6 ms·

Being canceled =/= being terrorized irl. Why does this even need to be said?

ShredKazoo 4y ago
In this particular case, there was an attempt at terrorizing Elon IRL. So why shouldn't attacks on him therefore count as "stochastic terrorism", insofar as "stochastic terrorism" is a meaningful concept?
- toofy 4y ago
  as others are indicating, at least some of the problems here are: - he recognizes that it’s reasonable to take actions if an account *might* influence his real life. — he mocks others and declares they’re unreasonable when they ask twitter for help. - sometimes he even escalates the threats towards others, portrays them as hysterical and starts ranting about town-squares and woke cancel culture.
  - ShredKazoo 4y ago
    I agree that insofar as "stochastic terrorism" is a meaningful concept, Elon has probably also engaged in it.
- dmix 4y ago
  That's a terrible premise to start a conversation on HN. Let's not use extreme concepts invented by ideologues + controversial figures being petty as the basis for thought experiments.
  - ShredKazoo 4y ago
    Stochastic terrorism may be an extreme concept invented by ideologues, but the fact remains that if you have a big platform and you criticize someone harshly, that might cause crazies in your audience to go after them. So as a society we should figure out what is and isn't acceptable behavior here, and invent rules to apply universally and impartially.
    - dmix 4y ago
      You can't censor your way out of this problem regardless. People will still post Elon's flights details elsewhere. Censorship is almost always counter-productive and every time it fails it just escalates. Eventually we'll be doing night raids on people's homes over tweets like the UK. The costs are far too high for very little benefit. Just look at the moral and cultural compromises taken by the US/Canada/UK in Afghanistan/Iraq/globally to crush Islamic terrorism by force. It generated as many problems as it helped, at a very high cost of tons of freedoms for the western public (not just people in the middle east). Now we're on Part 2 of "compromise freedoms for the greater good". No thanks.
smsm42 4y ago
Often that's exactly what it is. People coming to your (or your relatives) homes, people physically attacking others at workplaces and restaurants. People setting up fires and behaving violently to not allow somebody they disagree with speak to those who want to listen to them. We have seen many examples. Let's not pretend it doesn't happen.
- dymk 4y ago
  ...can you give some examples?
  - philosopher1234 4y ago
    No they can’t. They’re hoping if they beg enough they might get some trickle down economics. We all know this is not a discussion of facts or reason.
    - smsm42 4y ago
      You certainly seem to know that.
  - asteroidbelt 4y ago
    Tim Pool is swatted regularly for example. Tucker Carlson had to move after his home was attacked. There was an attack on Brett Kavanaugh. There’s a lot of such stories.
    - memish 4y ago
      They don't count, apparently. None of this is based on principles.
  - smsm42 4y ago
    - dymk 4y ago

In this particular case, there was an attempt at terrorizing Elon IRL. So why shouldn't attacks on him therefore count as "stochastic terrorism", insofar as "stochastic terrorism" is a meaningful concept?

toofy 4y ago
as others are indicating, at least some of the problems here are: - he recognizes that it’s reasonable to take actions if an account *might* influence his real life. — he mocks others and declares they’re unreasonable when they ask twitter for help. - sometimes he even escalates the threats towards others, portrays them as hysterical and starts ranting about town-squares and woke cancel culture.
- ShredKazoo 4y ago
  I agree that insofar as "stochastic terrorism" is a meaningful concept, Elon has probably also engaged in it.
dmix 4y ago
That's a terrible premise to start a conversation on HN. Let's not use extreme concepts invented by ideologues + controversial figures being petty as the basis for thought experiments.
- ShredKazoo 4y ago
  Stochastic terrorism may be an extreme concept invented by ideologues, but the fact remains that if you have a big platform and you criticize someone harshly, that might cause crazies in your audience to go after them. So as a society we should figure out what is and isn't acceptable behavior here, and invent rules to apply universally and impartially.
  - dmix 4y ago
    You can't censor your way out of this problem regardless. People will still post Elon's flights details elsewhere. Censorship is almost always counter-productive and every time it fails it just escalates. Eventually we'll be doing night raids on people's homes over tweets like the UK. The costs are far too high for very little benefit. Just look at the moral and cultural compromises taken by the US/Canada/UK in Afghanistan/Iraq/globally to crush Islamic terrorism by force. It generated as many problems as it helped, at a very high cost of tons of freedoms for the western public (not just people in the middle east). Now we're on Part 2 of "compromise freedoms for the greater good". No thanks.

smsm42 4y ago

Often that's exactly what it is. People coming to your (or your relatives) homes, people physically attacking others at workplaces and restaurants. People setting up fires and behaving violently to not allow somebody they disagree with speak to those who want to listen to them. We have seen many examples. Let's not pretend it doesn't happen.

dymk 4y ago
...can you give some examples?
- philosopher1234 4y ago
  No they can’t. They’re hoping if they beg enough they might get some trickle down economics. We all know this is not a discussion of facts or reason.
  - smsm42 4y ago
    You certainly seem to know that.
- asteroidbelt 4y ago
  Tim Pool is swatted regularly for example. Tucker Carlson had to move after his home was attacked. There was an attack on Brett Kavanaugh. There’s a lot of such stories.
  - memish 4y ago
    They don't count, apparently. None of this is based on principles.
- smsm42 4y ago
  - dymk 4y ago