7 ms·

...which is exactly how I concluded that the censorship we see online is basically necessary. The worst possible ways that online speech can be used against me

...which is exactly how I concluded that the censorship we see online is basically necessary. The worst possible ways that online speech can be used against me include being murdered by a lone-wolf terrorist who received instruction online. The worst that can happen to me from censorship being imposed is that I will not be allowed to say certain things online or challenge those in power, or possibly that I will be excluded from these social networks entirely because the people in power do not like what I said -- which is certainly bad, but not quite as bad as being dead. The unfortunate truth is that terrorist organizations use mainstream social networking sites to recruit and radicalize. We are sitting here talking about how power has been concentrated and how everyone is subject to censorship -- as if we did not just spend a decade watching ISIS and violent white nationalist groups amplify their messages by evading the controls that existed in legacy media outlets. "This is why we can't have nice things" is the expression that comes to mind...

AlexTWithBeard 5y ago
You certainly must love the way things are going in Belarus then.
- betterunix2 5y ago
  I prefer the way things are run in countries like France and Germany, where people understand the value of free speech in debating politics and spreading new ideas while also recognizing that some limits are necessary (e.g. limits on speech that promotes a resurgence of nazism).
  - AlexTWithBeard 5y ago
    Every startup wants to be a new Facebook. Every modern society wants to be a new Sweden. Turns out that replicating successfully run communities - with their traditions, history and lifestyle - is extremely difficult, if ever possible.
  - isaacremuant 5y ago
    The problem is, that the sentiment of "limits speech that promotes resurgence of X" is the same that dictatorships like Argentina used against the "subversives" that would promote and bring about communism. When you allow the powerful to define "dangerous speech". Criticism of the government very quickly becomes dangerous when it's successful. We've seen it with everything related to covid where in some countries people get arrested for "misinformation". The slippery slope many warned about is very real, and very damaging.
    - betterunix2 5y ago
      That is an absolutist argument. Sure, some countries have used censorship in abusive ways, but I very specifically mentioned Germany. It was widely recognized after World War II that a resurgence of nazism would have been disastrous for Germany, and censorship was imposed to prevent the hundreds of thousands of committed nazi party members from trying to reestablish nazism. Censorship was absolutely necessary because propaganda had been so important in the rise of nazism in the first place, and because nazi ideas and the nazi world view did not simply die when Germany surrendered. Despite very strict censorship laws related to nazi propaganda, nazi symbolism, and Holocaust denial, Germany ranks much higher than the United States in terms of press freedom and has ranked higher for many years. There is no serious argument that (modern, reunified) Germany is not a free society where people are free to criticize the government. Yes, there are limits to the ideas that are allowed to be publicly promoted or debated, because the same concerns about a resurgence of nazism remain relevant today (it has actually become worse in recent years). The abuse of censorship laws on the part of dictatorships is not an argument against all censorship, any more than the abuse of the courts by dictatorships is an argument against the rule of law. Expansive censorship is a problem that works against the interests of a free society, but limited censorship is sometimes necessary to promote the interests of a free society.
      - isaacremuant 5y ago
        If my argument is absolutist then your argument is authoritarian. Mine is a safer proposition for the oppressed, for the minorities, for those not algined with the politics of the elites. The whole argument about Nazi resurgence really falls flat when you realize that people get called Nazis for spousing wrongthink politics. Your whole proposition is "the dangers of Nazism are too great". That's the same tactic I mentioned of "the dangers of communism" are too great. If you want, ignore dictatorships. The slippery slope in non dictatorships is extremely damaging. You're not gonna limit your censorship either, as you suggest in your last line. You're going to use it against your political foes to continue in or seize power. Your motte and bailey tactics to get people to accept "some censorship for their own good" and then censor their speech that goes against your politics by calling it "Nazism" is a way bigger threat than the actual chance of "Nazi ideology". There was a time the ACLU safeguarded the right to say the most abhorrent of views the same you make sure due process is served even with the alleged most abhorrent criminals. It benefits everyone.
eloff 5y ago
Benjamin Franklin once said: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." I will not sacrifice free speech for added protection from terrorists.
- sbuk 5y ago
  This quote is taken out of context - see https://www.npr.org/2015/03/02/390245038/ben-franklins-famous-liberty-safety-quote-lost-its-context-in-21st-century?t=1626633566782 https://www.npr.org/2015/03/02/390245038/ben-franklins-famou...
  - eloff 5y ago
    Interesting. So he wasn't saying what people today think he was saying. Let me fix it: Those who would sacrifice freedom for temporary security will eventually lose both and deserve neither. - me, 2021 Doesn't quite carry the same weight with my name behind it, but I stand by it nonetheless.
    - renewiltord 5y ago
      I suppose it is somewhat natural that “abolish the police” would be a stance a freedom-lover such as yourself would take.
    - sbuk 5y ago
      I agree with your sentiment, in part, but I see this quote used in this context so often, that I felt that it's worth pointing out.
      - eloff 5y ago
        Yes, it was interesting to read about the historical context, thanks for pointing it out. I also think the contemporary interpretation of literature, or a quote in this case, often matters more than what the author originally intended - it can take on a life of its own.
  - 5y ago
cortesoft 5y ago
> which is certainly bad, but not quite as bad as being dead. This sort of reductionist argument doesn't work. If you start from the premise "any chance of dying is not worth it", then you won't do much of anything. Driving to the store could kill you, so now you can't go to the store? You have to look at probability when assessing risk. Is a 0.0000001% reduction in your risk of death worth sacrificing all your personal freedom? I think most people would say no.
- betterunix2 5y ago
  Except that it is not a miniscule chance of some violence occasionally being committed. ISIS nearly succeeded in establishing a new country in the territory they captured and it is absurd to pretend that they had not exploited poor moderation on major websites to recruit large numbers of people to their cause. White nationalists and neo-nazis have been equally effective in their use of social media to recruit members and to spread their propaganda. We are not talking about isolated incidents or hypothetical scenarios. Extremists in the US and Europe are becoming part of the political mainstream because so many people believe the extremist propaganda they are reading on social media platforms. Those same extremists have inspired an increasing number of terrorist attacks as their propaganda has spread. For someone like me, someone who is part of a minority group that is frequently targeted by those terrorists, that represents an immediate and growing danger. Really though, this entire debate is poisoned by extreme positions on free speech. I remember watching as unmoderated Usenet groups were overrun by neonazis; everyone fled to moderated newsgroups or off of Usenet altogether to some better-moderated platform. Free speech absolutism has never worked well and it is juvenile to pretend that the choice is between "sacrificing all your personal freedom" or taking an absolutist approach to free speech.
BurningFrog 5y ago
> The worst that can happen to me from censorship being imposed is that I will not be allowed to say certain things online or challenge those in power, or possibly that I will be excluded from these social networks entirely because the people in power do not like what I said -- which is certainly bad, but not quite as bad as being dead. In the censored system, people in power can kill you, censor any talk about it, and no one will ever know.
stale2002 5y ago
> The unfortunate truth is that terrorist organizations use mainstream social networking sites to recruit and radicalize If an actual terrorist organization is doing this, as defined by the FBI, then our government should be in charge of handling that. Terrorist is already illegal, and we already have government organizations, in charge of tracking that stuff down. And those government organizations have checks and balances, and judges, and have to follow certain rules. These checks and balances do not exist, with other forms of moderation.

AlexTWithBeard 5y ago

You certainly must love the way things are going in Belarus then.

betterunix2 5y ago
I prefer the way things are run in countries like France and Germany, where people understand the value of free speech in debating politics and spreading new ideas while also recognizing that some limits are necessary (e.g. limits on speech that promotes a resurgence of nazism).
- AlexTWithBeard 5y ago
  Every startup wants to be a new Facebook. Every modern society wants to be a new Sweden. Turns out that replicating successfully run communities - with their traditions, history and lifestyle - is extremely difficult, if ever possible.
- isaacremuant 5y ago
  The problem is, that the sentiment of "limits speech that promotes resurgence of X" is the same that dictatorships like Argentina used against the "subversives" that would promote and bring about communism. When you allow the powerful to define "dangerous speech". Criticism of the government very quickly becomes dangerous when it's successful. We've seen it with everything related to covid where in some countries people get arrested for "misinformation". The slippery slope many warned about is very real, and very damaging.
  - betterunix2 5y ago
    That is an absolutist argument. Sure, some countries have used censorship in abusive ways, but I very specifically mentioned Germany. It was widely recognized after World War II that a resurgence of nazism would have been disastrous for Germany, and censorship was imposed to prevent the hundreds of thousands of committed nazi party members from trying to reestablish nazism. Censorship was absolutely necessary because propaganda had been so important in the rise of nazism in the first place, and because nazi ideas and the nazi world view did not simply die when Germany surrendered. Despite very strict censorship laws related to nazi propaganda, nazi symbolism, and Holocaust denial, Germany ranks much higher than the United States in terms of press freedom and has ranked higher for many years. There is no serious argument that (modern, reunified) Germany is not a free society where people are free to criticize the government. Yes, there are limits to the ideas that are allowed to be publicly promoted or debated, because the same concerns about a resurgence of nazism remain relevant today (it has actually become worse in recent years). The abuse of censorship laws on the part of dictatorships is not an argument against all censorship, any more than the abuse of the courts by dictatorships is an argument against the rule of law. Expansive censorship is a problem that works against the interests of a free society, but limited censorship is sometimes necessary to promote the interests of a free society.
    - isaacremuant 5y ago
      If my argument is absolutist then your argument is authoritarian. Mine is a safer proposition for the oppressed, for the minorities, for those not algined with the politics of the elites. The whole argument about Nazi resurgence really falls flat when you realize that people get called Nazis for spousing wrongthink politics. Your whole proposition is "the dangers of Nazism are too great". That's the same tactic I mentioned of "the dangers of communism" are too great. If you want, ignore dictatorships. The slippery slope in non dictatorships is extremely damaging. You're not gonna limit your censorship either, as you suggest in your last line. You're going to use it against your political foes to continue in or seize power. Your motte and bailey tactics to get people to accept "some censorship for their own good" and then censor their speech that goes against your politics by calling it "Nazism" is a way bigger threat than the actual chance of "Nazi ideology". There was a time the ACLU safeguarded the right to say the most abhorrent of views the same you make sure due process is served even with the alleged most abhorrent criminals. It benefits everyone.

eloff 5y ago

Benjamin Franklin once said: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." I will not sacrifice free speech for added protection from terrorists.

sbuk 5y ago
This quote is taken out of context - see https://www.npr.org/2015/03/02/390245038/ben-franklins-famous-liberty-safety-quote-lost-its-context-in-21st-century?t=1626633566782 https://www.npr.org/2015/03/02/390245038/ben-franklins-famou...
- eloff 5y ago
  Interesting. So he wasn't saying what people today think he was saying. Let me fix it: Those who would sacrifice freedom for temporary security will eventually lose both and deserve neither. - me, 2021 Doesn't quite carry the same weight with my name behind it, but I stand by it nonetheless.
  - renewiltord 5y ago
    I suppose it is somewhat natural that “abolish the police” would be a stance a freedom-lover such as yourself would take.
  - sbuk 5y ago
    I agree with your sentiment, in part, but I see this quote used in this context so often, that I felt that it's worth pointing out.
    - eloff 5y ago
      Yes, it was interesting to read about the historical context, thanks for pointing it out. I also think the contemporary interpretation of literature, or a quote in this case, often matters more than what the author originally intended - it can take on a life of its own.
- 5y ago

cortesoft 5y ago

> which is certainly bad, but not quite as bad as being dead. This sort of reductionist argument doesn't work. If you start from the premise "any chance of dying is not worth it", then you won't do much of anything. Driving to the store could kill you, so now you can't go to the store? You have to look at probability when assessing risk. Is a 0.0000001% reduction in your risk of death worth sacrificing all your personal freedom? I think most people would say no.

betterunix2 5y ago
Except that it is not a miniscule chance of some violence occasionally being committed. ISIS nearly succeeded in establishing a new country in the territory they captured and it is absurd to pretend that they had not exploited poor moderation on major websites to recruit large numbers of people to their cause. White nationalists and neo-nazis have been equally effective in their use of social media to recruit members and to spread their propaganda. We are not talking about isolated incidents or hypothetical scenarios. Extremists in the US and Europe are becoming part of the political mainstream because so many people believe the extremist propaganda they are reading on social media platforms. Those same extremists have inspired an increasing number of terrorist attacks as their propaganda has spread. For someone like me, someone who is part of a minority group that is frequently targeted by those terrorists, that represents an immediate and growing danger. Really though, this entire debate is poisoned by extreme positions on free speech. I remember watching as unmoderated Usenet groups were overrun by neonazis; everyone fled to moderated newsgroups or off of Usenet altogether to some better-moderated platform. Free speech absolutism has never worked well and it is juvenile to pretend that the choice is between "sacrificing all your personal freedom" or taking an absolutist approach to free speech.

BurningFrog 5y ago

> The worst that can happen to me from censorship being imposed is that I will not be allowed to say certain things online or challenge those in power, or possibly that I will be excluded from these social networks entirely because the people in power do not like what I said -- which is certainly bad, but not quite as bad as being dead. In the censored system, people in power can kill you, censor any talk about it, and no one will ever know.

stale2002 5y ago

> The unfortunate truth is that terrorist organizations use mainstream social networking sites to recruit and radicalize If an actual terrorist organization is doing this, as defined by the FBI, then our government should be in charge of handling that. Terrorist is already illegal, and we already have government organizations, in charge of tracking that stuff down. And those government organizations have checks and balances, and judges, and have to follow certain rules. These checks and balances do not exist, with other forms of moderation.