4 ms·

I don't care. 4chan is one of the few large forums remaining on the internet where there's no downvoting, no flagging, and no dang-esque tone policers. I would

I don't care. 4chan is one of the few large forums remaining on the internet where there's no downvoting, no flagging, and no dang-esque tone policers. I would be much more sad to see it go away than this place.

giraffe_lady 4y ago
Yeah I guess that's what it really comes down to. I am willing to make you sad to make it harder for nazis to organize and recruit.
- Dalewyn 4y ago
  A true advocate of free speech would defend someone's right to be a nazi even if they vehemently disagree with them.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- Amezarak 4y ago
  Do you have a specific definition of "nazi" in mind we can apply in a reasonable way? The usual problem I see is anti-"nazi" rhetoric quickly descends into dehumanization rhetoric about how such people don't deserve to live, should be ejected from all civil society, and must be relentlessly persecuted by every legal and social mechanism possible; in fact, all the suspension of every civil right is acceptable if it means stopping nazis. At the same time, it seems that almost everybody who lived in 1940 would be considered a Nazi by today's rather loose standards, and everybody tries to paint their opponents as nazis (even conservatives have the rather inept 'actually, Nazis were SOCIALISTS" retort) and apply this sort of rhetoric to what even 10 years ago was a completely mainstream liberal. Certainly 4chan is full of reprobates of every flavor. But if you live in a society where the existence of Nazi rhetoric is actually dangerous, well, you've already lost your free society. People don't read deranged Internet rants and become mass murderers unless they were born in raised in an already broken, atomized society. The ideology is the excuse for the violence, not the cause. And unfortunately, this sort of rhetoric (we have to do whatever it takes to stop nazis) is also indicative of an worsening social environment. And typically, in worsening social environments, where a variety of ideologies become excuses for broken and/or desperate people to become violent, the government will become more and more totalitarian in response. And we’ll cheer it along.
- jackothy 4y ago
  If someone is stupid enough to fall for the lackluster logic of Neo-Nazis then I see that as a problem with our public education, not with the moderation policy of a website. Sure, enforcing "correct" speech at all times could potentially lead to more harmony in society, but I would much, much rather invest in empowering people to think critically for themselves. Many are already able to resist the persuasiveness of propaganda, ads, conspiracy theories, and extremist groups that are all around us today. Teach this skill of resistance instead of trying to baby-proof society.
- lazyeye 4y ago
  And then all you have to do is define "everyone who disagrees with me is a nazi" and you've got not only full-blown censorship but also the moral high-ground! I know, I know for the sake of appearances we don't define everyone who disagrees with us as a nazi, that would be too obvious (although we still do alot). We describe the broad spectrum of perfectly main-stream, otherwise unremarkable views (but that disagree with us) as "nazi supporters", dog-whistlers etc. Too easy.
- chuddington 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - hezralig 4y ago
    [flagged]
    - maxbond 4y ago
      You can't just threaten to kill people because they're rude on the internet.
      - hezralig 4y ago
        Who made a threat?
leoqa 4y ago
It must be hard for you if your idea of free expression requires absolutely no limits. I personally think it’s a bad faith argument and you’re not actually interested in reducing radicalization.
- ajsnigrutin 4y ago
  > free expression requires absolutely no limits But doesn't it? Usually it's the authoritarians, dictators and generally "bad guys" who need to limit speech, censor, burn books, etc.
  - leoqa 4y ago
    Society isn’t a system we can reason about in absolutes. The spirit of the law says that you can’t tell “fire!” in a crowded building, I think we collectively agree that there are limitations on free speech and we’re fortunate to let the courts map out the nuance rather than a mob or a dictator.
    - ajsnigrutin 4y ago
      Nothing is absolute... but for example, in my country (former socialist one), things like affirmative action would be considered very racist, while some countries (mostly USA) consider affirmative action anti-racist. If I argue with an american about this, which one of us is racist, and who decides that when it comes to censorship?
      - JKCalhoun 4y ago
        You seem to have put your finger on one of the more nuanced issues that the OP suggested courts can resolve.
        ajsnigrutin 4y ago
        Which courts? American ones, that approve of affirmative action, or ours here, that don't? Do you really need courts to settle a verbal (well.. written) argument online? Yes, it's just one of many examples where cultural differences cause issues, and where two people consider themselves "good" and the other one "bad" and in turn, censor all speech, since both are racist in atleast some of the courts.
Der_Einzige 4y ago
Glad to see some others around here call out dang for being a tone policer, and a bad one at that. He constantly butts in where he doesn't belong, to claim that good discussion is "flame wars". HN truly is overly moderated and would benefit from less heavy handed moderation.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

giraffe_lady 4y ago

Yeah I guess that's what it really comes down to. I am willing to make you sad to make it harder for nazis to organize and recruit.

Dalewyn 4y ago
A true advocate of free speech would defend someone's right to be a nazi even if they vehemently disagree with them.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
Amezarak 4y ago
Do you have a specific definition of "nazi" in mind we can apply in a reasonable way? The usual problem I see is anti-"nazi" rhetoric quickly descends into dehumanization rhetoric about how such people don't deserve to live, should be ejected from all civil society, and must be relentlessly persecuted by every legal and social mechanism possible; in fact, all the suspension of every civil right is acceptable if it means stopping nazis. At the same time, it seems that almost everybody who lived in 1940 would be considered a Nazi by today's rather loose standards, and everybody tries to paint their opponents as nazis (even conservatives have the rather inept 'actually, Nazis were SOCIALISTS" retort) and apply this sort of rhetoric to what even 10 years ago was a completely mainstream liberal. Certainly 4chan is full of reprobates of every flavor. But if you live in a society where the existence of Nazi rhetoric is actually dangerous, well, you've already lost your free society. People don't read deranged Internet rants and become mass murderers unless they were born in raised in an already broken, atomized society. The ideology is the excuse for the violence, not the cause. And unfortunately, this sort of rhetoric (we have to do whatever it takes to stop nazis) is also indicative of an worsening social environment. And typically, in worsening social environments, where a variety of ideologies become excuses for broken and/or desperate people to become violent, the government will become more and more totalitarian in response. And we’ll cheer it along.
jackothy 4y ago
If someone is stupid enough to fall for the lackluster logic of Neo-Nazis then I see that as a problem with our public education, not with the moderation policy of a website. Sure, enforcing "correct" speech at all times could potentially lead to more harmony in society, but I would much, much rather invest in empowering people to think critically for themselves. Many are already able to resist the persuasiveness of propaganda, ads, conspiracy theories, and extremist groups that are all around us today. Teach this skill of resistance instead of trying to baby-proof society.
lazyeye 4y ago
And then all you have to do is define "everyone who disagrees with me is a nazi" and you've got not only full-blown censorship but also the moral high-ground! I know, I know for the sake of appearances we don't define everyone who disagrees with us as a nazi, that would be too obvious (although we still do alot). We describe the broad spectrum of perfectly main-stream, otherwise unremarkable views (but that disagree with us) as "nazi supporters", dog-whistlers etc. Too easy.
chuddington 4y ago
[flagged]
- hezralig 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - maxbond 4y ago
    You can't just threaten to kill people because they're rude on the internet.
    - hezralig 4y ago
      Who made a threat?

leoqa 4y ago

It must be hard for you if your idea of free expression requires absolutely no limits. I personally think it’s a bad faith argument and you’re not actually interested in reducing radicalization.

ajsnigrutin 4y ago
> free expression requires absolutely no limits But doesn't it? Usually it's the authoritarians, dictators and generally "bad guys" who need to limit speech, censor, burn books, etc.
- leoqa 4y ago
  Society isn’t a system we can reason about in absolutes. The spirit of the law says that you can’t tell “fire!” in a crowded building, I think we collectively agree that there are limitations on free speech and we’re fortunate to let the courts map out the nuance rather than a mob or a dictator.
  - ajsnigrutin 4y ago
    Nothing is absolute... but for example, in my country (former socialist one), things like affirmative action would be considered very racist, while some countries (mostly USA) consider affirmative action anti-racist. If I argue with an american about this, which one of us is racist, and who decides that when it comes to censorship?
    - JKCalhoun 4y ago
      You seem to have put your finger on one of the more nuanced issues that the OP suggested courts can resolve.
      - ajsnigrutin 4y ago
        Which courts? American ones, that approve of affirmative action, or ours here, that don't? Do you really need courts to settle a verbal (well.. written) argument online? Yes, it's just one of many examples where cultural differences cause issues, and where two people consider themselves "good" and the other one "bad" and in turn, censor all speech, since both are racist in atleast some of the courts.

Der_Einzige 4y ago

Glad to see some others around here call out dang for being a tone policer, and a bad one at that. He constantly butts in where he doesn't belong, to claim that good discussion is "flame wars". HN truly is overly moderated and would benefit from less heavy handed moderation.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]