Hacker News Reader

> If you are concerned about being silenced by a corporate vendor, then choose your partners wisely.

The issue here is more nuanced. It's about any site on the Internet being censored by a mob. That's why the YouTube or Facebook analogies don't hold. You could always host the content yourself. But DDoS can knock out any unprotected host anywhere. And DDoS protection isn't really something you can DIY.

So the issue here is not about being silenced by a corporate vendor. It's about being silenced, period, wherever you host.

Comes down to the argument of "how dare you be intolerant of my intolerance"

I think we're all intolerant of hate. Some of us just think that due process should be applied even when the conclusion is obvious.

It really doesn't. The issue is what is an acceptable way to express that intolerance: with speech or by forcefully shutting the mouths of those you disagree with?

DDoS attacks could be considered forcefully shutting those mouths, and I don't agree with that. Do you propose forcing a private entity (Cloudflare et al) to publish those they disagree with?

You raise a very good question. We agree that DDoS is the digital equivalent of forcing someone to shut up, and that is contrary to freedom of speech. It's also true that private entities don't have any legal obligation to honor freedom of speech. Certainly you or I would not enjoy Instagram more if there was a bunch of hate speech on it.

But we can make a distinction between destinations, like Instagram, and infrastructure, like streets and public parks and libraries that allows you to access the destinations of your choice. DDoS is something that kicks people off of the very infrastructure of the Internet itself, thus denying others the choice to visit them.

The underlying problem is that core Internet infrastructure is managed by private entities. This is unlike "meatspace" where there are public spaces protected by the police / government who block the physical equivalent of DDoS (duct taping mouths / burning down printing presses). So, what does this mean as more of our communication as a society moves into the digital realm? Is it a blessing that it is more privately managed, empowering those managers to block "bad" speech? Or should we extend the same "meatspace" principles of free speech for all by requiring Internet infrastructure providers to provide unimpeded access to all?

Part of the problem with this is that on the internet, extreme ideologies have a reach that is impossible and hence manageable in "meatspace".

Free speech doesn't stop a child's parents from shunning him when he swears at them, free speech doesn't mean that you get to yell in church with diplomatic immunity towards being silenced, free speech doesn't mean that you go around soliciting sex in public without possibly getting arrested. You get silenced if you act like a cunt, that's freedom, and it's not an issue.

All those things are contrary to the principle of free speech. There are some things we consider important enough to override that principle - the right to avoid people you don't like, or to form a private association that excludes people you don't like (I won't get into the sex one because there's no clear simple principle there, rather we have a lot of complex and entangled notions).

It's important that a small private business should have the right to not do business with someone they don't want to do business with, but that's not an absolute principle, just as free speech is not[1]. Or rather, all of our principles can come into conflict.

The idea that an entity that processes 10% of internet traffic can exclude someone from expressing their opinions - vile and hateful as they may be - via that entity, is scary. Scarier than not being able to express a given opinion in many countries, frankly. I'm not even saying CloudFlare is necessarily in the wrong here, but it's certainly not a non-issue.

[1] Not to be confused with the US First Amendment, which is very close to absolute where it applies, but does not apply to many cases where the principle of free speech is relevant.

It is a non issue.

Look, the spirit behind free speech is the principle of the bazaar of ideas.

The place where everyone can meet, exchange and learn. If someone sells something and it's distasteful, well you learn that you don't like it.

That's the spirit, which too many people don't understand, or don't go far enough to understand.

In this bazaar are now thugs, they sell wares designed to disrupt the bazaar, to addict customers, and to stop more complex goods from being sold.

They choose to disrupt the bazaar, and they count on those who repeat "free speech", to tie themselves down and not stop them.

Like a child taunting someone by saying "prove that 2+2 is not = 5."

Valid questions which have hard proofs are regularly used to tie up discussion. It's done intentionally in order to "win".

There's no victory here- the opposition isn't playing by the rules. when there is no good faith, then there is no discussion.

So how do we distinguish between ideas that "win" in the bazaar of ideas, and ideas that "disrupt" the bazaar of ideas?

>n this bazaar are now thugs, they sell wares designed to disrupt the bazaar, to addict customers, and to stop more complex goods from being sold.

The problem with that example is the same thing can be used to describe MLK during the 60s. He was all of that by most of the people who lived during that time. It can be applied to pornography, or Catcher in the Rye. You either squash distasteful ideas or you don't. Here's a little secret for you younger folks. The stuff the next generation does, you might find distasteful, but it's the future. They have to be allowed to try on new ideas. If you don't those ideas become more attractive because they are forbidden fruit.

The nice thing about allowing Stormwhatever to speak, is it allows people to see them for what they are. If you squelch them, well, that just makes them stronger.

You have to be able to apply it to people who you admire and people you despise.

I do: I apply it to both. And I'm what passes for the new generation of grey beards.

I too am an acolyte for the cult of free speech.

The key difference being I test the ideas and beliefs in the real world. I signed up to mod a subreddit which was in trouble and I saw what worked and what didn't.

I urge you and others to make that time investment.

You are worried about catcher in the rye- we're long past protecting it. What's being fought are memes - mind bombs and channel stuffers.

We are fighting to let thought survive, in the face of people intentionally releasing material designed to hijack human brains via emotion.

Catcher in the rye is not what's being protected.

The foundation for civilization scale thought is what's being defended.

You are using a paragon to defend something unrelated.

You assume a lot of things about the current state of discourse and the motives of the attaxkers.

They aren't debating Marxism or porn. They're trying to drown out other ideas, and to tie Down people who present cogent counter arguments.

Want a non tech example? Take a look at anti vacc or creationism.

Those are ideas designed to be consumed by human brains- polarize them and then herd them away from information which could counter the infection.

That's not the bazaar of ideas. Thats not free speech.

That's what's happening.

And we have nothing to defend against it.

Wait, so you're saying censoring creationist and anti-vaccine sites is acceptable too? That's precisely the slippery slope your interlocutor is referring to.

You are far from an "acolyte for the cult of free speech" if think ideas you disagree with should be kicked out of the bazaar by mobs.

I re-read what I wrote, and I believe I was clear.

Here is my statement

> , in the face of people intentionally releasing material designed to hijack human brains via emotion.

And then later

> They aren't debating Marxism or porn. They're trying to drown out other ideas, and to tie Down people who present cogent counter arguments.

>Want a non tech example? Take a look at anti vacc or creationism.

How you went from there, to

>Wait, so you're saying censoring creationist and anti-vaccine sites is acceptable too?

I am not sure.

SO let me re-iterate my main point.

The battle being fought right now, is between people who are using techniques to stymie actual discussion and actual trade of ideas.

The idea is to "hack" the human brain, to target emotions, logical errors, rhetoric and so on, and to then build a block of people who can be counted to work together.

The active target is free speech itself, science, and so called "liberal" values, which is now just a label for an ever expanding field of targets.

You want to look at creationism and anti vacc to study how those non factual ideas were propagated.

Remember that these ideas won in the country which had the greatest claim to carrying the torch of civilization and science.

You look at those topics for study, not censorship.

You then understand the techniques used once you study those topics.

Once you do that, you realize that this is not about free speech, and that nothign in free speech can really deal with what is happening.

If you're "not sure" that censoring creationist or anti-vaccine sites is acceptable, then at the very least you cannot claim in any way, shape or form to be anything close to a "free speech acolyte". That is clear.

Free speech is not contingent on the subject that is being "targeted" -- science, liberal values, or even the concept of free speech itself (if challenged merely by speech). Free speech is simply the right to speak your views, no matter how unpopular, illiberal or radical. The proper response to speech you disagree with is: more speech. As soon as you designate certain speech as dangerous, "brain hacking" speech that we need to censor for the sake of "civilization and science," you begin sliding down the slippery slope into censoring stuff like creationism.

The correct way to respond to creationism, and Nazi ideas, is by explaining how wrong they are. And that means that unpopular Leftist ideas (of which I am a subscriber), as "dangerous" as they may be to some, also get their forum in the bazaar.

So you are where I was a decade ago.

I've already applied those ideas, "more speech". We've seen it repeated on so many forums now, so many subreddits a year, that the follow up pattern is already known.

It sadly doesnt work.

You can hold your view all you like mate, but in the end - its just a theory.

And do you honestly think, you are special and the only forum moderator, or forum attacker to NOT know those theories?

Really?

This isn't undiscovered country. Its just undiscovered for you.

Read what I have written.

As for your specific charge against dealing with Creationism.

1) why the hell are you fixated on creationism? are you some sort of free speech bouncer? Unless I wear the colors and say "I shall protect Creationism, even though I don't agree with it", you won't listen to me?

2) Creationism is REGULARLY debunked. In mass media, on forums, everywhere.

It makes no whit of difference to its target audience. Studies show that showing counteracting information often results in those views becoming EVEN MORE entrenched.

People debunking creationism can easily walk into a discussion - expecting that it will be a discussion.

Instead its a Specatcle, in the old Roman sense of the word - The opposite side hits them with a technicality "You can't explain all of evolution. See! theres even a debate among scientists on evolution!"

Which the antagonists then spin into "Teach the controversy!".

How can you have speech, when the other side never intended to speak in the first place?

3) WHy stop at creationism? What about jihadist recuritment material? What about JIhadist material explaining the pain they suffer, and the good reasons (according to them) they have for killing infidels?

4) What about libel? What about Laws against subliminal advertizing for that matter?

And here are some real life scenarios for you to answer -

What are you going to do when you get DDOSed? What do you do when the forum gets over run or brigaded?

What do you do when the people making speech are targeted and harassed, and thus removed from the discussion?

What do you do when people use the forum rules like lawyers, and tie forum mods into knots in order to make space for hate speech?

What do you do when experts enter a discussion, but the other side uses it as an opportunity to go "YOU CANT EXPLAIN EXTREMELY COMPLEX SUBJECT IN 2 SENTENCES! SEE THEY ARE FRAUDS!"

A lot of speech attempts to convince. I've read an analysis of the emotional manipulation techniques in Letter from a Birmingham Jail; that was also "intentionally releasing material designed to hijack human brains via emotion". If we don't believe that the truth will win in the marketplace of ideas then we've already lost, because what's the alternative? Relying on some kind of Ministry of Truth?

That we need to figure out. But I suspect, your worst fear is true - we have already lost.

>intentionally releasing material designed to hijack human brains via emotion.

That sounds like every news station since the 80s, or the Washington Post forums. People on both sides do nothing but prey on emotion, it's a common tactic. Their opinion and even news articles prey on emotion. Fox of course does it as well. News is now a liability in the US; sold their soul for the almighty dollar.

>And we have nothing to defend against it.

Reason and logic. A good BS detector helps too. I understand our educational system is in shambles though. I don't disagree that is a problem, but censoring it won't solve it, at least censoring by blocking websites to register.

There are some things we consider important enough to override that principle - the right to ... to form a private association that excludes people you don't like

Please cite your source for showing where a "private association" that is not a public accommodation cannot discriminate, or explain why any church can bar non-believers from membership.

All of the places you mentioned are places where you IMPOSE yourself to others.

A website is not such a thing.

However, a forum is.

A forum is just a kind of website. And people get banned for spamming or trolling forums where they're not welcome all the time. But they're not imposing on anybody in their likeminded forums.

Only if you didn't start the forum yourself.

You've just made an unsupported leap of logic. The question is who is silencing who and in what context. Parents may discipline their children. Church staff may eject anyone they like. Soliciting sex is a crime. None of this means a mob can rightfully silence unpopular, legal speech. And certainly not in the name of freedom.

It's harder to DDoS Tor onion sites.

Ok cool. The question stands. How do you feel about ISIS does? Do you leave terrorist recruitment up or take it down? And if ISIS does have to go, why are white terrorists different?

Good questions. The EFF answers them better than I could: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/07/industry-efforts-censo...

The whole Gamergate shitfest was disallowed on /v/ because it constantly hijacked the board, had tangential relevance in most cases, and the legal implications weren't worth supporting a largely off-topic subject. Having five pages of threads on a single subject would pretty much never be allowed on any board (save /b/), especially if that subject focused on a holy war between two radical elements.

/j/ was temporarily accessible through a bug and IRC chatlogs are widely available. The moderation on 4chan is very much active, it's just not compelled to fast and hard action for anything save child porn or an impending murder. Much of the hooliganism is largely explicitly allowed, at least according to the info currently available to us.

>moot shut down /pol/ (aka /n/) before, twice, on a whim because he didn't like the content

Hate to bring /b/ into my hn, but newfriends, who make up the majority of the /pol/lacks don't even know this.

It is also an ideal ground for groups with bad intentions to manipulate folks. Who is actually operating those keyboards? What are their actual motives?

> Who is actually operating those keyboards?

Your usual neighbour's 18-year old son.

> What are their actual motives?

For the 'lulz' of course.

> For the 'lulz' of course.

So how does one distinguish between a genuine kill-all-the-scum Nazi, and a child who's pretending to be one, for the lulz? You get lulz from people who get upset. And you get lulz from people who agree with you. It's a win-win.

Ultimately, there's no way to tell. It's a textbook example of Poe's Law. And indeed, there's no observable difference. Maybe everyone behind Nazi sites are in it for the lulz. And/or for the money, or fame. You get the same fucked up social impacts, either way.

When they start dressing the part, take part in torch carrying marches shouting slogans about mass murder.

Maybe. But many of them could still be in it for the lulz.

I mean, many gangbangers are fundamentally after lulz.

That doesn't mean it is something we need to either encourage or condone.

No, it's not. But it helps to put the phenomenon in context. The anomie of the young, especially young men, has always been hazardous. But now, with the Internet, it's chaotic around strange attractors. Such as the alt right. And ISIS. And undoubtedly other stuff that I'm not aware of yet.

Yes, this is all true. So you recognize there is a problem with 'angry young men', the question then becomes once these angry young men decide to band together guided by smart old men who aim to use them as tools in their arsenal whether or not you hold them responsible. Once they're over 18 as far as I'm concerned they are fair game. Old enough to vote: old enough to think.

I agree. But there's more to anomie than anger. Angry young men have always been canon fodder. But now we have cynical young men who are posing as angry, but really just in it for the lulz, who can organize themselves through the Internet. It's a new dynamic.

> but really just in it for the lulz

I am really not convinced of that. I believe they have been marginalized by society and this is their way to regain their relevance. The fact that that conveniently plays into the agenda of those that would like to see the world change in that way as well but who do not have sufficient agency to do it themselves doesn't help at all.

Anyway, we've seen this movie before and it did not end well back then, I wonder how many people saw the trainwreck happening in slow motion and realize they were powerless to stop it. It's like an explosion or an avalanche. Once sufficient activation energy has been added the end result is inevitable, even if you as an observer of the first act feel the need to warn of the impending disaster it will happen anyway and you're going to be along for the ride until a new stable configuration has been reached at a lower energy level.

I agree, and love that language :)

Re lulz, maybe spend some time reading the chans and Encyclopedia Dramatica.

Do you think various groups trying to influence politics and culture would try to manipulate this impressionable group? For the lulz is an easy way to sweep aside the very real, and likely, possibility that state actors manipulate these anonymous boards for their own ends.

>If you can't acquire the resources to start your own print, then tough luck.

"See, we just had a misunderstanding. I thought I lived in the USA, the United States of America, and actually we live in the USA, the United States of Advertising: freedom of expression guaranteed, if you've got the money!"

-Bill Hicks on being censored by CBS

> "Free speech" on the internet never really existed

Long before 4chan repeated everything Usenet had done many years earlier there was plenty of free speech on the Internet.

Not because nobody was in control to prevent it, but because the news admins who were in control believed in free speech enough to facilitate it. Although Usenet is a shadow of its heyday, that still applies even to this day.