4 ms·

> Rude and uncalled for, even after your edit. I was just correcting the term in the edit, but I agree I'm being a bit inflammatory. > Deplatforming works. N

by dvt 5y ago

> Rude and uncalled for, even after your edit. I was just correcting the term in the edit, but I agree I'm being a bit inflammatory. > Deplatforming works. No it doesn't. The entire history of Western Liberalism—since the Magna Carta onwards—teaches us that censorship is quite literally never the answer.

Nursie 5y ago
If anything, social media and the modern world have show us repeatedly that the marketplace of ideas is a fallacy.
kaba0 5y ago
> No it doesn't. The entire history of Western Liberalism—since the Magna Carta onwards—teaches us that censorship is quite literally never the answer. There is basically almost no precedent to todays problem of misinformation spread, so historical examples are near useless. Censorship is a trivial problem to overcome in the modern world contrary to the last century’s vision, one can’t really hide anything on the internet. The censored information itself will be available in some way. What is much more effective in preventing information flow is the other direction, obfuscation or overloading of information. A great example of it is an older Russian voting fraud, where video footage leaked of a man repeatedly throwing in ballots. It got quickly shared over Twitter with the name of the town in hashtags — there was no chance of censoring that. The solution was to spam twitter with unrelated bullshit with #NameOfTown, effectively putting out the flame. And unfortunately bullshit like antivaxx, anti-climatechange, and political campaigns do use this technique very effectively to counter the usually more complex scientific arguments. People prefer taking only a few logical steps instead of the whole “we create the replica of parts of the virus by injecting the …”. Unfortunately I don’t know what would be a solution to this. Perhaps better education..
- tekknik 5y ago
  > There is basically almost no precedent to todays problem of misinformation spread, so historical examples are near useless. I’m sorry but what?!? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disinformation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disinformation The only difference these days is everybody has a printing press. So what you’re advocating for is removing someone’s first amendment right.
  - kaba0 5y ago
    Per your own link, the earliest use of this technique is ~1920, so bringing up the Magna Carta is not too generous. And it is naive to state that the only difference is everyone having a printing press — there are emergent qualities and we have only begun to discover what this new way of communication means on a global scale.
    - tekknik 5y ago
      Well I didn’t bring up the Magna Carta. And you’re wrong again, there’s even a story in the Bible about the tower of babel. Same exact thing. When humans, all humans, can communicate easily and quickly it’s dangerous.
      - kaba0 5y ago
        How is tower of Babel relevant? It’s about why do we speak different languages. How is anything done in the previous tens of thousands of years similar to ordering a bunch of bots to say what I want? When could an arbitrary algorithm decide what is seen by whom, completely opaque to almost everyone? Yeah sure the Church censored some shit. But that’s not at all similar to youtube/facebook’s algorithm and it’s dishonest to say so.
        tekknik 5y ago
        Man that really got you riled up didn’t it? It’s relevant because the reason the languages were confounded was for the exact same problem we have today. Too many people with a megaphone. Too easy to spread information, good or bad. Please point to where I’ve mentioned either facebook or youtube. No idea where this is coming from.
mahogany 5y ago
> No it doesn't. The entire history of Western Liberalism—since the Magna Carta onwards—teaches us that censorship is quite literally never the answer. What do you mean by "works"? Deplatforming seems to work if it's goal is to simply limit the spread of a message. Whether or not that's good or bad is a separate question. Do you think Alex Jones has just as big of a viewership as when he was on Youtube? Are there just as many people who know what Trump was talking about last week, now that he's gone from Twitter? Big platforms give those with followings an opportunity to reach even more people.
- tekknik 5y ago
  > Deplatforming seems to work if it's goal is to simply limit the spread of a message. Deplatforming seems to work if it's goal is to simply limit free speech and control the narrative. There fixed that for you. > Alex Jones has just as big of a viewership as when he was on Youtube? Alex Jones got his youtube viewership from his radio show, he’s still quite active. All this did was prove those that believed him that he’s correct. It will still spread as it did before youtube. > Are there just as many people who know what Trump was talking about last week, now that he's gone from Twitter? And how many people you think are upset by this? Do you think that the left can just shut someone like Trump off from the every platform and everything’s just gonna be hunky dory? This one action alone is one of the major contributing factors to this anti vax movement. The left blew the divide up.
  - Nursie 5y ago
    > Deplatforming seems to work if it's goal is to simply limit free speech You're still perfectly free to spew your crazy, you just don't get to stand on my lawn to do so. Good, old-fashioned conservative value that. You have never had a right to use someone else's infrastructure like this, and hopefully never will, as that is a scary precedent that doesn't respect the rights of creators and owners of such platforms.
    - tekknik 5y ago
      So by mentioning conservative value you assume I’m on the right? I don’t agree that someone should be able to give some people a megaphone, but not others.

by dvt 5y ago

Nursie 5y ago

If anything, social media and the modern world have show us repeatedly that the marketplace of ideas is a fallacy.

kaba0 5y ago

> No it doesn't. The entire history of Western Liberalism—since the Magna Carta onwards—teaches us that censorship is quite literally never the answer. There is basically almost no precedent to todays problem of misinformation spread, so historical examples are near useless. Censorship is a trivial problem to overcome in the modern world contrary to the last century’s vision, one can’t really hide anything on the internet. The censored information itself will be available in some way. What is much more effective in preventing information flow is the other direction, obfuscation or overloading of information. A great example of it is an older Russian voting fraud, where video footage leaked of a man repeatedly throwing in ballots. It got quickly shared over Twitter with the name of the town in hashtags — there was no chance of censoring that. The solution was to spam twitter with unrelated bullshit with #NameOfTown, effectively putting out the flame. And unfortunately bullshit like antivaxx, anti-climatechange, and political campaigns do use this technique very effectively to counter the usually more complex scientific arguments. People prefer taking only a few logical steps instead of the whole “we create the replica of parts of the virus by injecting the …”. Unfortunately I don’t know what would be a solution to this. Perhaps better education..

tekknik 5y ago
> There is basically almost no precedent to todays problem of misinformation spread, so historical examples are near useless. I’m sorry but what?!? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disinformation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disinformation The only difference these days is everybody has a printing press. So what you’re advocating for is removing someone’s first amendment right.
- kaba0 5y ago
  Per your own link, the earliest use of this technique is ~1920, so bringing up the Magna Carta is not too generous. And it is naive to state that the only difference is everyone having a printing press — there are emergent qualities and we have only begun to discover what this new way of communication means on a global scale.
  - tekknik 5y ago
    Well I didn’t bring up the Magna Carta. And you’re wrong again, there’s even a story in the Bible about the tower of babel. Same exact thing. When humans, all humans, can communicate easily and quickly it’s dangerous.
    - kaba0 5y ago
      How is tower of Babel relevant? It’s about why do we speak different languages. How is anything done in the previous tens of thousands of years similar to ordering a bunch of bots to say what I want? When could an arbitrary algorithm decide what is seen by whom, completely opaque to almost everyone? Yeah sure the Church censored some shit. But that’s not at all similar to youtube/facebook’s algorithm and it’s dishonest to say so.
      - tekknik 5y ago
        Man that really got you riled up didn’t it? It’s relevant because the reason the languages were confounded was for the exact same problem we have today. Too many people with a megaphone. Too easy to spread information, good or bad. Please point to where I’ve mentioned either facebook or youtube. No idea where this is coming from.

mahogany 5y ago

> No it doesn't. The entire history of Western Liberalism—since the Magna Carta onwards—teaches us that censorship is quite literally never the answer. What do you mean by "works"? Deplatforming seems to work if it's goal is to simply limit the spread of a message. Whether or not that's good or bad is a separate question. Do you think Alex Jones has just as big of a viewership as when he was on Youtube? Are there just as many people who know what Trump was talking about last week, now that he's gone from Twitter? Big platforms give those with followings an opportunity to reach even more people.

tekknik 5y ago
> Deplatforming seems to work if it's goal is to simply limit the spread of a message. Deplatforming seems to work if it's goal is to simply limit free speech and control the narrative. There fixed that for you. > Alex Jones has just as big of a viewership as when he was on Youtube? Alex Jones got his youtube viewership from his radio show, he’s still quite active. All this did was prove those that believed him that he’s correct. It will still spread as it did before youtube. > Are there just as many people who know what Trump was talking about last week, now that he's gone from Twitter? And how many people you think are upset by this? Do you think that the left can just shut someone like Trump off from the every platform and everything’s just gonna be hunky dory? This one action alone is one of the major contributing factors to this anti vax movement. The left blew the divide up.
- Nursie 5y ago
  > Deplatforming seems to work if it's goal is to simply limit free speech You're still perfectly free to spew your crazy, you just don't get to stand on my lawn to do so. Good, old-fashioned conservative value that. You have never had a right to use someone else's infrastructure like this, and hopefully never will, as that is a scary precedent that doesn't respect the rights of creators and owners of such platforms.
  - tekknik 5y ago
    So by mentioning conservative value you assume I’m on the right? I don’t agree that someone should be able to give some people a megaphone, but not others.