4 ms·

I’ve noticed on HN whenever there’s threads about censorship as soon as it’s late at night here (EST) and morning in Western Europe a ton of censorship defender

by dmix 4y ago

I’ve noticed on HN whenever there’s threads about censorship as soon as it’s late at night here (EST) and morning in Western Europe a ton of censorship defenders come out of the woodworks. So it seems popular among the EU people too, even among the more sophisticated HN crowd.

erdos4d 4y ago
Have lived in the EU and they definitely have a stronger concept of censorship there. You honestly don't have a right to say anything you want, especially if you are saying things to a large audience who might be incited. Most people I have met are quite happy that people such as nazis are censored and cannot spread hate. Given their history, that makes some sense, but I honestly get the feeling they focus too much on appearances and not on trying to actually undermine these groups and interfere with their recruiting. You will find plenty of such people in working class bars around the continent, but as long as they are not making public shows and speeches, the populace seems to ignore them.
- Krasnol 4y ago
  Why not both? Seriously, showing off symbols of national socialism saved Germany many embarrassing clips on international media. All those groups who gathered under the anti-intellectual agenda of the past years here in Germany would have had someone with this stuff marching the streets against covid restrictions, etc. I wouldn't call it censorship either. No symbol or idea is being repressed. You can learn about the lies of Holocaust deniers. About the symbols, and so on. Youre "just" not supposed to go out there and recruit people with those tools. The discussion and misunderstanding OP has seen here comes from the fact that the "radical" free speech laws in the US set no borders on spreading this kind of propaganda. The results are very visible these days in the US and I'm happy they're not in Germany (at least not in a relevant way). This from a foreigner who has been living in Germany for longer.
  - erdos4d 4y ago
    > I wouldn't call it censorship either. No symbol or idea is being repressed. In Germany it is straight up illegal to display nazi symbols, do their salute, or even advocate their beliefs, isn't it? I was told as much by quite a few Germans at least. That said, my problem with the censorship approach is that these groups appeal to actual problems within society and individuals, and by censoring them, none of that goes away. If anything, I think they just get pushed underground and the real issues that allow them to successfully recruit are still there, and they just do it quietly, which is why the local motorcycle club is full of fucking nazis, like it or not. The only way to stop these groups is to remove the fuel, which implies making changes to society itself to reduce the number of people who are in poor circumstances and might find a voice telling them it is the immigrants/jews/brown people who are to blame for their personal sense of injustice. Officially censoring also gives an anti-establishment sheen to them that definitely appeals to some.
    - Krasnol 4y ago
      > In Germany it is straight up illegal to display nazi symbols, do their salute, or even advocate their beliefs, isn't it? I was told as much by quite a few Germans at least. You can display them for educational or artistic reasons for example. This is not a religious law. It's forbidden to walk around randomly with a swastika on your T-Shirt or recruit people under your new fascist party which has a swastika as a logo for example. > That said, my problem with the censorship approach is that these groups appeal to actual problems within society and individuals, and by censoring them, none of that goes away. Those groups have enough other ways to display their affiliation and intentions. Nobody here has a problem distinguishing those since the education on those topics is quite thorough. Which goes for your second argument on how to fix it. I doubt there is a country on this planet which schools their children more clearly on this topic but there will always be that bottom parts of society which will still go there. They follow the myths and do have those "forbidden materials". However they do also have a problem coming along. It's illegal. They can't spread it openly and promote it this way. It works quite well. > Officially censoring also gives an anti-establishment sheen to them that definitely appeals to some. They don't need a picture of a swastika to justify that story. I think the misunderstanding here comes again from this "free speech" doctrine which doesn't allow for self thinking. Everything is 1 or 0 because otherwise it would be too complicated. But it can work different. It works in Germany at least.
  - brigandish 4y ago
    > Seriously, showing off symbols of national socialism saved Germany many embarrassing clips on international media. There we have it, the true philosophical split between those who support freedom of expression and those who would limit it. The first care for truth more than the problems expressing the truth bring, and the latter care more about orderliness and reputation, the clinging to which brings myriad problems too (far worse in my opinion, but who could compare a few harsh words on Twitter or in a newspaper with a the rise of fascism in several places and the odd genocide?)
    - Krasnol 4y ago
      You have the freedom of expression. You'll be prosecuted for some of it though. It's been the case since we invented speech. Insulting your fellow tribesman would probably have had even more severe consequences. What we actually have here is what I expressed in an answer below: certain people understand only 0 and 1 but humans are not like that. One needs to grow up and have a proper education to understand that but it will work than. It does in Germany. We neither slipped into some dystopian censorship state nor did it lead to harm within the society. So how about looking at reality for a change?
      - brigandish 4y ago
        > You have the freedom of expression. You'll be prosecuted for some of it though. The freedom in freedom of expression is the freedom from consequences other than: - being listened to - being ignored - getting speech in return > One needs to grow up and have a proper education to understand… > So how about looking at reality for a change? How about you try reading about the subject first, or asking people who've thought it through far longer than the the arrogant instant you spent on it, and then it will save us all from having to endure your blurting out basic mental errors which you use in pursuit of an authoritarianism that you erroneously think will lead somewhere different than the authoritarianism you claim it counters. The HN guidelines[0] say: > Be kind. Don't be snarky. I'm always happy to make an exception for those who decide such unwarranted lack of respect is okay though. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html#comments https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html#comments
  - helloworld11 4y ago
    >The results are very visible these days in the US and I'm happy they're not in Germany (at least not in a relevant way). Your "tolerant" western Europe has no shortage of ingrained racism of all kinds that it just sweeps under the rug to a degree that in the U.S doesn't happen nearly so much. Many Americans are indeed racist but at least in the U.S there's a lot of very open, free and very public discussion and debate about it. In the EU, it's more a case of people patting themselves on the back because they ban symbolic things and hide the modern nasty traits so many of their fellows still have towards all kinds of ethnicities. Free speech "radicalism" is not responsible for racial tensions in the U.S. If anything it helps ease them slowly by bringing them into the open.
- hypertele-Xii 4y ago
  A tolerant society cannot tolerate intolerance.
DaiPlusPlus 4y ago
It depends on how do you define “censorship”, and your view of the fundamental role of the state. I used to be a free speech absolutist (especially as a teenager, campaigning against Internet filters in school, as one is want to), I’ve refined my position over time away from that unsophisticated and unhelpfully simplistic position, but I haven’t yet found an accurate succinct way to describe my current feelings beyond saying I’m “aligned with defensive-democracy” ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defensive_democracy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defensive_democracy ) - but I try to avoid advocating DD with language like “reasonable restrictions” because that’s currently the language used by people who I’m ideologically opposed to, but I don’t want to come across as a libertarian… nor a V-for-Vendetta fan either. As much as I’d love to blame Ofcom’s letter on the Tories, I believe under Labour it would be just as bad: Labour is/was the party of Wacky Jacqui Smith after-all; whereas this perennial paternalism comes from the current constitutional design of the Home Office: until and unless the Home Office changes their attitude we’ll keep on seeing this kind of policymaking - it’s an analogue to the US’ “foreign policy blob” situation, imo ( https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/16/us/politics/blob-afghanistan-withdrawal-biden.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/16/us/politics/blob-afghanis... )
- brigandish 4y ago
  I agree with what you wrote but wanted to comment on the link you shared. I read some of that Wikipedia page on defensive democracy, it has as one of the examples Holocaust denial in 10 countries. I do wonder why in countries, such as Germany, that do have a continuing problem with Nazis and anti-semitism, people think that restricting speech is the way to combat it. It didn’t work in the past as it arguably gave rise (or at least was a supporting factor) in the rise of both ant-semitism and National Socialism to such prominence, and the problems aren’t going away despite it being three quarters of a century since their terrible apex even with these laws in place. Britain, Canada, Australia, NZ and the US, which all (historically) have a speech culture derived from Locke’s liberalism (to varying degrees but broadly similar, hence the strong objections to infringement of speech in them by the populace regardless of legality) have had no such problems as both anti-semitism and National Socialists are thankfully a fringe activity in those places. Liberal speech laws reduce authoritarianism and racism because they can only grow without opposition. In fact, we see growing anti-semitism and clearly racist behaviours amongst “progressives” in those places, and they are the biggest supporters of censorship because they understand this too as they fail to persuade others of the merits of their position when people can say what they like in return. All my soapbox-standing being said, I’m confused as to how you’ve got a foot in the defensive democracy camp, given your clear sympathies with strong free speech allowances (if no longer so absolutist), a clear understanding of the failings of our legislators, and the role of the Home office in all of this. I’m not criticising you, I’m just at a loss as to how to reconcile them. Perhaps it’s the narrow examples given on that page?
perceptronas 4y ago
I noticed: If I comment something about pro free speech, I get downvoted in the morning (I am on EU timezone). However, once friends in USA wake up - I get upvoted again.

by dmix 4y ago

erdos4d 4y ago

Have lived in the EU and they definitely have a stronger concept of censorship there. You honestly don't have a right to say anything you want, especially if you are saying things to a large audience who might be incited. Most people I have met are quite happy that people such as nazis are censored and cannot spread hate. Given their history, that makes some sense, but I honestly get the feeling they focus too much on appearances and not on trying to actually undermine these groups and interfere with their recruiting. You will find plenty of such people in working class bars around the continent, but as long as they are not making public shows and speeches, the populace seems to ignore them.

Krasnol 4y ago
Why not both? Seriously, showing off symbols of national socialism saved Germany many embarrassing clips on international media. All those groups who gathered under the anti-intellectual agenda of the past years here in Germany would have had someone with this stuff marching the streets against covid restrictions, etc. I wouldn't call it censorship either. No symbol or idea is being repressed. You can learn about the lies of Holocaust deniers. About the symbols, and so on. Youre "just" not supposed to go out there and recruit people with those tools. The discussion and misunderstanding OP has seen here comes from the fact that the "radical" free speech laws in the US set no borders on spreading this kind of propaganda. The results are very visible these days in the US and I'm happy they're not in Germany (at least not in a relevant way). This from a foreigner who has been living in Germany for longer.
- erdos4d 4y ago
  > I wouldn't call it censorship either. No symbol or idea is being repressed. In Germany it is straight up illegal to display nazi symbols, do their salute, or even advocate their beliefs, isn't it? I was told as much by quite a few Germans at least. That said, my problem with the censorship approach is that these groups appeal to actual problems within society and individuals, and by censoring them, none of that goes away. If anything, I think they just get pushed underground and the real issues that allow them to successfully recruit are still there, and they just do it quietly, which is why the local motorcycle club is full of fucking nazis, like it or not. The only way to stop these groups is to remove the fuel, which implies making changes to society itself to reduce the number of people who are in poor circumstances and might find a voice telling them it is the immigrants/jews/brown people who are to blame for their personal sense of injustice. Officially censoring also gives an anti-establishment sheen to them that definitely appeals to some.
  - Krasnol 4y ago
    > In Germany it is straight up illegal to display nazi symbols, do their salute, or even advocate their beliefs, isn't it? I was told as much by quite a few Germans at least. You can display them for educational or artistic reasons for example. This is not a religious law. It's forbidden to walk around randomly with a swastika on your T-Shirt or recruit people under your new fascist party which has a swastika as a logo for example. > That said, my problem with the censorship approach is that these groups appeal to actual problems within society and individuals, and by censoring them, none of that goes away. Those groups have enough other ways to display their affiliation and intentions. Nobody here has a problem distinguishing those since the education on those topics is quite thorough. Which goes for your second argument on how to fix it. I doubt there is a country on this planet which schools their children more clearly on this topic but there will always be that bottom parts of society which will still go there. They follow the myths and do have those "forbidden materials". However they do also have a problem coming along. It's illegal. They can't spread it openly and promote it this way. It works quite well. > Officially censoring also gives an anti-establishment sheen to them that definitely appeals to some. They don't need a picture of a swastika to justify that story. I think the misunderstanding here comes again from this "free speech" doctrine which doesn't allow for self thinking. Everything is 1 or 0 because otherwise it would be too complicated. But it can work different. It works in Germany at least.
- brigandish 4y ago
  > Seriously, showing off symbols of national socialism saved Germany many embarrassing clips on international media. There we have it, the true philosophical split between those who support freedom of expression and those who would limit it. The first care for truth more than the problems expressing the truth bring, and the latter care more about orderliness and reputation, the clinging to which brings myriad problems too (far worse in my opinion, but who could compare a few harsh words on Twitter or in a newspaper with a the rise of fascism in several places and the odd genocide?)
  - Krasnol 4y ago
    You have the freedom of expression. You'll be prosecuted for some of it though. It's been the case since we invented speech. Insulting your fellow tribesman would probably have had even more severe consequences. What we actually have here is what I expressed in an answer below: certain people understand only 0 and 1 but humans are not like that. One needs to grow up and have a proper education to understand that but it will work than. It does in Germany. We neither slipped into some dystopian censorship state nor did it lead to harm within the society. So how about looking at reality for a change?
    - brigandish 4y ago
      > You have the freedom of expression. You'll be prosecuted for some of it though. The freedom in freedom of expression is the freedom from consequences other than: - being listened to - being ignored - getting speech in return > One needs to grow up and have a proper education to understand… > So how about looking at reality for a change? How about you try reading about the subject first, or asking people who've thought it through far longer than the the arrogant instant you spent on it, and then it will save us all from having to endure your blurting out basic mental errors which you use in pursuit of an authoritarianism that you erroneously think will lead somewhere different than the authoritarianism you claim it counters. The HN guidelines[0] say: > Be kind. Don't be snarky. I'm always happy to make an exception for those who decide such unwarranted lack of respect is okay though. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html#comments https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html#comments
- helloworld11 4y ago
  >The results are very visible these days in the US and I'm happy they're not in Germany (at least not in a relevant way). Your "tolerant" western Europe has no shortage of ingrained racism of all kinds that it just sweeps under the rug to a degree that in the U.S doesn't happen nearly so much. Many Americans are indeed racist but at least in the U.S there's a lot of very open, free and very public discussion and debate about it. In the EU, it's more a case of people patting themselves on the back because they ban symbolic things and hide the modern nasty traits so many of their fellows still have towards all kinds of ethnicities. Free speech "radicalism" is not responsible for racial tensions in the U.S. If anything it helps ease them slowly by bringing them into the open.
hypertele-Xii 4y ago
A tolerant society cannot tolerate intolerance.

DaiPlusPlus 4y ago

It depends on how do you define “censorship”, and your view of the fundamental role of the state. I used to be a free speech absolutist (especially as a teenager, campaigning against Internet filters in school, as one is want to), I’ve refined my position over time away from that unsophisticated and unhelpfully simplistic position, but I haven’t yet found an accurate succinct way to describe my current feelings beyond saying I’m “aligned with defensive-democracy” ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defensive_democracy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defensive_democracy ) - but I try to avoid advocating DD with language like “reasonable restrictions” because that’s currently the language used by people who I’m ideologically opposed to, but I don’t want to come across as a libertarian… nor a V-for-Vendetta fan either. As much as I’d love to blame Ofcom’s letter on the Tories, I believe under Labour it would be just as bad: Labour is/was the party of Wacky Jacqui Smith after-all; whereas this perennial paternalism comes from the current constitutional design of the Home Office: until and unless the Home Office changes their attitude we’ll keep on seeing this kind of policymaking - it’s an analogue to the US’ “foreign policy blob” situation, imo ( https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/16/us/politics/blob-afghanistan-withdrawal-biden.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/16/us/politics/blob-afghanis... )

brigandish 4y ago
I agree with what you wrote but wanted to comment on the link you shared. I read some of that Wikipedia page on defensive democracy, it has as one of the examples Holocaust denial in 10 countries. I do wonder why in countries, such as Germany, that do have a continuing problem with Nazis and anti-semitism, people think that restricting speech is the way to combat it. It didn’t work in the past as it arguably gave rise (or at least was a supporting factor) in the rise of both ant-semitism and National Socialism to such prominence, and the problems aren’t going away despite it being three quarters of a century since their terrible apex even with these laws in place. Britain, Canada, Australia, NZ and the US, which all (historically) have a speech culture derived from Locke’s liberalism (to varying degrees but broadly similar, hence the strong objections to infringement of speech in them by the populace regardless of legality) have had no such problems as both anti-semitism and National Socialists are thankfully a fringe activity in those places. Liberal speech laws reduce authoritarianism and racism because they can only grow without opposition. In fact, we see growing anti-semitism and clearly racist behaviours amongst “progressives” in those places, and they are the biggest supporters of censorship because they understand this too as they fail to persuade others of the merits of their position when people can say what they like in return. All my soapbox-standing being said, I’m confused as to how you’ve got a foot in the defensive democracy camp, given your clear sympathies with strong free speech allowances (if no longer so absolutist), a clear understanding of the failings of our legislators, and the role of the Home office in all of this. I’m not criticising you, I’m just at a loss as to how to reconcile them. Perhaps it’s the narrow examples given on that page?

perceptronas 4y ago

I noticed: If I comment something about pro free speech, I get downvoted in the morning (I am on EU timezone). However, once friends in USA wake up - I get upvoted again.