5 ms·

The point is, countering negative ideas with suppression does not work. Countering speech with more speech is better. Roger Baldwin, founder of the now gone-ast

by rhaksw 4y ago

The point is, countering negative ideas with suppression does not work. Countering speech with more speech is better. Roger Baldwin, founder of the now gone-astray ACLU, may have put it best [1], > Host: "What possible reason is there for giving civil liberties to people who will use those civil liberties in order to destroy the civil liberties of all the rest?" > Roger: "That's a classic argument you know, that's what they said about the nazis and the communists, that if they got into power they'd suppress all the rest of us. Therefore, we'd suppress them first. We're going to use their methods before they can use it." > "Well that is contrary to our experience. In a democratic society, if you let them all talk, even those who would deny civil liberties and would overthrow the government, that's the best way to prevent them from doing it." Regarding your claim that this is only "faintly" related to free speech, you should know that Jonathan Haidt is very near to that issue. He co-authored a book [2] with the current president of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), Greg Lukianoff. See also: Jonathan Haidt on the moral roots of liberals and conservatives [3] [1] https://youtu.be/ND_uY_KXGgY?t=1225 https://youtu.be/ND_uY_KXGgY?t=1225 [2] https://www.amazon.com/Coddling-American-Mind-Intentions-Generation-ebook/dp/B076NVFT5P/ https://www.amazon.com/Coddling-American-Mind-Intentions-Gen... [3] https://vimeo.com/27861464 https://vimeo.com/27861464

viraptor 4y ago
> That's a classic argument you know, that's what they said about the nazis and the communists, that if they got into power they'd suppress all the rest of us. With the small difference being that those groups did not suppress speech by refusing to invite speakers to an event. Let's not put academia memberships and pogroms in the same category.
- rhaksw 4y ago
  I wasn't comparing academia to nazis. Rather, I was saying that even in the most extreme situations e.g. nazis and communists, open and civil discourse is still better than censorship. It's also worth noting that FIRE was expressly founded to deal with free speech violations in higher education. FIRE's president often discusses this, for example in a recent interview with Nick Gillespie [1]. FIRE recently expanded to cover all free speech issues, but that is where they got started. They've taken over a role that the ACLU has largely abandoned, since they now construe rights to be in conflict with each other, as former Executive Director Ira Glasser mentions [2] with the ACLU's new guidelines [3]: > "The guidelines are designed to assist in consideration of the competing interests that may arise when such conflicts emerge. The guidelines do not seek to resolve the conflicts, because resolution will virtually always turn on factors specific to each case." > "The potential conflict between advocacy for free speech and for equal justice in the fight against white supremacy is especially salient, but by no means unique in presenting tensions between ACLU values." But you're not supposed to construe rights as being in conflict with each other, as implied by the 9th amendment [4]: > The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people Like balancing form and function, one should not take away from another. [1] https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/greg-lukianoff-saving-the-culture-of-free-speech/id1485021241?i=1000565704046 https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/greg-lukianoff-saving-... [2] https://youtu.be/x0Lc5b8Flto?t=87 https://youtu.be/x0Lc5b8Flto?t=87 [3] https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/field_document/aclu_case_selection_guidelines.pdf https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/field_document/aclu... [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ninth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Text https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ninth_Amendment_to_the_United_...
  - viraptor 4y ago
    He may be right with the general idea, but the point was that his phrasing needs some serious work. The classic argument is really that they should be censored so they can't easily organise and kill us. If he doesn't say that, I don't know if he realises what stakes he's talking about. (he probably does, but... say it) I'm annoyed, because there are lots of people who don't realise this is literally about survival for others, not just about free speech ideas.
    - rhaksw 4y ago
      It was a classic argument made during his lifetime, from the 1910s until 1981 when that video was made.
    - Manuel_D 4y ago
      > some serious work. The classic argument is really that they should be censored so they can't easily organise and kill us. There's a difference between words and actions. Words fo not kill. No, words are not violence no matter how much people try to claim otherwise. Furthermore, censoring people does nothing to reduce a groups ability to kill. Taking away someone's public voice does not take away their capacity to carry out violence. Disinviting a speaker or banning a book does not magically make people's guns disappear.
specialist 4y ago
[flagged]
- SpicyLemonZest 4y ago
  Seems like it's worked well? Wikipedia tells me that he's "one of the most cited scholars alive" and "has influenced a broad array of academic fields"; I'm not personally familiar with his academic work, but most of my friends strongly endorse his perspectives on capitalism and foreign policy. It's hard to see how compromising on free speech could have led his ideas to be more successful.
- Manuel_D 4y ago
  > How has Chomsky's strategy worked? It's worked incredibly well. The United States - the country with easily some of the most well protected free speech laws - continues to be one of the most diverse and welcoming countries in the world. It's one of the most desired places for people to immigrate to, and continues to have a large foreign born population. By comparison, look at how a single digit percentage influx of foreigners rattled Europe. When racists do gather it usually results in plummetting support for their causes. This was the case with the Unite the Right rally: following the rally support for the movement dropped considerably. By what metric has Chomsky's strategy failed? You seem to be postulating this as fact, without anything backing it up.
  - inglor_cz 4y ago
    "By comparison, look at how a single digit percentage influx of foreigners rattled Europe." Islam played a role in that. Europe and Islam have been on mostly fighting terms since around 700 AD. There is much smaller cultural difference between the mostly Hispanic immigration into the US and the mainstream American culture than there is between the mostly secular European cultures and people from, say, Afghanistan, who express significant support for things such as Shari'a law.
  - specialist 4y ago
    Thesis is that rational discourse would triumph over lunacy. Did it?
jdlshore 4y ago
> The point is, countering negative ideas with suppression does not work. This is the core of your argument, and if true, it’s unassailable. However, I don’t believe it’s true. Do you have evidence that it is? I don’t mean well-crafted arguments by respected people, but actual evidence. For my part, I’ve seen evidence to the contrary. Elsewhere in this thread, there’s a study that cites the positive benefits of deplatforming on Reddit. I’ve also observed that online forums invariably turn into cesspits if they aren’t moderated. The larger the forum, the more aggressive that moderation has to be, to the point of banning and shadowbanning. HN does it. (For that matter, downvoting is another form of deplatforming, in that it literally pushes other people’s opinions out of sight.) So there’s two points of evidence that make me believe that deplatforming is effective: one is academic; and one is the personal observation, that I think we’ve all shared, that moderated fora work better than unmoderated fora. What evidence do you have? Please summarize rather than just posting links.
- rhaksw 4y ago
  > This is the core of your argument, and if true, it’s unassailable. However, I don’t believe it’s true. Do you have evidence that it is? I don’t mean well-crafted arguments by respected people, but actual evidence. > For my part, I’ve seen evidence to the contrary. Elsewhere in this thread, there’s a study that cites the positive benefits of deplatforming on Reddit. I'm familiar with that study and I'm pretty sure they acknowledged that they only measured activity of individuals who remained on Reddit. It's really hard to definitively say what happens when groups move to private forums where you can no longer track their conversations. Also, what people say in public vs. private can be different [1] [2], and I think periods when that is true (such as right now) should be cause for consideration about whether or not censorship contributes to that. I'd argue that state or widespread cultural censorship does contribute to self-censorship by chilling conversations, and that people's views don't change when you block them from view. It's like sending someone to prison vs. rehabilitation. You might still argue that the views can't spread as easily, and I would argue against that too. When groups are deplatformed, they find their own ways to communicate, either by joining private groups on services like Telegram or by creating their own platforms. Then they are outside your sphere of influence and harder to reach. We are pushing them in this direction and I think we will end up regarding that as a mistake. But it's not like this is the first time that's happened. You can join my talk next Wednesday, October 12th [3] to learn more about what I think with sources. It's the first one listed. This particular question is not the focus, but it is related. I'd also recommend listening to free speech defenders such as Ira Glasser, Nadine Strossen, Greg Lukianoff, and Jonathan Rauch, to name a few [4]. They've all spoken at length about this via many forms of media, books, podcasts, conferences, etc. Anyone interviewed on the So to Speak podcast is also great, particularly the earlier episodes where they bring in the older generations who've been defending free speech for their entire lives. The evidence is there, but every time there is a new technology it takes time to collect. You can instead consider a principled approach based on what you know works between individuals. Jonathan Rauch makes a great case for this in his books and speaking. > I’ve also observed that online forums invariably turn into cesspits if they aren’t moderated. I think this is true! Yet, the more we censor, the more concentrated the echo chambers become, both the ones you agree with and the ones with whom you disagree. So IMO we must stop regarding "ugly" forums as a bad thing to be avoided. We all have difficult conversations in the real world, and I think curating the online world to look nice and pretty only provides more evidence to the idea that our current "solution" to online disagreements isn't working and appears to be infecting the real world. > The larger the forum, the more aggressive that moderation has to be, to the point of banning and shadowbanning. HN does it. That is evidence that it's popular, not that it is a good idea. > (For that matter, downvoting is another form of deplatforming, in that it literally pushes other people’s opinions out of sight.) I agree, and I think that has the unfortunate side effect of hiding some useful rebuttals, as I mentioned elsewhere in this thread [5]. > So there’s two points of evidence that make me believe that deplatforming is effective: one is academic; and one is the personal observation, that I think we’ve all shared, that moderated fora work better than unmoderated fora. What evidence do you have? Please summarize rather than just posting links. I'd say the jury's out on how to effectively moderate fora. We're just at the start of this era and it's been quite a bumpy ride. Moderation, at the very least, should be transparent to the authors of the content, and that's not the case across all of the major platforms, including this one. [1] https://youtu.be/-ByRjHwknbc?t=2892 https://youtu.be/-ByRjHwknbc?t=2892 [2] https://www.axios.com/2022/08/17/americans-voters-private-belief-poll-abortion-education-covid-19 https://www.axios.com/2022/08/17/americans-voters-private-be... [3] https://truthandtrustonline.com/pre-conference-workshops/ https://truthandtrustonline.com/pre-conference-workshops/ [4] https://www.reddit.com/r/reveddit/comments/wxfjvy/im_on_a_podcast_talking_about_shadow_moderation/in9fh8s/?context=3 https://www.reddit.com/r/reveddit/comments/wxfjvy/im_on_a_po... [5] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33055630 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33055630

by rhaksw 4y ago

viraptor 4y ago

> That's a classic argument you know, that's what they said about the nazis and the communists, that if they got into power they'd suppress all the rest of us. With the small difference being that those groups did not suppress speech by refusing to invite speakers to an event. Let's not put academia memberships and pogroms in the same category.

rhaksw 4y ago
I wasn't comparing academia to nazis. Rather, I was saying that even in the most extreme situations e.g. nazis and communists, open and civil discourse is still better than censorship. It's also worth noting that FIRE was expressly founded to deal with free speech violations in higher education. FIRE's president often discusses this, for example in a recent interview with Nick Gillespie [1]. FIRE recently expanded to cover all free speech issues, but that is where they got started. They've taken over a role that the ACLU has largely abandoned, since they now construe rights to be in conflict with each other, as former Executive Director Ira Glasser mentions [2] with the ACLU's new guidelines [3]: > "The guidelines are designed to assist in consideration of the competing interests that may arise when such conflicts emerge. The guidelines do not seek to resolve the conflicts, because resolution will virtually always turn on factors specific to each case." > "The potential conflict between advocacy for free speech and for equal justice in the fight against white supremacy is especially salient, but by no means unique in presenting tensions between ACLU values." But you're not supposed to construe rights as being in conflict with each other, as implied by the 9th amendment [4]: > The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people Like balancing form and function, one should not take away from another. [1] https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/greg-lukianoff-saving-the-culture-of-free-speech/id1485021241?i=1000565704046 https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/greg-lukianoff-saving-... [2] https://youtu.be/x0Lc5b8Flto?t=87 https://youtu.be/x0Lc5b8Flto?t=87 [3] https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/field_document/aclu_case_selection_guidelines.pdf https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/field_document/aclu... [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ninth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Text https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ninth_Amendment_to_the_United_...
- viraptor 4y ago
  He may be right with the general idea, but the point was that his phrasing needs some serious work. The classic argument is really that they should be censored so they can't easily organise and kill us. If he doesn't say that, I don't know if he realises what stakes he's talking about. (he probably does, but... say it) I'm annoyed, because there are lots of people who don't realise this is literally about survival for others, not just about free speech ideas.
  - rhaksw 4y ago
    It was a classic argument made during his lifetime, from the 1910s until 1981 when that video was made.
  - Manuel_D 4y ago
    > some serious work. The classic argument is really that they should be censored so they can't easily organise and kill us. There's a difference between words and actions. Words fo not kill. No, words are not violence no matter how much people try to claim otherwise. Furthermore, censoring people does nothing to reduce a groups ability to kill. Taking away someone's public voice does not take away their capacity to carry out violence. Disinviting a speaker or banning a book does not magically make people's guns disappear.

specialist 4y ago

[flagged]

SpicyLemonZest 4y ago
Seems like it's worked well? Wikipedia tells me that he's "one of the most cited scholars alive" and "has influenced a broad array of academic fields"; I'm not personally familiar with his academic work, but most of my friends strongly endorse his perspectives on capitalism and foreign policy. It's hard to see how compromising on free speech could have led his ideas to be more successful.
Manuel_D 4y ago
> How has Chomsky's strategy worked? It's worked incredibly well. The United States - the country with easily some of the most well protected free speech laws - continues to be one of the most diverse and welcoming countries in the world. It's one of the most desired places for people to immigrate to, and continues to have a large foreign born population. By comparison, look at how a single digit percentage influx of foreigners rattled Europe. When racists do gather it usually results in plummetting support for their causes. This was the case with the Unite the Right rally: following the rally support for the movement dropped considerably. By what metric has Chomsky's strategy failed? You seem to be postulating this as fact, without anything backing it up.
- inglor_cz 4y ago
  "By comparison, look at how a single digit percentage influx of foreigners rattled Europe." Islam played a role in that. Europe and Islam have been on mostly fighting terms since around 700 AD. There is much smaller cultural difference between the mostly Hispanic immigration into the US and the mainstream American culture than there is between the mostly secular European cultures and people from, say, Afghanistan, who express significant support for things such as Shari'a law.
- specialist 4y ago
  Thesis is that rational discourse would triumph over lunacy. Did it?

jdlshore 4y ago

> The point is, countering negative ideas with suppression does not work. This is the core of your argument, and if true, it’s unassailable. However, I don’t believe it’s true. Do you have evidence that it is? I don’t mean well-crafted arguments by respected people, but actual evidence. For my part, I’ve seen evidence to the contrary. Elsewhere in this thread, there’s a study that cites the positive benefits of deplatforming on Reddit. I’ve also observed that online forums invariably turn into cesspits if they aren’t moderated. The larger the forum, the more aggressive that moderation has to be, to the point of banning and shadowbanning. HN does it. (For that matter, downvoting is another form of deplatforming, in that it literally pushes other people’s opinions out of sight.) So there’s two points of evidence that make me believe that deplatforming is effective: one is academic; and one is the personal observation, that I think we’ve all shared, that moderated fora work better than unmoderated fora. What evidence do you have? Please summarize rather than just posting links.

rhaksw 4y ago
> This is the core of your argument, and if true, it’s unassailable. However, I don’t believe it’s true. Do you have evidence that it is? I don’t mean well-crafted arguments by respected people, but actual evidence. > For my part, I’ve seen evidence to the contrary. Elsewhere in this thread, there’s a study that cites the positive benefits of deplatforming on Reddit. I'm familiar with that study and I'm pretty sure they acknowledged that they only measured activity of individuals who remained on Reddit. It's really hard to definitively say what happens when groups move to private forums where you can no longer track their conversations. Also, what people say in public vs. private can be different [1] [2], and I think periods when that is true (such as right now) should be cause for consideration about whether or not censorship contributes to that. I'd argue that state or widespread cultural censorship does contribute to self-censorship by chilling conversations, and that people's views don't change when you block them from view. It's like sending someone to prison vs. rehabilitation. You might still argue that the views can't spread as easily, and I would argue against that too. When groups are deplatformed, they find their own ways to communicate, either by joining private groups on services like Telegram or by creating their own platforms. Then they are outside your sphere of influence and harder to reach. We are pushing them in this direction and I think we will end up regarding that as a mistake. But it's not like this is the first time that's happened. You can join my talk next Wednesday, October 12th [3] to learn more about what I think with sources. It's the first one listed. This particular question is not the focus, but it is related. I'd also recommend listening to free speech defenders such as Ira Glasser, Nadine Strossen, Greg Lukianoff, and Jonathan Rauch, to name a few [4]. They've all spoken at length about this via many forms of media, books, podcasts, conferences, etc. Anyone interviewed on the So to Speak podcast is also great, particularly the earlier episodes where they bring in the older generations who've been defending free speech for their entire lives. The evidence is there, but every time there is a new technology it takes time to collect. You can instead consider a principled approach based on what you know works between individuals. Jonathan Rauch makes a great case for this in his books and speaking. > I’ve also observed that online forums invariably turn into cesspits if they aren’t moderated. I think this is true! Yet, the more we censor, the more concentrated the echo chambers become, both the ones you agree with and the ones with whom you disagree. So IMO we must stop regarding "ugly" forums as a bad thing to be avoided. We all have difficult conversations in the real world, and I think curating the online world to look nice and pretty only provides more evidence to the idea that our current "solution" to online disagreements isn't working and appears to be infecting the real world. > The larger the forum, the more aggressive that moderation has to be, to the point of banning and shadowbanning. HN does it. That is evidence that it's popular, not that it is a good idea. > (For that matter, downvoting is another form of deplatforming, in that it literally pushes other people’s opinions out of sight.) I agree, and I think that has the unfortunate side effect of hiding some useful rebuttals, as I mentioned elsewhere in this thread [5]. > So there’s two points of evidence that make me believe that deplatforming is effective: one is academic; and one is the personal observation, that I think we’ve all shared, that moderated fora work better than unmoderated fora. What evidence do you have? Please summarize rather than just posting links. I'd say the jury's out on how to effectively moderate fora. We're just at the start of this era and it's been quite a bumpy ride. Moderation, at the very least, should be transparent to the authors of the content, and that's not the case across all of the major platforms, including this one. [1] https://youtu.be/-ByRjHwknbc?t=2892 https://youtu.be/-ByRjHwknbc?t=2892 [2] https://www.axios.com/2022/08/17/americans-voters-private-belief-poll-abortion-education-covid-19 https://www.axios.com/2022/08/17/americans-voters-private-be... [3] https://truthandtrustonline.com/pre-conference-workshops/ https://truthandtrustonline.com/pre-conference-workshops/ [4] https://www.reddit.com/r/reveddit/comments/wxfjvy/im_on_a_podcast_talking_about_shadow_moderation/in9fh8s/?context=3 https://www.reddit.com/r/reveddit/comments/wxfjvy/im_on_a_po... [5] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33055630 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33055630