5 ms·

The truth is that information does not radicalize people - censorship does. That's why the channers are as radicalized as they are - they've been censored every

The truth is that information does not radicalize people - censorship does. That's why the channers are as radicalized as they are - they've been censored everywhere else. Censor their last remaining outlets and you will increase violence by orders of magnitude. If ethno-nationalists are not allowed to make their political case with speech, what alternative would they have but violence? You obviously can't change their minds with censorship, only harden them.

TehCorwiz 7y ago
The US president supports and advocates for their cause. A national television syndicate (Fox) echos their talking points. I don't think you can call them censored.
- SlowRobotAhead 7y ago
  >The US president supports and advocates for their cause. Citation? EDIT: Lots of votes, no citations. OK. Sometimes HN looks a lot like Reddit
  - keymone 7y ago
    Which kind would you like, the invasion citation or the infestation citation? I’m joking of course, not going to provide either, you can find them yourself if you’re not biased.
  - anigbrowl 7y ago
    Define 'citation', write a long essay about your criteria for accepting citations, maybe supply an appendix outlining your epistemological views so people know exactly what sort of citations you'll consider acceptable. See, two can play at that game.
    - SlowRobotAhead 7y ago
      wtf? It's not some "gotcha game". If the claim is [Donald Trump supports and advocates for ethno-nationalists causes] ... I'd like to a source for that claim because it seems like Orange Man Bad delusions, but I'm willing to remain open minded if someone can provide a citation!
      - anigbrowl 7y ago
        And I'd like to know what your standards are so I don't waste my time selecting and offering sources only to have them dismissed because you consider them deficient. Since you already incline to the view that such assertions are delusional and employ a common political trope to characterize such delusions, I feel nagging doubts about your purported open-mindedness. Discussions like this generally devolve into pedantic quibbling which would be a waste of both your time and mine.
        SlowRobotAhead 7y ago
        You can be as wordy as you like; Show me where Trump supports and advances an ethno-state.
        anigbrowl 7y ago
        Sure, once you've said what sort of citations you'll accept. Until then, no.
dwaltrip 7y ago
One alternative is that many of them give up the idea of taking action.
- DrDimension 7y ago
  What will you do when your plan to censor the alt-right backfires and makes the violence worse? Attempt to start rounding them up? And when that makes it even worse? You don't have a plan, just a knee jerk impulse to censor.
  - dwaltrip 7y ago
    It's not censorship of the entire alt-right. It's the limited censorship on certain privately-run forums of a small subset that is directly advocating for violence and attempting to tear apart society. If they want to speak in public, they are free to. They probably won't get a warm reception.
cc81 7y ago
I don't think that is how they come about. It is about recruitment and ideals and how they spread not about being banned on other platforms. If they could discuss saving the white race with violence on reddit or hackernews nothing would change more than they would have more potential recruits.
- afiori 7y ago
  At least something else would change. internal conversation based on uniform agreement would become impossible. If 1% of the people on a site agree with you, you will have an harder time memeing with your buddies undisturbed. Whether in practice the tradeoff is worth it, is another topic.
adamch 7y ago
A lot of people say "censorship radicalizes" but I've never seen any studies or evidence for this claim. Your comment is purely speculative. There is some evidence that banning extremist content reduces its potential to radicalize [1]. Do you have any evidence to suggest it increases radicalization? [1] http://comp.social.gatech.edu/papers/cscw18-chand-hate.pdf http://comp.social.gatech.edu/papers/cscw18-chand-hate.pdf
- DrDimension 7y ago
  That study only proves that it moves extremists somewhere else... If a man can't speak his truth, what alternative does he have to violence?
  - La1n 7y ago
    In this case their "truth" is violence. The thing being censored is them advocating violence...
  - mcbutterbunz 7y ago
    > If a man can't speak his truth, what alternative does he have to violence? No one is stopping anyone from speaking their truth. They're just saying they're not going to help you. If you want to speak your truth, speak it. Go down to a public square and preach. Write your truth down, print it, and hand it out. If its truth and you believe it so much, you'll do the work necessary in getting it out there.
    - lliamander 7y ago
      People are used to treating the Internet as the new public square. Obviously, there are many private entities that make up the Internet, but if want it to continue to serve as the public square (rather than a patchwork of corporate fiefdoms) then I think we have to accept the moral (and possibly legal) obligation of these private entities to maintain the Internet as a public square.
      - 7y ago
keymone 7y ago
> If ethno-nationalists are not allowed to make their political case with speech, what alternative would they have but violence? Plenty of nazi sites on the web where they make all sorts of “political cases”. Don’t confuse inability to make the case with repugnance to that case in general public.
afiori 7y ago
I partly agree with you, with some caveats. I would say that censorship increases the ability of information to radicalize. It is sadly true that some people are capable to manipulate others without the need for censorship to isolate them first.

TehCorwiz 7y ago

The US president supports and advocates for their cause. A national television syndicate (Fox) echos their talking points. I don't think you can call them censored.

SlowRobotAhead 7y ago
>The US president supports and advocates for their cause. Citation? EDIT: Lots of votes, no citations. OK. Sometimes HN looks a lot like Reddit
- keymone 7y ago
  Which kind would you like, the invasion citation or the infestation citation? I’m joking of course, not going to provide either, you can find them yourself if you’re not biased.
- anigbrowl 7y ago
  Define 'citation', write a long essay about your criteria for accepting citations, maybe supply an appendix outlining your epistemological views so people know exactly what sort of citations you'll consider acceptable. See, two can play at that game.
  - SlowRobotAhead 7y ago
    wtf? It's not some "gotcha game". If the claim is [Donald Trump supports and advocates for ethno-nationalists causes] ... I'd like to a source for that claim because it seems like Orange Man Bad delusions, but I'm willing to remain open minded if someone can provide a citation!
    - anigbrowl 7y ago
      And I'd like to know what your standards are so I don't waste my time selecting and offering sources only to have them dismissed because you consider them deficient. Since you already incline to the view that such assertions are delusional and employ a common political trope to characterize such delusions, I feel nagging doubts about your purported open-mindedness. Discussions like this generally devolve into pedantic quibbling which would be a waste of both your time and mine.
      - SlowRobotAhead 7y ago
        You can be as wordy as you like; Show me where Trump supports and advances an ethno-state.
        anigbrowl 7y ago
        Sure, once you've said what sort of citations you'll accept. Until then, no.

dwaltrip 7y ago

One alternative is that many of them give up the idea of taking action.

DrDimension 7y ago
What will you do when your plan to censor the alt-right backfires and makes the violence worse? Attempt to start rounding them up? And when that makes it even worse? You don't have a plan, just a knee jerk impulse to censor.
- dwaltrip 7y ago
  It's not censorship of the entire alt-right. It's the limited censorship on certain privately-run forums of a small subset that is directly advocating for violence and attempting to tear apart society. If they want to speak in public, they are free to. They probably won't get a warm reception.

cc81 7y ago

I don't think that is how they come about. It is about recruitment and ideals and how they spread not about being banned on other platforms. If they could discuss saving the white race with violence on reddit or hackernews nothing would change more than they would have more potential recruits.

afiori 7y ago
At least something else would change. internal conversation based on uniform agreement would become impossible. If 1% of the people on a site agree with you, you will have an harder time memeing with your buddies undisturbed. Whether in practice the tradeoff is worth it, is another topic.

adamch 7y ago

A lot of people say "censorship radicalizes" but I've never seen any studies or evidence for this claim. Your comment is purely speculative. There is some evidence that banning extremist content reduces its potential to radicalize [1]. Do you have any evidence to suggest it increases radicalization? [1] http://comp.social.gatech.edu/papers/cscw18-chand-hate.pdf http://comp.social.gatech.edu/papers/cscw18-chand-hate.pdf

DrDimension 7y ago
That study only proves that it moves extremists somewhere else... If a man can't speak his truth, what alternative does he have to violence?
- La1n 7y ago
  In this case their "truth" is violence. The thing being censored is them advocating violence...
- mcbutterbunz 7y ago
  > If a man can't speak his truth, what alternative does he have to violence? No one is stopping anyone from speaking their truth. They're just saying they're not going to help you. If you want to speak your truth, speak it. Go down to a public square and preach. Write your truth down, print it, and hand it out. If its truth and you believe it so much, you'll do the work necessary in getting it out there.
  - lliamander 7y ago
    People are used to treating the Internet as the new public square. Obviously, there are many private entities that make up the Internet, but if want it to continue to serve as the public square (rather than a patchwork of corporate fiefdoms) then I think we have to accept the moral (and possibly legal) obligation of these private entities to maintain the Internet as a public square.
    - 7y ago

keymone 7y ago

> If ethno-nationalists are not allowed to make their political case with speech, what alternative would they have but violence? Plenty of nazi sites on the web where they make all sorts of “political cases”. Don’t confuse inability to make the case with repugnance to that case in general public.

afiori 7y ago

I partly agree with you, with some caveats. I would say that censorship increases the ability of information to radicalize. It is sadly true that some people are capable to manipulate others without the need for censorship to isolate them first.