6 ms·

How is it "democratic discourse" to ignore statements of certain people? Last time I read a dictionary, democracy did not make a difference between citizens.

mschuster91 7y ago
> Last time I read a dictionary, democracy did not make a difference between citizens. To quote Karl Popper: "Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them." Democracy needs provable facts to work, it ceases to work when the electorate gets flooded by destructive lies.
- rhabarba 7y ago
  If Google only shows provable facts in the future, Google is pretty much useless in the future.
- FakeComments 7y ago
  Google calls mainstream conservatives, including Jewish ones, Nazis in their internal documents. [1] Antifa attacks the elderly and journalists routinely, but face no censorship on Google. Google employees have repeatedly testified that Google is intentionally trying to steer public perception, and that they knowingly lied about doing so to Congress. [2] Google is not on the side of tolerance. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=noHtKljPgJc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=noHtKljPgJc [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_XzcTINGOg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_XzcTINGOg
- agsilvio 7y ago
  Tolerance leads to intolerance, and we don't want that so we better not tolerate some stuff. Karl Popper sounds like a real winner.
  - andrepd 7y ago
    Yes, that's his point. Tolerating "Jews should not be able to vote" as an opinion will ironically lead to a less tolerant society. You must be intolerant with the intolerant.
    - tux1968 7y ago
      You literally just said "Jews should not be able to vote" and the world did not explode. Words are much more nuanced than you seem to want to believe. We are not equipped to properly censor them without doing much more damage than we do good.
      - ftr45 7y ago
        that doesn't change the fact that tolerance should be limited
    - loraa 7y ago
      Tolerating if it doesn't line up with my personal ideology, it should be banned because I said so.
- goatinaboat 7y ago
  Democracy needs provable facts to work I’m OK with this if Google takes full responsibility for the veracity of its search results and liability for any consequences of someone being misled. They won’t do that of course, they want the power without the responsibility.
- 34679 7y ago
  Is Google not "the intolerant" in this scenario?
- provolone 7y ago
  >provable facts Yet the human experience is subjective and fallible.
toss1 7y ago
How is treating lies as if they were truth any form of legitimate discourse? Especially when the lies are specifically crafted to undermine democracy? Any durably functioning society has means to shun & shed liars & those who work to destroy the society. Treating rules as absolute rarely works well.
- syshum 7y ago
  The biggest problem we have over Fake new and "lies" is too many people associate opinions and feelings with facts, and if anyone opposes those opinions or feelings then they are "Denying their reality" or "Their Truth" Further even factual "truth" should always questioned, debated, and explored, no one gave Google the power to say what is "Truth" and then to expel any other idea that challenges said "Truth" that is dangerous for society
  - toss1 7y ago
    Indeed, far too many confound feelings vs facts. Of course truths should be debated, there is a difference between useful debate and shouting or deceit. To paraphrase Asimov, we should well remember that democracy does not mean that Alan's ignorance is equal to Bob's truth. It has been well demonstrated that trolls can easily and consistently derail even sound scientific discussions, destroying the discussion and even the forum, if allowed. One only need to look her at HN to see how much filtering & moderation work is required to maintain a valid discussion. Individuals have better discussions than mobs. There is no basis to think that large scale discussions need less filtering & moderation than tight communities, yet even this obvious concept is fought here...
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
close04 7y ago
There's no democratic principle that forces you to listen to all opinions#. They just ensure you're free to have a voice (within the limits of the law) but they won't force anyone to listen to that voice or to amplify it. YouTube is an amplifier and while they give anyone a voice they're not forced by any law lo amplify its reach. Just like you won't go share my opinion with all your discussion partners. #is it anti-democratic if someone flags or downvotes a comment on HN? Are you or HN acting in an anti-democratic fashion by hiding and censoring that opinion? (obvious answer: no) Freedom and democracy are seriously misinterpreted these days.
- feanaro 7y ago
  But discriminating certain videos negatively by removing them from certain features (such as search results) is still amplification, just with a factor < 1.
  - close04 7y ago
    > with a factor < 1 How so? The video is there and it can be viewed. That is 1. That is your voice. It just gets no amplification while other voices do. Did you ever see Breitbart putting an anti-Breitbart opinion on the front page? Are they being anti-democratic by doing this? So I'll ask again, if you downvoted/flagged my comment thus making it less readable (factor < 1) did you act in an anti-democratic way? And if so how do you reconcile your actions with your words?
    - feanaro 7y ago
      > So I'll ask again, if you downvoted/flagged my comment thus making it less readable (factor < 1) did you act in an anti-democratic way? And if so how do you reconcile your actions with your words? No, because I only have a limited amount of power in this regard. If I was HN the platform and I systematically silenced your comments simply on the basis that they were coming from you (and you were not rude and/or an obvious spammer), then I would be censoring you. While this is not necessarily anti-democratic since HN is not a government institution, it does get unsavoury rather quickly. And like it or not, it is more unsavoury the larger the entity (in terms of audience) doing it.

mschuster91 7y ago

> Last time I read a dictionary, democracy did not make a difference between citizens. To quote Karl Popper: "Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them." Democracy needs provable facts to work, it ceases to work when the electorate gets flooded by destructive lies.

rhabarba 7y ago
If Google only shows provable facts in the future, Google is pretty much useless in the future.
FakeComments 7y ago
Google calls mainstream conservatives, including Jewish ones, Nazis in their internal documents. [1] Antifa attacks the elderly and journalists routinely, but face no censorship on Google. Google employees have repeatedly testified that Google is intentionally trying to steer public perception, and that they knowingly lied about doing so to Congress. [2] Google is not on the side of tolerance. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=noHtKljPgJc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=noHtKljPgJc [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_XzcTINGOg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_XzcTINGOg
agsilvio 7y ago
Tolerance leads to intolerance, and we don't want that so we better not tolerate some stuff. Karl Popper sounds like a real winner.
- andrepd 7y ago
  Yes, that's his point. Tolerating "Jews should not be able to vote" as an opinion will ironically lead to a less tolerant society. You must be intolerant with the intolerant.
  - tux1968 7y ago
    You literally just said "Jews should not be able to vote" and the world did not explode. Words are much more nuanced than you seem to want to believe. We are not equipped to properly censor them without doing much more damage than we do good.
    - ftr45 7y ago
      that doesn't change the fact that tolerance should be limited
  - loraa 7y ago
    Tolerating if it doesn't line up with my personal ideology, it should be banned because I said so.
goatinaboat 7y ago
Democracy needs provable facts to work I’m OK with this if Google takes full responsibility for the veracity of its search results and liability for any consequences of someone being misled. They won’t do that of course, they want the power without the responsibility.
34679 7y ago
Is Google not "the intolerant" in this scenario?
provolone 7y ago
>provable facts Yet the human experience is subjective and fallible.

toss1 7y ago

How is treating lies as if they were truth any form of legitimate discourse? Especially when the lies are specifically crafted to undermine democracy? Any durably functioning society has means to shun & shed liars & those who work to destroy the society. Treating rules as absolute rarely works well.

syshum 7y ago
The biggest problem we have over Fake new and "lies" is too many people associate opinions and feelings with facts, and if anyone opposes those opinions or feelings then they are "Denying their reality" or "Their Truth" Further even factual "truth" should always questioned, debated, and explored, no one gave Google the power to say what is "Truth" and then to expel any other idea that challenges said "Truth" that is dangerous for society
- toss1 7y ago
  Indeed, far too many confound feelings vs facts. Of course truths should be debated, there is a difference between useful debate and shouting or deceit. To paraphrase Asimov, we should well remember that democracy does not mean that Alan's ignorance is equal to Bob's truth. It has been well demonstrated that trolls can easily and consistently derail even sound scientific discussions, destroying the discussion and even the forum, if allowed. One only need to look her at HN to see how much filtering & moderation work is required to maintain a valid discussion. Individuals have better discussions than mobs. There is no basis to think that large scale discussions need less filtering & moderation than tight communities, yet even this obvious concept is fought here...
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

close04 7y ago

There's no democratic principle that forces you to listen to all opinions#. They just ensure you're free to have a voice (within the limits of the law) but they won't force anyone to listen to that voice or to amplify it. YouTube is an amplifier and while they give anyone a voice they're not forced by any law lo amplify its reach. Just like you won't go share my opinion with all your discussion partners. #is it anti-democratic if someone flags or downvotes a comment on HN? Are you or HN acting in an anti-democratic fashion by hiding and censoring that opinion? (obvious answer: no) Freedom and democracy are seriously misinterpreted these days.

feanaro 7y ago
But discriminating certain videos negatively by removing them from certain features (such as search results) is still amplification, just with a factor < 1.
- close04 7y ago
  > with a factor < 1 How so? The video is there and it can be viewed. That is 1. That is your voice. It just gets no amplification while other voices do. Did you ever see Breitbart putting an anti-Breitbart opinion on the front page? Are they being anti-democratic by doing this? So I'll ask again, if you downvoted/flagged my comment thus making it less readable (factor < 1) did you act in an anti-democratic way? And if so how do you reconcile your actions with your words?
  - feanaro 7y ago
    > So I'll ask again, if you downvoted/flagged my comment thus making it less readable (factor < 1) did you act in an anti-democratic way? And if so how do you reconcile your actions with your words? No, because I only have a limited amount of power in this regard. If I was HN the platform and I systematically silenced your comments simply on the basis that they were coming from you (and you were not rude and/or an obvious spammer), then I would be censoring you. While this is not necessarily anti-democratic since HN is not a government institution, it does get unsavoury rather quickly. And like it or not, it is more unsavoury the larger the entity (in terms of audience) doing it.