6 ms·

> Radicalization is [...] about convincing the radicalized to undertake acts of violence and threats thereof for a political purpose I haven't heard it used th

> 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?
- heartbeats 7y ago
  They're just having a chat. It's unethical to censor them. Perhaps they should be brought in on some other charges, but there's nothing illegal about talking. They're not threatening to kill anyone, are they? In practice, you see this as well. There's a lot of people posting on the Internet about how they're going to do this and that, but in practice most of them are just blowing off steam. I get why a site like Facebook which wants to have community standards would like to enforce it, but it should be up to the proprietor.
  - anigbrowl 7y ago
    They're not threatening to kill anyone, are they? Yes, that's kind of the point.
    - heartbeats 7y ago
      I'm having trouble understanding your comment; the problem is that they're not threatening to kill anyone, which means they can't be subject to sanction, which is bad because they should be subject to sanction because X? If so, I'd like to hear what 'X' is. Or do you mean that they are threatening to kill people? If so, I don't agree. In America, the term 'threat' has a specific legal meaning: > Freedoms of speech and press do not permit a State to forbid advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action. If it does, it is what is known as a "true threat". Otherwise, it is constitutionally protected speech. Most of what is being discussed in these establishments is constitutionally protected. A casual exclamation such as "death to the Jews" or the common meme, "gas the k—, race war now" does not a threat make. Neither does serious advocacy of genocide of one or more ethnic groups. As we can read above, four elements are required: * advocacy of the use of force or of law violation * which is directed to inciting or producing lawless action * which is likely to incite or produce lawless action * lawless action which is imminent Genocides, under the relevant contexts, are usually not suggested as illegal actions. It is as if I argue that: 1. Marijuana ought to be legalized 2. If so, people ought to consume it I am not arguing for an illegal act, as if the necessary preconditions take place, it becomes a legal act. Furthermore, it would obviously not be imminent. Likewise, casual calls for murder of the members of ethnic groups seldom follow 2, 3, or 4. People joke about how, let's say, Muslims or Jews ought to be killed, or how the likes of Brenton Tarrant were justified in their actions, but it is rarely both directed to inciting or producing and likely to incite or produce lawless action, which is imminent. It is at most one of these, and being impolite isn't enough. You could argue that people's casual racism risks increasing terrorism, fine ('stochastic terrorism'). You have to break eggs to make omelettes, in my opinion. But what people are saying does not constitute threats nor otherwise violate applicable law, since America is a country of free speech, unlike Europe.
mprovost 7y ago
This article was written by Mike Godwin, the creator of "Godwin's Law", which you've just helpfully illustrated. https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law

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?

heartbeats 7y ago
They're just having a chat. It's unethical to censor them. Perhaps they should be brought in on some other charges, but there's nothing illegal about talking. They're not threatening to kill anyone, are they? In practice, you see this as well. There's a lot of people posting on the Internet about how they're going to do this and that, but in practice most of them are just blowing off steam. I get why a site like Facebook which wants to have community standards would like to enforce it, but it should be up to the proprietor.
- anigbrowl 7y ago
  They're not threatening to kill anyone, are they? Yes, that's kind of the point.
  - heartbeats 7y ago
    I'm having trouble understanding your comment; the problem is that they're not threatening to kill anyone, which means they can't be subject to sanction, which is bad because they should be subject to sanction because X? If so, I'd like to hear what 'X' is. Or do you mean that they are threatening to kill people? If so, I don't agree. In America, the term 'threat' has a specific legal meaning: > Freedoms of speech and press do not permit a State to forbid advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action. If it does, it is what is known as a "true threat". Otherwise, it is constitutionally protected speech. Most of what is being discussed in these establishments is constitutionally protected. A casual exclamation such as "death to the Jews" or the common meme, "gas the k—, race war now" does not a threat make. Neither does serious advocacy of genocide of one or more ethnic groups. As we can read above, four elements are required: * advocacy of the use of force or of law violation * which is directed to inciting or producing lawless action * which is likely to incite or produce lawless action * lawless action which is imminent Genocides, under the relevant contexts, are usually not suggested as illegal actions. It is as if I argue that: 1. Marijuana ought to be legalized 2. If so, people ought to consume it I am not arguing for an illegal act, as if the necessary preconditions take place, it becomes a legal act. Furthermore, it would obviously not be imminent. Likewise, casual calls for murder of the members of ethnic groups seldom follow 2, 3, or 4. People joke about how, let's say, Muslims or Jews ought to be killed, or how the likes of Brenton Tarrant were justified in their actions, but it is rarely both directed to inciting or producing and likely to incite or produce lawless action, which is imminent. It is at most one of these, and being impolite isn't enough. You could argue that people's casual racism risks increasing terrorism, fine ('stochastic terrorism'). You have to break eggs to make omelettes, in my opinion. But what people are saying does not constitute threats nor otherwise violate applicable law, since America is a country of free speech, unlike Europe.

mprovost 7y ago

This article was written by Mike Godwin, the creator of "Godwin's Law", which you've just helpfully illustrated. https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law