4 ms·

And keeping Jones off of Rogan would've accomplished what? Someone who thinks the gummint is out to git 'em would believe a different 'gummint is out to gitcha

And keeping Jones off of Rogan would've accomplished what? Someone who thinks the gummint is out to git 'em would believe a different 'gummint is out to gitcha' conspiracy theory instead? I don't think you can win that battle. The 'Proctor & Gamble are satan worshipers' meme spread across the country before the internet existed. You can't stop people from spreading nonsense, but engaging with and ridiculing nonsense at least makes sure the counter-memes exist, when someone is ready to hear them.

krapp 5y ago
>You can't stop people from spreading nonsense, but engaging with and ridiculing nonsense at least makes sure the counter-memes exist, when someone is ready to hear them. You can do both. There is evidence that deplatforming works. It isn't perfectly effective, but not giving cranks access to the biggest megaphones and most virulent information-spreading engines in human history does in fact seem to inhibit their ability to spread. Doing so doesn't stop anyone from engaging with or ridiculing them. But, point of order, we've been "engaging and ridiculing" for years now, it hasn't worked yet. Everyone says sunlight is the best disinfectant, but as far as I can see, this particular strain of infection feeds on sunlight.
- ineptech 5y ago
  > There is evidence that deplatforming works. 'Works' in what sense? Does it make the sort of people who believe this stuff less credulous? Or does it just make them less likely to listen to the specific blowhard being deplatformed, and less likely to believe the specific conspiracy theory being peddled? It's not like there's a shortage; both conspiracy theories and con-men are fungible. (And it goes without saying, that any deplatforming/censorship argument sounds strongest against something patently ridiculous like Sandy Hook not having happened, weaker against something controversial, and positively diabolical against something you personally believe to be true. If you assume the person in charge of the deplatforming is someone you politically disagree with, are you still as big a fan?)
  - krapp 5y ago
    Let me ask you this - if deplatforming doesn't work, what are all of the people concerned about it worried about? It works in the sense that it deprives people of the power-multiplying capabilities of large platforms to spread disinformation. It doesn't stop the spread, but it does slow the spread. Yes, Sandy Hook conspiracy theorists would still exist without Alex Jones egging them on, but there would have been fewer of them, and they might not have been so invested in the meme that they decided to harass victims of the shooting. >And it goes without saying, that any deplatforming/censorship argument sounds strongest against something patently ridiculous like Sandy Hook not having happened, weaker against something controversial, and positively diabolical against something you personally believe to be true. Yes, that's why I'm making it against the first group, and not the second or third. I'm saying if you're spreading patently ridiculous nonsense like "Sandy Hook was a hoax," and that ridiculous nonsense is doing actual societal harm, it's perfectly legitimate for platforms to decide that you should take your big breadboard and tinfoil hat elsewhere. >If you assume the person in charge of the deplatforming is someone you politically disagree with, are you still as big a fan? I'm not supporting deplatforming in the case of simple political disagreement, so in that case, no.
    - ineptech 5y ago
      I think the main thing we disagree on is: I don't think Alex Jones has any power, or changes anyone's mind. He doesn't have a silver tongue, a deft wit, or evidence on his side. He's just a schmuck who tosses out bullshit to see what sticks. What you're dancing around, though, is that you can't talk about why this particular piece of bullshit sticks if you're pretending it's apolitical. The Sandy Hook hoax idea, as I understand it, is the theory that there are forces within the US government plotting to restrict gun rights, and they staged a fake school shooting to gain support. Right? Well, you can pin the second bit on Alex Jones, at least partly, but the other part, the "there are forces within the US government plotting to restrict gun rights" part, that's a meme that the mainstream right has been pushing relentlessly for something like two generations. And it is not a conspiracy theory; it's literally true (albeit often exaggerated). So my point, the reason I think deplatforming Jones would be ineffectual, is that the damage is already done. A generation has been convinced that the anti-gun brigade is so powerful and pernicious that faking a school shooting is something they might realistically do. That is the problem. I don't know if that problem is solveable, but I don't think deplatforming people like Alex Jones really affects it.
- trompetenaccoun 5y ago
  "Deplatforming" works, because what you just did is use a nicer sounding euphemism for censorship. Obviously with censorship you can hinder the spread of information, regimes like the CCP do this very successfully. The question is at what cost, and who decides what is misinformation? Does it actually result in a net positive for society over time? The most livable societies I know are all open societies. Once you start censoring this you might also want to censor that and the misinformation here, and this doesn't sound right either... Maybe your own comment is misinformation. Maybe saying we need more restrictions on speech is a dangerous idea. Should I lobby for your speech to be deplatformed, as you call it?
  - krapp 5y ago
    >The most livable societies I know are all open societies. If by "open" societies you mean societies in which no form of "censorship" is practiced by any entity, at any level, then no, you do not, because such societies do not exist. Even the United States has limits placed on speech at the Federal level (the level limited by the First Amendment) and elsewhere. Even public squares are regulated. And on top of everything else, society itself imposes "censorship" through cultural and social norms. Certainly speech on private property can be regulated. You can't go into a restaurant and start campaigning or venting about the government. Platforms on the web, which are also private property, have always been likewise regulated by their owners. I guarantee this is the case in whatever livable societies you're referring to. >Once you start censoring this you might also want to censor that and the misinformation here, and this doesn't sound right either... Maybe your own comment is misinformation. Yes, the slippery slope argument, all forms of censorship must inevitably lead to arbitrary censorship something something Orwell something Stalinist purges. At this point it's been invoked so often that it's become something of a thought-terminating cliche. All I can say is I don't believe that the ability of site owners and moderators to police and control content - an ability they've had forever mind you - will somehow inevitably lead to the boot stomping on our heads forever. If you disagree we'll have to agree to disagree. After all, as stated earlier, there are no societies in which no form of censorship occurs. If the slippery slope argument were valid, all societies would currently be dictatorships. That societies exist which you consider "open" suggests that >Should I lobby for your speech to be deplatformed, as you call it? Lobby whom? We're talking about the policies of specific private entities, you're the one who predictably brought up CCP style authoritarianism despite no one actually arguing for governments to "deplatform" anyone from society. But sure - if you think my speech is doing real world harm in the same way as Alex Jones or anti-vaxxers, feel free to "lobby" the mods about it. That would, after all, be your free speech right would it not?

krapp 5y ago

>You can't stop people from spreading nonsense, but engaging with and ridiculing nonsense at least makes sure the counter-memes exist, when someone is ready to hear them. You can do both. There is evidence that deplatforming works. It isn't perfectly effective, but not giving cranks access to the biggest megaphones and most virulent information-spreading engines in human history does in fact seem to inhibit their ability to spread. Doing so doesn't stop anyone from engaging with or ridiculing them. But, point of order, we've been "engaging and ridiculing" for years now, it hasn't worked yet. Everyone says sunlight is the best disinfectant, but as far as I can see, this particular strain of infection feeds on sunlight.

ineptech 5y ago
> There is evidence that deplatforming works. 'Works' in what sense? Does it make the sort of people who believe this stuff less credulous? Or does it just make them less likely to listen to the specific blowhard being deplatformed, and less likely to believe the specific conspiracy theory being peddled? It's not like there's a shortage; both conspiracy theories and con-men are fungible. (And it goes without saying, that any deplatforming/censorship argument sounds strongest against something patently ridiculous like Sandy Hook not having happened, weaker against something controversial, and positively diabolical against something you personally believe to be true. If you assume the person in charge of the deplatforming is someone you politically disagree with, are you still as big a fan?)
- krapp 5y ago
  Let me ask you this - if deplatforming doesn't work, what are all of the people concerned about it worried about? It works in the sense that it deprives people of the power-multiplying capabilities of large platforms to spread disinformation. It doesn't stop the spread, but it does slow the spread. Yes, Sandy Hook conspiracy theorists would still exist without Alex Jones egging them on, but there would have been fewer of them, and they might not have been so invested in the meme that they decided to harass victims of the shooting. >And it goes without saying, that any deplatforming/censorship argument sounds strongest against something patently ridiculous like Sandy Hook not having happened, weaker against something controversial, and positively diabolical against something you personally believe to be true. Yes, that's why I'm making it against the first group, and not the second or third. I'm saying if you're spreading patently ridiculous nonsense like "Sandy Hook was a hoax," and that ridiculous nonsense is doing actual societal harm, it's perfectly legitimate for platforms to decide that you should take your big breadboard and tinfoil hat elsewhere. >If you assume the person in charge of the deplatforming is someone you politically disagree with, are you still as big a fan? I'm not supporting deplatforming in the case of simple political disagreement, so in that case, no.
  - ineptech 5y ago
    I think the main thing we disagree on is: I don't think Alex Jones has any power, or changes anyone's mind. He doesn't have a silver tongue, a deft wit, or evidence on his side. He's just a schmuck who tosses out bullshit to see what sticks. What you're dancing around, though, is that you can't talk about why this particular piece of bullshit sticks if you're pretending it's apolitical. The Sandy Hook hoax idea, as I understand it, is the theory that there are forces within the US government plotting to restrict gun rights, and they staged a fake school shooting to gain support. Right? Well, you can pin the second bit on Alex Jones, at least partly, but the other part, the "there are forces within the US government plotting to restrict gun rights" part, that's a meme that the mainstream right has been pushing relentlessly for something like two generations. And it is not a conspiracy theory; it's literally true (albeit often exaggerated). So my point, the reason I think deplatforming Jones would be ineffectual, is that the damage is already done. A generation has been convinced that the anti-gun brigade is so powerful and pernicious that faking a school shooting is something they might realistically do. That is the problem. I don't know if that problem is solveable, but I don't think deplatforming people like Alex Jones really affects it.
trompetenaccoun 5y ago
"Deplatforming" works, because what you just did is use a nicer sounding euphemism for censorship. Obviously with censorship you can hinder the spread of information, regimes like the CCP do this very successfully. The question is at what cost, and who decides what is misinformation? Does it actually result in a net positive for society over time? The most livable societies I know are all open societies. Once you start censoring this you might also want to censor that and the misinformation here, and this doesn't sound right either... Maybe your own comment is misinformation. Maybe saying we need more restrictions on speech is a dangerous idea. Should I lobby for your speech to be deplatformed, as you call it?
- krapp 5y ago
  >The most livable societies I know are all open societies. If by "open" societies you mean societies in which no form of "censorship" is practiced by any entity, at any level, then no, you do not, because such societies do not exist. Even the United States has limits placed on speech at the Federal level (the level limited by the First Amendment) and elsewhere. Even public squares are regulated. And on top of everything else, society itself imposes "censorship" through cultural and social norms. Certainly speech on private property can be regulated. You can't go into a restaurant and start campaigning or venting about the government. Platforms on the web, which are also private property, have always been likewise regulated by their owners. I guarantee this is the case in whatever livable societies you're referring to. >Once you start censoring this you might also want to censor that and the misinformation here, and this doesn't sound right either... Maybe your own comment is misinformation. Yes, the slippery slope argument, all forms of censorship must inevitably lead to arbitrary censorship something something Orwell something Stalinist purges. At this point it's been invoked so often that it's become something of a thought-terminating cliche. All I can say is I don't believe that the ability of site owners and moderators to police and control content - an ability they've had forever mind you - will somehow inevitably lead to the boot stomping on our heads forever. If you disagree we'll have to agree to disagree. After all, as stated earlier, there are no societies in which no form of censorship occurs. If the slippery slope argument were valid, all societies would currently be dictatorships. That societies exist which you consider "open" suggests that >Should I lobby for your speech to be deplatformed, as you call it? Lobby whom? We're talking about the policies of specific private entities, you're the one who predictably brought up CCP style authoritarianism despite no one actually arguing for governments to "deplatform" anyone from society. But sure - if you think my speech is doing real world harm in the same way as Alex Jones or anti-vaxxers, feel free to "lobby" the mods about it. That would, after all, be your free speech right would it not?