6 ms·

A more fundamental question would be, why would you want to create a platform for Nazis, fascists, and conspiracy theorists? You couldn't pay me enough to do t

by jude- 6y ago

A more fundamental question would be, why would you want to create a platform for Nazis, fascists, and conspiracy theorists? You couldn't pay me enough to do this.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
axguscbklp 6y ago
You don't have to let fascists and Nazis on if you don't want to. I don't want to see the social media landscape dominated by a few giant organizations and I worry that things might slide from deplatforming the above groups to deplatforming anyone whose views go against the sort of dogmas which appeal to progressive activists and/or the sort of dogmas which appeal to giant corporations.
- jude- 6y ago
  > You don't have to let fascists and Nazis on if you don't want to. Which is exactly what all these companies did. They decided they didn't want them as users or customers. I'm saying that platforms should not, on general, want Nazis, fascists, terrorists, and conspiracy theorists as users and customers. Giving them a platform helps them organize, recruit, and coordinate to achieve violent ends. Why would anyone want to be a party to that, unless they were okay with their intentions? > I worry that things might slide from deplatforming the above groups to deplatforming anyone [..] "Might" slide? We're well past this. It happened to sex workers en masse not too long ago. It happens to NGOs and human rights activists who expose uncomfortable truths. But unlike the terrorists, these folks were not trying to achieve violent ends. I'm much more upset about the negative impacts on these innocent folks versus the insurrectionists. But let's be clear on one thing -- mass-moderation is not a new concept, and flows directly from private property rights. Freedom of speech does not entitle you to use someone else's audience, servers, and distribution network. Also, the fact that you own the servers also makes you at least partially responsible for the things that happen with them, just like in the physical world. Banning violent insurrectionists from your servers is a way of hindering violence.
proc0 6y ago
One reason would be to educate through compassion and understanding, instead of further increasing their paranoia. People need to realize this is what they did, they censored, burned books, and later started killing. Why even take the first step in that direction? How would we know when we're not the other side if we do the same actions?
- jude- 6y ago
  If all it took to stop Nazis and fascists was to educate them through compassion and understanding, WWII wouldn't have happened. The fact is, like the fascists of WWII, these insurrectionists have bought into a Big Lie. This time, the Big Lie is that the election was stolen. By extension, they believe that anyone who does not also believe the Big Lie is the enemy of democracy and must be stopped at all costs. How do you get through to these people? It doesn't matter how much evidence you show them that it's all a lie -- they're choosing to believe the Big Lie over anything else, consequences be damned. They believe it so strongly, they're willing to commit atrocities to impose it on other people. You can't let this go unchecked. We learned the hard way in WWII the consequences of letting it go unchecked -- it ultimately took mass military mobilization and the deaths of _tens of millions_ to quash it. Unless we want a repeat, we the people who have _not_ bought into the Big Lie need to nip this in the bud _now_, by imposing harsh enough consequences on them that they _can't afford_ to keep the Big Lie going. So, I don't believe that fascists, Nazis, terrorists, insurrectionists, etc. deserve a platform under any circumstances. > How would we know when we're not the other side if we do the same actions? It's the paradox of tolerance. We must not suffer the intolerant, lest the intolerant seize the reigns of power and impose intolerance of other things by violent means. We know we're not the "other side" if we're only being intolerant of the intolerant-of-other-things.
  - proc0 6y ago
    It's not a paradox, you have to tolerate some intolerance or you are no different. If everything you were saying was true, banning Trump will do good right? This will work to silence so called Nazis, so they go back to their homes and shut up, right? It doesn't work, people hate being silenced, and doing more of it is only adding fuel to the fire. The sad part is the side adding fuel knows it, and is mostly rich people that can take a recession, while the people just believing and not questioning properly, will be suffering along with everyone else.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

by jude- 6y ago

A more fundamental question would be, why would you want to create a platform for Nazis, fascists, and conspiracy theorists? You couldn't pay me enough to do this.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

axguscbklp 6y ago

You don't have to let fascists and Nazis on if you don't want to. I don't want to see the social media landscape dominated by a few giant organizations and I worry that things might slide from deplatforming the above groups to deplatforming anyone whose views go against the sort of dogmas which appeal to progressive activists and/or the sort of dogmas which appeal to giant corporations.

jude- 6y ago
> You don't have to let fascists and Nazis on if you don't want to. Which is exactly what all these companies did. They decided they didn't want them as users or customers. I'm saying that platforms should not, on general, want Nazis, fascists, terrorists, and conspiracy theorists as users and customers. Giving them a platform helps them organize, recruit, and coordinate to achieve violent ends. Why would anyone want to be a party to that, unless they were okay with their intentions? > I worry that things might slide from deplatforming the above groups to deplatforming anyone [..] "Might" slide? We're well past this. It happened to sex workers en masse not too long ago. It happens to NGOs and human rights activists who expose uncomfortable truths. But unlike the terrorists, these folks were not trying to achieve violent ends. I'm much more upset about the negative impacts on these innocent folks versus the insurrectionists. But let's be clear on one thing -- mass-moderation is not a new concept, and flows directly from private property rights. Freedom of speech does not entitle you to use someone else's audience, servers, and distribution network. Also, the fact that you own the servers also makes you at least partially responsible for the things that happen with them, just like in the physical world. Banning violent insurrectionists from your servers is a way of hindering violence.

proc0 6y ago

One reason would be to educate through compassion and understanding, instead of further increasing their paranoia. People need to realize this is what they did, they censored, burned books, and later started killing. Why even take the first step in that direction? How would we know when we're not the other side if we do the same actions?

jude- 6y ago
If all it took to stop Nazis and fascists was to educate them through compassion and understanding, WWII wouldn't have happened. The fact is, like the fascists of WWII, these insurrectionists have bought into a Big Lie. This time, the Big Lie is that the election was stolen. By extension, they believe that anyone who does not also believe the Big Lie is the enemy of democracy and must be stopped at all costs. How do you get through to these people? It doesn't matter how much evidence you show them that it's all a lie -- they're choosing to believe the Big Lie over anything else, consequences be damned. They believe it so strongly, they're willing to commit atrocities to impose it on other people. You can't let this go unchecked. We learned the hard way in WWII the consequences of letting it go unchecked -- it ultimately took mass military mobilization and the deaths of _tens of millions_ to quash it. Unless we want a repeat, we the people who have _not_ bought into the Big Lie need to nip this in the bud _now_, by imposing harsh enough consequences on them that they _can't afford_ to keep the Big Lie going. So, I don't believe that fascists, Nazis, terrorists, insurrectionists, etc. deserve a platform under any circumstances. > How would we know when we're not the other side if we do the same actions? It's the paradox of tolerance. We must not suffer the intolerant, lest the intolerant seize the reigns of power and impose intolerance of other things by violent means. We know we're not the "other side" if we're only being intolerant of the intolerant-of-other-things.
- proc0 6y ago
  It's not a paradox, you have to tolerate some intolerance or you are no different. If everything you were saying was true, banning Trump will do good right? This will work to silence so called Nazis, so they go back to their homes and shut up, right? It doesn't work, people hate being silenced, and doing more of it is only adding fuel to the fire. The sad part is the side adding fuel knows it, and is mostly rich people that can take a recession, while the people just believing and not questioning properly, will be suffering along with everyone else.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]