8 ms·

If you allow Islamic terrorists to publish their indoctrination materials, conversions to their cause will increase. I’m ok with censoring that stuff. Most of

If you allow Islamic terrorists to publish their indoctrination materials, conversions to their cause will increase. I’m ok with censoring that stuff. Most of the censorship cases i can think of have been religious or conservative groups and in all those cases i thought the call for censorship was misguided. There are situations where I’m ok with censorship. One of them is Islamic terrorist propaganda and fake news.

Blikkentrekker 6y ago
> If you allow Islamic terrorists to publish their indoctrination materials, conversions to their cause will increase. This is especially what I'm sceptica about, as well as the banning of publications such as Mein Kampf. It seems to me that the proportion of those that were first unconvinced, and then read such material and become convinced by it is negligibly small. Rather, most of the followers never actually read the publications and mostly got into it to feel part of a group as their friends were followers. They're typically publications that were never read by either the proponents, nor the detractors who wish to ban it. > Most of the censorship cases i can think of have been religious or conservative groups and in all those cases i thought the call for censorship was misguided. There are situations where I’m ok with censorship. One of them is Islamic terrorist propaganda and fake news. There is very few news that is not fake — the addage of “All news is accurate, except that one article about that one field one happens to be a specialist in.” seldom fails to hit the mark. That you need to specifically single out “Islamic terrorism”, opposed to simply keeping it about “terrorism” as a general concept also betrays a deal of specificity in your view, which is often the problem with censorship — that not all are censored æqual.
- hef19898 6y ago
  People become readicalized. Nobody s born a die-hard islamist, so yes, making it harder to access radical content is maiing id harder, but not impossible, to become radicalized. Goes for extreme right wing content and other religious extremists as well. And most news isn't fake, luckily. All news is biased, true, but that doesn't mean it's fake. Which is a big difference. That the press isn't doing itself a lot of favours by being what it is today is also true.
  - CraigJPerry 6y ago
    >> And most news isn't fake, luckily Agreed - poor wording on my part above, i meant specifically islamic terrorist propaganda when i said fake news. >> making it harder to access radical content is maiing id harder, but not impossible, to become radicalized Agreed but harder is a good outcome. I'm fine with "better, but not perfect"
- CraigJPerry 6y ago
  >> It seems to me that the proportion of those that were first unconvinced That population is every person ever born - no one was born believing in Anti-semitism or Nazism. >> and then read such material Wait - we're not just limited to first order effects, someone who reads may relay those ideas to another in a different form. E.g. by starting a social gathering of some sort. >> and become convinced by it is negligibly small The Nazi party membership reached over 8 million people. >> There is very few news that is not fake Poor wording on my part, i meant specifically Islamic terrorist propaganda not fake news more generally.
  - Blikkentrekker 6y ago
    >That population is every person ever born - no one was born believing in Anti-semitism or Nazism. No one is born tob believe in anything, however one typically has opinions on matters by the time that one is capable of reading. >Wait - we're not just limited to first order effects, someone who reads may relay those ideas to another in a different form. E.g. by starting a social gathering of some sort. And even there I feel the reading of material in print is negligible as a proximate cause to inspire that. >The Nazi party membership reached over 8 million people. And most had never read Mein Kampf. They were members because their friends were — most Christians have of course also never read a Bible from cover to cover.
    - CraigJPerry 6y ago
      >> And even there I feel the reading of material in print is negligible But the written bible needs to exist or the religion will fade out, correct? No one is able to adopt the practices of the Minoan religion. The Minoan religion is dead since their people have gone and they didn't write much, if anything, down and no one can accurately choose to adopt their beliefs. >> most Christians have of course also never read a Bible Why differentiate between them reading and them being read to by a pastor for example? What's the difference? Christian churches often choose to host bible classes, why would they promote use of scripture to further indoctrination if it's not effective? Why would they read to the congregation from the bible?
TuringNYC 6y ago
I think it is telling you specifically mention "Islamic terrorist" twice in your brief comment. It would seem you are OK with censoring that (I agree), but given your very narrow focus, seems you are not OK with banning "terrorist", which is revealing. Since you took the extra effort to exactly specify what exactly should be censored, under your definition, would you be OK with Anders Breivik's manifesto? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Norway_attacks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Norway_attacks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anders_Behring_Breivik https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anders_Behring_Breivik It is also the problem -- when people want to use censorship as a tool to selectively ban some bad but leave other bad alone. Who decides which bad is bad, and which bad we should conveniently ignore?
- CraigJPerry 6y ago
  > given your very narrow focus That's an incorrect assumption on your part. As i said originally: >> There are situations where I’m ok with censorship. One of them is ...
raxxorrax 6y ago
Western governments support religious Muslim groups against secular fascists in Syria and people at home complain about religion and conservatives. There is an educational deficit somewhere and these censorship ambitions are not only counter productive for foreign policy issues, they seem to be more of a crave to control a world that isn't understood in the slightest. If we censor fake news, I am also in favor of censoring you.
concordDance 6y ago
> If you allow Islamic terrorists to publish their indoctrination materials, conversions to their cause will increase Or they'd decrease because people would actually be able to see the counterarguments to that propaganda. As it currently stands, very few people are able to produce the counter-propaganda because few have access to the actual propaganda. This phenomena is how I've been mostly converted to racism (well, HBD), I could, with some difficulty, find the pro-racism view but finding an anti-racist view that actually addressed the HBD view was basically impossible (what little anti-racist stuff there was mostly attacking strawmen) because basically no one is exposed to the HBD argument (thanks to censorship including social censorship mostly), so no one produces counterarguments! Also, there's a small chance that I've been completely mislead about what the supposed "Islamic terrorists" believe and actually their ideology is awesome and I should convert to wahabiism. I'd like the opportunity to make that decision myself.
- tim333 6y ago
  I had to google what on earth HBD was. For others (from less wrong) >... HBD (Human bio-diversity, the claim that distinct populations (I will be avoiding using the word "race" here insomuch as possible) of humans exist and have substantial genetical variance which accounts for some difference in average intelligence from population to population) is true, and that all its proponents are correct in accusing the politicization of science for burying this information. I'd just note that noticing differences between races, eg black people are blacker is not racism really, it's more discriminating against races.
  - concordDance 6y ago
    I'm reasonably sure that the vast majority of people would consider the statement "The average African American is less intelligent that the average "white" American, this is partially due to genes and cannot be entirely fixed without genetic engineering." to be textbook racism.
    - tim333 6y ago
      Yeah but at least partly because it's probably untrue.
pjc50 6y ago
> Most of the censorship cases I can think of have been religious or conservative groups That's all the Islamists are: a conservative religious group which believes in gun ownership and the use of violence. The difference between the people posting with gun+quran and the people posting with gun+bible is razor-thin.
- tb303 6y ago
  exactly
tb303 6y ago
That is such a perfect example of ingroup bias in action. You can label these materials as censorable because you, likely not a follower of islam, believe that material from islamic uploaders talking about a revolution and indoctrination do not belong on your platform. yet here we are, with thousands of christian, america-first indoctrination videos, calling for an uprising against everything from vaccines to elections. IT IS THE SAME THING. you do realize this is a "are we the baddies?" situation, no?
- gspetr 6y ago
  The problem is that YouTube explicitly promotes "credible and authoritative" news sources, but these are the same sources that tell you: Case 1: Leaked Podesta emails and CNN https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjDLcvOB1og https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjDLcvOB1og "It's illegal to possess these stolen documents. It's different for the media. So everything you're learning about this, you're learning from us." Learning from us, get that? Numerous legal scholars weighed in on that hot take, just one of the examples. https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/law-prof-smacks-down-cnn-chris-cuomos-claim-that-its-illegal-to-possess-wikileaks-emails/ https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/law-prof-smacks-down-cn... Case 2: Washington Post calls ISIS Leader al-Baghdadi "austere religious scholar" https://www.huffpost.com/entry/washington-post-headline-abu-bakr-al-baghdadi-austere-religious-scholar-isis_n_5db5c507e4b05df62ec11ba2 https://www.huffpost.com/entry/washington-post-headline-abu-... So here we are, being told by YouTube that sources calling the leader of the world's most vile and brutal organization an "austere religious scholar" and deliberately misinforming public about what they can and cannot read are called "credible and authoritative sources". When your supposedly single reliable source of truth (the media) is so obviously and shamelessly biased, how can you not question the source of "truth" and those who suppress other viewpoints? I'm reminded of a seemingly prescient quote from 1999's Alpha Centauri: https://www.quotes.net/mquote/2347 https://www.quotes.net/mquote/2347 "As the Americans learned so painfully in Earth's final century, free flow of information is the only safeguard against tyranny. The once-chained people whose leaders at last lose their grip on information flow will soon burst with freedom and vitality, but the free nation gradually constricting its grip on public discourse has begun its rapid slide into despotism. Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master." Commissioner Pravin Lal, "U.N. Declaration of Rights"

Blikkentrekker 6y ago

> If you allow Islamic terrorists to publish their indoctrination materials, conversions to their cause will increase. This is especially what I'm sceptica about, as well as the banning of publications such as Mein Kampf. It seems to me that the proportion of those that were first unconvinced, and then read such material and become convinced by it is negligibly small. Rather, most of the followers never actually read the publications and mostly got into it to feel part of a group as their friends were followers. They're typically publications that were never read by either the proponents, nor the detractors who wish to ban it. > Most of the censorship cases i can think of have been religious or conservative groups and in all those cases i thought the call for censorship was misguided. There are situations where I’m ok with censorship. One of them is Islamic terrorist propaganda and fake news. There is very few news that is not fake — the addage of “All news is accurate, except that one article about that one field one happens to be a specialist in.” seldom fails to hit the mark. That you need to specifically single out “Islamic terrorism”, opposed to simply keeping it about “terrorism” as a general concept also betrays a deal of specificity in your view, which is often the problem with censorship — that not all are censored æqual.

hef19898 6y ago
People become readicalized. Nobody s born a die-hard islamist, so yes, making it harder to access radical content is maiing id harder, but not impossible, to become radicalized. Goes for extreme right wing content and other religious extremists as well. And most news isn't fake, luckily. All news is biased, true, but that doesn't mean it's fake. Which is a big difference. That the press isn't doing itself a lot of favours by being what it is today is also true.
- CraigJPerry 6y ago
  >> And most news isn't fake, luckily Agreed - poor wording on my part above, i meant specifically islamic terrorist propaganda when i said fake news. >> making it harder to access radical content is maiing id harder, but not impossible, to become radicalized Agreed but harder is a good outcome. I'm fine with "better, but not perfect"
CraigJPerry 6y ago
>> It seems to me that the proportion of those that were first unconvinced That population is every person ever born - no one was born believing in Anti-semitism or Nazism. >> and then read such material Wait - we're not just limited to first order effects, someone who reads may relay those ideas to another in a different form. E.g. by starting a social gathering of some sort. >> and become convinced by it is negligibly small The Nazi party membership reached over 8 million people. >> There is very few news that is not fake Poor wording on my part, i meant specifically Islamic terrorist propaganda not fake news more generally.
- Blikkentrekker 6y ago
  >That population is every person ever born - no one was born believing in Anti-semitism or Nazism. No one is born tob believe in anything, however one typically has opinions on matters by the time that one is capable of reading. >Wait - we're not just limited to first order effects, someone who reads may relay those ideas to another in a different form. E.g. by starting a social gathering of some sort. And even there I feel the reading of material in print is negligible as a proximate cause to inspire that. >The Nazi party membership reached over 8 million people. And most had never read Mein Kampf. They were members because their friends were — most Christians have of course also never read a Bible from cover to cover.
  - CraigJPerry 6y ago
    >> And even there I feel the reading of material in print is negligible But the written bible needs to exist or the religion will fade out, correct? No one is able to adopt the practices of the Minoan religion. The Minoan religion is dead since their people have gone and they didn't write much, if anything, down and no one can accurately choose to adopt their beliefs. >> most Christians have of course also never read a Bible Why differentiate between them reading and them being read to by a pastor for example? What's the difference? Christian churches often choose to host bible classes, why would they promote use of scripture to further indoctrination if it's not effective? Why would they read to the congregation from the bible?

TuringNYC 6y ago

I think it is telling you specifically mention "Islamic terrorist" twice in your brief comment. It would seem you are OK with censoring that (I agree), but given your very narrow focus, seems you are not OK with banning "terrorist", which is revealing. Since you took the extra effort to exactly specify what exactly should be censored, under your definition, would you be OK with Anders Breivik's manifesto? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Norway_attacks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Norway_attacks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anders_Behring_Breivik https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anders_Behring_Breivik It is also the problem -- when people want to use censorship as a tool to selectively ban some bad but leave other bad alone. Who decides which bad is bad, and which bad we should conveniently ignore?

CraigJPerry 6y ago
> given your very narrow focus That's an incorrect assumption on your part. As i said originally: >> There are situations where I’m ok with censorship. One of them is ...

raxxorrax 6y ago

Western governments support religious Muslim groups against secular fascists in Syria and people at home complain about religion and conservatives. There is an educational deficit somewhere and these censorship ambitions are not only counter productive for foreign policy issues, they seem to be more of a crave to control a world that isn't understood in the slightest. If we censor fake news, I am also in favor of censoring you.

concordDance 6y ago

> If you allow Islamic terrorists to publish their indoctrination materials, conversions to their cause will increase Or they'd decrease because people would actually be able to see the counterarguments to that propaganda. As it currently stands, very few people are able to produce the counter-propaganda because few have access to the actual propaganda. This phenomena is how I've been mostly converted to racism (well, HBD), I could, with some difficulty, find the pro-racism view but finding an anti-racist view that actually addressed the HBD view was basically impossible (what little anti-racist stuff there was mostly attacking strawmen) because basically no one is exposed to the HBD argument (thanks to censorship including social censorship mostly), so no one produces counterarguments! Also, there's a small chance that I've been completely mislead about what the supposed "Islamic terrorists" believe and actually their ideology is awesome and I should convert to wahabiism. I'd like the opportunity to make that decision myself.

tim333 6y ago
I had to google what on earth HBD was. For others (from less wrong) >... HBD (Human bio-diversity, the claim that distinct populations (I will be avoiding using the word "race" here insomuch as possible) of humans exist and have substantial genetical variance which accounts for some difference in average intelligence from population to population) is true, and that all its proponents are correct in accusing the politicization of science for burying this information. I'd just note that noticing differences between races, eg black people are blacker is not racism really, it's more discriminating against races.
- concordDance 6y ago
  I'm reasonably sure that the vast majority of people would consider the statement "The average African American is less intelligent that the average "white" American, this is partially due to genes and cannot be entirely fixed without genetic engineering." to be textbook racism.
  - tim333 6y ago
    Yeah but at least partly because it's probably untrue.

pjc50 6y ago

> Most of the censorship cases I can think of have been religious or conservative groups That's all the Islamists are: a conservative religious group which believes in gun ownership and the use of violence. The difference between the people posting with gun+quran and the people posting with gun+bible is razor-thin.

tb303 6y ago
exactly

tb303 6y ago

That is such a perfect example of ingroup bias in action. You can label these materials as censorable because you, likely not a follower of islam, believe that material from islamic uploaders talking about a revolution and indoctrination do not belong on your platform. yet here we are, with thousands of christian, america-first indoctrination videos, calling for an uprising against everything from vaccines to elections. IT IS THE SAME THING. you do realize this is a "are we the baddies?" situation, no?

gspetr 6y ago
The problem is that YouTube explicitly promotes "credible and authoritative" news sources, but these are the same sources that tell you: Case 1: Leaked Podesta emails and CNN https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjDLcvOB1og https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjDLcvOB1og "It's illegal to possess these stolen documents. It's different for the media. So everything you're learning about this, you're learning from us." Learning from us, get that? Numerous legal scholars weighed in on that hot take, just one of the examples. https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/law-prof-smacks-down-cnn-chris-cuomos-claim-that-its-illegal-to-possess-wikileaks-emails/ https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/law-prof-smacks-down-cn... Case 2: Washington Post calls ISIS Leader al-Baghdadi "austere religious scholar" https://www.huffpost.com/entry/washington-post-headline-abu-bakr-al-baghdadi-austere-religious-scholar-isis_n_5db5c507e4b05df62ec11ba2 https://www.huffpost.com/entry/washington-post-headline-abu-... So here we are, being told by YouTube that sources calling the leader of the world's most vile and brutal organization an "austere religious scholar" and deliberately misinforming public about what they can and cannot read are called "credible and authoritative sources". When your supposedly single reliable source of truth (the media) is so obviously and shamelessly biased, how can you not question the source of "truth" and those who suppress other viewpoints? I'm reminded of a seemingly prescient quote from 1999's Alpha Centauri: https://www.quotes.net/mquote/2347 https://www.quotes.net/mquote/2347 "As the Americans learned so painfully in Earth's final century, free flow of information is the only safeguard against tyranny. The once-chained people whose leaders at last lose their grip on information flow will soon burst with freedom and vitality, but the free nation gradually constricting its grip on public discourse has begun its rapid slide into despotism. Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master." Commissioner Pravin Lal, "U.N. Declaration of Rights"