4 ms·
Supporting the removal of a problematic site (as though that would do the trick) at the expense of setting a bad president is a profoundly oblique way to go abo
by no-dr-onboard 4y ago
Supporting the removal of a problematic site (as though that would do the trick) at the expense of setting a bad president is a profoundly oblique way to go about things.
A few years ago people urged CDNs and ISPs to drop the Daily Caller, then it was Parler, and for numerous times it was 4/8chan. At what point do we admit that the solution to extremism isn’t in blocking sites where this activity collaborates?
This is a cultural problem that can’t be fixed with the hammer of authoritarianism.
- nicbou 4y agoIsn't the other option to facilitate it? There's no inaction here, since you provide a service to that group. You choose between turning a blind eye or kicking them out.
- no-dr-onboard 4y agoThat’s a false dichotomy. Tolerance of something you don’t like is a choice. It’s a particularly meaningful choice when you are restraining the urge to act for the sake of downstream consequences and future generations. Note that I’m not suggesting to turn a blind eye either.
- nicbou 4y agoWhat I'm saying is that inaction is also a choice, and not a neutral one. I'd add that tolerating/enabling those groups also bears consequences for the future generations. Like I said in another comment, the slope isn't that slippery. You can ban these guys and stop there.