5 ms·

Reading the article, the view hinges on a gross mischaracterization: that a free speech environment has led to extremism and death. But this is absolutely not t

Reading the article, the view hinges on a gross mischaracterization: that a free speech environment has led to extremism and death. But this is absolutely not the case. First of all, the websites where the vast majority of extreme ideas are shared are not free speech environments. Second, the people who do bad things do it because they're damaged, or disillusioned, or some other personal motivator, the only difference now is that we can read and understand their view (not implying that we should be sympathetic, only understand even if we vehemently agree). Another point I have a bit of a gripe with is that the person fails to point out the misdeeds associated with the ideology he (probably) is more sympathetic towards. Interestingly, the view that people should not be able to freely share ideas with one another and judge ideas on their merit with their own cognitive capacity seems to be common among those sympathetic to this ideology. I wonder how the author feels about those people controlling the environments where discussion happens and policing discussion on extreme topics sympathetic to themselves.

tachyonbeam 6y ago
There's a possibility that if instead of discussing and debating ideas we disagree with, we repress them and try to bury them, it will just form a darker, more extreme underground network. Extremism isn't some new thing. Right now certain political viewpoints are allowed to be discussed and others are not. The Overton window is very small. That leads people who disagree to try to find each other and band together, form some kind of opposition. Because their opinions are repressed, they stay insulated in their bubbles (as do people with mainstream opinions). The isolation leads to extremism. If you look at the polarization of politics in the united states, both sides hate each other and they won't talk. Maybe if there was some kind of discourse, things wouldn't be so bad. Right now the only words exchanged are insults, all republicans are alt-right, all democrats are communists. It wasn't always like that. It used to be possible for people who vote differently to be friends, or even live in the same household.
- api 6y ago
  That is exactly right. It also gives them an intellectual martyrdom card and a veneer of coolness. If you want the next hip counterculture that all the kids are into to be Naziism, by all means suppress it. Nazis don’t deserve to be handed the “2 Live Crew effect.” For those who don’t know this was a mediocre booty rap group whose record went triple platinum after attempts were made to ban it. A parent poster raised another great point: the echo chambers that are full of this toxic stuff are themselves not free speech zones. They are heavily moderates safe spaces for specific ideologies and cultures. I am not convinced that this stuff would fare so well on a level intellectual playing field. It’s asinine. On a final note it’s important to point out that the original explosion of e.g. Qanon happened not via some decentralized free speech zone or even the chans (where it was always ironic or a prank for most) but on social platforms with algorithmic timeline. The algorithmic timeline is what has really ruined online discourse and promoted an explosion of insanity. Discourse on these sites is not equals but is weighted toward what will maximize engagement. Trolling, demagoguery, shock mongering, and various forms of “porn” (outrage porn, fear porn) are what maximizes engagement. The algorithmic timeline would be extremely hard to implement in a decentralized system. That’s perhaps a good thing. It might look more like the genuinely flat forum world of the old Internet where discourse was comparatively far more reasonable.
  - StavrosK 6y ago
    > The algorithmic timeline is what has really ruined online discourse and promoted an explosion of insanity. This is a really good point. I think it's important to point to this as the root of the problem, and realize that what's good for Facebook and Twitter isn't what's good for society.
    - api 6y ago
      I think a lot of this debate is on false premises. It’s not free unbiased media vs censorship but a debate over different kinds of biased media. All social platforms that implement any form of gamification or algorithmically weighted presentation are absolutely not neutral and will tend to promote whatever best satisfies the algorithm or echo chamber effect (in the case of gamified forums). If the goal of the site is to maximize engagement, that’s going to be extremism, edgelording, porn, and trolling.
s17n 6y ago
Of course, every individual extremist has their own story, but we are also all products of our environments and it is clear that the web creates an environment in which extremism thrives. Personally I think free speech is worth it but we can't pretend there's not a cost.
- TheOperator 6y ago
  The free speech web has created the most peaceful least violent society in history. Censors on the other hand are found constantly endlessly and relentlessly at the vanguard of the bloodiest most extremist movements of all time. What is this cost exactly? Censors have shown an utter and complete lack of evidence that censorship reduces violence whatsoever when you look at the long run and broader picture. They also love destroying the economy as well as art. Censorship at the end of the day always ends up being a particularly evil form of power politics regardless of the noble intentions it sets out with. Outside of a very narrow scope of things that ought to be censored (calls to violence which would include 8ch, defamation, fire in a theater, etc)
  - TheAdamAndChe 6y ago
    > Censors have shown an utter and complete lack of evidence that censorship reduces violence whatsoever That's because the scale and untracked nature of such noncensored sites make their impact difficult to quantify. We know that social contagions exist, but we don't know the extent to which they affect people. School shootings are far, far more common than they used to be. They started to really rise around the same time that sites like 4chan glorified the shooters and discussed the issue like it was a game. They spoke of becoming an hero(sic), talked of getting a high score, and made memes of their dead bodies. The world tends to loathe extremes. We know that extreme censorship causes social issues. Why wouldn't complete non-censorship combined with anonymity cause issues too?
    - riggernetard 6y ago
      https://ourworldindata.org/exports/homicide-rates-across-western-europe-10583a5a083e2959491228e50201be98_v4_850x600.svg https://ourworldindata.org/exports/homicide-rates-across-wes... https://marginalrevolution.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Violence-Stylized-2.png https://marginalrevolution.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Vi... https://theintercept.imgix.net/wp-uploads/sites/1/2018/02/Screen-Shot-2018-02-27-at-1.30.01-PM-1519756226.png?auto=compress%2Cformat&q=90&w=1000&h=427 https://theintercept.imgix.net/wp-uploads/sites/1/2018/02/Sc... https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Ftse4.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DOIP.N_4i8HfZ4_caPVq7oGIQaAHaFi%26pid%3DApi&f=1 https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2F... the world is roughly 100000% less violent than it used to be, and the violent crime rate has not increased much in the past 5-10 years. this is a total lie.
nine_k 6y ago
Why, yes, free speech does help spread all ideas, including those which lead to death. The only truly safe environment is a very strict prison where inmates are not allowed to do basically anything, because anything can be risky and ultimately lead to death. Ideally, thinking should also be restricted for the same reason. Danger cannot be removed from trying new things and learning unknown things. Danger, suffering, and death are inseparable from any progress. So it goes. Don't try to make an environment too safe, because it's inevitably stifling.

tachyonbeam 6y ago

There's a possibility that if instead of discussing and debating ideas we disagree with, we repress them and try to bury them, it will just form a darker, more extreme underground network. Extremism isn't some new thing. Right now certain political viewpoints are allowed to be discussed and others are not. The Overton window is very small. That leads people who disagree to try to find each other and band together, form some kind of opposition. Because their opinions are repressed, they stay insulated in their bubbles (as do people with mainstream opinions). The isolation leads to extremism. If you look at the polarization of politics in the united states, both sides hate each other and they won't talk. Maybe if there was some kind of discourse, things wouldn't be so bad. Right now the only words exchanged are insults, all republicans are alt-right, all democrats are communists. It wasn't always like that. It used to be possible for people who vote differently to be friends, or even live in the same household.

api 6y ago
That is exactly right. It also gives them an intellectual martyrdom card and a veneer of coolness. If you want the next hip counterculture that all the kids are into to be Naziism, by all means suppress it. Nazis don’t deserve to be handed the “2 Live Crew effect.” For those who don’t know this was a mediocre booty rap group whose record went triple platinum after attempts were made to ban it. A parent poster raised another great point: the echo chambers that are full of this toxic stuff are themselves not free speech zones. They are heavily moderates safe spaces for specific ideologies and cultures. I am not convinced that this stuff would fare so well on a level intellectual playing field. It’s asinine. On a final note it’s important to point out that the original explosion of e.g. Qanon happened not via some decentralized free speech zone or even the chans (where it was always ironic or a prank for most) but on social platforms with algorithmic timeline. The algorithmic timeline is what has really ruined online discourse and promoted an explosion of insanity. Discourse on these sites is not equals but is weighted toward what will maximize engagement. Trolling, demagoguery, shock mongering, and various forms of “porn” (outrage porn, fear porn) are what maximizes engagement. The algorithmic timeline would be extremely hard to implement in a decentralized system. That’s perhaps a good thing. It might look more like the genuinely flat forum world of the old Internet where discourse was comparatively far more reasonable.
- StavrosK 6y ago
  > The algorithmic timeline is what has really ruined online discourse and promoted an explosion of insanity. This is a really good point. I think it's important to point to this as the root of the problem, and realize that what's good for Facebook and Twitter isn't what's good for society.
  - api 6y ago
    I think a lot of this debate is on false premises. It’s not free unbiased media vs censorship but a debate over different kinds of biased media. All social platforms that implement any form of gamification or algorithmically weighted presentation are absolutely not neutral and will tend to promote whatever best satisfies the algorithm or echo chamber effect (in the case of gamified forums). If the goal of the site is to maximize engagement, that’s going to be extremism, edgelording, porn, and trolling.

s17n 6y ago

Of course, every individual extremist has their own story, but we are also all products of our environments and it is clear that the web creates an environment in which extremism thrives. Personally I think free speech is worth it but we can't pretend there's not a cost.

TheOperator 6y ago
The free speech web has created the most peaceful least violent society in history. Censors on the other hand are found constantly endlessly and relentlessly at the vanguard of the bloodiest most extremist movements of all time. What is this cost exactly? Censors have shown an utter and complete lack of evidence that censorship reduces violence whatsoever when you look at the long run and broader picture. They also love destroying the economy as well as art. Censorship at the end of the day always ends up being a particularly evil form of power politics regardless of the noble intentions it sets out with. Outside of a very narrow scope of things that ought to be censored (calls to violence which would include 8ch, defamation, fire in a theater, etc)
- TheAdamAndChe 6y ago
  > Censors have shown an utter and complete lack of evidence that censorship reduces violence whatsoever That's because the scale and untracked nature of such noncensored sites make their impact difficult to quantify. We know that social contagions exist, but we don't know the extent to which they affect people. School shootings are far, far more common than they used to be. They started to really rise around the same time that sites like 4chan glorified the shooters and discussed the issue like it was a game. They spoke of becoming an hero(sic), talked of getting a high score, and made memes of their dead bodies. The world tends to loathe extremes. We know that extreme censorship causes social issues. Why wouldn't complete non-censorship combined with anonymity cause issues too?
  - riggernetard 6y ago
    https://ourworldindata.org/exports/homicide-rates-across-western-europe-10583a5a083e2959491228e50201be98_v4_850x600.svg https://ourworldindata.org/exports/homicide-rates-across-wes... https://marginalrevolution.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Violence-Stylized-2.png https://marginalrevolution.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Vi... https://theintercept.imgix.net/wp-uploads/sites/1/2018/02/Screen-Shot-2018-02-27-at-1.30.01-PM-1519756226.png?auto=compress%2Cformat&q=90&w=1000&h=427 https://theintercept.imgix.net/wp-uploads/sites/1/2018/02/Sc... https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Ftse4.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DOIP.N_4i8HfZ4_caPVq7oGIQaAHaFi%26pid%3DApi&f=1 https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2F... the world is roughly 100000% less violent than it used to be, and the violent crime rate has not increased much in the past 5-10 years. this is a total lie.

nine_k 6y ago

Why, yes, free speech does help spread all ideas, including those which lead to death. The only truly safe environment is a very strict prison where inmates are not allowed to do basically anything, because anything can be risky and ultimately lead to death. Ideally, thinking should also be restricted for the same reason. Danger cannot be removed from trying new things and learning unknown things. Danger, suffering, and death are inseparable from any progress. So it goes. Don't try to make an environment too safe, because it's inevitably stifling.