8 ms·

All this corporate activism is all fine and dandy when you agree with their politics. When you don't, they become the enemy. I too prefer the days of neutralit

All this corporate activism is all fine and dandy when you agree with their politics. When you don't, they become the enemy. I too prefer the days of neutrality and objectivity, a day when neutral platforms would act like neutral platforms. What this is turning into is yet another case of tyranny by the moral majority. Wherever there is power there will be assholes using it to control others.

ceejayoz 4y ago
> I too prefer the days of neutrality and objectivity… When were those?
- pdntspa 4y ago
  reddit and 4chan were famously very strongly "free speech" before gamergate kicked off our current political climate People don't realize that you want the filth out in the open, where it can be tracked. Deplatforming doesn't kill anything, it just sends it underground, furthering the cause for the various shadow systems that spring up from it.
  - ceejayoz 4y ago
    If you’re counting niche places like 4chan, you can still get to places like that today. Reddit has been moderated the entire time, at a per-community level. It was never a free-for-all. Forcing the shitty folks underground breaks the edgy-meme-to-radicalization pipeline quite effectively. I’ve greatly enjoyed not having to hear about Alex Jones and Milo Yiannopolis every day. https://www.niemanlab.org/2021/06/deplatforming-works-this-new-data-on-trump-tweets-shows/ https://www.niemanlab.org/2021/06/deplatforming-works-this-n... > But kicking Milo Yiannopoulos off Twitter didn’t make him stronger. It pushed him almost completely off the mainstream agenda. And part of the “fun” of being a Milo fan was precisely that prominence! You weren’t just listening to a random online crank; you were listening to an online crank who was very good at getting under prominent people’s skin. Lose that reach and some of the thrill is gone.
    - concordDance 4y ago
      Note that reddit admin level moderation got more extreme over time. Banning many communities and threatening others to change. You may agree or disagree whether this is a good thing, but it definitely happened.
    - pdntspa 4y ago
      > Reddit has been moderated the entire time, at a per-community level. It was never a free-for-all. Yes it was, as once upon a time Reddit itself didn't take down a whole lot. If the mods of a given community didn't do what you think they are supposed to do then there were no real, enforced rules.
    - braingenious 4y ago
      > Reddit has been moderated the entire time, at a per-community level. It was never a free-for-all. That is a distinction without a difference. Have you ever heard of violentacrez?
    - trafficante 4y ago
      > Reddit has been moderated the entire time, at a per-community level. It was never a free-for-all. Sure, but the moderation team members have dramatically shifted from (and I’m being glib here) “kinda cringey atheist libertarians” to “authoritarian left/liberals steeped in idpol”. The “Reddit moderator” cohort whiplashed from one extreme on the political compass to its polar opposite extreme in only a few years. Not claiming anything conspiratorial since I can certainly imagine how it could happen organically, but it’s interesting nonetheless how much of an effect different moderation standards can have on large online communities.
      - concordDance 4y ago
        Also note that it wasn't a conspiracy as reddit powermods like Merari (moderator of 300 subreddits) openly talk about it how they took control of reddit: https://old.reddit.com/r/ContraPoints/comments/arm0u1/meta_can_we_discuss_this_claims/ https://old.reddit.com/r/ContraPoints/comments/arm0u1/meta_c...
    - 4y ago
  - concordDance 4y ago
    It decreases the total amount of it while substantially concentrating and intensifying it (after all, only the prople quite inhappy with moderation will go to the new platform and from then on they wont be exposed to contrary views). You metaphorically decrease the number of people who might describe gay people with slurs while increasing the number who would shoot up a gay nightclub.
323 4y ago
I bet there is some policy you would oppose on KickStarter. Lets try this: a KickStarter to raise money to lobby for making encryption illegal. And let's assume it's very successful and it raises tens of millions of dollars. How would you feel about that? Would you sign a petition requesting KickStarter drop it because it's against freedom of speech?
- dannyobrien 4y ago
  That's fascinating difference in perspective, because I wouldn't even think of protesting Kickstarter under those circumstances, despite having been pro-encryption activist most of my life.
  - 323 4y ago
    I didn't say I agree, just that I've observed that ~95% of people who say they are "free speech", "maximum liberty" and so on it's quite easy to find something they would strongly want to censor. On HN that would be speech against nuclear energy or against encryption.
    - adammarples 4y ago
      Well bear in mind your example completely fell flat before you claim it's easy to find one
      - 323 4y ago
        I guess you forgot how many HNers urged everyone to boycott Microsoft, Oracle and Amazon and to quit those companies when it was revealed they wanted to get contracts with the US military. Just like now KickStarter is under similar pressure.
        ceejayoz 4y ago
        Should they not be able to use their free speech to advocate for that?
wpietri 4y ago
Beyond the trivial, there is no such thing as a neutral platform. At any sort of scale, you have to make choices. Do you host spammers or people who hate spam? Do you host would-be ethnic cleansers or the people they would violently drive away? Do you host people eager to exploit children, or do you want your platform to be safe for children? Do you host people who are eager to bother [insert ethnic, sexuality, or gender group] or the people they would be harassing? Even if the people you find to run the platform are completely amoral, these are also business questions. People have freedom of association, and they will use it. Businesses will too. If you want to run a "neutral and objective" hosting company that is happy to take the nazis and the spammers and the carders and the ddosers, you will quickly find yourself specializing in that market, because few others will choose to be associated with that.
- jkeisling 4y ago
  No, I don’t accept that it’s “the people” boycotting Kickstarter? It’s a small minority of media and activists threatening platforms with clickbait headlines, doxxing, and regulation if they don’t give up neutrality, and a larger group who believes whatever the media tells them or has no incentive to speak up. The choice Kickstarter made wasn’t “Do my customers have a principled stance against Unstable Diffusion?” It was, “Do I stand up for my principles - or do I have to put up with $MEDIA_OUTLET running wall to wall stories claiming I hate artists, 200 activists dogpiling my every twitter post, and ordinary people unconsciously associating me with whatever caricature they read on Twitter?” In this case and most others, neutrality is impossible because a minority has chosen to make it impossible, not because either Kickstarter or its customers made a principled decision. This is why this entire thread exists: to counterbalance this and to make clear that cowardice comes with its own costs.
  - wpietri 4y ago
    Sorry, how do you know that Kickstarter was being unprincipled here? I also didn't say it was "the people" boycotting Kickstarter, so I'm not sure if you're replying to the right comment.
- LawTalkingGuy 4y ago
stonogo 4y ago
> All this corporate activism is all fine and dandy when you agree with their politics. When you don't, they become the enemy. This is in fact how human society works.
- somenameforme 4y ago
  For but one counterexample among many, look at where we get our oil. Saudi Arabia is one of the most tyrannical oppressive and regressive societies, but that's all perfectly fine to the powers that be so long as they keep the oil moving. And I don't think this is really hypocritical. The entire reason society works, or worked, is because people were willing to put aside their differences, regardless of how extreme, to engage in behaviors that were mutually beneficial. Start judging people based on adherence to your own politics and you'll find that, sooner or later, everybody will be your enemy.
  - stonogo 4y ago
    There are hundreds of thousands, possibly millions, of people who do not regard Saudi oppression as "perfectly fine" regardless of which chemicals they offer for sale. I don't really accept this counterargument, since overlooking human rights abuses is one of the most common complaints about organizations like the UN, the United States government, and countless other political bodies. As far as your second paragraph, in your framework society never really worked, which conveniently explains why there has always been war in some part of the world as far back as anyone can remember.
    - somenameforme 4y ago
      What people individually think has little to do with who is considered an ally and who is considered an enemy. These are decisions made by our "representative" governments which ultimately shapes society. In a democracy your voice is defined by what you vote for. As people keep voting for people that are more than happy to buddy buddy with anybody, regardless of how awful, so long as they are geopolitically obsequious, then that is the status quo of "society." And there will always be war for the same reason there will always be murder. I would argue that rather than trying to frame a society around the concept of preventing war, it may be more pragmatic to try to minimize the impact of war such that otherwise minor conflicts between two nations don't end up dragging the entire world to war, for what is always framed as some greater good, but invariably just results in exponentially more death and destruction with far less than nothing to show for it.

ceejayoz 4y ago

> I too prefer the days of neutrality and objectivity… When were those?

pdntspa 4y ago
reddit and 4chan were famously very strongly "free speech" before gamergate kicked off our current political climate People don't realize that you want the filth out in the open, where it can be tracked. Deplatforming doesn't kill anything, it just sends it underground, furthering the cause for the various shadow systems that spring up from it.
- ceejayoz 4y ago
  If you’re counting niche places like 4chan, you can still get to places like that today. Reddit has been moderated the entire time, at a per-community level. It was never a free-for-all. Forcing the shitty folks underground breaks the edgy-meme-to-radicalization pipeline quite effectively. I’ve greatly enjoyed not having to hear about Alex Jones and Milo Yiannopolis every day. https://www.niemanlab.org/2021/06/deplatforming-works-this-new-data-on-trump-tweets-shows/ https://www.niemanlab.org/2021/06/deplatforming-works-this-n... > But kicking Milo Yiannopoulos off Twitter didn’t make him stronger. It pushed him almost completely off the mainstream agenda. And part of the “fun” of being a Milo fan was precisely that prominence! You weren’t just listening to a random online crank; you were listening to an online crank who was very good at getting under prominent people’s skin. Lose that reach and some of the thrill is gone.
  - concordDance 4y ago
    Note that reddit admin level moderation got more extreme over time. Banning many communities and threatening others to change. You may agree or disagree whether this is a good thing, but it definitely happened.
  - pdntspa 4y ago
    > Reddit has been moderated the entire time, at a per-community level. It was never a free-for-all. Yes it was, as once upon a time Reddit itself didn't take down a whole lot. If the mods of a given community didn't do what you think they are supposed to do then there were no real, enforced rules.
  - braingenious 4y ago
    > Reddit has been moderated the entire time, at a per-community level. It was never a free-for-all. That is a distinction without a difference. Have you ever heard of violentacrez?
  - trafficante 4y ago
    > Reddit has been moderated the entire time, at a per-community level. It was never a free-for-all. Sure, but the moderation team members have dramatically shifted from (and I’m being glib here) “kinda cringey atheist libertarians” to “authoritarian left/liberals steeped in idpol”. The “Reddit moderator” cohort whiplashed from one extreme on the political compass to its polar opposite extreme in only a few years. Not claiming anything conspiratorial since I can certainly imagine how it could happen organically, but it’s interesting nonetheless how much of an effect different moderation standards can have on large online communities.
    - concordDance 4y ago
      Also note that it wasn't a conspiracy as reddit powermods like Merari (moderator of 300 subreddits) openly talk about it how they took control of reddit: https://old.reddit.com/r/ContraPoints/comments/arm0u1/meta_can_we_discuss_this_claims/ https://old.reddit.com/r/ContraPoints/comments/arm0u1/meta_c...
  - 4y ago
- concordDance 4y ago
  It decreases the total amount of it while substantially concentrating and intensifying it (after all, only the prople quite inhappy with moderation will go to the new platform and from then on they wont be exposed to contrary views). You metaphorically decrease the number of people who might describe gay people with slurs while increasing the number who would shoot up a gay nightclub.

323 4y ago

I bet there is some policy you would oppose on KickStarter. Lets try this: a KickStarter to raise money to lobby for making encryption illegal. And let's assume it's very successful and it raises tens of millions of dollars. How would you feel about that? Would you sign a petition requesting KickStarter drop it because it's against freedom of speech?

dannyobrien 4y ago
That's fascinating difference in perspective, because I wouldn't even think of protesting Kickstarter under those circumstances, despite having been pro-encryption activist most of my life.
- 323 4y ago
  I didn't say I agree, just that I've observed that ~95% of people who say they are "free speech", "maximum liberty" and so on it's quite easy to find something they would strongly want to censor. On HN that would be speech against nuclear energy or against encryption.
  - adammarples 4y ago
    Well bear in mind your example completely fell flat before you claim it's easy to find one
    - 323 4y ago
      I guess you forgot how many HNers urged everyone to boycott Microsoft, Oracle and Amazon and to quit those companies when it was revealed they wanted to get contracts with the US military. Just like now KickStarter is under similar pressure.
      - ceejayoz 4y ago
        Should they not be able to use their free speech to advocate for that?

wpietri 4y ago

Beyond the trivial, there is no such thing as a neutral platform. At any sort of scale, you have to make choices. Do you host spammers or people who hate spam? Do you host would-be ethnic cleansers or the people they would violently drive away? Do you host people eager to exploit children, or do you want your platform to be safe for children? Do you host people who are eager to bother [insert ethnic, sexuality, or gender group] or the people they would be harassing? Even if the people you find to run the platform are completely amoral, these are also business questions. People have freedom of association, and they will use it. Businesses will too. If you want to run a "neutral and objective" hosting company that is happy to take the nazis and the spammers and the carders and the ddosers, you will quickly find yourself specializing in that market, because few others will choose to be associated with that.

jkeisling 4y ago
No, I don’t accept that it’s “the people” boycotting Kickstarter? It’s a small minority of media and activists threatening platforms with clickbait headlines, doxxing, and regulation if they don’t give up neutrality, and a larger group who believes whatever the media tells them or has no incentive to speak up. The choice Kickstarter made wasn’t “Do my customers have a principled stance against Unstable Diffusion?” It was, “Do I stand up for my principles - or do I have to put up with $MEDIA_OUTLET running wall to wall stories claiming I hate artists, 200 activists dogpiling my every twitter post, and ordinary people unconsciously associating me with whatever caricature they read on Twitter?” In this case and most others, neutrality is impossible because a minority has chosen to make it impossible, not because either Kickstarter or its customers made a principled decision. This is why this entire thread exists: to counterbalance this and to make clear that cowardice comes with its own costs.
- wpietri 4y ago
  Sorry, how do you know that Kickstarter was being unprincipled here? I also didn't say it was "the people" boycotting Kickstarter, so I'm not sure if you're replying to the right comment.
LawTalkingGuy 4y ago

stonogo 4y ago

> All this corporate activism is all fine and dandy when you agree with their politics. When you don't, they become the enemy. This is in fact how human society works.

somenameforme 4y ago
For but one counterexample among many, look at where we get our oil. Saudi Arabia is one of the most tyrannical oppressive and regressive societies, but that's all perfectly fine to the powers that be so long as they keep the oil moving. And I don't think this is really hypocritical. The entire reason society works, or worked, is because people were willing to put aside their differences, regardless of how extreme, to engage in behaviors that were mutually beneficial. Start judging people based on adherence to your own politics and you'll find that, sooner or later, everybody will be your enemy.
- stonogo 4y ago
  There are hundreds of thousands, possibly millions, of people who do not regard Saudi oppression as "perfectly fine" regardless of which chemicals they offer for sale. I don't really accept this counterargument, since overlooking human rights abuses is one of the most common complaints about organizations like the UN, the United States government, and countless other political bodies. As far as your second paragraph, in your framework society never really worked, which conveniently explains why there has always been war in some part of the world as far back as anyone can remember.
  - somenameforme 4y ago
    What people individually think has little to do with who is considered an ally and who is considered an enemy. These are decisions made by our "representative" governments which ultimately shapes society. In a democracy your voice is defined by what you vote for. As people keep voting for people that are more than happy to buddy buddy with anybody, regardless of how awful, so long as they are geopolitically obsequious, then that is the status quo of "society." And there will always be war for the same reason there will always be murder. I would argue that rather than trying to frame a society around the concept of preventing war, it may be more pragmatic to try to minimize the impact of war such that otherwise minor conflicts between two nations don't end up dragging the entire world to war, for what is always framed as some greater good, but invariably just results in exponentially more death and destruction with far less than nothing to show for it.