4 ms·

Remember, it's about the freedom to listen, not the freedom to speak. The censors in this case are wanting to stop anyone being able to read/see certain things.

Remember, it's about the freedom to listen, not the freedom to speak. The censors in this case are wanting to stop anyone being able to read/see certain things. If I wanted to see Islamist/white supremacist/Russian state/anti-trans propaganda in 2006 this was possible. It is now much much harder. The Christchurch shooting is actually a good example about the type of thing that should be available on the internet but isn't. It shows people the brutal reality and actually gives a few clues as to how to most effectively fight a mass shooter.

lanternfish 4y ago
There's a cogent argument which would claim that proliferation of the Christchurch shooter's footage would serve as a specific causal factor for future mass shootings, especially because part of the motivation of that shooting was exactly the proliferation of that manifesto. In that sense it's almost a memetic threat because any proliferation of the video locks in the reward structure for future copycats. In terms of discourse about what should/shouldn't be generally exposed to people with only a passing interest (external to any discussion about how that moral imperative aught to be enforced), the Christchurch footage would be pretty close to the top of my blacklist. Moreover - I'm pretty sure anyone with a modicum of net-literacy could find that video with relative ease if they really wanted to. It's clearly not a binary of proliferation and censorship, but a complex gradient where different mediums of curation have different thresholds for that kind of exposure.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- josephcsible 4y ago
  Saying we need to censor because free speech benefits mass shooters is wrong for the same reason that saying we need to backdoor encryption because privacy benefits terrorists and pedophiles is.
  - lanternfish 4y ago
    The discriminant between the two positions is that 'free speech' (as constructed here, I probably disagree with the conclusion) need not be a binary. Where backdooring encryption is clearly a binary policy that once triggered can't be revoked, this is only because it pertains to hidden information. Mitigating the proliferation of specific classes of content can be done with specific intent because you know what types of content you're mitigating - fundamentally this is no different than a website (like this one) deciding not to contend with certain types of content (as the rules imply). This means that you break out of the 'slippery slope' argument pretty easily and can get access to 'not negotiating with domestic terrorists' without the negative externalities of suppressing open discourse.
quxpar 4y ago
The site in question has regularly been used as a place to coordinate doxxing and serious harassment. AFAIK no measures have been taken by the owners to remedy this, and thus they've forfeited their rights to run a website.
- HereIGoAgain 4y ago
  Posting publicly, self-posted in many cases, information hardly counts as doxxing. and as for harassment, let alone "serious harassment", 100% utterly false.. Even talking about interacting with people talked about is and has always been banned! Users downvote attempts as well. It's a gossip and documentation site, not a place for calls to action. "Look but never touch"
- gray_charger 4y ago
  > ...and thus they've forfeited their rights to run a website. You cannot forfeit a right. The right either exists or it doesn't exist. Anything that can be forfeited is a privilege. Free speech is a right, but using other people's hardware to do so (via hosting/CDN services) is a privilege.
  - harimau777 4y ago
    In most (all?) societies that I am aware of you can forfeit your right to personal autonomy and/or life by committing a crime. Is your argument that we should not punish crimes with imprisonment or is it that people do not have a right to personal autonomy?
    - gray_charger 4y ago
      > In most (all?) societies that I am aware of you can forfeit your right to personal autonomy and/or life by committing a crime. Criminals still have rights, some specifically regarding the criminal justice system. Society has agreed after a conviction to not allow criminals to exercise some of their rights to protect the rights of their victims. For example, in order to protect others' right to life we have decided to infringe a murderer's right to liberty. > Is your argument that we should not punish crimes with imprisonment or is it that people do not have a right to personal autonomy? No, my argument is that even when imprisoned criminals' rights don't go anywhere. Society has decided it's better to violate criminals' rights to prevent the infringement of innocents' rights.
taeric 4y ago
This is a crap reframing, such that I honestly have a hard time taking your post in good faith. The censors aren't wanting to stop anyone being able to read/see certain things. The fiction and history isles in most any setting are still highly available. No, they want to make sure they are not fostering the market for the things you mention. Such that, yes, they are, in effect, limiting the veracity and effectiveness with which you can say and spread these things. That it makes it a little harder for you to see them, is a side show, at best. It is also harder for you to see illicit pictures of people, but we don't see that as an attack on freedom.
ttpphd 4y ago
"Remember, it's about the freedom to listen, not the freedom to speak." What utter nonsense.

lanternfish 4y ago

There's a cogent argument which would claim that proliferation of the Christchurch shooter's footage would serve as a specific causal factor for future mass shootings, especially because part of the motivation of that shooting was exactly the proliferation of that manifesto. In that sense it's almost a memetic threat because any proliferation of the video locks in the reward structure for future copycats. In terms of discourse about what should/shouldn't be generally exposed to people with only a passing interest (external to any discussion about how that moral imperative aught to be enforced), the Christchurch footage would be pretty close to the top of my blacklist. Moreover - I'm pretty sure anyone with a modicum of net-literacy could find that video with relative ease if they really wanted to. It's clearly not a binary of proliferation and censorship, but a complex gradient where different mediums of curation have different thresholds for that kind of exposure.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
josephcsible 4y ago
Saying we need to censor because free speech benefits mass shooters is wrong for the same reason that saying we need to backdoor encryption because privacy benefits terrorists and pedophiles is.
- lanternfish 4y ago
  The discriminant between the two positions is that 'free speech' (as constructed here, I probably disagree with the conclusion) need not be a binary. Where backdooring encryption is clearly a binary policy that once triggered can't be revoked, this is only because it pertains to hidden information. Mitigating the proliferation of specific classes of content can be done with specific intent because you know what types of content you're mitigating - fundamentally this is no different than a website (like this one) deciding not to contend with certain types of content (as the rules imply). This means that you break out of the 'slippery slope' argument pretty easily and can get access to 'not negotiating with domestic terrorists' without the negative externalities of suppressing open discourse.

quxpar 4y ago

The site in question has regularly been used as a place to coordinate doxxing and serious harassment. AFAIK no measures have been taken by the owners to remedy this, and thus they've forfeited their rights to run a website.

HereIGoAgain 4y ago
Posting publicly, self-posted in many cases, information hardly counts as doxxing. and as for harassment, let alone "serious harassment", 100% utterly false.. Even talking about interacting with people talked about is and has always been banned! Users downvote attempts as well. It's a gossip and documentation site, not a place for calls to action. "Look but never touch"
gray_charger 4y ago
> ...and thus they've forfeited their rights to run a website. You cannot forfeit a right. The right either exists or it doesn't exist. Anything that can be forfeited is a privilege. Free speech is a right, but using other people's hardware to do so (via hosting/CDN services) is a privilege.
- harimau777 4y ago
  In most (all?) societies that I am aware of you can forfeit your right to personal autonomy and/or life by committing a crime. Is your argument that we should not punish crimes with imprisonment or is it that people do not have a right to personal autonomy?
  - gray_charger 4y ago
    > In most (all?) societies that I am aware of you can forfeit your right to personal autonomy and/or life by committing a crime. Criminals still have rights, some specifically regarding the criminal justice system. Society has agreed after a conviction to not allow criminals to exercise some of their rights to protect the rights of their victims. For example, in order to protect others' right to life we have decided to infringe a murderer's right to liberty. > Is your argument that we should not punish crimes with imprisonment or is it that people do not have a right to personal autonomy? No, my argument is that even when imprisoned criminals' rights don't go anywhere. Society has decided it's better to violate criminals' rights to prevent the infringement of innocents' rights.

taeric 4y ago

This is a crap reframing, such that I honestly have a hard time taking your post in good faith. The censors aren't wanting to stop anyone being able to read/see certain things. The fiction and history isles in most any setting are still highly available. No, they want to make sure they are not fostering the market for the things you mention. Such that, yes, they are, in effect, limiting the veracity and effectiveness with which you can say and spread these things. That it makes it a little harder for you to see them, is a side show, at best. It is also harder for you to see illicit pictures of people, but we don't see that as an attack on freedom.

ttpphd 4y ago

"Remember, it's about the freedom to listen, not the freedom to speak." What utter nonsense.