4 ms·

That's been the status quo up until now, but it doesn't have to be. We're moving towards orwellian style censorship at a breakneck pace with SV leading the char

That's been the status quo up until now, but it doesn't have to be. We're moving towards orwellian style censorship at a breakneck pace with SV leading the charge. Any violent thug can go spread their message in the town streets as long as they're not causing a disturbance. It doesn't happen very much, because it requires effort and it's sure to attract opposition. That opposition is necessary, like anti-bodies attacking an invading bacteria. By shutting out the harmful bacteria where anti-bodies can't reach them, they'll do nothing but grow and fester.

commanderjroc 7y ago
>> Any violent thug can go spread their message in the town streets as long as they're not causing a disturbance. Are you saying that if person X goes out and starts calling for mass shootings to rid the world of Y, that they wouldn't be arrested?
- RandomTisk 7y ago
  Not at all, I'm only referring to legal speech.
Thriptic 7y ago
> That's been the status quo up until now, but it doesn't have to be. We're moving towards orwellian style censorship at a breakneck pace with SV leading the charge. Very few people actually want such a site arrangement. Believe it or not, I have no interest in interfacing with people who want to kill me unless they are open to honest and rational debate, which few are. One of the reasons I enjoy Hacker News is because I know won't have to deal with the type of people that will frequent the fringe elements of the style of site you are advocating for. Also, I'd hardly call a business led moratorium on speech advocating terrorism and genocide "moving towards Orwellian style censorship". Absolutely nothing is stopping these individuals from standing up their own server and hosting this content themselves. They aren't banned by an ISP. Moreover, business owners should be allowed to express their opinions too, including who to do business with.
- RandomTisk 7y ago
  I'd be a lot more inclined to agree with you if it was only calls for violence for which people are being de-platformed.
sarah180 7y ago
I think we have pretty good evidence in recent years that this is not how things really work. Those filters and algorithmic steering just provides a way to keep people in their bubble. What you’re describing is basically what YouTube was: allow anything legal but use sophisticated software to show people what they’ll respond to positively. The radicalization this led to is well documented at this point. I’m not really in favor of what CloudFlare’s done here, but it’s really a fact of basic statistics that exposing the mainstream to well-made propaganda is far more dangerous than exposing radicals to the mainstream. Imagine 1% of non-radicalized people exposed to radicalism become dangerous and 50% of radicalized people are de-radicalized by exposure to the mainstream (laughably optimistic). If you start with 100 million non-radicals and 500 thousand radicals, you have a 125% increase in radicalization. This is how we now have so many flat earthers. When you have massive reach, it’s easy to grow your numbers.
BubRoss 7y ago
This is a private company deciding not to offer their services. How is that orwellian?

commanderjroc 7y ago

>> Any violent thug can go spread their message in the town streets as long as they're not causing a disturbance. Are you saying that if person X goes out and starts calling for mass shootings to rid the world of Y, that they wouldn't be arrested?

RandomTisk 7y ago
Not at all, I'm only referring to legal speech.

Thriptic 7y ago

> That's been the status quo up until now, but it doesn't have to be. We're moving towards orwellian style censorship at a breakneck pace with SV leading the charge. Very few people actually want such a site arrangement. Believe it or not, I have no interest in interfacing with people who want to kill me unless they are open to honest and rational debate, which few are. One of the reasons I enjoy Hacker News is because I know won't have to deal with the type of people that will frequent the fringe elements of the style of site you are advocating for. Also, I'd hardly call a business led moratorium on speech advocating terrorism and genocide "moving towards Orwellian style censorship". Absolutely nothing is stopping these individuals from standing up their own server and hosting this content themselves. They aren't banned by an ISP. Moreover, business owners should be allowed to express their opinions too, including who to do business with.

RandomTisk 7y ago
I'd be a lot more inclined to agree with you if it was only calls for violence for which people are being de-platformed.

sarah180 7y ago

I think we have pretty good evidence in recent years that this is not how things really work. Those filters and algorithmic steering just provides a way to keep people in their bubble. What you’re describing is basically what YouTube was: allow anything legal but use sophisticated software to show people what they’ll respond to positively. The radicalization this led to is well documented at this point. I’m not really in favor of what CloudFlare’s done here, but it’s really a fact of basic statistics that exposing the mainstream to well-made propaganda is far more dangerous than exposing radicals to the mainstream. Imagine 1% of non-radicalized people exposed to radicalism become dangerous and 50% of radicalized people are de-radicalized by exposure to the mainstream (laughably optimistic). If you start with 100 million non-radicals and 500 thousand radicals, you have a 125% increase in radicalization. This is how we now have so many flat earthers. When you have massive reach, it’s easy to grow your numbers.

BubRoss 7y ago

This is a private company deciding not to offer their services. How is that orwellian?