeled as a Nazi sympathizer. Me being a bit non-conformist from time to time is actually pretty useful against ideologies like nazism. Guilt by association is a different story however. But you are correct, let us be more self critical about that.
DanBC 7y ago
Everything we have shows that this is untrue. When you remove their funding - by demonetizing them - their spread slows.
- bronzeage 7y ago
  I'm all in for demonetising them, just don't remove them. you're losing the opportunity to change someone's mind when you shut their mouth. instead of removing them, the platforms need to provide with ways to counter them. I'm taking about putting 'advertisements' against their ideas in their videos, in the automatic suggestions, everywhere. you need to understand that the people who are convinced of these ideas are easily manipulated emotionally. All you really need to do is offer them a meaning and a feeling of belonging to a group. they don't care about facts, you need to emphasize about the group's betrayal to them.
eesmith 7y ago
A textbook publisher is not obligated to publish every textbook where there is the slightest demand for it. A newspaper is not obligated to publish every letter-to-the-editor which comes its way. A scientific journal is not obligated to publish every article submitted. Articles are even retracted. Their failure to publish is neither "cutting someone's tongue" nor "censorship". Or, if it is censorship, it's been around since forever, making the term meaningless. Why should Google have an obligation to publish that no other media company has? (I also agree with DanBC that what you wrote is not true. Among other things, why are there so many anti-vaxxers when the anti-anti-vaxxers have used the techniques you mentioned, and more, and when there is no credible doubt about the lack of connection between vaccinations and autism?)

raxxorrax 7y ago

The allegedly worst site of actual national socialists had some badly drawn anime comics with very questionable messages and a minuscule user base. They were at the lowest bottom of the barrel for years. Then censorship ambitions flared up and look where we are now... Not that rational arguments seem to work in this discussion...

eesmith 7y ago
"Nazis" in these sorts of discussions is broadly meant to include 'actual national socialists', neo-nazis, white nationalists and white supremacists, and their sympathizers, stooges, and fellow travelers. This makes it a form of metonymy. Since the broader term includes more materials than "badly drawn anime comics", it appears you do not understand what most people usually mean by "Nazis". (To confirm my suspicion, I see at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19729764 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19729764 that you used the phrase "national socialists knew very well", suggesting that you consider it as a term for people in the past, and not those in the present. How then did any of them have web sites, and were interested in anime?) By the way, many people who, seemingly hyper-pedantically narrow the use of "Nazi" for "actual national socialists" or (seen elsewhere) "members of the National Socialist German Workers' Party" are often deliberately derailing the topic. My advice is to not follow practices which might mistakenly get you labeled as a Nazi sympathizer. In any case, the HN guideline is to assume the "strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize". "Actual national socialists" is a much weaker and not really justifiable interpretation.
- 0815test 7y ago
  Well, if we're going to do that, I think this extended "Nazi" label should also include militant Islamic anti-Semitism, as from ISIL, Hezballah, Hamas and the like. Since there is a fairly clear line of descent from the early-20th-c. anti-Semitism that Hitler drew onto, to present-day Islamic fundamentalism and extremism.
  - thrower123 7y ago
    Well, the godfather of the PLO, Amin al-Huesseini, hobnobbed with Hitler and Himmler, and tried to raise an Arab legion for the SS, before returning to fan the flames against a peaceful partition in 1947, so the link isn't all that hard to trace.
  - eesmith 7y ago
    The main thread I pointed to was one of white nationalism and related areas of white supremacy and white separatism. While that certainly includes antisemitism, most of the people in the organizations you describe do not consider themselves white, nor, I suspect, are they doing so because of a believe in some variant of Aryan racial superiority. That makes them "not Nazis". Similarly, those killed in the Holocaust included Slavs, Jehovah's Witnesses, Roma, and homosexuals. Though these were considered racially inferior, deviant, or enemy nationals, while the Jews were falsely maligned as a 'counter-race', deserving of far worse treatment. That does not make all anti-LGBT people Nazis by extension. Just like it does not make all anti-Semites Nazis.
- raxxorrax 7y ago
  I think it wasn't made clear that I was referring to the daily stormer in the example I have given, I was reluctant to give out a name. It is very true that there are at least some differences between "classical" national socialists and neo-nazis. I just wanted to point out that I actually visited the site once and it was ridiculous from top to bottom without any significant amount of users (per page rank). They were spectacularly banned which just seems to be like upgrading the position of North Korea. Something you might want to avoid. I believe it is worth thinking about it. > My advice is to not follow practices which might mistakenly get you labeled as a Nazi sympathizer. Me being a bit non-conformist from time to time is actually pretty useful against ideologies like nazism. Guilt by association is a different story however. But you are correct, let us be more self critical about that.

DanBC 7y ago

Everything we have shows that this is untrue. When you remove their funding - by demonetizing them - their spread slows.

bronzeage 7y ago
I'm all in for demonetising them, just don't remove them. you're losing the opportunity to change someone's mind when you shut their mouth. instead of removing them, the platforms need to provide with ways to counter them. I'm taking about putting 'advertisements' against their ideas in their videos, in the automatic suggestions, everywhere. you need to understand that the people who are convinced of these ideas are easily manipulated emotionally. All you really need to do is offer them a meaning and a feeling of belonging to a group. they don't care about facts, you need to emphasize about the group's betrayal to them.

eesmith 7y ago

A textbook publisher is not obligated to publish every textbook where there is the slightest demand for it. A newspaper is not obligated to publish every letter-to-the-editor which comes its way. A scientific journal is not obligated to publish every article submitted. Articles are even retracted. Their failure to publish is neither "cutting someone's tongue" nor "censorship". Or, if it is censorship, it's been around since forever, making the term meaningless. Why should Google have an obligation to publish that no other media company has? (I also agree with DanBC that what you wrote is not true. Among other things, why are there so many anti-vaxxers when the anti-anti-vaxxers have used the techniques you mentioned, and more, and when there is no credible doubt about the lack of connection between vaccinations and autism?)