5 ms·

For such cases, we should have the necessary legal tools to deal with them if the material is truly dangerous enough to be consequential. It is not the job of a

For such cases, we should have the necessary legal tools to deal with them if the material is truly dangerous enough to be consequential. It is not the job of a corporation to decide, though I suppose they are not under any obligation to provide service, either. I am generally against censorship, because for every case that is "obvious", there are many more that merely seem so on the surface. This is especially important in cases where you might simply disagree with how someone else thinks, since thoughts can never be allowed to become illegal or immoral; it is only actions where such judgements are applicable. The proper approach to combating misinformation and dangerous ideas is education. By understanding why an idea is dangerous, you will also understand why it cannot inform your actions.

laughinghan 7y ago
You and I have completely inverted ideas of what censorship is and why it is bad. Using legal tools would be horrific. Government censors deciding what material is too dangerous for the public is exactly one of the elements of fascism. Private entities on the open market exercising their right to not help promote ideas they object to is a good thing. It means that the more objectionable an idea is, the harder it is to publish and the smaller its reach; and the more in the gray area an idea it is, the easier it is disseminate and the wider its reach. If one of those private entities makes a mistake in judgment, that's an opportunity for a competitor. Governments have a monopoly on violence. Its power is not kept in check by competitors, but by systems like a bill of rights. Weakening those rights to allow legal tools to control ideas would be disastrous. Corporations have no responsibility or ability to educate everyone about misinformation. They do have a responsibility not to enable bad people to do bad things, including not promoting ideas they know are dangerous.
- afiori 7y ago
  the point is that in every jurisdiction in the world there are already laws to stop "encouraging mass murder to post their killing spree". Governments should not interfere in censoring lawful speech. Moreover an actual court of law ruling that 8chan was an illegal site would set a precedent for such thing happening. > They do have a responsibility not to enable bad people to do bad things, including not promoting ideas they know are dangerous. This is literally corporate fascism if done in an extralegal way. And no, the free market is not going to care about the 1-5% of people discarded. To quote a very nice blog[1]: Declare that you’re going to stop holding witch hunts, and your coalition is certain to include more than its share of witches. [1] https://slatestarcodex.com/2015/07/22/freedom-on-the-centralized-web/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2015/07/22/freedom-on-the-central...
  - kelnos 7y ago
    > Governments should not interfere in censoring lawful speech. What's "lawful speech" today may not be lawful tomorrow if we go down this path. I don't want governments deciding (except in very narrow circumstances) what people are and are not allowed to say. I really like the parent's idea that a company deciding to not provide service to someone they find objectionable is just a business opportunity for someone else. If no one wants to take up that opportunity, then the public has spoken. It's not ideal, but it's way better than a government making that choice through threats of force.
    - afiori 7y ago
      > What's "lawful speech" today may not be lawful tomorrow if we go down this path. I don't want governments deciding (except in very narrow circumstances) what people are and are not allowed to say. Entirely agree and current laws already prohibit encouraging murder > I really like the parent's idea that a company deciding to not provide service to someone they find objectionable is just a business opportunity for someone else. Like it was in in the 20th century before civil right laws? It is like saying that a monopoly is impossible because competitors can always emerge. It just does not work in practice. Especially when the "competitor" become themselves target of a new witch hunt.
      - kelnos 7y ago
        So what's your solution, then? If you agree that governments should not be broadly deciding what speech is ok and what is not, then how do you prevent monopolization pushing out legitimate but unpopular speech, while also allowing companies the freedom to disallow certain kinds of speech on their platforms? Things like civil rights laws are the flip side of the same coin. I'm comfortable with laws that prohibit threats of violence. I'm comfortable with laws that ensure you can't refuse service to someone just because they're of a race you don't like. I think that's a reasonable compromise of "free speech". But I'm not comfortable with a government requiring that a company allow their users to build something like 8chan inside their service. If Reddit didn't want to allow users to have a sub dedicated to fat shaming, I'm not comfortable with the government being able to tell Reddit that they're required to allow that sub to operate, unfettered. If Facebook wants to shut down a page or group that promotes hatred of a particular race, I'm not comfortable with the government saying they have to let it run. So how do we solve this problem? The article you reference even suggests, at the very end, that (despite the examples of past bad behavior) all this worrying might be for nothing: > My primary hope is that it’s just not a real problem. Certainly there has been very little in the way of speech restriction so far, and what little there has been has been against things which, on the object level, I’m happy to see gone. It’s entirely possible that we’ll escape with only a few things banned that probably deserve it. I certainly hope this is the case. He also acknowledges that it's not great to be in a position where we have to depend on hope in order to reach a good outcome, which I agree with, but maybe that's just all we have. Legislating behavior only works up to a point. Legislating attitudes doesn't work at all. I'm happy to see the Daily Stormer gone. I'm happy to see 8chan gone. I'm happy to see Reddit banning some subs (and honestly wish they'd ban more). I don't see the value in tolerating speech that promotes intolerance. But I'm not comfortable with the government stepping in here, and while their handling is far from perfect, the private companies aren't doing too terrible a job at it.

laughinghan 7y ago

You and I have completely inverted ideas of what censorship is and why it is bad. Using legal tools would be horrific. Government censors deciding what material is too dangerous for the public is exactly one of the elements of fascism. Private entities on the open market exercising their right to not help promote ideas they object to is a good thing. It means that the more objectionable an idea is, the harder it is to publish and the smaller its reach; and the more in the gray area an idea it is, the easier it is disseminate and the wider its reach. If one of those private entities makes a mistake in judgment, that's an opportunity for a competitor. Governments have a monopoly on violence. Its power is not kept in check by competitors, but by systems like a bill of rights. Weakening those rights to allow legal tools to control ideas would be disastrous. Corporations have no responsibility or ability to educate everyone about misinformation. They do have a responsibility not to enable bad people to do bad things, including not promoting ideas they know are dangerous.

afiori 7y ago
the point is that in every jurisdiction in the world there are already laws to stop "encouraging mass murder to post their killing spree". Governments should not interfere in censoring lawful speech. Moreover an actual court of law ruling that 8chan was an illegal site would set a precedent for such thing happening. > They do have a responsibility not to enable bad people to do bad things, including not promoting ideas they know are dangerous. This is literally corporate fascism if done in an extralegal way. And no, the free market is not going to care about the 1-5% of people discarded. To quote a very nice blog[1]: Declare that you’re going to stop holding witch hunts, and your coalition is certain to include more than its share of witches. [1] https://slatestarcodex.com/2015/07/22/freedom-on-the-centralized-web/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2015/07/22/freedom-on-the-central...
- kelnos 7y ago
  > Governments should not interfere in censoring lawful speech. What's "lawful speech" today may not be lawful tomorrow if we go down this path. I don't want governments deciding (except in very narrow circumstances) what people are and are not allowed to say. I really like the parent's idea that a company deciding to not provide service to someone they find objectionable is just a business opportunity for someone else. If no one wants to take up that opportunity, then the public has spoken. It's not ideal, but it's way better than a government making that choice through threats of force.
  - afiori 7y ago
    > What's "lawful speech" today may not be lawful tomorrow if we go down this path. I don't want governments deciding (except in very narrow circumstances) what people are and are not allowed to say. Entirely agree and current laws already prohibit encouraging murder > I really like the parent's idea that a company deciding to not provide service to someone they find objectionable is just a business opportunity for someone else. Like it was in in the 20th century before civil right laws? It is like saying that a monopoly is impossible because competitors can always emerge. It just does not work in practice. Especially when the "competitor" become themselves target of a new witch hunt.
    - kelnos 7y ago
      So what's your solution, then? If you agree that governments should not be broadly deciding what speech is ok and what is not, then how do you prevent monopolization pushing out legitimate but unpopular speech, while also allowing companies the freedom to disallow certain kinds of speech on their platforms? Things like civil rights laws are the flip side of the same coin. I'm comfortable with laws that prohibit threats of violence. I'm comfortable with laws that ensure you can't refuse service to someone just because they're of a race you don't like. I think that's a reasonable compromise of "free speech". But I'm not comfortable with a government requiring that a company allow their users to build something like 8chan inside their service. If Reddit didn't want to allow users to have a sub dedicated to fat shaming, I'm not comfortable with the government being able to tell Reddit that they're required to allow that sub to operate, unfettered. If Facebook wants to shut down a page or group that promotes hatred of a particular race, I'm not comfortable with the government saying they have to let it run. So how do we solve this problem? The article you reference even suggests, at the very end, that (despite the examples of past bad behavior) all this worrying might be for nothing: > My primary hope is that it’s just not a real problem. Certainly there has been very little in the way of speech restriction so far, and what little there has been has been against things which, on the object level, I’m happy to see gone. It’s entirely possible that we’ll escape with only a few things banned that probably deserve it. I certainly hope this is the case. He also acknowledges that it's not great to be in a position where we have to depend on hope in order to reach a good outcome, which I agree with, but maybe that's just all we have. Legislating behavior only works up to a point. Legislating attitudes doesn't work at all. I'm happy to see the Daily Stormer gone. I'm happy to see 8chan gone. I'm happy to see Reddit banning some subs (and honestly wish they'd ban more). I don't see the value in tolerating speech that promotes intolerance. But I'm not comfortable with the government stepping in here, and while their handling is far from perfect, the private companies aren't doing too terrible a job at it.