6 ms·

True. There is a real argument to be made here that this site is actively causing harm. Payment providers, especially credit card companies, have banned sites a

by Udo 4y ago

True. There is a real argument to be made here that this site is actively causing harm. Payment providers, especially credit card companies, have banned sites and services for far less, for example because they decided porn was incompatible with their public image. But this illustrates the dilemma quite well: ideally we would like payment providers to be a public utility that is not allowed to make whimsical judgement calls, on the other hand we would like them to employ good judgement about facilitating things that are clearly detrimental. While I share your schadenfreude in this case, I don't see how this is solvable in the general case.

iinnPP 4y ago
I went through 10 articles and 100 headings and can't find an example of this. What day was the harm posted?
- Udo 4y ago
  Just from the sidebar: The Growing Menace of Bill Gates’ ‘Global Health’ Whale Population Grows Despite Attenborough Climate Scaremongering Headmistress of England’s Most Successful State School Reported to Police For ‘Hate Crime’ After Jordan Peterson Visit Pentagon Launches Probe into Woke Diversity Officer After her Tweets Asking Where She Can “Get a Break From White Nonsense for a While” Woke High School Defends Trans Teacher With Prosthetic Breasts in Name of Creating “Safe and Inclusive Environment” It seems to be a Q-adjacent site with a clear goal of disinformation and culture war bullshit.
  - 2muchcoffeeman 4y ago
    So we should ban anything we don't agree with? A bunch of people don't agree with sex workers so it's OK to ban them from payment services too?
    - henearkr 4y ago
      I'm just not sad about it lol, that's all. I agree with the "big principle" that they should have access to basic internet services, in theory. But I also think that there should be laws forbidding anti-science and conspiracy theory mindset, because it ruins everything brought by knowledge and rationality, and leads to stupidly destructive actions.
    - Udo 4y ago
      "We" are not banning anything. PayPal does, and yes, it's most likely because of the positions held by this site. Refer to my earlier comment on why this is problematic. But yes, in this specific case, I agree with the ban because I believe the site to be part of a disinformation network. Obviously, the positions held by the site are shared by a lot of people here, but that doesn't change my opinion of it. If you believe they are spreading worthwhile information on there, that's obviously your right and my beef is not with you - I think it should be possible to politically disagree with someone and still be able to go out and have a beer together. My beef is with sites like this which are causing harm on a societal scale.
      - 2muchcoffeeman 4y ago
        No, I read some of the articles and it all sounds a bit stupid. But if you're ok with companies that should almost be utilities withholding their services because their choice matches your ethics. Then I expect you to also be ok when they make choices that don't match your ethics.
        Udo 4y ago
        > withholding their services because their choice matches your ethics I do actually think the site is unethical, yes. But those are not "my" ethics, just ethics in general. There is sufficient evidence to argue against the Daily Sceptic on purely humanist grounds. On top of that I do find the site personally objectionable, that is also true. I also believe that the intent and consequences behind opinions matter. If there is a website that clearly influences a lot of people to be anti-science and that tries to promote social inequity then I don't view this neutrally as just another opinion. Ethically, this is not on the same level as, say, someone's opinions about the Game of Thrones finale. > But if you're ok with companies that should almost be utilities withholding their services I told you two times already that I'm not okay with this, only that this is one of the exceedingly rare cases where I welcome the way things have already been working for years.
logicalmonster 4y ago
> There is a real argument to be made here that this site is actively causing harm. Who or what is this site harming?
- henearkr 4y ago
  It's actively propagating conspiracy theories, denialism of anthropogenic global warming, fear of vaccines, distrust of health authorities... This is very harmful for everybody who read it without a critical mind (i.e. exactly the public it targets).
- n4r9 4y ago
  After a quick scan of the site, it does seem to have an anti-scientific bias (i.e. in opposition to scientific consensus) on COVID and climate change, which contributes to the harm caused by those things.
  - logicalmonster 4y ago
    > in opposition to scientific consensus At what stage of the scientific method is inquiry no longer permitted? > COVID and climate change, Are the authorities 100% right about both of these topics? > which contributes to the harm caused by those things. Have you considered that trying to shut down free inquiry into these things makes many people even more distrustful of what you have to say?
    - n4r9 4y ago
      > At what stage of the scientific method is inquiry no longer permitted? Well, this is media reporting rather than scientific inquiry. There certainly are ethical limits to what can be published if it goes against fact or scientific consensus. For a more clearcut example, it's harmful if a publication reports that drinking urine cures cancer. I don't think you'd disagree that this would be hamrful (maybe you do?) but perhaps you differ on whether we have the same confidence about climate change and COVID. Which I suppose ties into your next question. > Are the authorities 100% right about COVID and climate change? Not sure what you mean by "authorities", but the current scientific consensus that the Earth is warming due to human activity is so strong, that it's practically comparable with statements like "the Earth goes round the sun". These are the people whose job it is to be objective and sceptical. Not everyone has the time and inclination to read the literature and understand the models ourselves, so we either trust in the science, or we think that the whole of science is caught up in some kind of mass hysteria or conspiracy. > Have you considered that trying to shut down free inquiry into these things makes many people even more distrustful of what you have to say? Sure, but I'm not sure I consider one company distancing itself from another to be the same as shutting down free inquiry. And anyway, the question I was considering was "is there an argument that the DailySceptic is harmful". I was simply proposing ways in which it may well be causing a social harm. Balancing that harm against the harm caused by restricting free speech is much trickier.
mmcwilliams 4y ago
Is the fact that payment processors avoid adult content because it's "incompatible with their public image" or because the sites in question have a history of noticeably higher chargeback rates and fraud?
suoduandao2 4y ago
clear rules that decide who's in and who's out seem acceptable to most... if credit card providers had decided that only certain types of porn were banned, that would have caused an outcry as well.
nottorp 4y ago
> Payment providers, especially credit card companies, have banned sites and services for far less, for example because they decided porn was incompatible with their public image. ... which should also be illegal.

by Udo 4y ago

iinnPP 4y ago

I went through 10 articles and 100 headings and can't find an example of this. What day was the harm posted?

Udo 4y ago
Just from the sidebar: The Growing Menace of Bill Gates’ ‘Global Health’ Whale Population Grows Despite Attenborough Climate Scaremongering Headmistress of England’s Most Successful State School Reported to Police For ‘Hate Crime’ After Jordan Peterson Visit Pentagon Launches Probe into Woke Diversity Officer After her Tweets Asking Where She Can “Get a Break From White Nonsense for a While” Woke High School Defends Trans Teacher With Prosthetic Breasts in Name of Creating “Safe and Inclusive Environment” It seems to be a Q-adjacent site with a clear goal of disinformation and culture war bullshit.
- 2muchcoffeeman 4y ago
  So we should ban anything we don't agree with? A bunch of people don't agree with sex workers so it's OK to ban them from payment services too?
  - henearkr 4y ago
    I'm just not sad about it lol, that's all. I agree with the "big principle" that they should have access to basic internet services, in theory. But I also think that there should be laws forbidding anti-science and conspiracy theory mindset, because it ruins everything brought by knowledge and rationality, and leads to stupidly destructive actions.
  - Udo 4y ago
    "We" are not banning anything. PayPal does, and yes, it's most likely because of the positions held by this site. Refer to my earlier comment on why this is problematic. But yes, in this specific case, I agree with the ban because I believe the site to be part of a disinformation network. Obviously, the positions held by the site are shared by a lot of people here, but that doesn't change my opinion of it. If you believe they are spreading worthwhile information on there, that's obviously your right and my beef is not with you - I think it should be possible to politically disagree with someone and still be able to go out and have a beer together. My beef is with sites like this which are causing harm on a societal scale.
    - 2muchcoffeeman 4y ago
      No, I read some of the articles and it all sounds a bit stupid. But if you're ok with companies that should almost be utilities withholding their services because their choice matches your ethics. Then I expect you to also be ok when they make choices that don't match your ethics.
      - Udo 4y ago
        > withholding their services because their choice matches your ethics I do actually think the site is unethical, yes. But those are not "my" ethics, just ethics in general. There is sufficient evidence to argue against the Daily Sceptic on purely humanist grounds. On top of that I do find the site personally objectionable, that is also true. I also believe that the intent and consequences behind opinions matter. If there is a website that clearly influences a lot of people to be anti-science and that tries to promote social inequity then I don't view this neutrally as just another opinion. Ethically, this is not on the same level as, say, someone's opinions about the Game of Thrones finale. > But if you're ok with companies that should almost be utilities withholding their services I told you two times already that I'm not okay with this, only that this is one of the exceedingly rare cases where I welcome the way things have already been working for years.

logicalmonster 4y ago

> There is a real argument to be made here that this site is actively causing harm. Who or what is this site harming?

henearkr 4y ago
It's actively propagating conspiracy theories, denialism of anthropogenic global warming, fear of vaccines, distrust of health authorities... This is very harmful for everybody who read it without a critical mind (i.e. exactly the public it targets).
n4r9 4y ago
After a quick scan of the site, it does seem to have an anti-scientific bias (i.e. in opposition to scientific consensus) on COVID and climate change, which contributes to the harm caused by those things.
- logicalmonster 4y ago
  > in opposition to scientific consensus At what stage of the scientific method is inquiry no longer permitted? > COVID and climate change, Are the authorities 100% right about both of these topics? > which contributes to the harm caused by those things. Have you considered that trying to shut down free inquiry into these things makes many people even more distrustful of what you have to say?
  - n4r9 4y ago
    > At what stage of the scientific method is inquiry no longer permitted? Well, this is media reporting rather than scientific inquiry. There certainly are ethical limits to what can be published if it goes against fact or scientific consensus. For a more clearcut example, it's harmful if a publication reports that drinking urine cures cancer. I don't think you'd disagree that this would be hamrful (maybe you do?) but perhaps you differ on whether we have the same confidence about climate change and COVID. Which I suppose ties into your next question. > Are the authorities 100% right about COVID and climate change? Not sure what you mean by "authorities", but the current scientific consensus that the Earth is warming due to human activity is so strong, that it's practically comparable with statements like "the Earth goes round the sun". These are the people whose job it is to be objective and sceptical. Not everyone has the time and inclination to read the literature and understand the models ourselves, so we either trust in the science, or we think that the whole of science is caught up in some kind of mass hysteria or conspiracy. > Have you considered that trying to shut down free inquiry into these things makes many people even more distrustful of what you have to say? Sure, but I'm not sure I consider one company distancing itself from another to be the same as shutting down free inquiry. And anyway, the question I was considering was "is there an argument that the DailySceptic is harmful". I was simply proposing ways in which it may well be causing a social harm. Balancing that harm against the harm caused by restricting free speech is much trickier.

mmcwilliams 4y ago

Is the fact that payment processors avoid adult content because it's "incompatible with their public image" or because the sites in question have a history of noticeably higher chargeback rates and fraud?

suoduandao2 4y ago

clear rules that decide who's in and who's out seem acceptable to most... if credit card providers had decided that only certain types of porn were banned, that would have caused an outcry as well.

nottorp 4y ago

> Payment providers, especially credit card companies, have banned sites and services for far less, for example because they decided porn was incompatible with their public image. ... which should also be illegal.