4 ms·

But they already are. The crazy screamer on the street corner causes an actual harm to you. To avoid 8chan is trivial; just don't go there. That people get rad

But they already are. The crazy screamer on the street corner causes an actual harm to you. To avoid 8chan is trivial; just don't go there. That people get radicalized going there seems like a poor argument. If I understand you correctly, the principle is the following: 1. Someone holds acceptable views. 2. They visit 8chan. 3. They now hold abhorrent views. Why should 8chan be blamed for this, or rather, what did they do wrong here? Don't you agree that people have the right to hold opinions without interference, and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers?

eropple 7y ago
Radicalization is not about opinions, it is about convincing the radicalized to undertake acts of violence and threats thereof for a political purpose. You get, yeah, that these are also places where these little shitheads gather and decide who to brigade (the aforementioned "oh, hmm, that lady has opinions about video games, let's try real hard to destroy her life" dreck that the various chans indulge in when they're bored), that geek each other up to the point where somebody thinks sending a SWAT team at somebody is a great idea? And that the management is shockingly hands-off about letting them do it and have been for years now?
- zozbot234 7y ago
  Swatting is quite illegal anyway - and so is plotting a 'swatting' online, by the "clear and present danger" standard. Free speech is irrelevant to this. Brigading might be a problem but both sides are doing it, so why blame only 4chan and the like while letting Twitter and Tumblr off the hook?
- Mirioron 7y ago
  >the aforementioned "oh, hmm, that lady has opinions about video games, let's try real hard to destroy her life" dreck that the various chans indulge in when they're bored What are you referring to when you say this? Because if you're referring to Gamergate then that's quite a mischaracterization. I'm not saying that bad things weren't done during it, but it wasn't about hating on women in video games. And aren't most swatting incidents unrelated to chans? Mostly it seems to have been about people getting angry at one another playing video games or related to streamers of video games. Does that make Twitch complicit?
  - fl0wenol 7y ago
    >but it wasn't about hating on women in video games. Are you saying it was about integrity in video games journalism? I wish I could express a figurative glance over the top of my reading glasses without an image macro.
    - Mirioron 7y ago
      To some degree? Sure. But if it truly was about hating women talking about video games for being women, then how come some of the idols of the movement were women themselves? If it's all about misogyny then shouldn't they hate people like mombot just the same? This is why I said that it's a mischaracterization.
- heartbeats 7y ago
  > Radicalization is [...] about convincing the radicalized to undertake acts of violence and threats thereof for a political purpose I haven't heard it used that way. Wikipedia, abbreviated: > Radicalization is a process by which an individual comes to adopt increasingly radical political, social, or religious ideals and aspirations that reject or undermine the status quo or contemporary ideas and expressions of the nation. As in, adopting extreme views. And that raises the question: if you have 100'000 people and tell them all to go read Mein Kampf, then some of them will undeniably go, "yeah that Hitler guy seems like a pretty smart fellow". What is the solution? It can't be to say that extremist speech should be banned. If so, we have to burn most of Western philosophy. And it seems like "it is morally justifiable to use violence to achieve political means" is just another political belief, correlating strongly with the strength of your political views. So all you are saying is that some political views should be banned. I don't like this. > And that the management is shockingly hands-off about letting them do it and have been for years now? The management did nothing wrong. Each site has a different vibe. In the case of imageboards, it's usually 'anything which isn't explicitly prohibited by law'. It's worth noting that 4chan bans the behavior which you describe. Even if they didn't, it raises an important question: where should the line be drawn? It seems easy to think of 4chan or 8chan as a discrete entity, which should be shut down. But say that we had some physical entity, like a pub, which for some reason attracted an extremely racist clientele who liked to go have a few drinks and then beat up the immigrants. Should the pub be held liable for this? What about serverless mailing lists, where I manually put everyone on the list in the "reply to" field, or Usenet? Should that be 'shut down' too? The thing I don't like about this is that both counterparties are willing. If you're spamming someone, you have person A who sends to person B, but person B doesn't want to hear from person A. With an imageboard, you have person A who sends to B, C, and D, but B, C, and D all want to hear from A. Should they be stopped in this endeavor?
  - anigbrowl 7y ago
    Let's take a concrete example: how about people swapping recipes for chemical weapons and discussing their efficient deployment against unknowing civilians? Or people discussing and developing (largely anonymously) the logistics of mass shootings, with a view to maximizing the body count?

eropple 7y ago

Radicalization is not about opinions, it is about convincing the radicalized to undertake acts of violence and threats thereof for a political purpose. You get, yeah, that these are also places where these little shitheads gather and decide who to brigade (the aforementioned "oh, hmm, that lady has opinions about video games, let's try real hard to destroy her life" dreck that the various chans indulge in when they're bored), that geek each other up to the point where somebody thinks sending a SWAT team at somebody is a great idea? And that the management is shockingly hands-off about letting them do it and have been for years now?

zozbot234 7y ago
Swatting is quite illegal anyway - and so is plotting a 'swatting' online, by the "clear and present danger" standard. Free speech is irrelevant to this. Brigading might be a problem but both sides are doing it, so why blame only 4chan and the like while letting Twitter and Tumblr off the hook?
Mirioron 7y ago
>the aforementioned "oh, hmm, that lady has opinions about video games, let's try real hard to destroy her life" dreck that the various chans indulge in when they're bored What are you referring to when you say this? Because if you're referring to Gamergate then that's quite a mischaracterization. I'm not saying that bad things weren't done during it, but it wasn't about hating on women in video games. And aren't most swatting incidents unrelated to chans? Mostly it seems to have been about people getting angry at one another playing video games or related to streamers of video games. Does that make Twitch complicit?
- fl0wenol 7y ago
  >but it wasn't about hating on women in video games. Are you saying it was about integrity in video games journalism? I wish I could express a figurative glance over the top of my reading glasses without an image macro.
  - Mirioron 7y ago
    To some degree? Sure. But if it truly was about hating women talking about video games for being women, then how come some of the idols of the movement were women themselves? If it's all about misogyny then shouldn't they hate people like mombot just the same? This is why I said that it's a mischaracterization.
heartbeats 7y ago
> Radicalization is [...] about convincing the radicalized to undertake acts of violence and threats thereof for a political purpose I haven't heard it used that way. Wikipedia, abbreviated: > Radicalization is a process by which an individual comes to adopt increasingly radical political, social, or religious ideals and aspirations that reject or undermine the status quo or contemporary ideas and expressions of the nation. As in, adopting extreme views. And that raises the question: if you have 100'000 people and tell them all to go read Mein Kampf, then some of them will undeniably go, "yeah that Hitler guy seems like a pretty smart fellow". What is the solution? It can't be to say that extremist speech should be banned. If so, we have to burn most of Western philosophy. And it seems like "it is morally justifiable to use violence to achieve political means" is just another political belief, correlating strongly with the strength of your political views. So all you are saying is that some political views should be banned. I don't like this. > And that the management is shockingly hands-off about letting them do it and have been for years now? The management did nothing wrong. Each site has a different vibe. In the case of imageboards, it's usually 'anything which isn't explicitly prohibited by law'. It's worth noting that 4chan bans the behavior which you describe. Even if they didn't, it raises an important question: where should the line be drawn? It seems easy to think of 4chan or 8chan as a discrete entity, which should be shut down. But say that we had some physical entity, like a pub, which for some reason attracted an extremely racist clientele who liked to go have a few drinks and then beat up the immigrants. Should the pub be held liable for this? What about serverless mailing lists, where I manually put everyone on the list in the "reply to" field, or Usenet? Should that be 'shut down' too? The thing I don't like about this is that both counterparties are willing. If you're spamming someone, you have person A who sends to person B, but person B doesn't want to hear from person A. With an imageboard, you have person A who sends to B, C, and D, but B, C, and D all want to hear from A. Should they be stopped in this endeavor?
- anigbrowl 7y ago
  Let's take a concrete example: how about people swapping recipes for chemical weapons and discussing their efficient deployment against unknowing civilians? Or people discussing and developing (largely anonymously) the logistics of mass shootings, with a view to maximizing the body count?