4 ms·

> Open discourse is the central pillar of a free society, and is essential for holding governments accountable, empowering vulnerable groups, and reducing the r

> Open discourse is the central pillar of a free society, and is essential for holding governments accountable, empowering vulnerable groups, and reducing the risk of tyranny. Have fun hanging out at the Nazi bar then[1]. Don't drag us into it. It turns out, completely unrestricted speech actually has a massive negative effect on open discourse. Which is why we see more and more art, discourse, politics, etc. from marginalized people when we shut Nazis up. I think excessive and partisan application of censorship is a bad thing. I think a total eradication of limitations on speech is also a bad thing. I think nuance is a great thing :) I do agree that we need better transparency and oversight on corporate censorship of communication... but I would never suggest that we should stop calling people out for being assholes (a form of free speech which is often ironically touted as censorship by said assholes), nor would I suggest we should allow fascists to inject themselves into every conversation. In the latter case, I actually support censorship of people using speech to do harm to society. Also, I believe fascism is harmful to society - surprisingly controversial among the free speech champions. [1] https://notes.alexkehayias.com/nazi-bar-theory/ https://notes.alexkehayias.com/nazi-bar-theory/

api 3y ago
The most intolerant wins: https://nassimtaleb.org/2016/08/intolerant-wins-dictatorship-small-minority/ https://nassimtaleb.org/2016/08/intolerant-wins-dictatorship...
- digging 3y ago
  Then we focus our censorship on reducing intolerance. We only need to be intolerant of intolerance. It's not actually the paradox that free speech absolutists make it out to be. It's not even actually very difficult at a basic level. The details, of course, are what get tricky, which is why we should make those judgments transparent and open for disagreement. Not so that we bow to the loudest and angriest, but so that we can entertain opposing arguments and evaluate them for merit.
  - kelseyfrog 3y ago
    Got any ideas? The intolerant seem to have quite a bit of free time on their hands and spend it recruiting others online using speech to do so. Communities who encounter the intolerant find themselves largely unable to change their minds. Rather than getting effectively DOSed, they find it easier to accomplish the same ends via censorship. Is it possible to discourse the intolerant out of that state? If so, is it time-effective to do so?
    - digging 3y ago
      Um, no. Just censor them. Changing minds is great, but it's not the obligation of marginalized people to change every hateful mind they encounter.
InTheArena 3y ago
The Nazi's came to power partially by suppressing unpopular speech - initially that of the communists and Jews, and then the Socialists and Catholics, and ultimately the confessing church and mainstreams. Tolerance was never a reason the Nazis rose to power or stayed in power. It was always rigorous control of others that enabled them. Even when they were being opposed - by the violence of the communists, they met violence with violence. And escalated that violence. It was a "us or them" situation that they built - and german society eventually chose the Nazi's violence over the communist violence. This wasn't tolerance of the Nazis. They simply outlasted the communists. Please please please stop spreading this falsehood.
- digging 3y ago
  I didn't talk about the actual rise of the original Nazis. I am saying that we need to use judgment to judge the qualities of someone's speech. If someone is saying "Ethnic Group A is responsible for our problems!", we shut them the fuck up. We don't exterminate them. They're still allowed to say other things, productive or otherwise. They're just not allowed to support fascism. original contained a stupid quip I no longer endorse: > Hey, you're not allowed to say I'm spreading misinformation. Didn't you read the declaration?!
  - ertian 3y ago
    Uhm, did it say somewhere in the declaration that disagreement was not allowed? > we need to use judgment Who's 'we' in this case?
    - digging 3y ago
      > Who's 'we' in this case? Today: Corporate overlords, which is Bad. That's why I don't propose that there is a solution-in-isolation to improper censorship. It can only work in a holistic approach to greater transparency and respect within our society and on our tech platforms for discourse. Getting rid of speech restraints entirely (a solution-in-isolation) just results in a different, implicit censorship, where marginalized voices self-censor because they are afraid. So, in other words, it's not really a solution that leads to a better world, it's just an alternative Bad Situation to the one we're in now. It's easy for people to think it's a solution because it's simplistic and because it is extreme, which means it aligns with an ideal that people hold, and everyone believes their ideals are sustainable if implemented to the extreme (yes yes even me etc) edit: and, yeah, my quip above was kind of stupid.
colpabar 3y ago
Your mistake is using words like “us” and “we”. You are not part of the club that makes these decisions, and eventually, the people who are will make decisions you don’t like. The goals of those making them are just not aligned with yours, and they never will be.
- digging 3y ago
  > and they never will be. Therein lies the fundamental assumption that I don't agree with. I take part in online spaces where I am a moderator and others where I merely feel confident that the moderators care about my concerns. I know that this is harder to scale. But I don't think it's impossible. That feels almost silly to me to say. Systems can be made incrementally more transparent and more robust, therefore why should we expect there to be a hard physical limit on how transparent and respectful moderation can be? However, based on that assumption that it's physically impossible, I still don't think I agree that speech should be completely unrestricted. I'd maybe prefer to have tools to weed out dangerous elements even if means some good ideas are being censored, but that would require some really nuanced examination.

api 3y ago

The most intolerant wins: https://nassimtaleb.org/2016/08/intolerant-wins-dictatorship-small-minority/ https://nassimtaleb.org/2016/08/intolerant-wins-dictatorship...

digging 3y ago
Then we focus our censorship on reducing intolerance. We only need to be intolerant of intolerance. It's not actually the paradox that free speech absolutists make it out to be. It's not even actually very difficult at a basic level. The details, of course, are what get tricky, which is why we should make those judgments transparent and open for disagreement. Not so that we bow to the loudest and angriest, but so that we can entertain opposing arguments and evaluate them for merit.
- kelseyfrog 3y ago
  Got any ideas? The intolerant seem to have quite a bit of free time on their hands and spend it recruiting others online using speech to do so. Communities who encounter the intolerant find themselves largely unable to change their minds. Rather than getting effectively DOSed, they find it easier to accomplish the same ends via censorship. Is it possible to discourse the intolerant out of that state? If so, is it time-effective to do so?
  - digging 3y ago
    Um, no. Just censor them. Changing minds is great, but it's not the obligation of marginalized people to change every hateful mind they encounter.

InTheArena 3y ago

The Nazi's came to power partially by suppressing unpopular speech - initially that of the communists and Jews, and then the Socialists and Catholics, and ultimately the confessing church and mainstreams. Tolerance was never a reason the Nazis rose to power or stayed in power. It was always rigorous control of others that enabled them. Even when they were being opposed - by the violence of the communists, they met violence with violence. And escalated that violence. It was a "us or them" situation that they built - and german society eventually chose the Nazi's violence over the communist violence. This wasn't tolerance of the Nazis. They simply outlasted the communists. Please please please stop spreading this falsehood.

digging 3y ago
I didn't talk about the actual rise of the original Nazis. I am saying that we need to use judgment to judge the qualities of someone's speech. If someone is saying "Ethnic Group A is responsible for our problems!", we shut them the fuck up. We don't exterminate them. They're still allowed to say other things, productive or otherwise. They're just not allowed to support fascism. original contained a stupid quip I no longer endorse: > Hey, you're not allowed to say I'm spreading misinformation. Didn't you read the declaration?!
- ertian 3y ago
  Uhm, did it say somewhere in the declaration that disagreement was not allowed? > we need to use judgment Who's 'we' in this case?
  - digging 3y ago
    > Who's 'we' in this case? Today: Corporate overlords, which is Bad. That's why I don't propose that there is a solution-in-isolation to improper censorship. It can only work in a holistic approach to greater transparency and respect within our society and on our tech platforms for discourse. Getting rid of speech restraints entirely (a solution-in-isolation) just results in a different, implicit censorship, where marginalized voices self-censor because they are afraid. So, in other words, it's not really a solution that leads to a better world, it's just an alternative Bad Situation to the one we're in now. It's easy for people to think it's a solution because it's simplistic and because it is extreme, which means it aligns with an ideal that people hold, and everyone believes their ideals are sustainable if implemented to the extreme (yes yes even me etc) edit: and, yeah, my quip above was kind of stupid.

colpabar 3y ago

Your mistake is using words like “us” and “we”. You are not part of the club that makes these decisions, and eventually, the people who are will make decisions you don’t like. The goals of those making them are just not aligned with yours, and they never will be.

digging 3y ago
> and they never will be. Therein lies the fundamental assumption that I don't agree with. I take part in online spaces where I am a moderator and others where I merely feel confident that the moderators care about my concerns. I know that this is harder to scale. But I don't think it's impossible. That feels almost silly to me to say. Systems can be made incrementally more transparent and more robust, therefore why should we expect there to be a hard physical limit on how transparent and respectful moderation can be? However, based on that assumption that it's physically impossible, I still don't think I agree that speech should be completely unrestricted. I'd maybe prefer to have tools to weed out dangerous elements even if means some good ideas are being censored, but that would require some really nuanced examination.