Hacker News Reader

Comment by djflutt3rshy | Hacker News Reader

Do you have any data supporting this assertion that access to and ability to freely communicate information leads to less radicalization, rather than more? I look at the Internet, and wherever there is no censorship, there is not wisdom; just hate and chaos.

4chan (and even more so, 8chan) are the pure essence of no censorship, yet everything from Holocaust denial to rampant racism and sexism thrive and fester and spread. The most persuasive ideas are those that are short, easy to digest, and blame someone who's not you for your misery. The truth, well, it can be messy and complicated, and I'm not sure you can get there without shutting down the puerile voices screaming memes of hatred.

View on HN

That’s two websites. If you asked 1000 people about 4chan maybe 25% would know what is and would say it’s a troll website if they even what what it is. I think less know about 8chan. The media has driven so much traffic to the site. It’s almost as if they want people to radicalize because it will make great news. I digress just because we know what 4/8chan are I doubt most internet users do or care. we shouldn’t sign off on whole sale internet censorship because of 2 websites. Right?

You're avoiding the point. As he mentioned, 4chan and co are the epitome of no-censorship and entirely free debate. Under the assumptions made in this thread, the free market of ideas should squash ideologues and people who choose to believe in things such as white supremacy or conspiracy theories.

Yet this is not the case. Why?

Well in the US Facebook / Twitter / 4chan / 8chan are all protected by safe harbor[1]. These sites / cannot be legally held liable for content their users post.

Facebook isn’t required by law to pull down the video. They pull down the video because it’s not profitable (shareholders)

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safe_harbor_(law)

You're going off on wild tangents. I didn't ask about whether or not the sites would be held liable for their content, nor did I muse on whether or not facebook is required by law to pull down their videos. I have a very specific question that I want answers for and I don't want any further misdirection.

4chan is an example of a pure free market of ideas. Yet only the most toxic of ideologies seem to survive. Why is this the case?

Bacteria only grows in environments it can survive.

You can find the same content on reddit that you find in 4chan. The difference is Condé Nast will remove subreddits because it looks bad and hurts their bottom line. 4chan doesn’t have share holders, they barely have advertisers.

Toxic ideologies survives on the Chan because there is no one worried about profit there’s no one to answer to. The entire internet use to be the same way.

Would you please not argue aggressively on HN ("You're avoiding the point", "You're going off on wild tangents", " I don't want any further misdirection") regardless of how wrong someone is? It breaks the guidelines, doesn't help, and only makes this place worse.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Reply on news.ycombinator.com