7 ms·

Before the internet, if you had a dangerous, fringe idea, your community would ostracize you and your idea would die. Now, you can find the fringe from all the

Before the internet, if you had a dangerous, fringe idea, your community would ostracize you and your idea would die. Now, you can find the fringe from all the other communities. I think it is good that our community has found a way to ostracize fringe, dangerous ideas.

fvdessen 6y ago
And now if Big Tech has a dangerous idea they have all the power to advertise it and also to silence the counter-arguments.
- w8tTh0 6y ago
  They’ve not been silenced. They’ve been displaced. Encrypted email is still a thing. Decentralized internet is still a thing. How many malls are going to let violent donkeys in? Are they deep state for de-platforming a massacre? Free speech is under attack when you would force workers to participate in speech they do not want to redistribute. Freedom from pressure to serve everyone is exactly what the right wanted over gay wedding cakes. DIY, exceptional people. Quit expecting everyone else to bend over backwards to satisfy your rustled jimmies.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
xyzelement 6y ago
The problem is - who decides what should be fringe and ostracized? At different times in history, women's rights, abolition, etc were all heretical ideas that the majority would want to squish if they could.
- jakelazaroff 6y ago
  We all do, collectively. That’s how society works. If you try to take “who among us can say what is right?” to the logical extreme, you get into situations like “should we not teach in schools that democracy is preferable to fascism?”
  - ptero 6y ago
    Democracy vs fascism is the discussion I hope you can win on merits. In fact I wouldn't mind honest debates on this topic at schools: it can serve to vaccinate people against intolerance and extremism. Communities that shut down such discussions are usually authoritarian sects built on faith in a leader's guidance, not enlightened democracies.
    - jakelazaroff 6y ago
      Let’s actually switch examples to the Civil Rights Movement. That shows up on the curriculum in kindergarten. Would you have five year olds debating the merits of segregation? Consider that people were having debates about whether things like democracy and slavery and caste systems were good for centuries before people got on board. And plenty of people still aren’t! What should the teacher do if the kids on Debate Team Jim Crow actually win the debate? Step in and say “actually, equality is better, let me show you why”? Or do we now have a bunch of kids who go through life thinking that we actually should make Black people drinking from different water fountains? I also suspect that plenty of teachers themselves are not quite as bought in on racial equality as we’d hope. Because problem is that segregation, fascism, etc aren’t “bad” per se. We don’t reject them because there’s some inherent logical fallacy — we do it because they’re morally wrong. It took us hundreds of years to get here, and if we’re going to get further it will be because we drew a line in the sand and said “hey, treating people in this particular way is just better than doing it this other way”.
      - ptero 6y ago
        I did not follow your reasoning about 5 years old debating the merits of segregation, can you elaborate? Many topics are introduced at young age, and can take many years until they become a part of the person's worldview that they person can meaningfully defend. But it better reach that state for key topics before the person is out of school. > segregation, fascism, etc aren’t “bad” per se. We don’t reject them because there’s some inherent logical fallacy — we do it because they’re morally wrong. Ouch! Fascism and segregation are morally wrong, but just as important they produce systems and societies that exhibit horrible features and, time and again, crumble and fail. Morality is pliable -- many things considered good two generations ago can now seen as morally wrong and vice versa. When your grandkids ask "grandpa, why did you break/prohibit/deplatform/cancel X?" you may want something better to stand on than "because we had that power and we could". Because that is how your argument reads to me.
- w8tTh0 6y ago
  As living creatures these people are not ostracized. They can still eat and get healthcare. They choose to go beyond that. They’re not owed the fealty of others above and beyond supporting common human needs.
  - xyzelement 6y ago
    I'm talking about the value to society of free speech. I can't parse what you're talking about.
    - w8tTh0 6y ago
      Free speech is not forcing others to support ideas they do not agree with. Why should everyone have to distribute others ideas? The idea that we’re just routers for everyone is anti-free thought. Generalizes everyone to personal agents for all. That’s hardly allowing for dissent. Physical reality that obliges everyone to support everything equally is not a free reality.
      - xyzelement 6y ago
        Oh I see. Yes I agree nobody should be compelled to distribute the ideas of others. What bothers me is when people celebrate the suppression of others without seeing how that knife can cut the other way very quickly.
        w8tTh0 6y ago
        They’re still out there plotting. Have they truly been suppressed? They can still engage in a fulfilling life for themselves or continue to demand of others. Let’s see what they choose.
        xyzelement 6y ago
        You understand you can make that statement about anyone right?
NhanH 6y ago
What happened to the internet being able to empower marginalized idea, thinking out of the box and stuff like that?
- eat_veggies 6y ago
  "marginalized idea" like white supremacy, and "thinking out of the box" like planning an armed attack on the capitol? Yeah, what happened to the internet?
- bborud 6y ago
  If by thinking out of the box you and empowering marginalized ideas you are saying that the companies have a duty to provide the infrastructure and tools for planning violence and the disruption of democracy, then I suspect you will find that not many people in tech are too comfortable with playing an enabling role. We have been presented with a slice of reality. The legislative branch of a superpower was stormed, normal democratic process was disrupted and people were killed. A mob was egged on by lies and conspiracy theories spread by a president who is effectively trying to set in motion a coup d'etat. It is likely that this isn't the last such event we will see in the coming years. What do you think ought to be done?
  - NhanH 6y ago
    Putting those people committing the act you mentioned on trial and proceeds from that. Wait until Parler is sued or prosecuted, and if a court order to shut it down. Go ahead. There are already tools to deal with bad actors, it's the knee-jerk reactions that I don't like.
    - bborud 6y ago
      Why should companies be under any obligation to support groups who undermine democracy and incite violence? Is it not fair to allow companies to choose _not_ to support hate groups? Regardless of whether they have been successfully prosecuted in a cour of law or not. Should we not have the freedom of choosing with whom we would like to associate? Is it not hypocritical to expect companies to provide resources to hate groups on the grounds of "freedom of expression" when those same groups have shown, by their actions, that they themselves oppose freedom of expression and expel anyone who voices disagreement? You appear to be confusing the government and private companies here. Government must follow a far more stringent set of rules in which certain determinations have to be done by courts. Private companies are under no such obligations when it comes to enabling speech. You are arguing that one should be able to compel people to promote hate speech. May may not intend to argue that case, but by what is presumably thoughtlessness, that is what you appear to be doing.
notsureaboutpg 6y ago
But Big Techs ideals are dangerous and fringe from the lens of like 70% of the world (Democratic social norms like gender is a social construct, trans women are literally women, not being anti-racist is being racist, pro-abortion, etc. are not acceptable to the vast majority of people on Earth). Now they are free to go on promoting those ideas to the population, slowly and surely winning as they control the world's megaphones and are cheered on by people who can stop them while they silence dissenters.
seneca 6y ago
The difference is that now we've centralized who decides what is "dangerous [and] fringe". Many of the ideas that are popular at big tech companies are considered exactly that by many people. Now, instead of each community deciding what's acceptable for themselves it's a small handful of companies from California deciding for everyone.
chongli 6y ago
We can ostracize but it remains to be seen whether we can halt the spread. Ostracism can lead to more alienation and confirmation bias for conspiracy theories. I think it’s too late to turn the ship around at this point though. We’ve done nothing at all to address working class and rural alienation. Now we’ve got to somehow weather the storm.

fvdessen 6y ago

And now if Big Tech has a dangerous idea they have all the power to advertise it and also to silence the counter-arguments.

w8tTh0 6y ago
They’ve not been silenced. They’ve been displaced. Encrypted email is still a thing. Decentralized internet is still a thing. How many malls are going to let violent donkeys in? Are they deep state for de-platforming a massacre? Free speech is under attack when you would force workers to participate in speech they do not want to redistribute. Freedom from pressure to serve everyone is exactly what the right wanted over gay wedding cakes. DIY, exceptional people. Quit expecting everyone else to bend over backwards to satisfy your rustled jimmies.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

xyzelement 6y ago

The problem is - who decides what should be fringe and ostracized? At different times in history, women's rights, abolition, etc were all heretical ideas that the majority would want to squish if they could.

jakelazaroff 6y ago
We all do, collectively. That’s how society works. If you try to take “who among us can say what is right?” to the logical extreme, you get into situations like “should we not teach in schools that democracy is preferable to fascism?”
- ptero 6y ago
  Democracy vs fascism is the discussion I hope you can win on merits. In fact I wouldn't mind honest debates on this topic at schools: it can serve to vaccinate people against intolerance and extremism. Communities that shut down such discussions are usually authoritarian sects built on faith in a leader's guidance, not enlightened democracies.
  - jakelazaroff 6y ago
    Let’s actually switch examples to the Civil Rights Movement. That shows up on the curriculum in kindergarten. Would you have five year olds debating the merits of segregation? Consider that people were having debates about whether things like democracy and slavery and caste systems were good for centuries before people got on board. And plenty of people still aren’t! What should the teacher do if the kids on Debate Team Jim Crow actually win the debate? Step in and say “actually, equality is better, let me show you why”? Or do we now have a bunch of kids who go through life thinking that we actually should make Black people drinking from different water fountains? I also suspect that plenty of teachers themselves are not quite as bought in on racial equality as we’d hope. Because problem is that segregation, fascism, etc aren’t “bad” per se. We don’t reject them because there’s some inherent logical fallacy — we do it because they’re morally wrong. It took us hundreds of years to get here, and if we’re going to get further it will be because we drew a line in the sand and said “hey, treating people in this particular way is just better than doing it this other way”.
    - ptero 6y ago
      I did not follow your reasoning about 5 years old debating the merits of segregation, can you elaborate? Many topics are introduced at young age, and can take many years until they become a part of the person's worldview that they person can meaningfully defend. But it better reach that state for key topics before the person is out of school. > segregation, fascism, etc aren’t “bad” per se. We don’t reject them because there’s some inherent logical fallacy — we do it because they’re morally wrong. Ouch! Fascism and segregation are morally wrong, but just as important they produce systems and societies that exhibit horrible features and, time and again, crumble and fail. Morality is pliable -- many things considered good two generations ago can now seen as morally wrong and vice versa. When your grandkids ask "grandpa, why did you break/prohibit/deplatform/cancel X?" you may want something better to stand on than "because we had that power and we could". Because that is how your argument reads to me.
w8tTh0 6y ago
As living creatures these people are not ostracized. They can still eat and get healthcare. They choose to go beyond that. They’re not owed the fealty of others above and beyond supporting common human needs.
- xyzelement 6y ago
  I'm talking about the value to society of free speech. I can't parse what you're talking about.
  - w8tTh0 6y ago
    Free speech is not forcing others to support ideas they do not agree with. Why should everyone have to distribute others ideas? The idea that we’re just routers for everyone is anti-free thought. Generalizes everyone to personal agents for all. That’s hardly allowing for dissent. Physical reality that obliges everyone to support everything equally is not a free reality.
    - xyzelement 6y ago
      Oh I see. Yes I agree nobody should be compelled to distribute the ideas of others. What bothers me is when people celebrate the suppression of others without seeing how that knife can cut the other way very quickly.
      - w8tTh0 6y ago
        They’re still out there plotting. Have they truly been suppressed? They can still engage in a fulfilling life for themselves or continue to demand of others. Let’s see what they choose.
        xyzelement 6y ago
        You understand you can make that statement about anyone right?

NhanH 6y ago

What happened to the internet being able to empower marginalized idea, thinking out of the box and stuff like that?

eat_veggies 6y ago
"marginalized idea" like white supremacy, and "thinking out of the box" like planning an armed attack on the capitol? Yeah, what happened to the internet?
bborud 6y ago
If by thinking out of the box you and empowering marginalized ideas you are saying that the companies have a duty to provide the infrastructure and tools for planning violence and the disruption of democracy, then I suspect you will find that not many people in tech are too comfortable with playing an enabling role. We have been presented with a slice of reality. The legislative branch of a superpower was stormed, normal democratic process was disrupted and people were killed. A mob was egged on by lies and conspiracy theories spread by a president who is effectively trying to set in motion a coup d'etat. It is likely that this isn't the last such event we will see in the coming years. What do you think ought to be done?
- NhanH 6y ago
  Putting those people committing the act you mentioned on trial and proceeds from that. Wait until Parler is sued or prosecuted, and if a court order to shut it down. Go ahead. There are already tools to deal with bad actors, it's the knee-jerk reactions that I don't like.
  - bborud 6y ago
    Why should companies be under any obligation to support groups who undermine democracy and incite violence? Is it not fair to allow companies to choose _not_ to support hate groups? Regardless of whether they have been successfully prosecuted in a cour of law or not. Should we not have the freedom of choosing with whom we would like to associate? Is it not hypocritical to expect companies to provide resources to hate groups on the grounds of "freedom of expression" when those same groups have shown, by their actions, that they themselves oppose freedom of expression and expel anyone who voices disagreement? You appear to be confusing the government and private companies here. Government must follow a far more stringent set of rules in which certain determinations have to be done by courts. Private companies are under no such obligations when it comes to enabling speech. You are arguing that one should be able to compel people to promote hate speech. May may not intend to argue that case, but by what is presumably thoughtlessness, that is what you appear to be doing.

notsureaboutpg 6y ago

But Big Techs ideals are dangerous and fringe from the lens of like 70% of the world (Democratic social norms like gender is a social construct, trans women are literally women, not being anti-racist is being racist, pro-abortion, etc. are not acceptable to the vast majority of people on Earth). Now they are free to go on promoting those ideas to the population, slowly and surely winning as they control the world's megaphones and are cheered on by people who can stop them while they silence dissenters.

seneca 6y ago

The difference is that now we've centralized who decides what is "dangerous [and] fringe". Many of the ideas that are popular at big tech companies are considered exactly that by many people. Now, instead of each community deciding what's acceptable for themselves it's a small handful of companies from California deciding for everyone.

chongli 6y ago

We can ostracize but it remains to be seen whether we can halt the spread. Ostracism can lead to more alienation and confirmation bias for conspiracy theories. I think it’s too late to turn the ship around at this point though. We’ve done nothing at all to address working class and rural alienation. Now we’ve got to somehow weather the storm.