5 ms·

Let's move this away from Mr Mangione's direct example and consider what appropriate policy should be where serious crime gathers attention. Somebody publishes

by harry8 2y ago

Let's move this away from Mr Mangione's direct example and consider what appropriate policy should be where serious crime gathers attention. Somebody publishes their thoughts contributing to how the world should be in their view on the internet. We all do that, me here. They are then accused and arrested for a horrible crime. Murder, for example. This garners their thoughts a great deal more attention than they would otherwise get as now they are (in)famous. No removal of publication until conviction. Is there now an incentive to advertise your views by committing crime to attract as much attention as possible? Easiest way is to make it as horrific as possible. I am thinking extremist racists will take those rules. More than one of them. More than once. So now we're somewhere pretty uncomfortable. I think it wrong to suppress Osama Bin Laden's screeds recently removed from the Guardian online, however much I loathe him and everything he stood for. So what about some neo-nazi mass murderer? Or the copycat? Or the following ten? Is that really so hypothetical that we can't see a body count with it? Is this alarm-ism? I hope so, I genuinely do and have no hidden motive here. I'm not buying that this situation has easy policy nor that whatever is done results in something we are going to be fully comfortable with. One outcome may be very much worse for many more people than another, so thinking it through fully is really needed. Something I am yet to make much more than this vague start. Online publishing policy seems like a relevant framing.

_Algernon_ 2y ago
This has video-games-cause-violence vibes. People don't become mass murderers because they read a comment on the internet.
- harry8 2y ago
  Nope, wrong cause direction. Do people never become mass killers to get attention? Does giving mass killers more attention, making them famous affect anything, maybe encourage more? "No" is a reasonable response if you can support it.
  - _Algernon_ 2y ago
    You know what the actual biggest difference between countries with large amounts of mass killings and those that don't is? Gun control. Luigi Mangione's comments on stack overflow don't even register in terms of violence caused. These kinds of removals are simply attempts at information control by the elite, and -- assuming you're not part of the 1% -- you're playing straight into their hand. "The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles." - Karl Marx
    - harry8 2y ago
      > Luigi Mangione's comments on stack overflow don't even register in terms of violence caused. This is completely and totally true. Totally irrelevant in terms of what policy /should/ be and one of the reasons to move it away from one example because what fits one example may not be generally applicable. I have not and do not stick up for S.O. Marx, yeah nah I don't think he's helpful here or indeed anywhere.
      - _Algernon_ 2y ago
        Marx is incredibly helpful in most things as long as you realize that he managed to identify the right problem (which I referenced by the quote), not necessarily the solution; and that his proposed solutions have never been properly tested, and that his ideas for the solution to the problem were -- just like Nietzsche's ideas -- bastardized by terrible people for their own gain. You don't have to be a communist to realize that Marx was instrumental in giving us the labor movement, including unions which most people who haven't been indoctrinated over generations with red scare tactics will realize where good things and important mechanisms against overreach by the powerful.
    - throwaway48476 2y ago
      Mexico has virtually 0 legaly owned firearms. Total gun control. Yet they have large amounts of mass murders.
      - 2y ago
- dpc050505 2y ago
  Marc Lépine's manifesto (he walked into Montréal's Polytechnique and killed 14 women and shot several more, he was blaming them studying and feminism for his not getting accepted) is treated as gospel on incel forums. Many acts of incel/misogynist terrorism have been committed by people who frequented such forums. Ideology is not videogames and does have an impact on people's actions. You can look at the whole history of the 20th centuries' wars for another very obvious example.
  - _Algernon_ 2y ago
    I don't need others to decide what ideology I need to be protected from for me. I'm much more concerned about the ideology of the people who think information control is justifiable. Others are responsible for their own actions. Don't impose information control on me because others do stupid shit.
    - Cumpiler69 2y ago
      >I'm much more concerned about the ideology of the people who think information control is justifiable. Indeed. That's only to justify blatant censorship. Reading books doesn't cause people to kill other people. If someone kills someone after reading a book, that person already had huge issues and was on the edge to kill already, and instead of a addressing the issue by investing more in helping those with mental illnesses, we take the dumb cheap and easy way out of blaming books, video games, forums, incels, toxic masculinity, etc. Everyone is quick to blame incels but nobody asks why do men become incels in the first place and how to prevent that by addressing the causes and not the effects. The truth is our current society has a disproportionate lack of safety nets and help available to males and male issues, when compared to females, hence why there's 10x the rate of suicides and homelessness for males vs females, and is also one of the reasons why men have statistically been going more conservative and right wing in the last decade or so. Yet nobody talks about this or wants to do anything to address this and just resorts to shaming men who draw attention to this as incels and "far right" and calls it a day. When society takes away young men's communities (previously it was the church) and purpose in life, their prospect of building a family, good job (men used to be able to support a family by bolting bumpers to Fords in a factory) and owning a home, and demonize them for the sins of their fathers (patriarchy and male Privilege) while depriving them of any help, it's no surprise they become radicalized against the society that hates them and that void gets filled by manosphere bros who tell them it's the fault of the Rothschilds and that all women are hoes.
- pcthrowaway 2y ago
  The movie Natural Born Killers apparently inspired several mass shootings (most notably, Columbine) Even if media (social or otherwise) can influence people to commit violence, does that justify censorship?
  - brokenmachine 2y ago
    "Inspired" seems perhaps too strong a word for the connection. Can you say that, had Natural Born Killers not been made, there would have been no Columbine? I contend that it would have happened anyway. If that movie didn't exist, they would have found another movie to imitate, or even one of the other things they were interested in, such as DOOM or whatever. Correlation not causation. Sure, you could remove both Natural Born Killers and DOOM and KMFDM and whatever else, but then they would have moved to something else. You can't ban everything just because some sick people might enjoy it. How many mass shootings have been inspired by the bible or the quran, or The Catcher in the Rye?
hulitu 2y ago
> what appropriate policy should be where serious crime gathers attention. Not making it public in the first place. Why do i (in EU) need to know that a child killed its schoolmates in US ?
- harry8 2y ago
  If they do so with a political point eg "you should care as much about children in ...." Maybe that point has some considerable support too. Should that be suppressed too? Maybe it should. Uncomfortable.
- tonyedgecombe 2y ago
  I have a feeling school shootings would collapse if they weren’t reported on.
  - oneeyedpigeon 2y ago
    It would no doubt have an effect, but availability of firearms is probably the biggest factor. School shootings in my country (where gun ownership is strictly controlled) are almost non-existent, but definitely reported on when they occur — probably more so for the very reason they are so infrequent.
  - amenhotep 2y ago
    This is probably optimistic - they're a meme, kids don't need to see reporting about new school shootings to get the idea that shooting up your school is the way to go, it's something communities are quite naturally propagating amongst themselves - but it seems super clear that they wouldn't have become a meme in the first place without repeated breathless scandalising reporting.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
- oneeyedpigeon 2y ago
  > Why do i (in EU) need to know that a child killed its schoolmates in US ? To remind yourself why it's such a good idea to keep voting in politicians in favour of strict gun controls?
throwaway48476 2y ago
There has never been a case where removing primary sources results in a more enlightened understanding.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
johnnyanmac 2y ago
>Is there now an incentive to advertise your views by committing crime to attract as much attention as possible? I guess. That would be really stupid though. This isn't a burner account. You get to do this maybe once, and it doesn't always work (some user upstream has 2 ex-coworkers on SO to no fame. Accounts still up). Alternatively, there's 2 situation in which this can be gamed against other users 1. Your name is common and now all John doe's in X sector are accused of being murderers. 2. A non-obvious account has a sabetour try to associate the account with a murderer. You can't do much to disprove it outside if doxx yourself. Lies pile on and you're banned wrongfully. The internet is still semi-anonymous. We literally cannot be a judge of stuff like this. >So now we're somewhere pretty uncomfortable. I think it wrong to suppress Osama Bin Laden's screeds recently removed from the Guardian online, however much I loathe him and everything he stood for. I think that's where the subtetly of this situation kicks in. This isn't about banning people, and honestly banning Luigi would have gotten less attention on this story (but still some). This is ultimately a private server and they can ban you for whatever they want. But this was So having their cake and eating it too. They simply erased the name. To use The guardian example, this is like remove Bin Laden from the site, but his comments about whatever (be it trivial opinions on economics or threats of terror) stay there just fine on the site. I Don't see who wins here. The actual ideas are on your site, but you just swept the name under the rug. On top of this, this goes agiandt the CC license of comments. You can remove a comment, but you can't unattributte an existing comment.

by harry8 2y ago

_Algernon_ 2y ago

This has video-games-cause-violence vibes. People don't become mass murderers because they read a comment on the internet.

harry8 2y ago
Nope, wrong cause direction. Do people never become mass killers to get attention? Does giving mass killers more attention, making them famous affect anything, maybe encourage more? "No" is a reasonable response if you can support it.
- _Algernon_ 2y ago
  You know what the actual biggest difference between countries with large amounts of mass killings and those that don't is? Gun control. Luigi Mangione's comments on stack overflow don't even register in terms of violence caused. These kinds of removals are simply attempts at information control by the elite, and -- assuming you're not part of the 1% -- you're playing straight into their hand. "The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles." - Karl Marx
  - harry8 2y ago
    > Luigi Mangione's comments on stack overflow don't even register in terms of violence caused. This is completely and totally true. Totally irrelevant in terms of what policy /should/ be and one of the reasons to move it away from one example because what fits one example may not be generally applicable. I have not and do not stick up for S.O. Marx, yeah nah I don't think he's helpful here or indeed anywhere.
    - _Algernon_ 2y ago
      Marx is incredibly helpful in most things as long as you realize that he managed to identify the right problem (which I referenced by the quote), not necessarily the solution; and that his proposed solutions have never been properly tested, and that his ideas for the solution to the problem were -- just like Nietzsche's ideas -- bastardized by terrible people for their own gain. You don't have to be a communist to realize that Marx was instrumental in giving us the labor movement, including unions which most people who haven't been indoctrinated over generations with red scare tactics will realize where good things and important mechanisms against overreach by the powerful.
  - throwaway48476 2y ago
    Mexico has virtually 0 legaly owned firearms. Total gun control. Yet they have large amounts of mass murders.
    - 2y ago
dpc050505 2y ago
Marc Lépine's manifesto (he walked into Montréal's Polytechnique and killed 14 women and shot several more, he was blaming them studying and feminism for his not getting accepted) is treated as gospel on incel forums. Many acts of incel/misogynist terrorism have been committed by people who frequented such forums. Ideology is not videogames and does have an impact on people's actions. You can look at the whole history of the 20th centuries' wars for another very obvious example.
- _Algernon_ 2y ago
  I don't need others to decide what ideology I need to be protected from for me. I'm much more concerned about the ideology of the people who think information control is justifiable. Others are responsible for their own actions. Don't impose information control on me because others do stupid shit.
  - Cumpiler69 2y ago
    >I'm much more concerned about the ideology of the people who think information control is justifiable. Indeed. That's only to justify blatant censorship. Reading books doesn't cause people to kill other people. If someone kills someone after reading a book, that person already had huge issues and was on the edge to kill already, and instead of a addressing the issue by investing more in helping those with mental illnesses, we take the dumb cheap and easy way out of blaming books, video games, forums, incels, toxic masculinity, etc. Everyone is quick to blame incels but nobody asks why do men become incels in the first place and how to prevent that by addressing the causes and not the effects. The truth is our current society has a disproportionate lack of safety nets and help available to males and male issues, when compared to females, hence why there's 10x the rate of suicides and homelessness for males vs females, and is also one of the reasons why men have statistically been going more conservative and right wing in the last decade or so. Yet nobody talks about this or wants to do anything to address this and just resorts to shaming men who draw attention to this as incels and "far right" and calls it a day. When society takes away young men's communities (previously it was the church) and purpose in life, their prospect of building a family, good job (men used to be able to support a family by bolting bumpers to Fords in a factory) and owning a home, and demonize them for the sins of their fathers (patriarchy and male Privilege) while depriving them of any help, it's no surprise they become radicalized against the society that hates them and that void gets filled by manosphere bros who tell them it's the fault of the Rothschilds and that all women are hoes.
pcthrowaway 2y ago
The movie Natural Born Killers apparently inspired several mass shootings (most notably, Columbine) Even if media (social or otherwise) can influence people to commit violence, does that justify censorship?
- brokenmachine 2y ago
  "Inspired" seems perhaps too strong a word for the connection. Can you say that, had Natural Born Killers not been made, there would have been no Columbine? I contend that it would have happened anyway. If that movie didn't exist, they would have found another movie to imitate, or even one of the other things they were interested in, such as DOOM or whatever. Correlation not causation. Sure, you could remove both Natural Born Killers and DOOM and KMFDM and whatever else, but then they would have moved to something else. You can't ban everything just because some sick people might enjoy it. How many mass shootings have been inspired by the bible or the quran, or The Catcher in the Rye?

hulitu 2y ago

> what appropriate policy should be where serious crime gathers attention. Not making it public in the first place. Why do i (in EU) need to know that a child killed its schoolmates in US ?

harry8 2y ago
If they do so with a political point eg "you should care as much about children in ...." Maybe that point has some considerable support too. Should that be suppressed too? Maybe it should. Uncomfortable.
tonyedgecombe 2y ago
I have a feeling school shootings would collapse if they weren’t reported on.
- oneeyedpigeon 2y ago
  It would no doubt have an effect, but availability of firearms is probably the biggest factor. School shootings in my country (where gun ownership is strictly controlled) are almost non-existent, but definitely reported on when they occur — probably more so for the very reason they are so infrequent.
- amenhotep 2y ago
  This is probably optimistic - they're a meme, kids don't need to see reporting about new school shootings to get the idea that shooting up your school is the way to go, it's something communities are quite naturally propagating amongst themselves - but it seems super clear that they wouldn't have become a meme in the first place without repeated breathless scandalising reporting.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
oneeyedpigeon 2y ago
> Why do i (in EU) need to know that a child killed its schoolmates in US ? To remind yourself why it's such a good idea to keep voting in politicians in favour of strict gun controls?

throwaway48476 2y ago

There has never been a case where removing primary sources results in a more enlightened understanding.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

johnnyanmac 2y ago

>Is there now an incentive to advertise your views by committing crime to attract as much attention as possible? I guess. That would be really stupid though. This isn't a burner account. You get to do this maybe once, and it doesn't always work (some user upstream has 2 ex-coworkers on SO to no fame. Accounts still up). Alternatively, there's 2 situation in which this can be gamed against other users 1. Your name is common and now all John doe's in X sector are accused of being murderers. 2. A non-obvious account has a sabetour try to associate the account with a murderer. You can't do much to disprove it outside if doxx yourself. Lies pile on and you're banned wrongfully. The internet is still semi-anonymous. We literally cannot be a judge of stuff like this. >So now we're somewhere pretty uncomfortable. I think it wrong to suppress Osama Bin Laden's screeds recently removed from the Guardian online, however much I loathe him and everything he stood for. I think that's where the subtetly of this situation kicks in. This isn't about banning people, and honestly banning Luigi would have gotten less attention on this story (but still some). This is ultimately a private server and they can ban you for whatever they want. But this was So having their cake and eating it too. They simply erased the name. To use The guardian example, this is like remove Bin Laden from the site, but his comments about whatever (be it trivial opinions on economics or threats of terror) stay there just fine on the site. I Don't see who wins here. The actual ideas are on your site, but you just swept the name under the rug. On top of this, this goes agiandt the CC license of comments. You can remove a comment, but you can't unattributte an existing comment.