4 ms·

And when you ban misinformation on your platform, that "anti-vaxxer" instead goes to 8chan where by your argument might inspire them to shoot people up.

joshuamorton 5y ago
Given the size of 8 Chan and the size is communities banned from Reddit, we know this to be untrue.
- notchFilter54 5y ago
  Given that Texas has greater population than Rhode Island, we know it is untrue that my uncle Bill and his friends upset with Texan policies moved from Dallas to Providence.
fighterpilot 5y ago
But you want Reddit to literally adopt 8chan's moderation policy, meaning that Reddit now will become the place that inspires mass shooters instead of 8chan (which by the way, is no longer a place that inspires mass shootings, since it was killed by Cloudfare after the last one, and replaced with the impotent and unpopular 8kun).
- PerkinWarwick 5y ago
  >Reddit now will become the place that inspires mass shooters instead of 8chan I can guarantee that there are plenty of evil doings on Reddit and Facebook. One argument, and a more honest one, that people can make is that (a) social media is toxic and (b) it should be made illegal generally. Bingo bango, no mass shootings I guess.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- notchFilter54 5y ago
  >But you want Reddit to literally adopt 8chan's moderation policy, I want reddit to adopt the public square's policy of allowing any content that isn't illegal, which also happens to be pretty much synonymous with 8chan's policy. Do you consider the town square (which has the policy of allowing content that is not illegal) a center of inspiration for mass shootings? Could it be that the public square is not viewed as a place for inspiration of mass shooting, have anything to do with integration of many ideas and the fact that someone bringing bad ideas might actually be challenged in an environment where they are exposed to the general ideas of the community rather than an echo chamber of fellow nazis or whatever? The nazi hall may have the same moderation policy as the town square, that doesn't mean I expect the same inspirations to come out of the nazi hall. The issue with the nazi hall is the powder-keg full of people reinforcing bad ideas, whereas a nazi in a more "normal" place like the public square might have some chance of being shamed or convinced their anti-social ideas are undesirable (despite the nazi hall and public square having same moderation policy). I don't want to shove more people into the nazi hall by banning them from the public square (especially when they're only being banned from the square because they have unconventional views on vaccines.) --------------- In the censor's world, the people with undesirable ideas in the public square are kicked into 8chan where instead of their ideas being challenged they all end up in a self reinforcing chamber. The proportional amount of people wanting a mass shooting may be tenfold that in the public square, leading to more compressed exposure including by other people who were originally just anti-vax or whatever. And the people running the public square turn around and say "see, 8chan allows any ideas, and that's what happens when you do that!"
  - fighterpilot 5y ago
    "Do you consider the town square a centre of inspiration for mass shootings" Before the internet, yes, definitely. Maybe not mass shootings specifically because that seems to be a recent fashion trend after Columbine, but violent extremism in general. How do you think Hitler managed to secure over 40 percent of the democratic vote in the early 1930s? How did Osama Bin Laden recruit extremists who were willing to put a bomb into the WTC basement? Propaganda, speech. This idea that unfettered speech in the public town square, even if it isn't directly inciting violence, can't lead to pathological outcomes just doesn't hold up. This isn't even an argument for government censorship. It's merely me recognizing that these type of outcomes can come about. Nowadays almost all extremist speech is online, because that's where there is distribution and anonymity, so the analogy breaks down. "where they are exposed to the general ideas of the community rather than an echo chamber" This isn't a bad argument, but you have to balance it off with the knowledge that ideas are highly, highly contagious. On balance, I think giving such ideas distribution to a billion eyes is far more harmful than pushing a fringe into echo chambers which already existed before social media censorship began anyway (such as the Stormfront forum). Moreover you have to recognize that these isolated echo chambers would naturally self-segregate on Reddit if given free reign, and so in practice you haven't changed anything aside from giving these ideas more distribution. It's not like /r/88 or whatever would be interacting with the rest of Reddit thus helping their members deradicalize.

joshuamorton 5y ago

Given the size of 8 Chan and the size is communities banned from Reddit, we know this to be untrue.

notchFilter54 5y ago
Given that Texas has greater population than Rhode Island, we know it is untrue that my uncle Bill and his friends upset with Texan policies moved from Dallas to Providence.

fighterpilot 5y ago

But you want Reddit to literally adopt 8chan's moderation policy, meaning that Reddit now will become the place that inspires mass shooters instead of 8chan (which by the way, is no longer a place that inspires mass shootings, since it was killed by Cloudfare after the last one, and replaced with the impotent and unpopular 8kun).

PerkinWarwick 5y ago
>Reddit now will become the place that inspires mass shooters instead of 8chan I can guarantee that there are plenty of evil doings on Reddit and Facebook. One argument, and a more honest one, that people can make is that (a) social media is toxic and (b) it should be made illegal generally. Bingo bango, no mass shootings I guess.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
notchFilter54 5y ago
>But you want Reddit to literally adopt 8chan's moderation policy, I want reddit to adopt the public square's policy of allowing any content that isn't illegal, which also happens to be pretty much synonymous with 8chan's policy. Do you consider the town square (which has the policy of allowing content that is not illegal) a center of inspiration for mass shootings? Could it be that the public square is not viewed as a place for inspiration of mass shooting, have anything to do with integration of many ideas and the fact that someone bringing bad ideas might actually be challenged in an environment where they are exposed to the general ideas of the community rather than an echo chamber of fellow nazis or whatever? The nazi hall may have the same moderation policy as the town square, that doesn't mean I expect the same inspirations to come out of the nazi hall. The issue with the nazi hall is the powder-keg full of people reinforcing bad ideas, whereas a nazi in a more "normal" place like the public square might have some chance of being shamed or convinced their anti-social ideas are undesirable (despite the nazi hall and public square having same moderation policy). I don't want to shove more people into the nazi hall by banning them from the public square (especially when they're only being banned from the square because they have unconventional views on vaccines.) --------------- In the censor's world, the people with undesirable ideas in the public square are kicked into 8chan where instead of their ideas being challenged they all end up in a self reinforcing chamber. The proportional amount of people wanting a mass shooting may be tenfold that in the public square, leading to more compressed exposure including by other people who were originally just anti-vax or whatever. And the people running the public square turn around and say "see, 8chan allows any ideas, and that's what happens when you do that!"
- fighterpilot 5y ago
  "Do you consider the town square a centre of inspiration for mass shootings" Before the internet, yes, definitely. Maybe not mass shootings specifically because that seems to be a recent fashion trend after Columbine, but violent extremism in general. How do you think Hitler managed to secure over 40 percent of the democratic vote in the early 1930s? How did Osama Bin Laden recruit extremists who were willing to put a bomb into the WTC basement? Propaganda, speech. This idea that unfettered speech in the public town square, even if it isn't directly inciting violence, can't lead to pathological outcomes just doesn't hold up. This isn't even an argument for government censorship. It's merely me recognizing that these type of outcomes can come about. Nowadays almost all extremist speech is online, because that's where there is distribution and anonymity, so the analogy breaks down. "where they are exposed to the general ideas of the community rather than an echo chamber" This isn't a bad argument, but you have to balance it off with the knowledge that ideas are highly, highly contagious. On balance, I think giving such ideas distribution to a billion eyes is far more harmful than pushing a fringe into echo chambers which already existed before social media censorship began anyway (such as the Stormfront forum). Moreover you have to recognize that these isolated echo chambers would naturally self-segregate on Reddit if given free reign, and so in practice you haven't changed anything aside from giving these ideas more distribution. It's not like /r/88 or whatever would be interacting with the rest of Reddit thus helping their members deradicalize.