I fear we will digress too far. In short, I'm very pro freedom of expression. I'm glad voat exists, for example. The people there are often horrible, that is true. But, they still deserve to express themselves freely.
They can stand in a public square and say what they like. They can have debates in their own living room. They can print up manifestos on their own dime. They have a right to do all of that, and nobody's arguing against that.
So, I'd say what good are rights if you can't reasonably exercise them?
Don't get me wrong, I really don't like Nazis. They are pretty much the definition of bad people.
So, I try to empathize. We all want to belong to something. They like firearms. Me too. I love a good explosion, though I'd much prefer it not actually hurt anyone.
If I can humanize them, I can understand that they too deserve basic human rights.
You have a right to free speech, but society has no obligation to provide you a megaphone and a soapbox.
And there is no such thing. There is no right to a platform for your speech. You are allowed to say it, but nobody has any obligation to repeat, produce, disseminate or validate your speech.
I also suggest we are veering too far from the topic. To be very, very clear - Reddit is under no obligation to allow anything they do not wish to allow.
Your question seems to me to be a red herring, and doesn't seem relevant in the discussion surrounding web-based fora. While "the internet" in some abstract form could be construed as a human right in this modern technological world of ours, the World Wide Web as it stands today very much is not that. The infrastructure is privately maintained, and as such is not granted the protections that the 1st amendment provides. Likewise the services that are built upon the physical infrastructure, namely websites and data-transmission services, are not obligated to enforce rights.
Do you believe that the Internet should be a basic human right, that affordable access should be made reasonably available for everyone on the planet?
Access to encyclopedic knowledge? Sure. Access to academic literature? Would definitely be a net positive.
Access to the ramblings of every human in existence? Not sure why this would be so necessary.
Quick edit to add: anything that requires instantiation to justify said "right" doesn't seem like it vibes well with the definition of the word "right." For instance, how could the right to internet exist if the internet didn't exist? This is opposed to people's need to communicate (free speech), their need for a safe place to sleep, or to satiate their hunger and nutritional needs. All of these problems exist by nature of us being human, and are inescapable in life by definition. Thus the rights, that we have today to protect people from succumbing to painful and undignified suffering when these needs aren't met, are justified. The same cannot be said of a recent technological invention. No one needs the internet to live.
If you will agree to that, will you also agree that communication is information?
If you will agree to that, and to the general concept of the freedom of expression, as an ideal to aspire to and not just a government restriction, would you then agree that even the shittiest people on the planet should be allowed some method for self expression on said connected network of computers in a reasonable manner, so long as said expression is lawful and up until due process, in accordance with their local jurisdiction, takes away said rights?
In other words, they deserve the right to say their vile crap.
Before you say no they don't, I'd like to point out that not that king ago, and in some parts of this world, is censored speech. I'd like to point out that I absolutely guarantee there are those who would silence even you. They find your views absolutely reprehensible. You offend the very fiber of their being. They hate everything you stand for.
Be careful which rights you cede, for you will not always be the decider. Pendulums swing and the repercussions are mighty.
I've traveled, a lot. I've been in combat, war zones, in the midst of refugees, in camps, and in ruins. I've seen what happens when people dehumanize others. I've seen what happens when we lose empathy.
I'm not trying to change your mind. It's the Internet. Nobody ever changes their mind. I am trying to demonstrate a good accounting. Someone has to speak for the rights of all humans. Someone has to have empathy for even the worst among us.
Don't get me wrong. Some folks need killing. But, due process matters, as does empathy, dignity, and honor. Meh... It is just what it is. Things go to hell without it.
As for your point, you don't need a right to bear arms to survive. You don't need a right to speech to survive. You don't need a right to your property, your right to avoid self incrimination, etc... You need those to have liberty.
Edit: email in profile, if you want. I'm quite happy to have rational discourse.
A pretty common sentiment is that you neuter trolls when you remove any chance for anonymity, i.e., you put their reputation on the line. I would be happy to belong to a "free speech-oriented zone" on the internet that required real-life verification. Then people wouldn't be so quick to spread virulent, violent ideologies in such a space. IMO this provides a secondary effect, namely that people would stop taking so seriously those areas where anonymity is provided. Perhaps the interactions can be strongly weighted toward local ones, to provide more accountability. Such a platform would need to be free from any sort of money transactions, especially Facebook's current business model.
Furthermore, empathy has nothing to do with advocacy. The ingredient missing when comparing refugees with white nationalists is that of the fundamental power imbalance. One is certainly free to express empathy for both, but tuning the narrative to equivocate people who are being exterminated with their exterminators is pretty dishonest. Your moral obligation (imo) when presented with people who are being systematically denied requirements for life is to spread and advocate for their survival. Notice that white nationalists are only being challenged on the lines of "liberty" whereas refugees are being challenged on the lines of "life." The DoI says it best, and puts them in a specific order not haphazardly, but deliberately: life comes first (and thus the removal of threats to it), then liberty, then the pursuit of happiness.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15566320
Right now, they have Voat. But, the recent trend has been more and more aggressive censorship - including from sites that used to tolerate the truly deplorable.
It is a worrying trend. Homosexuality was once deplorable. Transfolk were once deplorable. Atheism was once deplorable. In some parts of the world, they still are. To some people, in your own country, they still are.
Cheer on.
I am not afraid of the deplorable on Voat. You know what does scare me? Children with access to real military weapons, not their daddy's AR. A keyboard warrior with bad grammar and a Nazi flag is a pretty horrible person. I've seen worse.
We know Africa and South America and Southeast Asia are still relatively dangerous. That doesn't excuse the sentiments that are building here in the US whatsoever. It actually doesn't factor at all into this discussion because they are totally off the radar for people who should be provided the liberty of living without constant breathing down their neck and "go home" and "jews will not replace us." Where does the liberty from harassment and execution factor into your liberty ethics?
The issue is also not what happens right this moment, but what happens in 10 years' time when people have been surrounding themselves and their family and friends with this rhetoric. The history of the Nazi party following the fall of the Weimar republic doesn't span months, it spans a decade or more. What reason is there to deny some people the "right" to demonize and alienate minorities solely on the basis of inaccurate judgments when things could get a lot worse down the road? The slippery slope, after all, has two faces. We can just as easily say that granting some liberties now causes a lot of hurt down the road as removing them.
You would deprive them of their liberties without due process and you would do so out of fear. You justify it and call it rational.
That is how I see you. That is what I see when I read what you write.
I don't expect to change your views. I will point out that that sort of thinking is how the US ended up with things like the PATRIOT Act and FISA courts. Fearful people are not rational people, they are rationalizing people.
In ten years, do you want to live in some authoritarian society where every thought and expression must be approved by the public? Where no dangerous thought must be expressed? Where those declared deplorable must be silenced and shunned? Where there exist an oppressed class for their very thoughts, without acting on them?
I do not. I am not afraid. I am more afraid of ceding my liberties and my empathy. I am more afraid of a day when you are not allowed to speak out against Nazis.
Um, why. What makes you think this. If someone's opinions are stupid and abhorrent, why should they not experience an immediate and firm response, in ban-hammer form.
Why do you want to give ignorant idiots a platform to spread their ignorant idiocy to other ignorant idiots (and e.g. provoke easily influenced mentally ill idiots who might want to drive cars into crowds).
I don't expect to change your mind. It's okay. I'm just really, really pro human rights. I've seen places with massive deprivations of rights. That's not okay.
As another commenter pointed out, there is no human right to post racist bullshit on a privately run online forum.
Please, really, read all the words and what I write, not what you think I write. Start from the top post, as all my replies are contextual.
You brought up human rights in the context of this discussion more than once, what else are we supposed to take from that, than that you think 'human rights' are remotely relevant to the topic of banning nazis from reddit, which they aren't.
Reddit is just another brick in the wall. They can do this. Indeed, perhaps they should. But should we cheer it on? What happens when there are no reasonable means left for the deplorable to speak? What happens when censorship isn't fraught, when empathy is eschewed, when due process is forgotten?
Those are not Reddit's responsibilities. They are our responsibilities, as a society. It is very much a human rights issue, but not Reddit's sole responsibility. Right now, registrars refuse to even host domain names.
I'm not saying these are good people. Quite the opposite, really. Cheer the censorship on, it is your right. I'll stand up for your rights too.
In summary, I totally defend your right to say anything you want, however abhorrent. But if I'm hosting your content - especially when you're not paying me to do so - then I have a right to decide what I'll allow you to say from the platform I own. Your words reflect both on you and me.
I would never support a law like "Nazis can't post stuff on the Internet". I absolutely, 100% support a private organization's right to say "say what you want, but we're not going to help you".
Have you ever seen what happens when we dehumanize our enemies? Have you seen what happens when we lose empathy?
These people you hate are, without a doubt, able to exhibit some pretty poor behavior. Most of them are children looking to belong, mentally ill, and those who prey on them - also probably mentally ill. Those that are adults were usually reached as children and come from abusive childhoods.
And you have no sympathy. It's okay, you're not required to. It isn't easy to empathize with Nazis. I can understand the unwillingness to try.
Would you empathise with Reinhardt Heydrich? How?
I think that Eva should have made some sacrifices to make Hitler happier, and it's not like she didn't know the reasons behind it because he was very vocal about his reasons as he would give vivid and gruesome descriptions of animal suffering and slaughter at the dinner table to try to dissuade his colleagues from eating meat.
I have gone through similar experiences so I can empathize with Hitler. This doesn't mean I agree with him overall, but that I understand and share his feelings on a specific subject.
If you strip the humanity from individuals, then you are refusing to try to understand them, which means you don't actually learn anything from the atrocities. When there's a shooting, you try to learn the motives and see where the system failed them. If they were exhibiting symptoms of an untreated mental illness, that lets us know that we need to work on providing better care and diagnosis. If we don't learn from history, then we are doomed to repeat it.
Once people start actively calling for the deaths of others based on race or religion or creed, that's where the fundamentally opposing ideologies are found that are only resolved through violence.
The lesson we should be learning from history is that appeasing racist fascists doesn't improve things, it only emboldens them by validating their beliefs as acceptable.
I'm not advocating stripping humanity from anyone, because I am fully aware that it is humans who create and commit these abhorrent acts. White nationalists, neo-nazis, whatever you want to call them are absolutely human. They are also all total shithouses that pose a threat to stability and harmony in the same way ISIS do.
They either stop what they are doing, or the blood of both sides runs in the streets. They are the only two options when it comes to beliefs like this. The problem is, the blood running in the streets is often what they want, and what we get.
I have had to lay down suppressive fire. I was willing to do so, but I hoped anyone I hit was killed quickly. I hoped they were killed quickly because, well, I didn't want them to suffer. I hoped they were killed because they were trying to kill the other scared young Marines beside me. Killing them was the only logical thing to do.
I'm not some hopeless naive child. I've personally witnessed human depravities that scar people for life, a fate worse than death.
You're scared of the people on Voat? Go there and read for a week. Go there and talk to them. Go there and belittle them, if you want. Have fun with it. Amuse yourself at their expense. Toy with them and make them dance for your amusement.
When you're done with that, maybe try to change some hearts and minds. You'll have gotten that out of your system and realized how powerless and ineffective they really are. They are powerless keyboard warriors spouting memes and racist slogans in an echo chamber full of logical errors and bad science and bastardized religious quotes.
Also, they hate fat people. Reddit kicked out FPH. No, really, those folks seriously hate fat people, but they tend to stick in their sub.
One sub really likes trees. Like, real trees, not pot.
They are humans. Deplorable humans, I agree. They even have a Linux section. As a Linux user, that makes me pretty deplorable too!
Seriously, go visit them. They are horrible people. However, they are mostly scared children. There's no need to be afraid. They are pretty universally powerless and reviled, even at the national political level - really. No need for hyperbole.
If you want, I will even introduce you on voat.co and you can go harass them until you realize they are just a bunch of really, really stupid, inept, confused, probably insane, brainwashed, morons with a poor grasp of reality and basic literacy.
You're more likely to die on your toilet.
Basically, we're pandering to the mediocre. I don't think we should be doing this.
And people who advocate against that (like Nazis, racists, homophobes, misogynists, transphobic, etc.) don't deserve a voice.
Because the only way I can guarantee that "my side" can say whatever it wants, is to guarantee that all sides can say whatever they want.
We have, over many millennia reached a point where tolerance is considered a pretty high virtue - we believe that even if we don't agree with someone, we can live and work side-by-side with them. This is one of the reasons we have stopped trying to kill each other for believing in the wrong religion. This is a good thing.
Note: my first sentence is taken from this clip of the West Wing: https://youtu.be/jmhC9e39aP0?t=181 .
The thing is - the Nazis can say whatever they want. No-one is obliged to give them a platform to do that. Which means you actually want to modify it to
> guarantee that all sides can say whatever they want [and be heard]
Which is an entirely different kettle of fish and something we don't have currently (and never will, really, whilst there is an imbalance in money and power.)
That said, I'm completely sympathetic to companies who choose to kick people off - I'd probably do the same in their shoes! I'm not saying I have a solution for any of these problems - I'm just saying why I find it difficult to so easily throw out the idea of "I may not agree with what you say, but I'll fight to the death for your right to say it".
Oh come ON.
> I'm not saying anyone is obliged to give them a platform. > using our power as consumers to pressure companies to remove such things
Those two are contradictory.
Because otherwise you would be shocked to wake up and realize that it is your views that are in a bubble and not theirs.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xzJfMsbe7Ks
Edit: It must be fun downvoting reality. Here: blast from the past - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10/23/hillary-clinton-s...
Those who did not pay attention to the unpalatable media had conniptions on TV when Podesta came out.