4 ms·

Or be harassed. But that doesn’t matter when you’re in the majority, right?

by demondemidi 2y ago

zer00eyz 2y ago
[flagged]
- worthless-trash 2y ago
  Thanks, this is something that I believe too. You rarely 'solve' an issue by making it hidden. At least in the open, you can see the danger.
  - threeseed 2y ago
    This is simply not true. When you tolerate things such as child pornography, doxxing etc it makes the practice appear sanctioned and encourages others to join in. We saw this quite clearly with Reddit and Twitter.
    - zer00eyz 2y ago
      Someone dressing up as a nazi and speaking isnt an actual crime. Bringing in actual crimes is false equivalence. So yes those things should have consequences. We have jury trials for a reason. Take the content down, send to the police and court. IF it isn't a crime then reinstate the user.
      - viraptor 2y ago
        It's not an equivalence, but it's not unrelated given the number of people who committed actual crimes and were found to be very much involved in Nazi groups online. This just comes up again and again.
    - worthless-trash 2y ago
      At what point did i say tolerate ?
- eastbound 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - zer00eyz 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - tsimionescu 2y ago
      No one considered Hitler a "socialist" (which still had a very positive association at the time). It was just a label he piggy backed on. None of the important socialists of the time ever had one good word to write about Hitler or his party. In fact, Hitler put communists and socialists in jail. Pointing out "Hitler was a SOCIALIST" is just a dumb ahistorical take, the mark of a propagandist. And for mister Kelogg, he wasn't "the foundation" of the American Progressive movement, he was just a progressive. Plenty of other Progressives from that time were not eugenicists or avowed racists. Unfortunately, racism and eugenics were very popular in many parts of society in this time. There is still no doubt that today's Progressive movement is decidedly anti-racist and anti-eugenicist, while all neo-nazis are still proud to hold these 19th century views (with modern-day morons like Charles Murray to invent and lie their way to a more modern-day scientific racism).
    - throawayonthe 2y ago
      [dead]
    - throwaway_qiwuw 2y ago
      Sorry I have to respond to this but it’s so problematic and common I feel the need. 1. Let us not get hung up on what the nazis were selling at that time, place and language by using the word socialist (oh wait it wasn’t in English!?! Oh that’s a translation??!!!). In any case, that’s nearly meaningless unless you really think the People’s Republic of China under Mao was really a republic? Then I can’t help. TLDR , political labels are meaningless lies. This is not a serious argument to point out their name. 2. All of these authoritarian movements have different origin stories and sometimes they’re pulled out of different movements, and it’s hard to attach their origins to the final product, more confusingly for labels such as progressive and conservative (or left and right ).. they may be very very “right” or very very “left” in two different policy areas. If we want to stick to the nazis.. they were a good billion times more interventionist and militaristic than any American progressive movement ever was so (super right wing I guess?!?), despite legitimately saying some things you’d hear out of the American left at the time. 3. Ultimately authoritarians are mostly about being in power, and whatever else you go for here, that’s the main takeaway you should have taken away from the nazis neither left nor right but being about themselves being in power. In any case, the nazis were the nazis and the fascist salute they’re famous for I’ve seen made by more than my fair share of otherwise entirely right wing organizations such as Franco’s Spain, who openly opposed and fought against communists and socialists.. and yet were assisted by the nazis directly in Guernica. You can read Orwell’s Homage to Catalonia for a good first person account if you’d like to understand how confusing this all can be to label the nazis as either progressive or socialist. Of course the most challenging example of all of this is Chile’s Pinochet. Nazi salutes at his funeral for a man that also openly fought communism, had an economic policy designed entirely from University of Chicago economists in a way that would have made Milton Friedman proud, much more free market than anything we had in the states at the time. I still don’t really connect the University of Chicago to fascism, because that’s silly. The fascists movements are at least definitely fascist but I assume they would have been anything to be in power.
- kevinventullo 2y ago
  I think the point of deplatforming is not to change their mind, but to prevent their voice from influencing others.
  - littlestymaar 2y ago
    Yeah, and surprisingly we're seeing many people defending Nazis' free speech but never Isis' or Al Qaeda's one… As if they only realized it would in fact be detrimental to society because they belong to the target group of these terrorists, when they don't feel threatened by Nazis because they don't belong to a targeted minority.
- newswasboring 2y ago
  Platforming them also doesn't seem to be bringing about any change though. Your argument assumes this fantasy that they will have a dialogue. That's just not what happened, they just make their own echo chambers inside the platforms. These platforms are literally optimized for community building. Banning and deplatforming achieves mental peace for people who just want to go to twitch and not be bombarded by literal nazis.
  - zer00eyz 2y ago
    This works great. Where do you fall on Israel vs Gaza? Does your platform let you speak freely? Is there a chilling effect due to fear of getting banned? I can say the words Tavistock here and guarantee that I will get downvoted just for mentioning it. Shoving it off into a dark corner doesn't make it go away. IT makes people ignorant to the fact that it's going on.
    - threeseed 2y ago
      > downvoted just for mentioning it I haven't seen anyone get downvoted for saying specific words. But definitely for incoherent, incendiary, trollish comments.
    - hnlmorg 2y ago
      I’m ok with shoving some stuff in a dark corner if it makes it harder to accidentally stumble on it when using a platform for generally more wholesome purposes. The problem with the “where do you draw the line” type arguments is that they suggest because it’s hard to agree on where a line should be drawn, that one shouldn’t be drawn at all. But reality is different. It’s better have some rules and continually review their approaches and boundaries than allow a free-for-all from the worst people and normalising their behaviours because you can’t be bothered to answer those difficult questions.
    - newswasboring 2y ago
      I have no idea where all this is coming from, the original post talked about literal nazis. Allowing for exaggeration I can extend that to overt racists and those kind of bad people. Don't move the goal post now by muddying that with more nuanced topics (although, this one shouldn't be, it's clearly a colonizer situation, but again allowing for exaggeration and examples). You have to draw the line somewhere.
- seanhunter 2y ago
  When you say things like this > I'll happily listen to you after you supply a copy of 1984 with all the words you dont like removed. you make it clear you are not entering into a discussion in good faith.
- viraptor 2y ago
  You're lucky - we have just the right study that already happened on another service! https://arxiv.org/html/2401.11254v1 https://arxiv.org/html/2401.11254v1 Turns out that deplatforming works and has overall positive results. "The Great Ban: Efficacy and Unintended Consequences of a Massive Deplatforming Operation on Reddit" - worth a read and answers your questions. Apart from the one about whether they change.. we'll likely never really know, but at least they won't pull as many others down with them.
  - zer00eyz 2y ago
    >> Turns out that deplatforming works and has overall positive results. Did you read this? "Horta Ribeiro et al. (2021) assessed the impact of deplatforming across multiple platforms, concentrating on the migration of users from banned subreddits to newly established platforms. Their findings indicated a significant decline in user activity on the new platforms. However, they also found a subset of users who increased their toxicity and radicalization." They specifically call out that departed users in past studies end up MORE Radicalized. So the people who leave get worse in some cases. This study looks at those that remain on redit and found that: "Our results reveal that 15.6% of the affected users abandoned Reddit after the ban and that those who remained reduced their toxicity by 6.6% on average. Despite this modest toxicity reduction, 5% of users increased their toxicity by more than 70% of their pre-ban level. The presence of such resentful users was widespread across the analyzed subreddits. However, these users likely had little impact on the platform given that only 16% of users increased both toxicity and activity. Likewise, only 21% users increased toxicity and also obtained positive engagement from the community." Your calling that effective? It's hardly a dent in reddit, and further more the people who left likely went off and got worse. I referenced 1984 for a reason: "Other promising avenues of future research are the development of predictive models for the outcome of moderation interventions. These would allow to estimate the likely effects of an intervention in advance of its application, enhancing the possibility to plan the strategic enforcement of moderation actions." This should never be a thing in our word. EVER. the fundamental assumption that it will only be used by the right people is the very thing Orwell was raging against in 1984...
    - 2y ago
- throawayonthe 2y ago
  [dead]
- tsimionescu 2y ago
  This is a complete non-sequitur. The GP was talking about harassment, which is a massive problem on any non-moderated public forum, regardless of political leaning of the harassee (or harassers).

Or be harassed. But that doesn’t matter when you’re in the majority, right?

zer00eyz 2y ago

[flagged]

worthless-trash 2y ago
Thanks, this is something that I believe too. You rarely 'solve' an issue by making it hidden. At least in the open, you can see the danger.
- threeseed 2y ago
  This is simply not true. When you tolerate things such as child pornography, doxxing etc it makes the practice appear sanctioned and encourages others to join in. We saw this quite clearly with Reddit and Twitter.
  - zer00eyz 2y ago
    Someone dressing up as a nazi and speaking isnt an actual crime. Bringing in actual crimes is false equivalence. So yes those things should have consequences. We have jury trials for a reason. Take the content down, send to the police and court. IF it isn't a crime then reinstate the user.
    - viraptor 2y ago
      It's not an equivalence, but it's not unrelated given the number of people who committed actual crimes and were found to be very much involved in Nazi groups online. This just comes up again and again.
  - worthless-trash 2y ago
    At what point did i say tolerate ?
eastbound 2y ago
[flagged]
- zer00eyz 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - tsimionescu 2y ago
    No one considered Hitler a "socialist" (which still had a very positive association at the time). It was just a label he piggy backed on. None of the important socialists of the time ever had one good word to write about Hitler or his party. In fact, Hitler put communists and socialists in jail. Pointing out "Hitler was a SOCIALIST" is just a dumb ahistorical take, the mark of a propagandist. And for mister Kelogg, he wasn't "the foundation" of the American Progressive movement, he was just a progressive. Plenty of other Progressives from that time were not eugenicists or avowed racists. Unfortunately, racism and eugenics were very popular in many parts of society in this time. There is still no doubt that today's Progressive movement is decidedly anti-racist and anti-eugenicist, while all neo-nazis are still proud to hold these 19th century views (with modern-day morons like Charles Murray to invent and lie their way to a more modern-day scientific racism).
  - throawayonthe 2y ago
    [dead]
  - throwaway_qiwuw 2y ago
    Sorry I have to respond to this but it’s so problematic and common I feel the need. 1. Let us not get hung up on what the nazis were selling at that time, place and language by using the word socialist (oh wait it wasn’t in English!?! Oh that’s a translation??!!!). In any case, that’s nearly meaningless unless you really think the People’s Republic of China under Mao was really a republic? Then I can’t help. TLDR , political labels are meaningless lies. This is not a serious argument to point out their name. 2. All of these authoritarian movements have different origin stories and sometimes they’re pulled out of different movements, and it’s hard to attach their origins to the final product, more confusingly for labels such as progressive and conservative (or left and right ).. they may be very very “right” or very very “left” in two different policy areas. If we want to stick to the nazis.. they were a good billion times more interventionist and militaristic than any American progressive movement ever was so (super right wing I guess?!?), despite legitimately saying some things you’d hear out of the American left at the time. 3. Ultimately authoritarians are mostly about being in power, and whatever else you go for here, that’s the main takeaway you should have taken away from the nazis neither left nor right but being about themselves being in power. In any case, the nazis were the nazis and the fascist salute they’re famous for I’ve seen made by more than my fair share of otherwise entirely right wing organizations such as Franco’s Spain, who openly opposed and fought against communists and socialists.. and yet were assisted by the nazis directly in Guernica. You can read Orwell’s Homage to Catalonia for a good first person account if you’d like to understand how confusing this all can be to label the nazis as either progressive or socialist. Of course the most challenging example of all of this is Chile’s Pinochet. Nazi salutes at his funeral for a man that also openly fought communism, had an economic policy designed entirely from University of Chicago economists in a way that would have made Milton Friedman proud, much more free market than anything we had in the states at the time. I still don’t really connect the University of Chicago to fascism, because that’s silly. The fascists movements are at least definitely fascist but I assume they would have been anything to be in power.
kevinventullo 2y ago
I think the point of deplatforming is not to change their mind, but to prevent their voice from influencing others.
- littlestymaar 2y ago
  Yeah, and surprisingly we're seeing many people defending Nazis' free speech but never Isis' or Al Qaeda's one… As if they only realized it would in fact be detrimental to society because they belong to the target group of these terrorists, when they don't feel threatened by Nazis because they don't belong to a targeted minority.
newswasboring 2y ago
Platforming them also doesn't seem to be bringing about any change though. Your argument assumes this fantasy that they will have a dialogue. That's just not what happened, they just make their own echo chambers inside the platforms. These platforms are literally optimized for community building. Banning and deplatforming achieves mental peace for people who just want to go to twitch and not be bombarded by literal nazis.
- zer00eyz 2y ago
  This works great. Where do you fall on Israel vs Gaza? Does your platform let you speak freely? Is there a chilling effect due to fear of getting banned? I can say the words Tavistock here and guarantee that I will get downvoted just for mentioning it. Shoving it off into a dark corner doesn't make it go away. IT makes people ignorant to the fact that it's going on.
  - threeseed 2y ago
    > downvoted just for mentioning it I haven't seen anyone get downvoted for saying specific words. But definitely for incoherent, incendiary, trollish comments.
  - hnlmorg 2y ago
    I’m ok with shoving some stuff in a dark corner if it makes it harder to accidentally stumble on it when using a platform for generally more wholesome purposes. The problem with the “where do you draw the line” type arguments is that they suggest because it’s hard to agree on where a line should be drawn, that one shouldn’t be drawn at all. But reality is different. It’s better have some rules and continually review their approaches and boundaries than allow a free-for-all from the worst people and normalising their behaviours because you can’t be bothered to answer those difficult questions.
  - newswasboring 2y ago
    I have no idea where all this is coming from, the original post talked about literal nazis. Allowing for exaggeration I can extend that to overt racists and those kind of bad people. Don't move the goal post now by muddying that with more nuanced topics (although, this one shouldn't be, it's clearly a colonizer situation, but again allowing for exaggeration and examples). You have to draw the line somewhere.
seanhunter 2y ago
When you say things like this > I'll happily listen to you after you supply a copy of 1984 with all the words you dont like removed. you make it clear you are not entering into a discussion in good faith.
viraptor 2y ago
You're lucky - we have just the right study that already happened on another service! https://arxiv.org/html/2401.11254v1 https://arxiv.org/html/2401.11254v1 Turns out that deplatforming works and has overall positive results. "The Great Ban: Efficacy and Unintended Consequences of a Massive Deplatforming Operation on Reddit" - worth a read and answers your questions. Apart from the one about whether they change.. we'll likely never really know, but at least they won't pull as many others down with them.
- zer00eyz 2y ago
  >> Turns out that deplatforming works and has overall positive results. Did you read this? "Horta Ribeiro et al. (2021) assessed the impact of deplatforming across multiple platforms, concentrating on the migration of users from banned subreddits to newly established platforms. Their findings indicated a significant decline in user activity on the new platforms. However, they also found a subset of users who increased their toxicity and radicalization." They specifically call out that departed users in past studies end up MORE Radicalized. So the people who leave get worse in some cases. This study looks at those that remain on redit and found that: "Our results reveal that 15.6% of the affected users abandoned Reddit after the ban and that those who remained reduced their toxicity by 6.6% on average. Despite this modest toxicity reduction, 5% of users increased their toxicity by more than 70% of their pre-ban level. The presence of such resentful users was widespread across the analyzed subreddits. However, these users likely had little impact on the platform given that only 16% of users increased both toxicity and activity. Likewise, only 21% users increased toxicity and also obtained positive engagement from the community." Your calling that effective? It's hardly a dent in reddit, and further more the people who left likely went off and got worse. I referenced 1984 for a reason: "Other promising avenues of future research are the development of predictive models for the outcome of moderation interventions. These would allow to estimate the likely effects of an intervention in advance of its application, enhancing the possibility to plan the strategic enforcement of moderation actions." This should never be a thing in our word. EVER. the fundamental assumption that it will only be used by the right people is the very thing Orwell was raging against in 1984...
  - 2y ago
throawayonthe 2y ago
[dead]
tsimionescu 2y ago
This is a complete non-sequitur. The GP was talking about harassment, which is a massive problem on any non-moderated public forum, regardless of political leaning of the harassee (or harassers).