3 ms·

> Essentially what it showed was that if you pull people out of a particular echo chamber, then that had a sustained effect on how they behaved. So…silos and e

> Essentially what it showed was that if you pull people out of a particular echo chamber, then that had a sustained effect on how they behaved. So…silos and echo chambers are bad. Seems to me that was part of my original point. I am suggesting that censorship of information leads people to the silos.

intended 2y ago
So you are saying, that things got better when people were banned. Because when they got banned, many other communities saw improvements as well, not just those?
- kcplate 2y ago
  No I am saying that when you censor/suppress debate in the public square you drive people underground where they land in echo chambers and develop extreme views because they don’t have public debate. You don’t need to ban people from echo chambers if they don’t land there in the first place. Your solution is reactive to a problem you caused. My solution is don’t create the problem in the first place.
  - intended 2y ago
    So I have done the leg work to see what happens and it turns out that if you give space to extremist views they overtake other conversations and dominate the community. What people don’t seem to grasp is that all speech is not equal, and that our brains react very predictably to certain arguments and content. For example, your argument is not supported by the paper, which I have read. Because the paper shows behavior of the bad actors changed across the site, and became less hateful. However the argument is complex, and goes against commonly held beliefs, such as sunlight is the best disinfectant etc. More exposure results in more reinforcement of popular ideas, until something happens externally.
    - kcplate 2y ago
      When you feel the need to censor or suppress information all you are doing is admitting that your argument is just not as persuasive as the opposition and requires handicapping. People see that as the same thing as your argument being false which is why they always work their way tirelessly around your efforts to suppress and censor. If you get to the point where you feel you need to censor, suppress, or outright ban voices to be heard, you have already lost the communication high ground and no matter how true or good your opinion/idea/position. It will lose in the court of public opinion…and frankly should…because you did not put the appropriate effort in to be persuasive.
      - intended 2y ago
        Someone shared a picture of a dead baby in my community a few days ago. They were part of pictures describing the conditions of an ethnic conflict that is largely unremarked upon. As mods, we removed it, since it’s traumatic to simply see it, and it’s out of scope for our community. It’s not an ‘acceptable’ argument and it was removed. That was censorship. Should pro beastiality arguments be allowed? Am I admitting the anti beastiality argument is not as persuasive as the beastiality argument, when I choose not to give them space in my communities? What about when children are engaging with an experienced cult recruiter? Users are spamming your community with random content, to bury headlines about a heinous rape case that makes the ruling party look bad. That’s fundamentally more speech and it is acting as an antidote for ‘bad’ speech. How do you address roving bands of users who go around Reddit, and downvote all negative news about China and India on r/worldnews? The demographics and time they are online, are sufficient to shift the news. What would your conscience have you do? Have you been in a position to make similar decisions? I have, so I can give these examples. This.. isn’t an attempt by me to prove you wrong. These aren’t hard questions, but pretty common place ones. Its just that all mod choices are essentially censorship. I believe you are defending a principle. If you choose not to moderate/ censor in those examples I would respect you for holding to your principle. If you decide to censor, I would be fine with it too. Because you would still be making a decision based on a principle. I’ve struggled with the idea of censorship since I first volunteered as a mod nearly 15 years ago. I valued free speech as a core principle to enable humanity succeed and thrive. I have, stopped seeing free speech as an end to itself. I had to reconcile the limited options with the results I saw in communities. I hated it. Eventually I had to ask why we value free speech in the first place. And we value it because we value a fair marketplace of ideas. I see the goal as being able to have fair debates and exchanges of ideas between normal people. And they suffer failings and weaknesses possible in any market place. So the goal is to ensure the marketplace is effective at being fair. Perhaps you would have a different idea, and I am happy to hear it. If only to see a different solution. And if you agree with me to some degree and also think that having effective market places is a good idea, thats fine too. We Sure as heck need the average person to decide what principles need to be held up, and at what costs.

intended 2y ago

So you are saying, that things got better when people were banned. Because when they got banned, many other communities saw improvements as well, not just those?

kcplate 2y ago
No I am saying that when you censor/suppress debate in the public square you drive people underground where they land in echo chambers and develop extreme views because they don’t have public debate. You don’t need to ban people from echo chambers if they don’t land there in the first place. Your solution is reactive to a problem you caused. My solution is don’t create the problem in the first place.
- intended 2y ago
  So I have done the leg work to see what happens and it turns out that if you give space to extremist views they overtake other conversations and dominate the community. What people don’t seem to grasp is that all speech is not equal, and that our brains react very predictably to certain arguments and content. For example, your argument is not supported by the paper, which I have read. Because the paper shows behavior of the bad actors changed across the site, and became less hateful. However the argument is complex, and goes against commonly held beliefs, such as sunlight is the best disinfectant etc. More exposure results in more reinforcement of popular ideas, until something happens externally.
  - kcplate 2y ago
    When you feel the need to censor or suppress information all you are doing is admitting that your argument is just not as persuasive as the opposition and requires handicapping. People see that as the same thing as your argument being false which is why they always work their way tirelessly around your efforts to suppress and censor. If you get to the point where you feel you need to censor, suppress, or outright ban voices to be heard, you have already lost the communication high ground and no matter how true or good your opinion/idea/position. It will lose in the court of public opinion…and frankly should…because you did not put the appropriate effort in to be persuasive.
    - intended 2y ago
      Someone shared a picture of a dead baby in my community a few days ago. They were part of pictures describing the conditions of an ethnic conflict that is largely unremarked upon. As mods, we removed it, since it’s traumatic to simply see it, and it’s out of scope for our community. It’s not an ‘acceptable’ argument and it was removed. That was censorship. Should pro beastiality arguments be allowed? Am I admitting the anti beastiality argument is not as persuasive as the beastiality argument, when I choose not to give them space in my communities? What about when children are engaging with an experienced cult recruiter? Users are spamming your community with random content, to bury headlines about a heinous rape case that makes the ruling party look bad. That’s fundamentally more speech and it is acting as an antidote for ‘bad’ speech. How do you address roving bands of users who go around Reddit, and downvote all negative news about China and India on r/worldnews? The demographics and time they are online, are sufficient to shift the news. What would your conscience have you do? Have you been in a position to make similar decisions? I have, so I can give these examples. This.. isn’t an attempt by me to prove you wrong. These aren’t hard questions, but pretty common place ones. Its just that all mod choices are essentially censorship. I believe you are defending a principle. If you choose not to moderate/ censor in those examples I would respect you for holding to your principle. If you decide to censor, I would be fine with it too. Because you would still be making a decision based on a principle. I’ve struggled with the idea of censorship since I first volunteered as a mod nearly 15 years ago. I valued free speech as a core principle to enable humanity succeed and thrive. I have, stopped seeing free speech as an end to itself. I had to reconcile the limited options with the results I saw in communities. I hated it. Eventually I had to ask why we value free speech in the first place. And we value it because we value a fair marketplace of ideas. I see the goal as being able to have fair debates and exchanges of ideas between normal people. And they suffer failings and weaknesses possible in any market place. So the goal is to ensure the marketplace is effective at being fair. Perhaps you would have a different idea, and I am happy to hear it. If only to see a different solution. And if you agree with me to some degree and also think that having effective market places is a good idea, thats fine too. We Sure as heck need the average person to decide what principles need to be held up, and at what costs.