6 ms·

Just conveniently ignoring the content of these sites/services that gets them banned in the first place...

prasadjoglekar 5y ago
The article is documenting reaction to the banning; which is to create a parallel set of products. Personally, this is no different than people setting up a rival newspaper or magazine that caters to a different POV. Eventually, the dominant platforms on both sides will regress to the content/banning mean.
k__ 5y ago
I don't understand this. There are well-known arguments for not tolerating intolerant people. Do those who advocate for tolerating intolerant people act in good faith, or are they simply part of them?
- JasonFruit 5y ago
  Would you want a corporation or government to decide for you which of your neighbors you shouldn't tolerate, without letting you get to know them, or would you like to make an informed decision yourself?
  - esotericimpl 5y ago
  - jaegerpicker 5y ago
    No Corporation has decided anything like that. Corporations are responding to their customers requesting those users to not be tolerated. This isn't Twitter banning anyone because they want to. It's Twitter deciding that enough users have decided that tolerance has run its course. They were in response to campaigns of users to deplatform those who we consider harmful.
    - bluescrn 5y ago
      Corporations seem to be responding to tiny but very vocal mobs of activists. These groups don't necessarily represent the majority point of view.
      - jaegerpicker 5y ago
        Are you sure? I know a huge number of users that advocate for Users that expose bigoted views or misinformation to be de-platformed. See the recent Joe Rogan podcast push. That wasn't a tiny percentage of users.
- seneca 5y ago
  Arguments aren't axioms. Karl Popper is not some inherent authority.
- ajsnigrutin 5y ago
  And this in turn makes you intolerant, and I won't tolerate this. Free speech is important and should be protected, even if k__ disagrees with what you said.
  - zozbot234 5y ago
    This is actually a good point, and it's important to realize that even Karl Popper acknowledged this. He explicitly argues that some limited tolerance should be extended even to the intolerant to the extent practical, since this helps promote the norm of tolerance in the first place even when intolerant ideas might otherwise appear to be prevalent. The Paradox of Tolerance is more about acknowledging that limits to tolerance must exist somewhere than an actual argument for narrowing those limits.
- grapeskin 5y ago
  I accept the right of others to say things I find absolutely abhorrent because I recognize that I sometimes say things I believe to be perfectly rational and someone else finds intolerable. Fighting disagreeable speech with more free speech is harder than just banning it, but generations that follow will be better off for it. Just seeing the Russia v Ukraine conflict and seeing how one country can enforce a narrative by law and arrest people as being sympathizers of an “intolerant” regime should be enough to make people aware that regulating verbal “intolerance” is a bad idea.
  - periphrasis 5y ago
    The irony of course being that the American political demographic, MAGA, with the biggest grievances regarding tech “censorship” also appear to be most willing to make excuses for or deny Russian war crimes.
    - nsxwolf 5y ago
      I can go on Twitter and see a lot of examples of this and generate that impression, but then I don’t see it in real life. What’s real? How do we know our perception of reality isn’t being distorted by algorithms and sampling bias?
      - periphrasis 5y ago
        The question would be a lot easier to resolve if the major MAGA thought leaders would stop making excuses for genocide. Anecdotally, my dad is MAGA-leaning right, and while he opposes the invasion and is happy to see the Russian army destroyed, his immediate response when I brought up the mass graves was “how much of that is propaganda though?”. Skepticism about what we are told about a war is always warranted, but right wing Americans are being actively persuaded right now to deny or doubt Russian war crimes despite overwhelming evidence.
        briandear 5y ago
        What overwhelming evidence? At this point it’s allegations. The crimes haven’t actually been investigated. They should be. But “overwhelming evidence” should be rephrased as “lots of allegations.”
- zozbot234 5y ago
  There are also arguments for avoiding the breakdown of communication by expressly favoring the most strongly censored and unfashionable ideas at any given time and striving to platform them everywhere, even irrespective of their actual merits. This is what Herbert Marcuse calls for in his Repressive Tolerance. The point there is not to defend society against anything inherently problematic, but merely to push the very notion and social norm of a "managed", fad-driven discourse to its breaking point. It's a "chaos monkey" approach to the whole problem of communication 'filter bubbles' and 'echo chambers', or pretty much the trollish 4chan model under a different name.
- pyronik19 5y ago
  Most of the people getting caught up in all this banning aren't rabid racist or misogynist or whatever ism or ist they are being smeared with. They are non hateful individuals who don't fall in line with the "current thing" and have a non-approved view point. The woke crowd somehow has been given a monopoly on who has a voice in the modern era. Is someone a "transphobe" and intolerant of trans people because they think the definition of a woman is the same as sex? This isn't intolerance this is a disagreement on the nature of reality.
- jdasdf 5y ago
  There are well known excuses.
h2odragon 5y ago
If there's no 8chan to host the horse porn, who will?
ajsnigrutin 5y ago
If it's illegal, the governments should take care to punish the reponsible ones via the court system. If it's legal, the service provides should have no say. This is like christan toll-bridge operator not allowing people to pass the bridge, if they drove in from the direction of a brothel.
- snowwrestler 5y ago
  > the service provides should have no say Who’s the censor in this conversation again? I’m having a hard time squaring the idea of free speech maximalism with “a certain group of people should have no say.”
  - ajsnigrutin 5y ago
    Service providers should act as an utility, such as roads, waterworks, sewers, etc. We have laws set in place where we decide who can drive on roads using which kinds of vehicles, and road operators and owners (not sure how road system works in USA, in my country, some roads are country-owned, some are owned by the municipality, and some private ones can join the road system - eg. the long road from the main street to the IKEA entrance), and if the driver has a licence and a stret legal vehicle, s/he can drive on all those roads, even if he carries gay porn and anal dildos, and the municipality is full of christian/muslim radicalists. So, as long as the content is legal (regarding the laws of the country), no service provider should be allowed to block you from using that service and/or connection to view that content.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - peoplefromibiza 5y ago
      > no service provider should be allowed to block you from using that service and/or connection to view that content. that's not how it really works. what you are describing is a totally nuclear society, where everyone is on their own and mind their own business. if in the car you've mentioned in your example there's a kid sitting in the back, I would alert the authorities. Not because it's illegal to dive kids in a car full of gay porn and dildos, not because the content is for gay people or because dildos are not toys for kids, it's not even because I believe in some weird story about magic eternal beings that have nothing better to do that dictate books to their disciples about what I should or should not do, but because it should ring a bell to everybody.
seneca 5y ago
Twitter has just as vile content as anything you can find in the other cesspool. It just happens to overwhelmingly lean the right way politically, so is not only still around but treated as some legitimate source of news.
- beaconstudios 5y ago
  twitter itself is left-leaning (in the liberal sense), yes - are we pretending that progressivism and far-right ideology have equal legitimacy? parler was founded to be a haven for the latter. I might be out on a limb with this, but I don't think we should be giving far-right people a platform to spread their views.
  - Jtype 5y ago
    So you think we should be able to label a group of people and restrict their rights? You don't see how this could be a problem?
    - beaconstudios 5y ago
      I think that if your views include "we should kill people because of their race", your views should be banned off every platform, yes. Trying to imply that that's the same as racism is a false equivalence.
  - zozbot234 5y ago
    Let's not pretend that this is just about progressivism (though it's not like even Progressive ideas were ever exempt from being highly problematic: eugenics anyone?). You could find plenty of literal tankies posting on Twitter before Putin made the whole 'tankie' thing rather unpopular.
    - beaconstudios 5y ago
      are tankies progressive? I think their primary axiom is hating America. Either way, I agree that there's a range of legitimate discourse and it shouldn't just be the current flavour of progressivism. I was more cutting out a negative exception for the far right than a positive exception for libsocs.

The article is documenting reaction to the banning; which is to create a parallel set of products. Personally, this is no different than people setting up a rival newspaper or magazine that caters to a different POV. Eventually, the dominant platforms on both sides will regress to the content/banning mean.

k__ 5y ago

I don't understand this. There are well-known arguments for not tolerating intolerant people. Do those who advocate for tolerating intolerant people act in good faith, or are they simply part of them?

JasonFruit 5y ago
Would you want a corporation or government to decide for you which of your neighbors you shouldn't tolerate, without letting you get to know them, or would you like to make an informed decision yourself?
- esotericimpl 5y ago
- jaegerpicker 5y ago
  No Corporation has decided anything like that. Corporations are responding to their customers requesting those users to not be tolerated. This isn't Twitter banning anyone because they want to. It's Twitter deciding that enough users have decided that tolerance has run its course. They were in response to campaigns of users to deplatform those who we consider harmful.
  - bluescrn 5y ago
    Corporations seem to be responding to tiny but very vocal mobs of activists. These groups don't necessarily represent the majority point of view.
    - jaegerpicker 5y ago
      Are you sure? I know a huge number of users that advocate for Users that expose bigoted views or misinformation to be de-platformed. See the recent Joe Rogan podcast push. That wasn't a tiny percentage of users.
seneca 5y ago
Arguments aren't axioms. Karl Popper is not some inherent authority.
ajsnigrutin 5y ago
And this in turn makes you intolerant, and I won't tolerate this. Free speech is important and should be protected, even if k__ disagrees with what you said.
- zozbot234 5y ago
  This is actually a good point, and it's important to realize that even Karl Popper acknowledged this. He explicitly argues that some limited tolerance should be extended even to the intolerant to the extent practical, since this helps promote the norm of tolerance in the first place even when intolerant ideas might otherwise appear to be prevalent. The Paradox of Tolerance is more about acknowledging that limits to tolerance must exist somewhere than an actual argument for narrowing those limits.
grapeskin 5y ago
I accept the right of others to say things I find absolutely abhorrent because I recognize that I sometimes say things I believe to be perfectly rational and someone else finds intolerable. Fighting disagreeable speech with more free speech is harder than just banning it, but generations that follow will be better off for it. Just seeing the Russia v Ukraine conflict and seeing how one country can enforce a narrative by law and arrest people as being sympathizers of an “intolerant” regime should be enough to make people aware that regulating verbal “intolerance” is a bad idea.
- periphrasis 5y ago
  The irony of course being that the American political demographic, MAGA, with the biggest grievances regarding tech “censorship” also appear to be most willing to make excuses for or deny Russian war crimes.
  - nsxwolf 5y ago
    I can go on Twitter and see a lot of examples of this and generate that impression, but then I don’t see it in real life. What’s real? How do we know our perception of reality isn’t being distorted by algorithms and sampling bias?
    - periphrasis 5y ago
      The question would be a lot easier to resolve if the major MAGA thought leaders would stop making excuses for genocide. Anecdotally, my dad is MAGA-leaning right, and while he opposes the invasion and is happy to see the Russian army destroyed, his immediate response when I brought up the mass graves was “how much of that is propaganda though?”. Skepticism about what we are told about a war is always warranted, but right wing Americans are being actively persuaded right now to deny or doubt Russian war crimes despite overwhelming evidence.
      - briandear 5y ago
        What overwhelming evidence? At this point it’s allegations. The crimes haven’t actually been investigated. They should be. But “overwhelming evidence” should be rephrased as “lots of allegations.”
zozbot234 5y ago
There are also arguments for avoiding the breakdown of communication by expressly favoring the most strongly censored and unfashionable ideas at any given time and striving to platform them everywhere, even irrespective of their actual merits. This is what Herbert Marcuse calls for in his Repressive Tolerance. The point there is not to defend society against anything inherently problematic, but merely to push the very notion and social norm of a "managed", fad-driven discourse to its breaking point. It's a "chaos monkey" approach to the whole problem of communication 'filter bubbles' and 'echo chambers', or pretty much the trollish 4chan model under a different name.
pyronik19 5y ago
Most of the people getting caught up in all this banning aren't rabid racist or misogynist or whatever ism or ist they are being smeared with. They are non hateful individuals who don't fall in line with the "current thing" and have a non-approved view point. The woke crowd somehow has been given a monopoly on who has a voice in the modern era. Is someone a "transphobe" and intolerant of trans people because they think the definition of a woman is the same as sex? This isn't intolerance this is a disagreement on the nature of reality.
jdasdf 5y ago
There are well known excuses.

h2odragon 5y ago

If there's no 8chan to host the horse porn, who will?

ajsnigrutin 5y ago

If it's illegal, the governments should take care to punish the reponsible ones via the court system. If it's legal, the service provides should have no say. This is like christan toll-bridge operator not allowing people to pass the bridge, if they drove in from the direction of a brothel.

snowwrestler 5y ago
> the service provides should have no say Who’s the censor in this conversation again? I’m having a hard time squaring the idea of free speech maximalism with “a certain group of people should have no say.”
- ajsnigrutin 5y ago
  Service providers should act as an utility, such as roads, waterworks, sewers, etc. We have laws set in place where we decide who can drive on roads using which kinds of vehicles, and road operators and owners (not sure how road system works in USA, in my country, some roads are country-owned, some are owned by the municipality, and some private ones can join the road system - eg. the long road from the main street to the IKEA entrance), and if the driver has a licence and a stret legal vehicle, s/he can drive on all those roads, even if he carries gay porn and anal dildos, and the municipality is full of christian/muslim radicalists. So, as long as the content is legal (regarding the laws of the country), no service provider should be allowed to block you from using that service and/or connection to view that content.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - peoplefromibiza 5y ago
    > no service provider should be allowed to block you from using that service and/or connection to view that content. that's not how it really works. what you are describing is a totally nuclear society, where everyone is on their own and mind their own business. if in the car you've mentioned in your example there's a kid sitting in the back, I would alert the authorities. Not because it's illegal to dive kids in a car full of gay porn and dildos, not because the content is for gay people or because dildos are not toys for kids, it's not even because I believe in some weird story about magic eternal beings that have nothing better to do that dictate books to their disciples about what I should or should not do, but because it should ring a bell to everybody.

seneca 5y ago

Twitter has just as vile content as anything you can find in the other cesspool. It just happens to overwhelmingly lean the right way politically, so is not only still around but treated as some legitimate source of news.

beaconstudios 5y ago
twitter itself is left-leaning (in the liberal sense), yes - are we pretending that progressivism and far-right ideology have equal legitimacy? parler was founded to be a haven for the latter. I might be out on a limb with this, but I don't think we should be giving far-right people a platform to spread their views.
- Jtype 5y ago
  So you think we should be able to label a group of people and restrict their rights? You don't see how this could be a problem?
  - beaconstudios 5y ago
    I think that if your views include "we should kill people because of their race", your views should be banned off every platform, yes. Trying to imply that that's the same as racism is a false equivalence.
- zozbot234 5y ago
  Let's not pretend that this is just about progressivism (though it's not like even Progressive ideas were ever exempt from being highly problematic: eugenics anyone?). You could find plenty of literal tankies posting on Twitter before Putin made the whole 'tankie' thing rather unpopular.
  - beaconstudios 5y ago
    are tankies progressive? I think their primary axiom is hating America. Either way, I agree that there's a range of legitimate discourse and it shouldn't just be the current flavour of progressivism. I was more cutting out a negative exception for the far right than a positive exception for libsocs.