3 ms·

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

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".
    - waihtis 3y ago
      Apologies for the short message (on mobile and dont like typing on it) > lügenpresse Refusing to talk about a certain angle of a problem would constitute as censorship IMHO > using AI to help with more civilized discussions… Who decides the boundaries of civilized discussion? Some central authority like the EU? Sounds incredibly dangerous and prone to power hijacks
waihtis 3y ago
Have you seen what kind of damage is done when driving a car goes wrong? See a motorway accident scene for example, it ain't pretty. Walking is relatively good because you can only injure yourself so much going so slow. Allowing people to drive cars for the sake of going faster to places is not a good thing.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
nvm0n2 3y ago
Have you read what fully censored conversation devolves to? See Chinese state media and social media, it aint pretty. > HN is relatively so good because there are clear and enforced guardrails around what a conversation looks like. Hah, I think you'll find if you ask around that a surprisingly large number of people (especially liberal women) would be horrified at the discussions here. It's full of anonymous people furiously disagreeing with each other about everything, and full of arguments like "you're wrong because <facts>". If you accidentally wander into the ultra-liberal hacker blogosphere, the sort of places where everyone uses anime avatars and half of them are furries, you'll find a lot of hatred for HN and a belief that it's no different to /pol/. Some of them even block links from HN. So this distinction you're looking for doesn't really exist. If you support censorship you'll find they come for you next.
Der_Einzige 3y ago
Like it or not, 4chan /pol/ and these days especially /g/ punch far above their weight in terms of having the “inside scoop” on things. A lot of AI research is being done on general threads on /g/ by real published academics who don’t want their names associated with making Waifu hentai. Without /g/ there’s no automatic1111 or comfyUI, and that would mean that diffusion models wouldn’t have taken off /pol/ is low quality, but it’s existence is probably good for the world.

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".
  - waihtis 3y ago
    Apologies for the short message (on mobile and dont like typing on it) > lügenpresse Refusing to talk about a certain angle of a problem would constitute as censorship IMHO > using AI to help with more civilized discussions… Who decides the boundaries of civilized discussion? Some central authority like the EU? Sounds incredibly dangerous and prone to power hijacks

waihtis 3y ago

Have you seen what kind of damage is done when driving a car goes wrong? See a motorway accident scene for example, it ain't pretty. Walking is relatively good because you can only injure yourself so much going so slow. Allowing people to drive cars for the sake of going faster to places is not a good thing.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

nvm0n2 3y ago

Have you read what fully censored conversation devolves to? See Chinese state media and social media, it aint pretty. > HN is relatively so good because there are clear and enforced guardrails around what a conversation looks like. Hah, I think you'll find if you ask around that a surprisingly large number of people (especially liberal women) would be horrified at the discussions here. It's full of anonymous people furiously disagreeing with each other about everything, and full of arguments like "you're wrong because <facts>". If you accidentally wander into the ultra-liberal hacker blogosphere, the sort of places where everyone uses anime avatars and half of them are furries, you'll find a lot of hatred for HN and a belief that it's no different to /pol/. Some of them even block links from HN. So this distinction you're looking for doesn't really exist. If you support censorship you'll find they come for you next.

Der_Einzige 3y ago

Like it or not, 4chan /pol/ and these days especially /g/ punch far above their weight in terms of having the “inside scoop” on things. A lot of AI research is being done on general threads on /g/ by real published academics who don’t want their names associated with making Waifu hentai. Without /g/ there’s no automatic1111 or comfyUI, and that would mean that diffusion models wouldn’t have taken off /pol/ is low quality, but it’s existence is probably good for the world.