When free speech reduces suffering, it's a good tool and should be applied. When free speech increases suffering -- and there can be no doubt that G*b increases suffering -- then it's inappropriate. Consequently, this is a Bad Post, and a really Bad Look, from Epik.
If we don't trust a democracy to enact reasonable censorship (outside of narrow cases like issuing credible snd specific threats, breaching classified secrets, etc.) then why should we trust private corporations accountable to no one but their shareholders?
That's fine, we can hash it out. Throwing up our hands at even the concept of ethical judgment is both an abdication of our moral responsibility, and ceding the playing field to the worst among us.
Nobody is burning words. We are collectively stopping inarguably deleterious hate from spreading, by removing the soap box and megaphone.
And, "hiding the problem" in this way, de-platforming brokers of hate, does work. Hateful people aren't born, they're bred, and platforms like G*b are how it happens.
Your perspective on how to best counter hate is anachronistic and counter-effective.
How often have you found yourself changing your views after, say, you get banned from a forum for speaking your mind?
It's to make sure he can't change the mind of billions by using that megaphone.
The parent comment is pointing out that taking away the megaphone seems to be doing the opposite. Year over year things seem to be becoming more and more polarized. When, with all this deplatforming companies have been doing, it seems to be having no impact at all.
It brings legitimacy to some groups because of reasoning not to dissimilar from "To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize" or, for conspiracy theorists, "they want to hide the truth!"
Not to mention it helps legitimize majority censorship over a minority. I'm sure that'll never come back to bite anyone in the ass in the future when they find themselves no longer in the majority.
@sagichmal
>Yes. Reddit has the latest real-world example, as far as I know, and the data to back it up.
No, they have data that these bans make Reddit "less toxic" for whatever definition it is that they used for "toxic", a term I think is too loosely defined. Not the internet as a whole and not that the group banned ceases to exist. Reddit's study was just "if you take out some of the garbage that has piled up the pile becomes smaller".
E: The study was done to show "If you just ban or quarantine a subreddit they'll make a new one, so it doesn't solve anything." is wrong. But, for example, I'd be interested in if banning a subreddit increases the popularity of alternatives like Voat. Which is much harder to measure without access to the statistics for alternative sites.
Regarding "majority censorship"...yeah, I'm really not going to worry too much about whether the Nazis will feel justified or not in suppressing my free speech because of my suppression of theirs if they manage to truly take over. Because I think I'll have worse things to worry about in a situation like that. Because of the Nazis that are in charge in that situation. (Also because I don't think they'll think twice about suppressing my free speech if they manage to get in charge. The idea that the alt-right is genuinely composed primarily of free-speech maximalists, as opposed to simply saying what will let them continue to spread hate, seems to me to be naïve.)
And regarding banning people from mainstream platforms causing them to migrate to niche platforms: Good. Isolate them. Let them know that society does not want them as long as they espouse and spread these views.
Because all they have to do to become accepted again is to stop spreading hateful views.
The people they preach hate against? They have no recourse. They can't change the colour of their skin, their sexuality, or their gender.
Deplatforming gives them a more powerful rhetoric to use for sympathetic ears wherever they do end up finding ears - and they will find somewhere willing to take their money at some point. "The ${whatevers} are trying to keep us down. They go after our advertisers, after our living. They don't want the truth that we preach to be heard. They do everything in their power to prevent you from knowing the truth but I won't be stopped. Yadda yadda yadda." is a bit more convincing and trivially provable than the usual drivel they come up with. Moving things into the dark where you can't watch it is going to make it more dangerous, not less. It doesn't get rid of it - it just removes it from your view. The equivalent of closing your eyes and hoping the monster goes away.
Yes. Reddit has the latest real-world example, as far as I know, and the data to back it up. See also Yontan Zounger's writings about the role of moderation on sites like YouTube.
Sounds like a great and repeatable outcome.
Again, great! Let’s repeat this outcome for as many platforms as possible.
In other words, what I'm saying is less whether we should or shouldn't alter our rules on free speech. If we want to restrict or repeal the first Amendment, we have a process to do that democratically. What I am pointing out with this second comment is that letting corporations censor us is not saying, "we can hash it out." It's saying, "we can let corporations hash it out, and keep our fingers crossed that they're acting in our best interest."
Furthermore, even if you think this is a principled stand, how does that justify censoring the discussion itself?
Appealing to an axiomatic consensus that this is a "bad post" and a "bad look" is just populism in disguise. There is no doubt that freedom necessarily increases suffering too, as it provides more opportunity for abuse, but we generally accept this, the same way we accept that having a Justice system opens the door to malicious prosecution or perps walking free.
It takes a special kind of arrogance to think you can judge adequately what the second and third order effects of a policy will be, and even more arrogance that you know better than centuries of enlightenment values.
Nobody is pushing for widespread censorship. We are de-platforming specific sites that breed hate, which is our ethical responsibility as a moral species.
Excuse me, but what kind of Orwellian doublespeak is this? How is de-platforming sites NOT censorship? And since you seem to want every registrar to join in the de-platforming, how is it not widespread?
"Nobody is pushing for genocide. We are removing specific populations that harm society."
Or "Nobody is pushing for widespread censorship of birth control methods. We are restricting the distribution of specific material that is harmful to the fabric of society."
I'm strongly advocating for the de-platforming (removal of soap boxes and megaphones) for antisemitic hate speech in all possible circumstances. This is censorship in the narrowest possible sense only, neither general nor widespread.
But your view on free speech as it relates to suffering is nebulous and myopic.
The crux of free speech is this: do we trust people to judge the words and ideas of others for themselves, or do we not?
If you believe that you have the capacity (and responsibility) to judge ideas for yourself, then you must grant other people the right to express those ideas.
This is a free-speech-centric view of the world, and my claim is that this is (at least) an insufficient, and (at most) the wrong perspective for shaping society. The correct and highest thing to optimize for is not the maximization of free speech, but the minimization of suffering.
The question is, in your pursuit of the ideal society, will you allow the general population the dignity of their own rational minds? Or will you deny them even that?
Every optimization problem has its boundary conditions. Do you know what yours are?
Stop generalizing and stop grandstanding. I'm not talking about denying human beings autonomy or freedom of mind. I'm talking about de-platforming agents of hate and intolerance. The distance between the latter and the former is the width of an ocean, not a three-foot slippery-slope, and we can (and are ethically obliged to) do things to stop the one without inevitably leading to the other.
And yet people who push for de-platforming fail to make the distinction on a regular basis. It's not so much a slippery slope as a motte-and-bailey.
Who says I want your shape for my society?
> The correct and highest thing to optimize for is not the maximization of free speech, but the minimization of suffering.
Why should we minimize suffering? Should we get rid of all pointed knives and force the world to eat their steak with plastic cutlery? Then again, steak causes it's own suffering, maybe we should feed the world with baby food.
What does it mean to suffer? Is losing a sparring match suffering? Is coming in last place in a race suffering? What about when someone calls me ugly or fat? What if someone really doesn't care for cats?
Why do you have some special right to design my world? What if instead I got to design yours?
I don't care what you want.
I think my shape for society is better than yours, objectively better, better in the ethical and practical sense, and every other sense besides. I'm laying out my reasoning for why it is I think that, and you can agree or you can disagree.
We can both lay out our reasoning, and our conversation can be read by other people, and they can think about which version of society they'd prefer to live in, and they can work to make that idea a reality, too, if they like.
I hope you have sufficient force to back up your desires then. The problem with any attempt at Utopia is that it becomes fascism, and fascism can only be maintained by force - which means suffering.
Force is always met with force.
I don't need force. I just need to present my worldview in a way that's compelling to the peanut gallery. If I do a good job, I can convince them, and with luck, some of them can begin advocating for the same, more-ethical worldview I'm hoping for. Together, we comprise society, and can shape society in our image.
Do you believe this can be done without coercing some people to modify their behavior that would otherwise not harm others under threat of violence?
That's the crux of my issue with this sort of thing - it's all well and good to hold a position and want to convince others through discourse; it's quite another to pass laws to codify that position so others are forced to live under them.
All systems -- government, financial, computer -- are social systems, in that they're built with human beings as the foundation, and not the other way around.
Because humans are subjective, squishy, and imprecise, it follows naturally and unavoidably that systems built on top of us need to accommodate those properties as invariants. They should not (because they can not) presume their foundation as some kind of objective, fixed, precise spherical cow of uniform density.
Yes, measurement of suffering is subjective. No, that's not a reason to avoid doing it. It's precisely that subjectivity which makes the systems built on top of it sound.
People don't care about your claims - you want to change fundamental parts of society for a view that perhaps isn't that well thought out. Until your claim is virtually everyone's then assume that many people that came before us with different views than yours on how to "shape societies" have though their things through and conceivably had defensible philosophical positions and benevolent motivations behind them. There's a reason why ACLU fought and fights its battles, sometimes defending deplorable groups like KKK, it's not because they above all else favor obscenities.
> but the minimization of suffering.
All parties everywhere have in some way claimed they are in favor of that. But you wouldn't want other parties, who clearly don't know how to "minimize suffering" properly, minimize your ability to proselytize on HN and elsewhere how to truly minimize suffering. So why should we let you minimize our ability to spread our views on that, as clearly we don't all agree that you know much about minimizing suffering?
You are trying to conflate the words I've written here with antisemitism, by claiming they are both opinions. But this is reducto ad absurdum, both disingenuous and wrong. There is a clear difference between the two, an ocean of difference, which human beings are perfectly equipped to understand. It is possible to say "we don't tolerate antisemitism" and "we do tolerate pontificating about more just social contracts" concurrently. There is nothing impossible, or even difficult, about this.
Which words? I'm confident you misunderstood something.
> both disingenuous
Throughout this thread you've been very creative in pissing people off. Don't assume malice in other people's positions, it's uncouth.
Here's an ingenuous question - god forbid saudis ever did something objectionable, would my perhaps justified complaints be filed under banned antiwahabbist speech? If we start bartering on speech I doubt there wouldn't be endless streams of money to minimize their suffering and indignation.
> It is possible to say
It's possible to say that for now. I doubt it will be for long after bartering starts. Just look at the current environment and parties that are on the rise, do you think they look like they would favor any pontification that go against them if they had any choice?
I haven't pissed anyone off. I'm presenting and substantiating an ethical worldview based on the minimization of suffering, and deconstructing the unethical worldview based on the maximization of free speech.
> Don't assume malice in other people's positions, it's uncouth.
I'm not assuming anything about intent, I'm speaking directly to consequence. When you write
> But you wouldn't want other parties, who clearly don't know how to "minimize suffering" properly, minimize your ability to proselytize on HN and elsewhere how to truly minimize suffering. So why should we let you minimize our ability to spread our views on that, as clearly we don't all agree that you know much about minimizing suffering?
you are equivocating "[my] ability to proselytize [a worldview based on minimizing suffering] on HN and elsewhere" to someone else's "ability to spread" antisemitism, which is obviously and transparently disingenuous.
You accused me of being disingenuous. I'm sure your radical views irritate other people as well.
> minimization of suffering
Now I'm starting to think you are trolling. Me and others have pointed out that this is a egregiously nebulous thing to say. People who say that they stand for minimization of suffering are also the same type of people who say they are for all the things that are good without ever elucidating what their idea of good is. Pol Pot probably said he was for minimization of suffering.
> you are equivocating "[my] ability to proselytize [a worldview based on minimizing suffering] on HN and elsewhere" to someone else's "ability to spread" antisemitism, which is obviously and transparently disingenuous.
It's hard to play mental forensics of what went through your mind. I'm not. I'm not saying there's equivalency, I think you misunderstood me because you are under impression that you can control or predict what people will decide is an acceptable speech. If you could control that then of course sign me up for no antisemitizem and all the proselytization.
And to repeat, I merely stated that you probably don't trust us to be your moral authority and we reciprocally don't trust you to be moral authority for us.
Furthermore, realization that we can't agree on any moral authority is reflected in free speech protections and democratic system itself. Again, unfortunate side-effect of free speech laws is that we let people speak obscenities just as it's unfortunate side-effect that we let murderers go if we can't prove their crime beyond reasonable doubt.
Yep! That’s correct, and it’s also fine. I believe in my moral authority and I’m working to prostheletize it, and you can do the same, and whoever presents the more compelling case can shape society. Just because we disagree is no reason to declare the whole initiative unsolvable, or invalid. We should both keep advocating for the type of society we want.
> your radical views
The position I’m advocating is explicitly one of moderation: that free speech absolutism isn’t as appropriate a social creed as the much more subjective minimization of suffering. It is strictly less radical than the one it opposes.
Illegal...where? Insulting the king of Thailand is a crime, so is saying bad things about Islam in a lot of countries. Or insulting petty dictators. Not condoning "Go and kill x group" but I'm reminding about the slippery slope
I recognize that this doesn't address the philosophical angle to your point. Let me just say that, despite these restrictions on speech, the United States is still generally considered to have "free speech". The question is whether this a true contradiction, or merely a paradox.
Is your position that there is physical violence that has been done that would not have been done had Gab not been available? If that is your position do you have evidence to support it?
Or merely that the propagation of certain ideas is itself a form of "suffering"?
It's a free speech platform - nothing else.
You could make similar and even more convincing arguments against facebook, twitter, bread, sugar, smoking, etc...
First, it's not "nothing [more than] a free speech platform", the owner himself promotes on Twitter the anti-semitic and hate-driven propaganda that defines G-b's archetypal demographic.
Second, in society, at the macro scale, we judge things by their consequence, not their intent. If G-b was a "free speech platform" that only made the news when it put on a three-day symposium for the re-assessment of building height regulations in eastern seaboard urban centers (i.e. actual political positions) then nobody would have any issue with hosting them. But that's not what they are, their effect on society is not benign, and society is correct and just to judge and react to their non-benign influence.
Absolute tolerance isn't a moral precept, it's a peace treaty for a functioning society. Society has both stake and authority to sequester those who subvert it, or use it in bad faith.
In the same way, free speech isn't a moral absolute, it's a means to an end, a tool, useful in some (many!) circumstances, and corruptible in the same way that tolerance can be. Society has both stake and authority to squelch those who abuse it, too.
Gab contains things which people like you don't like. Every website contains contents that other people don't like. Gab is nothing special, besides allowing a bit more of the legal spectrum of ideas.
Again: Gab a free speech platform - nothing else.
“Building heights should be subject to fewer regulations regarding line-of-sight access to green space” is a thing that some people like which I don’t like. Antisemitism is something different in both degree and kind. Putting them into the same bucket, to treat them in the same way, is disingenuous and wrong.
antisemitism is as much a part of Gab as other "bad" things are part of Twitter or HN.
We’re not really talking about legal systems, though, we’re talking about ethical systems, and antisemitism is undoubtedly unethical.
Nothing is gained, by any one or in any sense, by exposure to the idea of (say) antisemitism. I'm not made better or more resilient by seeing it expressed in the open; Jews aren't made better or stronger by having to face it; those who perpetrate it aren't made lesser or more pathetic by having their views "exposed to sunlight". It strictly makes our society worse. We don't need to grit our teeth and endure its presence in deference to the abstract and false optima of "free speech". We can, and indeed are ethically obliged to, recognize it as deleterious to civil society, and use the levers of power that we the people have to quietly, powerfully, and unapologetically say: this is not something that we tolerate.
> We can, and indeed are ethically obliged to, recognize it as deleterious to civil society, and use the levers of power that we the people have to quietly, powerfully, and unapologetically say: this is not something that we tolerate.
I suspect that among "we the people" the position you advocate for is in the minority, even among the populations you feel you are protecting.
This is transparently specious reasoning, because it can be used without modification to delegitimize any law or restriction.
It's OK to say action X is appropriate in context A but not in context B. It's OK to legislate on those differences, even if the difference between A and B is not always perfectly discernable. We can deal with that ambiguity as a species. Not always perfectly, but that's OK. As long as we're always reducing suffering, or trying to, we're making forward progress.