5 ms·

Payment processors already deplatform sexually explicit content that features minors. (They also don't process payments for digital-only sexual content, likely

Payment processors already deplatform sexually explicit content that features minors. (They also don't process payments for digital-only sexual content, likely because of high fraud and chargeback rates.) But I haven't seen PayPal fall down the slippery slope of banning kinky/less mainstream sexual content. Right now, these payment processors are deplatforming racists and neo-Nazis who openly advocate for the creation of a white ethnostate. To assume that eventually these payment processors will be successfully pressured into deplatforming moderately-right publications like the WSJ is classic slippery-slope fallacy. There is a huge difference between believing conservative ideas and advocating for violence against ethnic minorities. > social network Gab, which describes itself as pro-free speech but has high concentrations of toxicity. Give me a break. Gab is a haven for white-supremacists and neo-Nazis. PayPal deplatformed Gab after a verified neo-Nazi user posted anti-semitism on the site, then shot up a synagogue killing 11 and injuring 6 [0]. "Toxicity" is terribly bad faith argument. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gab_(social_network)#2018_Pittsburgh_synagogue_shooting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gab_(social_network)#2018_Pitt...

rvense 6y ago
I really think it would be good for America to enact some sort of electoral reform to allow for more than two parties to have a reasonable chance at influence. It really seems to distort your politics that everything is binary.
- tylerhou 6y ago
  I would appreciate if you could explain to me how my political viewpoint is distorted inc. how I view things as "binary." My viewpoint is: calling for ethnic cleansing through violence creates real harm (people have been murdered!), so private citizens and organizations should not support people who advocate for ethnic cleansing. Also, blaming the two party system misunderstands US politics. Most Democratic politicians have not called for deplatforming of white supremacists — it's mostly a leftist idea.
  - rvense 6y ago
    > My viewpoint is: calling for ethnic cleansing through violence creates real harm (people have been murdered!), so private citizens and organizations should not support people who advocate for ethnic cleansing. Oh, I wholly agree on that part! It's absolutely not that. I think deplatforming that stuff is good. Good for society, and good because you get to watch them complain about being oppressed. > Also, blaming the two party system misunderstands US politics. Most Democratic politicians have not called for deplatforming of white supremacists — it's mostly a leftist idea. Precisely. My point was that the original article and much American political discourse has trouble distinguishing between the Democratic party and "leftists". And different groups of leftists - that often can't get along. It also kind of exists in the opposite direction, in that centrists aren't fascists. That's the distortion, and I think the two-party system makes the tribalism much worse than it needs to be.
dnautics 6y ago
Payment processors also won't touch sci-hub. What do you think of that? Secondary question: When is a slippery slope a fallacy and when is it not? There's lots of things we consider it good to ban because allowing it is a slippery slope, like when the administration justified using torture in exigent situations.
- tylerhou 6y ago
  SciHub is ultimately helping people violate copyright laws. I personally think that science should have more open access, and I assume that many who work at these payment processors share my sentiment. But I think payment processors want to avoid legal liability — legal fees and settlements (or even criminal charges) are expensive. > When is a slippery slope a fallacy and when is it not? Wikipedia has a section on this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope#Non-fallacious_usage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope#Non-fallacious_... In my opinion, slippery slope is a fallacy when there is not a clear demarcation. If the US government says "we need to torture in exigent situations" I worry about slippery slope because it's easy for the definition of "exigent" to change when convenient. On the other hand, if the US government said "we use torture for people who have been in contact with ISIS and have been convicted of murder," then the criteria are provable facts that create a clear line. I would still disagree with the use of torture, but my disagreement would be on ethical grounds, not that there is a slippery slope. If payment processors say "we won't process payments for platforms who knowingly host content that advocates for violence against a race of people" — then it's not a slippery slope. When a line is clearly demarcated, there is a mechanism for changes in the policy to be examined (and just because a policy changes that doesn't mean that there is a slippery slope; sometimes changes are justified!). One could argue that the line could be capriciously moved; however, I would want some sort of evidence or justification that it might be.
  - dnautics 6y ago
    ok, so I think many people will take issue with your definition. The arguably canonical modern example of a "bad slippery slope" argument is "if we legalize gay marriage, then what is next, bestiality?" but according to your definition, because it would need a "mechanism for changes in the policy", that is not a "slippery slope" argument.

rvense 6y ago

I really think it would be good for America to enact some sort of electoral reform to allow for more than two parties to have a reasonable chance at influence. It really seems to distort your politics that everything is binary.

tylerhou 6y ago
I would appreciate if you could explain to me how my political viewpoint is distorted inc. how I view things as "binary." My viewpoint is: calling for ethnic cleansing through violence creates real harm (people have been murdered!), so private citizens and organizations should not support people who advocate for ethnic cleansing. Also, blaming the two party system misunderstands US politics. Most Democratic politicians have not called for deplatforming of white supremacists — it's mostly a leftist idea.
- rvense 6y ago
  > My viewpoint is: calling for ethnic cleansing through violence creates real harm (people have been murdered!), so private citizens and organizations should not support people who advocate for ethnic cleansing. Oh, I wholly agree on that part! It's absolutely not that. I think deplatforming that stuff is good. Good for society, and good because you get to watch them complain about being oppressed. > Also, blaming the two party system misunderstands US politics. Most Democratic politicians have not called for deplatforming of white supremacists — it's mostly a leftist idea. Precisely. My point was that the original article and much American political discourse has trouble distinguishing between the Democratic party and "leftists". And different groups of leftists - that often can't get along. It also kind of exists in the opposite direction, in that centrists aren't fascists. That's the distortion, and I think the two-party system makes the tribalism much worse than it needs to be.

dnautics 6y ago

Payment processors also won't touch sci-hub. What do you think of that? Secondary question: When is a slippery slope a fallacy and when is it not? There's lots of things we consider it good to ban because allowing it is a slippery slope, like when the administration justified using torture in exigent situations.

tylerhou 6y ago
SciHub is ultimately helping people violate copyright laws. I personally think that science should have more open access, and I assume that many who work at these payment processors share my sentiment. But I think payment processors want to avoid legal liability — legal fees and settlements (or even criminal charges) are expensive. > When is a slippery slope a fallacy and when is it not? Wikipedia has a section on this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope#Non-fallacious_usage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope#Non-fallacious_... In my opinion, slippery slope is a fallacy when there is not a clear demarcation. If the US government says "we need to torture in exigent situations" I worry about slippery slope because it's easy for the definition of "exigent" to change when convenient. On the other hand, if the US government said "we use torture for people who have been in contact with ISIS and have been convicted of murder," then the criteria are provable facts that create a clear line. I would still disagree with the use of torture, but my disagreement would be on ethical grounds, not that there is a slippery slope. If payment processors say "we won't process payments for platforms who knowingly host content that advocates for violence against a race of people" — then it's not a slippery slope. When a line is clearly demarcated, there is a mechanism for changes in the policy to be examined (and just because a policy changes that doesn't mean that there is a slippery slope; sometimes changes are justified!). One could argue that the line could be capriciously moved; however, I would want some sort of evidence or justification that it might be.
- dnautics 6y ago
  ok, so I think many people will take issue with your definition. The arguably canonical modern example of a "bad slippery slope" argument is "if we legalize gay marriage, then what is next, bestiality?" but according to your definition, because it would need a "mechanism for changes in the policy", that is not a "slippery slope" argument.