4 ms·

The only people who want to remove polarity from online conversation are hardcore censorship maximalists. Life rarely involves absolute truths but some people r

The only people who want to remove polarity from online conversation are hardcore censorship maximalists. Life rarely involves absolute truths but some people refuse to acknowledge this. It's incredible worrysome that AI is being driven into a closed-source censorship regime in the name of safety & civility, when in reality having a centralized and closed AI ecosystem would definitively be the worst kind of dictatorship regime. Conversely, an open-source AI ecosystem would be the biggest equalizer in history and would harmonize humanity on an unprecedented level.

ginko 3y ago
> The only people who want to remove polarity from online conversation are hardcore censorship maximalists. Life rarely involves absolute truths but some people refuse to acknowledge this. Those two sentences don't make sense together. Surely if there are no absolute truths then removing polarity would help people find a middle ground.
- atlantic 3y ago
  There are absolute truths, but there is no impartial authority to decide what they are. The only way to reach truth is through discussion (ie, interaction between opposing viewpoints). Eliminating polarity also eliminates the possibility of determining truth.
  - advael 3y ago
    Found the logical positivist. Discussion doesn't necessarily or even reliably lead to "absolute truth", just as armchair pondering about idealized versions of some phenomenon doesn't necessarily lead to actionable predictions about it. Most phenomena aren't amenable to being studied purely in logical abstractions and thus a search for "absolute truth" seldom makes sense for them in the first place. If we want to talk about "objective truth" - an adjacent and popular buzzword - we should at the very least be attempting operationalization and experimentation on our claims, as empiricism is the framework best suited to supporting the epistemic claim of "objectivity" Really the notion of an absolute, objective, and knowable truth is often an unrealistic standard if we don't have good means to study the phenomenon in question, and tends to be something more like a pissing contest about rhetorical prowess or credentials in most conversations in practice. Reaching agreement is a valuable but far from certain outcome of a dialogue. It is not the same thing as ascertaining "truth" in some epistemically meaningful final sense
    - loa_in_ 3y ago
      > Discussion doesn't necessarily or even reliably lead to "absolute truth" Nobody says discussion is a source of it, or where you obtain some, but you can discuss it. The aim of discussion is discussion itself, not posing a guarantee that someone will walk away enlightened.
      - magicalist 3y ago
        > Nobody says discussion is a source of it, or where you obtain some, but you can discuss it. Your GP post literally says "The only way to reach truth is through discussion", so take it up with them.
hliyan 3y ago
> The only people who want to remove polarity from online conversation are hardcore censorship maximalists This in itself is an absolute statement. I prefer to see reduced polarity from online conversations (more similar to HN), and I'm not censorship maximalist (whatever that label means)
- 0xy 3y ago
  How do you "reduce polarity" without censoring voices? If you do believe in 'just a little censorship', then absolutely you are a censorship maximalist. How else would you achieve your censorship goals? The censor class have repeatedly censored discussion in the name of correctness that were later proven to be either murky or outright false (see: lab leak theory censorship, mask effectiveness censorship, Hunter Biden laptop censorship etc). As history has repeatedly shown, censorship is principally used by those whose ideas cannot be backed up in public debate -- the opposing view must be forcefully crushed.
  - barleyworth 3y ago
    Not everyone wants to go to a baseball game where 1% of the fans are constantly getting into screaming matches about the other team sucking. Similarly, I will politely nope out of an online community that won't stop clobbering me with Team Red vs Team Blue debates. Free speech is not the same as "I should be listened to in proportion to how much I talk".
isoprophlex 3y ago
Have you read what uncensored, lowest common denominator, everything goes online conversation devolves to? See 4chan's /pol/ for example, it aint pretty. HN is relatively so good because there are clear and enforced guardrails around what a conversation looks like. Allowing polarization for the sake of openness is not a good thing.
- qwertox 3y ago
  I agree. It could also be a helpful tool in teaching us being polite in areas where we've never learned to be polite because nobody taught us. It could also help us in making those opposing views more approachable without forcing us to adopt them. Sure, it would equalize us to some degree, but there are areas where this can be beneficial to society. One can also argue that extremists – like some politicians – do benefit so much from this polarity and lack of dialog, that they're only able to pursue their career as a politician due to this. Like some of the members of the German AfD party. Putting this in contrast to the goals of "hardcore censorship maximalists", I believe that these censorshippers will have a harder time reaching their goals than the destabilizing benefits controversial politicians are reaping with the lack of polite discussion.
  - waihtis 3y ago
    It is patently obvious parties like AfD exist because there's been massive censorship on speaking of the negative aspects of mass immigration. What do you think will happen if you start introducing harder clamps on free speech?
    - qwertox 3y ago
      > "patently obvious ... massive censorship on speaking of the negative aspects of mass immigration" There exists the concept of "Lügenpresse" ("lying press") which is a word used similar to uses of the word "woke", as a term to compact a message into one word. This "Lügenpresse", which usually the public broadcasting services like ARD and ZDF are referred to, have indeed dealt with this topic for years now, as well as newspapers like Der Spiegel or FAZ. No censorship has been taking place. What has been taking place is an avoidance of acknowledging the seriousness of the problem in the way the popular and extremist AfD has portrayed it, because it is easy to portray it for them the way they do due to a lack of honest discourse. Keep in mind that while the AfD is attacking the other parties as being parties which ignore the topic, they are not proposing solutions which are immediately implementable, because they are in the privileged position of being in the opposition and therefore not required to actually act. They are in the privileged position where they can fan the fire, lean back comfortably and watch the place burn. No action required from their part. Dealing with the topic is very complex not only due to the laws we have agreed to abide to, due to the "Rechtsstaat" ("constitutional state"). If it were by me, I wouldn't mind if they get to rule for one term, just for them to then display their inability to solve the problems they've been "criticizing" the entire time, but due to their stance regarding the Russian war – handing over Ukraine to Russia in exchange for cheap gas, like it used to be – and their right extremist views, they're absolutely untenable. Do you really think that it was the AfD which moved Lindner to push the idea of looking for ways to impede migrants to send money back to their families? I doubt so. Not even two weeks ago our city had a citizen conversation to discuss the problems we are facing with the influx of migrants. This is the way to deal with these issues, and no AfD is required for this. It doesn't take an AfD to acknowledge the problems, they are not getting ignored. > What do you think will happen if you start introducing harder clamps on free speech? Using AI to help with more civilized discussions is not "introducing harder clamps on free speech".
mejutoco 3y ago
> Life rarely involves absolute truths but some people refuse to acknowledge this. The way this is phrased sounds like absolute relativism: no truth really exists, everything is relative, every opinion is as relevant as any other. This is a dangerous perspective, and often used to give too much focus to fringe opinions that do not merit that much attention. Your username is waihtis on hn, 2+2 is 4 in mainstream mathematics, not true equals false in boolean logic, and the sun will rise tomorrow are all truths. People arguing against these truths better have a compelling argument, or they can be safely ignored. That is not censorship, but a thoughtful use of our time. Aka, you are free to speak your mind, but you are not entitled to people listening. No one owes a platform to fringe opinions because of free speech.
Barrin92 3y ago
>The only people who want to remove polarity from online conversation are hardcore censorship maximalists. Even American civic debate culture is heavily centered around limitations on how to present an argument. Polarity in itself isn't what matters in productive discourse, it's truthfulness, factfulness, lack of bad faith argument style, and so on. Anyone who is interested in debate producing truth rather than being a sort of entropy entertainment machine must value civility. People can be completely polarized and argue complete nonsense, there is no value in it whatsoever. The literal site we are having this conversation on right now is very strongly moderated when it comes to civility and avoiding needless polarization, but HN is not censorship maximalist. It's ironic to try to argue this especially here.

ginko 3y ago

> The only people who want to remove polarity from online conversation are hardcore censorship maximalists. Life rarely involves absolute truths but some people refuse to acknowledge this. Those two sentences don't make sense together. Surely if there are no absolute truths then removing polarity would help people find a middle ground.

atlantic 3y ago
There are absolute truths, but there is no impartial authority to decide what they are. The only way to reach truth is through discussion (ie, interaction between opposing viewpoints). Eliminating polarity also eliminates the possibility of determining truth.
- advael 3y ago
  Found the logical positivist. Discussion doesn't necessarily or even reliably lead to "absolute truth", just as armchair pondering about idealized versions of some phenomenon doesn't necessarily lead to actionable predictions about it. Most phenomena aren't amenable to being studied purely in logical abstractions and thus a search for "absolute truth" seldom makes sense for them in the first place. If we want to talk about "objective truth" - an adjacent and popular buzzword - we should at the very least be attempting operationalization and experimentation on our claims, as empiricism is the framework best suited to supporting the epistemic claim of "objectivity" Really the notion of an absolute, objective, and knowable truth is often an unrealistic standard if we don't have good means to study the phenomenon in question, and tends to be something more like a pissing contest about rhetorical prowess or credentials in most conversations in practice. Reaching agreement is a valuable but far from certain outcome of a dialogue. It is not the same thing as ascertaining "truth" in some epistemically meaningful final sense
  - loa_in_ 3y ago
    > Discussion doesn't necessarily or even reliably lead to "absolute truth" Nobody says discussion is a source of it, or where you obtain some, but you can discuss it. The aim of discussion is discussion itself, not posing a guarantee that someone will walk away enlightened.
    - magicalist 3y ago
      > Nobody says discussion is a source of it, or where you obtain some, but you can discuss it. Your GP post literally says "The only way to reach truth is through discussion", so take it up with them.

hliyan 3y ago

> The only people who want to remove polarity from online conversation are hardcore censorship maximalists This in itself is an absolute statement. I prefer to see reduced polarity from online conversations (more similar to HN), and I'm not censorship maximalist (whatever that label means)

0xy 3y ago
How do you "reduce polarity" without censoring voices? If you do believe in 'just a little censorship', then absolutely you are a censorship maximalist. How else would you achieve your censorship goals? The censor class have repeatedly censored discussion in the name of correctness that were later proven to be either murky or outright false (see: lab leak theory censorship, mask effectiveness censorship, Hunter Biden laptop censorship etc). As history has repeatedly shown, censorship is principally used by those whose ideas cannot be backed up in public debate -- the opposing view must be forcefully crushed.
- barleyworth 3y ago
  Not everyone wants to go to a baseball game where 1% of the fans are constantly getting into screaming matches about the other team sucking. Similarly, I will politely nope out of an online community that won't stop clobbering me with Team Red vs Team Blue debates. Free speech is not the same as "I should be listened to in proportion to how much I talk".

isoprophlex 3y ago

Have you read what uncensored, lowest common denominator, everything goes online conversation devolves to? See 4chan's /pol/ for example, it aint pretty. HN is relatively so good because there are clear and enforced guardrails around what a conversation looks like. Allowing polarization for the sake of openness is not a good thing.

qwertox 3y ago
I agree. It could also be a helpful tool in teaching us being polite in areas where we've never learned to be polite because nobody taught us. It could also help us in making those opposing views more approachable without forcing us to adopt them. Sure, it would equalize us to some degree, but there are areas where this can be beneficial to society. One can also argue that extremists – like some politicians – do benefit so much from this polarity and lack of dialog, that they're only able to pursue their career as a politician due to this. Like some of the members of the German AfD party. Putting this in contrast to the goals of "hardcore censorship maximalists", I believe that these censorshippers will have a harder time reaching their goals than the destabilizing benefits controversial politicians are reaping with the lack of polite discussion.
- waihtis 3y ago
  It is patently obvious parties like AfD exist because there's been massive censorship on speaking of the negative aspects of mass immigration. What do you think will happen if you start introducing harder clamps on free speech?
  - qwertox 3y ago
    > "patently obvious ... massive censorship on speaking of the negative aspects of mass immigration" There exists the concept of "Lügenpresse" ("lying press") which is a word used similar to uses of the word "woke", as a term to compact a message into one word. This "Lügenpresse", which usually the public broadcasting services like ARD and ZDF are referred to, have indeed dealt with this topic for years now, as well as newspapers like Der Spiegel or FAZ. No censorship has been taking place. What has been taking place is an avoidance of acknowledging the seriousness of the problem in the way the popular and extremist AfD has portrayed it, because it is easy to portray it for them the way they do due to a lack of honest discourse. Keep in mind that while the AfD is attacking the other parties as being parties which ignore the topic, they are not proposing solutions which are immediately implementable, because they are in the privileged position of being in the opposition and therefore not required to actually act. They are in the privileged position where they can fan the fire, lean back comfortably and watch the place burn. No action required from their part. Dealing with the topic is very complex not only due to the laws we have agreed to abide to, due to the "Rechtsstaat" ("constitutional state"). If it were by me, I wouldn't mind if they get to rule for one term, just for them to then display their inability to solve the problems they've been "criticizing" the entire time, but due to their stance regarding the Russian war – handing over Ukraine to Russia in exchange for cheap gas, like it used to be – and their right extremist views, they're absolutely untenable. Do you really think that it was the AfD which moved Lindner to push the idea of looking for ways to impede migrants to send money back to their families? I doubt so. Not even two weeks ago our city had a citizen conversation to discuss the problems we are facing with the influx of migrants. This is the way to deal with these issues, and no AfD is required for this. It doesn't take an AfD to acknowledge the problems, they are not getting ignored. > What do you think will happen if you start introducing harder clamps on free speech? Using AI to help with more civilized discussions is not "introducing harder clamps on free speech".

mejutoco 3y ago

> Life rarely involves absolute truths but some people refuse to acknowledge this. The way this is phrased sounds like absolute relativism: no truth really exists, everything is relative, every opinion is as relevant as any other. This is a dangerous perspective, and often used to give too much focus to fringe opinions that do not merit that much attention. Your username is waihtis on hn, 2+2 is 4 in mainstream mathematics, not true equals false in boolean logic, and the sun will rise tomorrow are all truths. People arguing against these truths better have a compelling argument, or they can be safely ignored. That is not censorship, but a thoughtful use of our time. Aka, you are free to speak your mind, but you are not entitled to people listening. No one owes a platform to fringe opinions because of free speech.

Barrin92 3y ago

>The only people who want to remove polarity from online conversation are hardcore censorship maximalists. Even American civic debate culture is heavily centered around limitations on how to present an argument. Polarity in itself isn't what matters in productive discourse, it's truthfulness, factfulness, lack of bad faith argument style, and so on. Anyone who is interested in debate producing truth rather than being a sort of entropy entertainment machine must value civility. People can be completely polarized and argue complete nonsense, there is no value in it whatsoever. The literal site we are having this conversation on right now is very strongly moderated when it comes to civility and avoiding needless polarization, but HN is not censorship maximalist. It's ironic to try to argue this especially here.