5 ms·

I don't agree. I want these ideologies in the open, where I can see them, examine them, fight them. I do not want them to go "underground" where they can fester

I don't agree. I want these ideologies in the open, where I can see them, examine them, fight them. I do not want them to go "underground" where they can fester and grow uninterrupted and unobserved by the larger society, until they have grown enough to burst and soak society in puss. Also, I do not want twitter, a private company, to be the gatekeeper, a gatekeeper we cannot observe or control. Especially not then the Saudis invested $300m in that company (or a reddit which had an $150m investment by essentially China). Freedom of speech is not absolute, but the limits shouldn't be set by some corporation, but by the People.

wtallis 7y ago
> I want these ideologies in the open, where I can see them, examine them, fight them. I do not want them to go "underground" where they can fester and grow uninterrupted and unobserved by the larger society, until they have grown enough to burst and soak society in puss. Keeping hate groups off of Twitter does more to inhibit their growth than your attempts to debate them.
- rndgermandude 7y ago
  Prove it. We saw exactly the opposite in Germany when they tried to ban the neo-nazis. Or the RAF. Or ask the Brits how banning the IRA went for them.
  - DonHopkins 7y ago
    You prove your point by debating the neo-nazis on twitter, winning the argument with facts, and shutting them up. Report back here when you've solved the problem.
    - rndgermandude 7y ago
      The point is not to win stupid internet arguments with people so deeply caught in their cognitive dissonance there is no escaping for them anymore anyway. The point is to prevent them feeling victimized and recruiting other people by stating they are victimized and censored. Do not underestimate the underdog effect. The point is to engage them, debunk them, as thoroughly and publicly as possible to disinfect people who are on the verge of being recruited. The point is not to insult and belittle and censor that blue collar worker deplorable because that person voiced some concerns about immigration for example (even misguided or even racist), because when you do, you create another Trump voter who might even go to a White Supremacists rally later, because at least those people take that person "seriously" (or at least pretend they do) instead of throwing a wave of name calling and open hatred. The point is to have give the nazis and also the disenfranchised but usually also very hateful and misguided young, mostly white, mostly male fellow human being some people so eagerly call "incels" a place where they can vent their bullshit instead of venting it on the 8ch clones populated only with like-minded people pushing each other further and further, and also keep to an eye on them. And maybe, just maybe, by not always being a total asshole to them (even tho they are total assholes to other people), not going for the easy "you're an incel nazi scum" kill, you will brick by brick dismantle their wall of mouthfoaming ideology. Like this guy does rather successfully: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daryl_Davis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daryl_Davis You might know him already; he is a the black musician who went out and actually talked to KKK members and now has a nice collection of KKK robes from people he convinced to quit.
      - DonHopkins 7y ago
        >The point is to prevent them feeling victimized and recruiting other people by stating they are victimized and censored. Do not underestimate the underdog effect. So you're saying the point is to not hurt neo-nazi's feelings, because if you're nice to them, they wouldn't recruit so many people to their cause? Sounds like you're making the old Tone Argument to me. https://geekfeminism.wikia.org/wiki/Tone_argument https://geekfeminism.wikia.org/wiki/Tone_argument Boo fucking hoo. Fuck their feelings. They'll recruit as many people as they can whether you treat them nicely or not. But booting them from twitter and other platforms drastically reduces the number of people they can recruit, and the amount of money they can raise. Are your own feelings hurt that Milo Yiannopoulos had to sell his own web site because he's so starved for cash he "couldn't put food on the table" after Twitter de-platformed him? Hurray for Twitter doing that, at least! https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2019/10/milo-yiannopoulos-apparently-sold-website-hes-starved-cash/ https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2019/10/milo-yiannopoulos-appare... >Milo Yiannopoulos apparently sold his website because he’s starved for cash >He was just saying that he couldn't "put food on the table." Now he has sold his website. Is he done? https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2019/09/poor-milo-yiannopoulos-cant-put-food-table-despite-selling-lgbtq-people/ https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2019/09/poor-milo-yiannopoulos-c... >Poor Milo Yiannopoulos ‘can’t put food on the table’ despite selling out LGBTQ people >“I’m clinging on for dear life," says the gay gadfly who made his career rubbing shoulders with neo-Nazis. They should have taught him the meaning of "schadenfreude." https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2018/08/milo-yiannopolis-epic-meltdown-facebook-tears-delicious/ https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2018/08/milo-yiannopolis-epic-me... >Milo Yiannopoulos had an epic meltdown on Facebook & the tears are delicious >Sure, he spends $7500 on a night out, but he's broke and you need to send him more money. https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/59n99q/milo-yiannopoulos-says-hes-broke https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/59n99q/milo-yiannopoulos-... >Milo Yiannopoulos Says He's Broke >“I can’t put food on the table this way.” https://www.dailydot.com/layer8/yiannopoulos-complains-telegram/ https://www.dailydot.com/layer8/yiannopoulos-complains-teleg... >Milo Yiannopoulos is dissatisfied with the living he makes from Telegram >20K followers just isn’t cutting it. >Former Breitbart writer Milo Yiannopoulos is among the perennially banned members of the far-right and conspiracy theory set who have found a new home on Telegram. >In spite of having 19,100 followers, one of the largest among his shunned cohorts who migrated to the messaging app, Yiannopoulos is not satisfied with his experience. Specifically, he’s mad that he a) doesn’t have more members and subscribers and b) the small size of his following is cutting into his bottom line. >In a lengthy thread unearthed by Twitter user @witchofpeace, the self-styled “pop star of hate” complains profusely about his paltry 470 subscribers and “microscopic followings like 20K,” which he says “are not going to sustain people like me.” https://twitter.com/witchofpeace/status/1170945244185210881 https://twitter.com/witchofpeace/status/1170945244185210881 >Milo reveals just how much the far right are struggling after being deplatformed from the main social media sites.
  - pluma 7y ago
    The neo-nazis didn't have a point worth debating that the public opinion suppressed. But they were in part caused by socio-economical problems that largely went ignored. Deplatforming works. People like Milo Y were raking in massive amounts of cash, then faded into obscurity when they were deplatformed. On the other hand, the AfD has received ridiculous amounts of airtime in Germany, frequently setting the topics for public debate formats like Hart aber fair or Anne Will and instead of becoming less popular now made gains in almost every election. Indeed, most political conversations in the public media now either directly reference them or (un)intentionally copy their rhetoric around problems. Compare that with the widespread distaste for the NPD before the AfD showed up, or look at how the total crapshoot of investigations into the NSU terrorist group or more recently the Identitarian terrorists is reported by the media and treated by politicians -- then compare it with the coverage of the RAF. Also, Germany banned "symbols hostile to the constitution", not neo-nazis. There were attempts to outlaw the NPD for violating the constitution, but they were completely botched by the investigators' reliance on informants and possibly agents provocateur. The NPD wasn't banned. And there are still frequent neo-nazi demonstrations, so claiming "neo-nazis" in general were at any point banned enough to "thrive in the shadows" or whatever doesn't make sense.
  - arrrg 7y ago
    Banning Neo-Nazis did work out pretty good in Germany. It‘s not a perfect or complete solution but exactly the right approach. Allowing them to only play in the kiddie pool by disallowing symbols and certain speech is also great and works towards making them look ridiculous. So all in all I give this solution high marks. It obviously cannot alone remove fascism from a society were that was so widespread and deeply ingrained. Reading all these comments here I can just advise HN people to be a bit more tolerant of imperfect, incomplete and messy solutions to problems. I know, programmers want to have it all neat and clean and complete and with precision but sometimes that’s not anything achievable.
- DonHopkins 7y ago
  If his attempts to debate neo-nazis on Twitter are anything like his attempts to debate here, it's no wonder they didn't work.
iovrthoughtthis 7y ago
Typing words on a keyboard is not fighting anything. Every time you interact on social media like twitter with a public message you disagree with you inform the algorithms that that message is good content. You amplify it. Like a virus piggybacking on the immune system our intuitive efforts to subvert the message simply expose more people to the message.
- rndgermandude 7y ago
  bullshit. Dialogue, personal preferred, but "digital" if not otherwise possible, is a way to actually fight ideology and undermine the ideologist and demagogues. Sure, the twitters and facebooks with their shitty algorithms tuned for maximal addiction and thus indirectly maximal conflict are far from helpful, but that isn't a reason to stop the dialogue. That's a reason to force these corporations to not behave like drugdealers. What's your approach to fighting ideology? Hiding it (aka censoring it, "deplatforming") doesn't work. Then you only disenfranchise people to a degree where they a least the already mentally unstable will be put in a mental position of "my life is over, I could as well go out with a bang". The other alternative is to use force of some kind, like imprison people with the "wrong" ideas, "hit a nazi" or outright kill them... also known as fascism. Fighting fascism with fascism from the other direction does not seem to be a viable approach to me either.
  - iovrthoughtthis 7y ago
    > “whats your approach to fighting it” I’ve found that you can’t fight ideology. The harder you push against someones identity, challenging their sense of self, the hard they dig in and often begin their own offensive to divert the challenge away from their identity. Ideology isn’t often rational (unless the identity is based in being rational... but even then thats often more about being a person who is right or smart than actually being rational). You can’t fight it with rationality. I have no control over you. I cannot change your mind for you. I can only attempt to make it safe for you explore other ideas without loosing your identity. It’s up to you to change your own mind.
tallanvor 7y ago
Freedom of speech is the government not throwing you in jail for saying things it doesn't like. What Twitter does or does not allow has nothing to do with freedom of speech.
- rndgermandude 7y ago
  Always that same, tired argument. Yes, they are a private company. But also yes, private companies can be regulated. Twitter already cannot refuse service to people based on the color of their skin. Volkswagen did not implement a "freedom of speech, we're a private company and do as we please"-device but a cheat-device violating environmental regulations. Utility companies have a "duty to serve" and cannot deny you service because you wrote a bad review about them on yelp. It has long been my stance that companies whose products have major societal impact especially on the functioning of our democracies should be regulated along the lines of public utilities with a duty to serve. This duty to serve is not boundless, just like with the traditional utilities.
SolaceQuantum 7y ago
Hi, do you have any sources that indicate that deplatforming doesn’t work as well as open discourse? Thank you.
- qtplatypus 7y ago
  There are sources for the reverse. https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/bjbp9d/do-social-media-bans-work https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/bjbp9d/do-social-media-ba...

wtallis 7y ago

> I want these ideologies in the open, where I can see them, examine them, fight them. I do not want them to go "underground" where they can fester and grow uninterrupted and unobserved by the larger society, until they have grown enough to burst and soak society in puss. Keeping hate groups off of Twitter does more to inhibit their growth than your attempts to debate them.

rndgermandude 7y ago
Prove it. We saw exactly the opposite in Germany when they tried to ban the neo-nazis. Or the RAF. Or ask the Brits how banning the IRA went for them.
- DonHopkins 7y ago
  You prove your point by debating the neo-nazis on twitter, winning the argument with facts, and shutting them up. Report back here when you've solved the problem.
  - rndgermandude 7y ago
    The point is not to win stupid internet arguments with people so deeply caught in their cognitive dissonance there is no escaping for them anymore anyway. The point is to prevent them feeling victimized and recruiting other people by stating they are victimized and censored. Do not underestimate the underdog effect. The point is to engage them, debunk them, as thoroughly and publicly as possible to disinfect people who are on the verge of being recruited. The point is not to insult and belittle and censor that blue collar worker deplorable because that person voiced some concerns about immigration for example (even misguided or even racist), because when you do, you create another Trump voter who might even go to a White Supremacists rally later, because at least those people take that person "seriously" (or at least pretend they do) instead of throwing a wave of name calling and open hatred. The point is to have give the nazis and also the disenfranchised but usually also very hateful and misguided young, mostly white, mostly male fellow human being some people so eagerly call "incels" a place where they can vent their bullshit instead of venting it on the 8ch clones populated only with like-minded people pushing each other further and further, and also keep to an eye on them. And maybe, just maybe, by not always being a total asshole to them (even tho they are total assholes to other people), not going for the easy "you're an incel nazi scum" kill, you will brick by brick dismantle their wall of mouthfoaming ideology. Like this guy does rather successfully: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daryl_Davis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daryl_Davis You might know him already; he is a the black musician who went out and actually talked to KKK members and now has a nice collection of KKK robes from people he convinced to quit.
    - DonHopkins 7y ago
      >The point is to prevent them feeling victimized and recruiting other people by stating they are victimized and censored. Do not underestimate the underdog effect. So you're saying the point is to not hurt neo-nazi's feelings, because if you're nice to them, they wouldn't recruit so many people to their cause? Sounds like you're making the old Tone Argument to me. https://geekfeminism.wikia.org/wiki/Tone_argument https://geekfeminism.wikia.org/wiki/Tone_argument Boo fucking hoo. Fuck their feelings. They'll recruit as many people as they can whether you treat them nicely or not. But booting them from twitter and other platforms drastically reduces the number of people they can recruit, and the amount of money they can raise. Are your own feelings hurt that Milo Yiannopoulos had to sell his own web site because he's so starved for cash he "couldn't put food on the table" after Twitter de-platformed him? Hurray for Twitter doing that, at least! https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2019/10/milo-yiannopoulos-apparently-sold-website-hes-starved-cash/ https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2019/10/milo-yiannopoulos-appare... >Milo Yiannopoulos apparently sold his website because he’s starved for cash >He was just saying that he couldn't "put food on the table." Now he has sold his website. Is he done? https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2019/09/poor-milo-yiannopoulos-cant-put-food-table-despite-selling-lgbtq-people/ https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2019/09/poor-milo-yiannopoulos-c... >Poor Milo Yiannopoulos ‘can’t put food on the table’ despite selling out LGBTQ people >“I’m clinging on for dear life," says the gay gadfly who made his career rubbing shoulders with neo-Nazis. They should have taught him the meaning of "schadenfreude." https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2018/08/milo-yiannopolis-epic-meltdown-facebook-tears-delicious/ https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2018/08/milo-yiannopolis-epic-me... >Milo Yiannopoulos had an epic meltdown on Facebook & the tears are delicious >Sure, he spends $7500 on a night out, but he's broke and you need to send him more money. https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/59n99q/milo-yiannopoulos-says-hes-broke https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/59n99q/milo-yiannopoulos-... >Milo Yiannopoulos Says He's Broke >“I can’t put food on the table this way.” https://www.dailydot.com/layer8/yiannopoulos-complains-telegram/ https://www.dailydot.com/layer8/yiannopoulos-complains-teleg... >Milo Yiannopoulos is dissatisfied with the living he makes from Telegram >20K followers just isn’t cutting it. >Former Breitbart writer Milo Yiannopoulos is among the perennially banned members of the far-right and conspiracy theory set who have found a new home on Telegram. >In spite of having 19,100 followers, one of the largest among his shunned cohorts who migrated to the messaging app, Yiannopoulos is not satisfied with his experience. Specifically, he’s mad that he a) doesn’t have more members and subscribers and b) the small size of his following is cutting into his bottom line. >In a lengthy thread unearthed by Twitter user @witchofpeace, the self-styled “pop star of hate” complains profusely about his paltry 470 subscribers and “microscopic followings like 20K,” which he says “are not going to sustain people like me.” https://twitter.com/witchofpeace/status/1170945244185210881 https://twitter.com/witchofpeace/status/1170945244185210881 >Milo reveals just how much the far right are struggling after being deplatformed from the main social media sites.
- pluma 7y ago
  The neo-nazis didn't have a point worth debating that the public opinion suppressed. But they were in part caused by socio-economical problems that largely went ignored. Deplatforming works. People like Milo Y were raking in massive amounts of cash, then faded into obscurity when they were deplatformed. On the other hand, the AfD has received ridiculous amounts of airtime in Germany, frequently setting the topics for public debate formats like Hart aber fair or Anne Will and instead of becoming less popular now made gains in almost every election. Indeed, most political conversations in the public media now either directly reference them or (un)intentionally copy their rhetoric around problems. Compare that with the widespread distaste for the NPD before the AfD showed up, or look at how the total crapshoot of investigations into the NSU terrorist group or more recently the Identitarian terrorists is reported by the media and treated by politicians -- then compare it with the coverage of the RAF. Also, Germany banned "symbols hostile to the constitution", not neo-nazis. There were attempts to outlaw the NPD for violating the constitution, but they were completely botched by the investigators' reliance on informants and possibly agents provocateur. The NPD wasn't banned. And there are still frequent neo-nazi demonstrations, so claiming "neo-nazis" in general were at any point banned enough to "thrive in the shadows" or whatever doesn't make sense.
- arrrg 7y ago
  Banning Neo-Nazis did work out pretty good in Germany. It‘s not a perfect or complete solution but exactly the right approach. Allowing them to only play in the kiddie pool by disallowing symbols and certain speech is also great and works towards making them look ridiculous. So all in all I give this solution high marks. It obviously cannot alone remove fascism from a society were that was so widespread and deeply ingrained. Reading all these comments here I can just advise HN people to be a bit more tolerant of imperfect, incomplete and messy solutions to problems. I know, programmers want to have it all neat and clean and complete and with precision but sometimes that’s not anything achievable.
DonHopkins 7y ago
If his attempts to debate neo-nazis on Twitter are anything like his attempts to debate here, it's no wonder they didn't work.

iovrthoughtthis 7y ago

Typing words on a keyboard is not fighting anything. Every time you interact on social media like twitter with a public message you disagree with you inform the algorithms that that message is good content. You amplify it. Like a virus piggybacking on the immune system our intuitive efforts to subvert the message simply expose more people to the message.

rndgermandude 7y ago
bullshit. Dialogue, personal preferred, but "digital" if not otherwise possible, is a way to actually fight ideology and undermine the ideologist and demagogues. Sure, the twitters and facebooks with their shitty algorithms tuned for maximal addiction and thus indirectly maximal conflict are far from helpful, but that isn't a reason to stop the dialogue. That's a reason to force these corporations to not behave like drugdealers. What's your approach to fighting ideology? Hiding it (aka censoring it, "deplatforming") doesn't work. Then you only disenfranchise people to a degree where they a least the already mentally unstable will be put in a mental position of "my life is over, I could as well go out with a bang". The other alternative is to use force of some kind, like imprison people with the "wrong" ideas, "hit a nazi" or outright kill them... also known as fascism. Fighting fascism with fascism from the other direction does not seem to be a viable approach to me either.
- iovrthoughtthis 7y ago
  > “whats your approach to fighting it” I’ve found that you can’t fight ideology. The harder you push against someones identity, challenging their sense of self, the hard they dig in and often begin their own offensive to divert the challenge away from their identity. Ideology isn’t often rational (unless the identity is based in being rational... but even then thats often more about being a person who is right or smart than actually being rational). You can’t fight it with rationality. I have no control over you. I cannot change your mind for you. I can only attempt to make it safe for you explore other ideas without loosing your identity. It’s up to you to change your own mind.

tallanvor 7y ago

Freedom of speech is the government not throwing you in jail for saying things it doesn't like. What Twitter does or does not allow has nothing to do with freedom of speech.

rndgermandude 7y ago
Always that same, tired argument. Yes, they are a private company. But also yes, private companies can be regulated. Twitter already cannot refuse service to people based on the color of their skin. Volkswagen did not implement a "freedom of speech, we're a private company and do as we please"-device but a cheat-device violating environmental regulations. Utility companies have a "duty to serve" and cannot deny you service because you wrote a bad review about them on yelp. It has long been my stance that companies whose products have major societal impact especially on the functioning of our democracies should be regulated along the lines of public utilities with a duty to serve. This duty to serve is not boundless, just like with the traditional utilities.

SolaceQuantum 7y ago

Hi, do you have any sources that indicate that deplatforming doesn’t work as well as open discourse? Thank you.

qtplatypus 7y ago
There are sources for the reverse. https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/bjbp9d/do-social-media-bans-work https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/bjbp9d/do-social-media-ba...