4 ms·

This never works because the people attracted to anonymous discussion with no ‘cancel culture’ (no banning/moderation?) ARE those who have been radicalized and

This never works because the people attracted to anonymous discussion with no ‘cancel culture’ (no banning/moderation?) ARE those who have been radicalized and would get banned for it anywhere else.

collyw 6y ago
Or maybe it's just people who want to hear alternative opinions that have been banned from the other heavily moderated platforms.
- silveroriole 6y ago
  Opinions like what? The only opinions people get banned for are ones which seem openly racist, homophobic, etc. Nobody gets banned for having or encouraging alternative opinions about, like, which Java framework is the best. Not even for more controversial arguments like whether God exists (at least as far as I’m aware.) Therefore the only ‘rational debate’ that will take place is between what most people would call racists, homophobes, etc. Nobody else is going to want to post in or even look at such an environment, so it rapidly turns into a completely worthless bigoted echo chamber where everyone’s patting themselves on the back for having such enlightened alternative opinions.
  - collyw 6y ago
    "There are two genders" would be one - a position that I guess that the majority of the public also believe. That's ground for banning in plenty of places. We aren't allowed to discuss on many platforms. Of course I will be labelled transphobic for that opinion. > Nobody else is going to want to post in or even look at such an environment, so it rapidly turns into a completely worthless bigoted echo chamber where everyone’s patting themselves on the back for having such enlightened alternative opinions. Pure speculation on your part. How does it end up any more of an echo chamber than somewhere where certain opinions are removed?
    - silveroriole 6y ago
      So, let’s assume that everyone who got banned for saying there are two genders (and presumably strongly believes it, because they cared enough to be banned for it) is attracted to this platform. People who disagree won’t be attracted to it; they can already post their opinion on, say, Twitter without being banned, and they hold the opposite opinion anyway. Now Twitter is an echo chamber of one side of the debate, and this new platform is an echo chamber of the other side. No debate can happen on Twitter; debate can IN THEORY happen on new platform, but won’t, because of the huge imbalance in participants (imagine an in person debate where one side is allowed to bring a hundred people who will all argue with the single guy on the other side). What have we gained by that? There’s still no debate happening. The banned people might as well have started blogs instead.
      - collyw 6y ago
        The difference being that you can actually post / see both sides of the debate on one platform. And that isn't the one with censorship policies. You seem to be in agreement that the lack of moderation actually gets us closer to the form of debate that we are after.
        silveroriole 6y ago
        I don’t really agree. Like I said, I don’t think you will ever get both sides of an argument there; one side will force the other out eventually. I’d rather have a proliferation of communities which are ‘censored’. Sure, have a forum for racists where non-racists get banned, whatever (although I won’t shed any tears if it gets closed down). If I want to see what racists think, I can go check it out. But I don’t want to be part of a space where I’ll regularly encounter racist stuff, and they don’t want to be part of a space where they’ll regularly encounter anti-racist stuff. Mashing me and the racists together in an anonymous arena where anything goes obviously won’t result in us all nicely debating and getting to know each other. It is not a step in the right direction.
        collyw 6y ago
41a4e1 6y ago
I think that even if it did attract those who would be banned anywhere else, it would not necessarily mean it is not working - depends how you define "working". I see the problem with cancel culture in suppressing legitimate but unpopular opinions and polarizing society by promoting echo-chamberization. I would love to have a place where opinions would be discussed and voted down not because people do not like them but because they can find arguments against them in rigorous debate. But how to set up the system in such a way that it would distinguish and push to the most visible place the best reasoned opinions and not the ones most liked, that is the hard problem.

collyw 6y ago

Or maybe it's just people who want to hear alternative opinions that have been banned from the other heavily moderated platforms.

silveroriole 6y ago
Opinions like what? The only opinions people get banned for are ones which seem openly racist, homophobic, etc. Nobody gets banned for having or encouraging alternative opinions about, like, which Java framework is the best. Not even for more controversial arguments like whether God exists (at least as far as I’m aware.) Therefore the only ‘rational debate’ that will take place is between what most people would call racists, homophobes, etc. Nobody else is going to want to post in or even look at such an environment, so it rapidly turns into a completely worthless bigoted echo chamber where everyone’s patting themselves on the back for having such enlightened alternative opinions.
- collyw 6y ago
  "There are two genders" would be one - a position that I guess that the majority of the public also believe. That's ground for banning in plenty of places. We aren't allowed to discuss on many platforms. Of course I will be labelled transphobic for that opinion. > Nobody else is going to want to post in or even look at such an environment, so it rapidly turns into a completely worthless bigoted echo chamber where everyone’s patting themselves on the back for having such enlightened alternative opinions. Pure speculation on your part. How does it end up any more of an echo chamber than somewhere where certain opinions are removed?
  - silveroriole 6y ago
    So, let’s assume that everyone who got banned for saying there are two genders (and presumably strongly believes it, because they cared enough to be banned for it) is attracted to this platform. People who disagree won’t be attracted to it; they can already post their opinion on, say, Twitter without being banned, and they hold the opposite opinion anyway. Now Twitter is an echo chamber of one side of the debate, and this new platform is an echo chamber of the other side. No debate can happen on Twitter; debate can IN THEORY happen on new platform, but won’t, because of the huge imbalance in participants (imagine an in person debate where one side is allowed to bring a hundred people who will all argue with the single guy on the other side). What have we gained by that? There’s still no debate happening. The banned people might as well have started blogs instead.
    - collyw 6y ago
      The difference being that you can actually post / see both sides of the debate on one platform. And that isn't the one with censorship policies. You seem to be in agreement that the lack of moderation actually gets us closer to the form of debate that we are after.
      - silveroriole 6y ago
        I don’t really agree. Like I said, I don’t think you will ever get both sides of an argument there; one side will force the other out eventually. I’d rather have a proliferation of communities which are ‘censored’. Sure, have a forum for racists where non-racists get banned, whatever (although I won’t shed any tears if it gets closed down). If I want to see what racists think, I can go check it out. But I don’t want to be part of a space where I’ll regularly encounter racist stuff, and they don’t want to be part of a space where they’ll regularly encounter anti-racist stuff. Mashing me and the racists together in an anonymous arena where anything goes obviously won’t result in us all nicely debating and getting to know each other. It is not a step in the right direction.
        collyw 6y ago

41a4e1 6y ago

I think that even if it did attract those who would be banned anywhere else, it would not necessarily mean it is not working - depends how you define "working". I see the problem with cancel culture in suppressing legitimate but unpopular opinions and polarizing society by promoting echo-chamberization. I would love to have a place where opinions would be discussed and voted down not because people do not like them but because they can find arguments against them in rigorous debate. But how to set up the system in such a way that it would distinguish and push to the most visible place the best reasoned opinions and not the ones most liked, that is the hard problem.