6 ms·

> Banning hate communities does work though [0] That's like saying banning smoking in the park reduces smoking because nobody's smoking in the park any more.

bearcobra 5y ago
I mean location based smoking bans definitely do reduce smoking rates.
icyfox 5y ago
These things do help. Most members of these communities get radicalized by virtue of other content they’re already browsing. If you remove the communities and force individuals to leap from Facebook to some no-name forum, they’re far less likely to engage. This phenomenon is mirrored elsewhere as well where small interventions can lead to big impacts: see suicide rates in Britain after removing carbon monoxide in their house gas. Initial friction (or means reduction in that research) can drive change.
- idiotsecant 5y ago
  I'm not convinced we should think it's acceptable for you or I to decide who does and does not get exposed to information that will 'radicalize' them because you and I may have wildly different opinions of what constitutes a radical opinion. Humans sometimes develop stupid opinions, and that is OK. They're allowed to do that. They aren't allowed to act on those opinions in a way that constitutes a crime, which is why we go through the trouble of defining crimes in the first place. 'Precrime' thought policing seems like a pretty dangerous road to go down and one that is full of unintended consequences.
  - icyfox 5y ago
    I define a radical group to be some collection that seems to be consistently peddling false material for their own ends, with an overly provoking tilt that makes it easy to go viral. Some specifics out of the past year would be vaccine misinformation, prejudice that incites racial violence in Myanmar, organizing an occupation to the capital in the US. Shouldn't we put a stop to these communities if they sway people to start peddling this information themselves? At least in the US, free speech is most free within public forums. But even then we already define some speech that is too dangerous if it's known to lead to poor outcomes. You can't yell fire in a crowded room, not because yelling fire is inherently a crime, but because it's going to incite people to a detrimental ends. Plus social networks don't have a constitutional obligation to be town squares where free speech can spread unfettered. You have to draw a line somewhere. And as the people who write the algorithms that can amplify or bury content on these networks, I think it _is_ our obligation to at least set parameters on what constitutes good/healthy content interactions on these social platforms and what doesn't. The ML algorithms have to optimize over some loss function.
    - throwaway946513 5y ago
      Not that I disagree with you - but "can't yell fire in a crowded room" is slightly misconstrued. As those aren't the original words from the U.S. Supreme Court case. [0] Additionally, the idea of 'clear and present danger' has been modified within the past 100 years since the said court case. The Supreme court since then has stated: "The government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is 'directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action'". Said definition has changed and depends upon situations, where some action is imminent or "at some ambiguous future date".[1] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_the... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
majormajor 5y ago
A lot fewer people smoke now in the US than several decades ago. So let's do it. Let's isolate and restrict the hateful, the angry, the irrational EXACTLY like we did smoking.
- idiotsecant 5y ago
  This seems like a decent idea until someone in power decides that you are hateful, angry, or irrational.
  - TulliusCicero 5y ago
    You could use the same reasoning like > Making bad things illegal seems like a decent idea until they make something you like doing illegal Therefore just have no laws, I guess? Sometimes an imperfect, abusable system is better than no system. In fact, I'd wager that's usually the case.
    - AnimalMuppet 5y ago
      > Therefore just have no laws, I guess? No. But have a system where some single powerful person can't just make up laws on a whim.
      - TulliusCicero 5y ago
        Well, they generally can't: laws are written and passed by a legislature. You could make this sort of argument for executive orders, though.
    - raxxorrax 5y ago
      I think it already has been abused, the law has nothing to do with it. Just don't venture to places where that is not the case and we can agree. We have different requirements for interesting platforms and should keep it separated for the most part.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
babypuncher 5y ago
Maybe, but it does make the park a more pleasant space for everyone else to spend time in.

bearcobra 5y ago

I mean location based smoking bans definitely do reduce smoking rates.

icyfox 5y ago

These things do help. Most members of these communities get radicalized by virtue of other content they’re already browsing. If you remove the communities and force individuals to leap from Facebook to some no-name forum, they’re far less likely to engage. This phenomenon is mirrored elsewhere as well where small interventions can lead to big impacts: see suicide rates in Britain after removing carbon monoxide in their house gas. Initial friction (or means reduction in that research) can drive change.

idiotsecant 5y ago
I'm not convinced we should think it's acceptable for you or I to decide who does and does not get exposed to information that will 'radicalize' them because you and I may have wildly different opinions of what constitutes a radical opinion. Humans sometimes develop stupid opinions, and that is OK. They're allowed to do that. They aren't allowed to act on those opinions in a way that constitutes a crime, which is why we go through the trouble of defining crimes in the first place. 'Precrime' thought policing seems like a pretty dangerous road to go down and one that is full of unintended consequences.
- icyfox 5y ago
  I define a radical group to be some collection that seems to be consistently peddling false material for their own ends, with an overly provoking tilt that makes it easy to go viral. Some specifics out of the past year would be vaccine misinformation, prejudice that incites racial violence in Myanmar, organizing an occupation to the capital in the US. Shouldn't we put a stop to these communities if they sway people to start peddling this information themselves? At least in the US, free speech is most free within public forums. But even then we already define some speech that is too dangerous if it's known to lead to poor outcomes. You can't yell fire in a crowded room, not because yelling fire is inherently a crime, but because it's going to incite people to a detrimental ends. Plus social networks don't have a constitutional obligation to be town squares where free speech can spread unfettered. You have to draw a line somewhere. And as the people who write the algorithms that can amplify or bury content on these networks, I think it _is_ our obligation to at least set parameters on what constitutes good/healthy content interactions on these social platforms and what doesn't. The ML algorithms have to optimize over some loss function.
  - throwaway946513 5y ago
    Not that I disagree with you - but "can't yell fire in a crowded room" is slightly misconstrued. As those aren't the original words from the U.S. Supreme Court case. [0] Additionally, the idea of 'clear and present danger' has been modified within the past 100 years since the said court case. The Supreme court since then has stated: "The government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is 'directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action'". Said definition has changed and depends upon situations, where some action is imminent or "at some ambiguous future date".[1] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_the... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]

majormajor 5y ago

A lot fewer people smoke now in the US than several decades ago. So let's do it. Let's isolate and restrict the hateful, the angry, the irrational EXACTLY like we did smoking.

idiotsecant 5y ago
This seems like a decent idea until someone in power decides that you are hateful, angry, or irrational.
- TulliusCicero 5y ago
  You could use the same reasoning like > Making bad things illegal seems like a decent idea until they make something you like doing illegal Therefore just have no laws, I guess? Sometimes an imperfect, abusable system is better than no system. In fact, I'd wager that's usually the case.
  - AnimalMuppet 5y ago
    > Therefore just have no laws, I guess? No. But have a system where some single powerful person can't just make up laws on a whim.
    - TulliusCicero 5y ago
      Well, they generally can't: laws are written and passed by a legislature. You could make this sort of argument for executive orders, though.
  - raxxorrax 5y ago
    I think it already has been abused, the law has nothing to do with it. Just don't venture to places where that is not the case and we can agree. We have different requirements for interesting platforms and should keep it separated for the most part.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

babypuncher 5y ago

Maybe, but it does make the park a more pleasant space for everyone else to spend time in.