I agree with the title - we do need an alternative web, but not the kind the author wants. We need an alternative web that has less censorship and regulation. The current internet is turning more and more into TV.
Why not enforce the law on websites in a similar way: by arresting those responsible for illegal activity instead of attacking the venue?
Conversely, there was an incident of right wing terrorism just last week. This follows a trend of increasing right-wing terrorist activity: https://www.start.umd.edu/pubs/START_IdeologicalMotivationsO...
Yes, left wing terrorism exists, but today people are increasingly associating terrorism with right-wing ideologies because it's in our face and happening with increasing frequency. It's the same reason one might associate terrorism with Islam in 2001.
Furthermore, from your own link, the 2000s saw a flood of left wing terror attacks. That was not that long ago.
Today, ISIS and right-wing terrorism follow a strikingly similar pattern: attract disaffected males on the Internet to communities where promises of former glory will be recaptured through the creation of an ethno-state. For ISIS, they coalesce behind the perceived dominance of the Muslim religion. For the alt-right they coalesce behind white supremacy.
Anyway, I thought this debate about calling out terrorism was had in the early 2010s. The left wanted to call ISIS simply "terrorism" because terrorism is terrorism is terrorism. But the right insisted that it be called "radical Islamic terrorism" because in the words of my family member "you have to call it what it is to defeat it". I agreed with that then, and I agree with it now. The left lost that debate and everyone started calling it "radical Islamic terrorism". Now all of a sudden the right wants to go back to blanket calling it "terrorism" because terrorism is terrorism is terrorism? I'm confused.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_shooting_of_Dallas_police...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Congressional_baseball_sh...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YouTube_headquarters_shooting
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_shooting_of_Baton_Rouge_p...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Chicago_torture_incident
These are just a few particularly high-profile terrorist attacks by leftists; there have been many more.
We should just talk about terrorism in general now because terrorism in general is rising, not any particular ideology.
> terrorism in general is rising, not any particular ideology.
The study I posted above from UMD says otherwise -- that religious and right wing terrorism is increasing in recent years.
> The study I posted above from UMD says otherwise
The study that (unlike the SPLC) doesn't acknowledge the existence of "violent black nationalism" (the SPLC's term), classifying those acts instead as merely "anti-police" and thus not counting them as left-wing terrorism? The study that separated environmental extremism from left-wing extremism? The study with a deceptive chart that depicts 210 where 250 should be and 190 where 150 should be? That study has many flaws.
Still, I must admit the study does seem to say that left-wing terrorism has decreased, after being out of control in the 2000s, accounting for about 75% of all attacks.
However, the DHS, under Obama's leadership, concluded that left wing terrorism is increasing:
"Federal authorities have been warning state and local officials since early 2016 that leftist extremists known as “antifa” had become increasingly confrontational and dangerous, so much so that the Department of Homeland Security formally classified their activities as domestic terrorist violence"
Previously unreported documents disclose that by April 2016, authorities believed that “anarchist extremists” were the primary instigators of violence at public rallies against a range of targets. They were blamed by authorities for attacks on the police, government and political institutions, along with symbols of “the capitalist system,” racism, social injustice and fascism, according to a confidential 2016 joint intelligence assessment by DHS and the FBI.[2]
> Congressional baseball shooter specifically wasn't part of an online community
He was part of several online communities where hating Trump and Republicans is the norm ("including the Road to Hell is Paved with Republicans, Donald Trump is Not My President, [and] Terminate the Republican Party"[3]).
1: https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/intelligence-report/...
2: https://www.politico.com/story/2017/09/01/antifa-charlottesv...
3: https://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-pol-virginia-shooter-pr...
By the links you posted. But I mean, for example, I'm curious to know why you would consider the beating of a mentally disabled man terrorism. Or the shooting of a private company by someone with a grievance against said company.
> classifying those acts instead as merely "anti-police" and thus not counting them as left-wing terrorism? The study that separated environmental extremism from left-wing extremism?
Why do you want to lump everything together? Anti-police violence isn't necessarily left wing. I know several conservative black men who are anti-police (not to say they are violent). But if you want to play some sort of game with the numbers, then we can lump in religious terrorism and anti-abortion terrorism with right wing terrorism. Personally as far as I'm concerned I don't see much difference between anti-Muslim terrorists and Muslim terrorists and would classify both their views as right-wing. They're cut from the same cloth.
I'll agree 100% that anarchists and antifa are a problem. Although I don't know how anarchists would be considered right or left. Anarchists as I understand are anti-globalists, which would be something the right would be for. They're also anti-capitalist which is something the left would be for. So I don't know if they fit nicely into this right/left dichotomy.
Either way, every single antifa and anarchist could disappear tomorrow and almost no one would notice, and we would still be knee deep in high-profile terrorist activities. The US mail bombings last year paralyzed the nation for a week. Then there was the Squirrel Hill shooting at the same time that killed 11. Now a NZ shooter that kills 50. Each of these actors were clearly radicalized by the alt-right. The bomber frequently posted right-wing memes [1], the Squirrel Hill shooter was on Gab posting his insanity [2], and the NZ shooter conducted his whole attack for the benefit of social media like 8chan and Twitter.
It seems to me then, if we want to stop these kinds of things from happening, we should target the communities and recruitment methods that radicalize individuals to such extremes. A blanket condemnation of "terrorism of all kinds" while one kind specifically is racking up a body count by the dozens seems to miss the point.
> He was part of several online communities
You left out my qualification "same way ISIS and alt-right terrorists are". There's a difference between being a member of a Facebook group that's political, and being part of something like 8chan or gab. I mean, the secretary down the hall is part of the Donald Trump is Not My President Facebook group. She's not exactly becoming radicalized. The Terminate the Republican Party group in your link is quoted "It's terrible what he did," Pearlman said of the gunman. "I — and we as a group — do not condone this at all." That doesn't exactly sound like a radical terrorist recruiting group to me. Contrast this with the shooting in NZ last week and /r/The_Donald and 8chan are calling him a hero.
[1] https://www.miaminewtimes.com/news/cesar-sayocs-social-media... [2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pittsburgh_synagogue_shooting#...
Because of the things the kidnappers said and forced him to say, and because the kidnappers broadcast the event live to send a political message.
> Personally as far as I'm concerned I don't see much difference between anti-Muslim terrorists and Muslim terrorists and would classify both their views as right-wing. They're cut from the same cloth.
Authoritarian and intolerant? Willing to kill those with different beliefs? That's something that exists on both the left and the right. (Witness the many communist holocausts...) Extremists from the American right-wing and Islamic jihadists share little to nothing in common, save a tactic that's used by desperate or unhinged people of all kinds.
> Although I don't know how anarchists would be considered right or left.
Those certainly are vague labels, inconsistently applied.
For example, there's good reason to call the NZ a left-wing white supremacist, according to his statements. He claimed to be an eco-fascist, a fan of communist China, and an opponent of Trump. But the possibility of a left-wing white supremacist is out of bounds for the media these days.
> You left out my qualification "same way ISIS and alt-right terrorists are"
Perhaps not by exactly the same mechanisms, but constantly equating Trump with Hitler is bound to have an effect on less stable individuals. Someone who hears that message is likely to think they'd be a hero for stopping "Hitler". So those groups probably did contribute, as much as they want to disassociate themselves now.
But I doubt we'll settle the world's issues here, and as interesting as this is, I have to go now.
You're inferring a causal connection here? Where's your evidence? Where's your evidence that left wing terrorism won't similarly grow?
You're making a lot of assumptions to conclude that a medium which allows all people to congregate with like-minded individuals, will only foment aggression among a specific sub-population. Terrorism on all sides waxes and wanes due to many environmental factors. Assuming the internet is a causal factor, then when those environmental factors tilt against left-wing agendas, left-wing terrorism will also increase again.
If the idea is to implement some measures to reduce all forms of terrorism and extremism, then the qualifiers are not appropriate in that context. In so far as some forms of terrorism may require measures that differ from those required by other forms, then qualifiers are appropriate. That isn't the case when you're asserting a mission statement or a larger social goal.
However, the data suggests that left and right wing people are not that different, cognitively. They each exhibit similar motivations to deny science, a similar propensity to believe fake news. They differ primarily in their moral foundations, and so their propensity to violence will only increase when the environment is unfavourable to those foundations.
> The left wanted to call ISIS simply "terrorism" because terrorism is terrorism is terrorism. But the right insisted that it be called "radical Islamic terrorism" because in the words of my family member "you have to call it what it is to defeat it".
Because ISIS is a radical Islamic terrorist group. They're not left-wing terrorists. If the subject of a conversation is a specific group, then qualifiers are appropriate.
In other words, no need to point at a specific ideology to personify the tragedy of the commons. When there is no censorship there will be places where things are said you'd rather not hear. The best advice I can give is to avoid those places, that way you won't hear what they're saying. Even without censorship there are laws which limit what can be said so a censorship-free 'net does not necessarily equate a cesspool.
I personally have no big problem with piracy as these days most of it is self-defense against "copy protections" that actually hinder legitimate buyers, but I'd be happy if the other three groups would disappear from the planet rather sooner than later.
Real life rarely provides similar comforting bubbles of likeminded and reaffirming people. You still need to interact with other people even if you disagree with their views. In front of your computer screen, the right forum for sharing your views is just a few button pressed away. It is too easy to avoid the rest.
To play devil's advocate and take an extreme position for the sake of discussion: we don't more free speech. Instead, we need a to introduce a duty to listen that goes both ways: if you want to express your opinions, you must also listen to what others have to say and especially, how others respond to what you say. And you do not get to pick and choose who you listen to. In essence, nobody must ever have full and exclusive control over the shape of the community they are part of.
I'm as far to the left as you can get. I used to support stricter moderation on social media platforms, but I'm putting my foot in my mouth now. In practice, these corporations are just as likely to censor leftist views as they are to censor right-wing views.
Even people who study history and politics don't agree on definitions of racism, sexism, etc. There's a lot of nuance that a $10/hr contractor who sat through a one-day training on offensive content at Facebook won't understand.
This type of censorship doesn't help progressives, it just lets corporations determine the window of acceptable discourse.
This is where someone usually says we need a decentralized web. But I wonder if we’re wasting time waiting for some new technology to save us. I’ve been waiting at least a decade and have seen project after project fail. Maybe instead we should focus on building a network of alternative, pro-liberty sites and apps using existing technology.
Which is hardly the worst vice in the world, but when you want to build something that will reliably make an impact at scale, you don't really want to use novel tech outside of very rare cases. You want to use stuff that is dependable and gets the job done.
I'm still a little skeptical of claims that existing web tech isn't decentralized enough. You can still start a website anywhere on the planet in 5 minutes. The big distribution/promotion channels were always centralized long since before the web existed. A lot of these arguments seem to really boil down to "if the government passes a law I don't like, I can't evade it." Governments have been passing some bad laws lately, but they've done that for basically all of human history... I'm not at all against technology which resists bad or unjust laws, but we are never going to get to tech that is 100% effective at evading the law and probably shouldn't since the outcome would be anarchy.
My money is on the web becoming choked with monopoly-entrenching, innovation-crushing regulations, and then people flocking to something surprisingly mundane, imperfect, and not heavily based on novel technology -- simply because that thing is less regulated.
This is because it's not a technological problem. The path to an actual decentralized web is clean technologically. We just need to take what already exists which is currently massively used in a centralized way, and build the services UI on top of it. Of course there are still crypto to add and so on, but if the investment where going that way it would come fast.
The real problem is a business problem. Decentralized services don't pay unless there is something centralized. We cannot expect that (big) private companies will pay for something that's not in their interest.
I've been running an open source company for 15 years. I've see so many times in the voice or in the eyes of entrepreneurs that they saw us as philanthropists.
If we want de centralization, competition and control of our data and software we either or a combination of:
- need individuals or comapnies to pay for it (pay your software provider + hosted fairly) - public funding - laws restriction the oligopoly approach - gdpr++++ - forcing standard based for big companies - forbidding centralization - forcing open-source
Some are voluntary extreme and have little chance to ever happen.
What all of us can do is modify our behavior. This can mean building websites with currently-existing technology, or just turning off the computer more often.
That's what most people want - a curated and moderated (censored) platform from which they can passively consume content.
Any future web is going to have to account for that or else not be useful to most of society.
You can build a working webserver using a $50 Raspberry Pi kit, to host whatever you want as long as it complies with the law.
I would think that the "free speech" people would put their money where their mouth is and learn how to do some of this stuff instead of making Youtube videos about how they're being held back by political correctness.
Isn't it usually the "free speech" crew telling others that they don't know what 'real oppression' is? Try running a website in China critical of government policy and see where that gets you.
The world wasn't created to serve you personally. If you have visions of running the next Stormfront, don't act shocked if Cloudflare and your web host stop playing ball sometime down the line. Neither of those are necessary to run a functioning website.
As a recent meme put it, 'learn to code'.
> Try running a website in China critical of government policy and see where that gets you
Someone has it worse, so we shouldn't try to be better? ISIS throws gay people off of rooftops. Does that make jailing them in the US okay, because it's not as bad?
> The world wasn't created to serve you personally. If you have visions of running the next Stormfront, don't act shocked if Cloudflare and your web host stop playing ball sometime down the line.
Allowing domain registrars and hosting providers to arbitrarily take down websites based on political viewpoints is a horrific overreach. Don't act shocked when tomorrow it will be your opinion that's deemed "incorrect" and you're booted off the web for your perfectly legal libertarian blog
This is absolutely not an obviously true statement, and we have, in fact, quite a bit of situations to the contrary.
For example, if someone is following my persona online and harassing me, I very much want to be able to enforce an "internet restraining order". That almost certainly cannot be done without some level of regulation.
That is a completely different statement from "can't really be enforced".
The fact that something "self-enforces" because it might turn into a "legal enforces" is possibly the most effective enforcement.
Edit: For everyone downvoting, can you please express how you think clicking a block button stops harassment? Have you actually ever been the victim of online harassment? Did simply clicking a button solve your problem?
So you block them, and they create another user who is unblocked and continue to harass you. Blocking doesn't stop harassment.
> Even my phone can block calling number
My wife was harassed by an ex who used Google to generate new numbers. Every time we blocked one, he would generate a new one. We had to show up to court with a stack of pages of thousands of auto generated text messages before he was forced to stop.
> If you are harassed online, just leave the "social" media
Thus the harasser wins. Why should the harasee be the one forced to change their life, while the harasser gets to do whatever they want?
Keep blocking, never respond. At some point they will stop.
> who used Google to generate new numbers
What ? How is that even possible...
> Thus the harasser wins
Wins ? What exactly ? From my experience they lose a victim and move on to an other one. Unless ofc they have access to you IRL...
> What ? How is that even possible...
I'm guessing they were referring to Google Voice.
First of all, directly messaging someone doesn't encompass the universe of harassment. Harassers do things like post your schedule, your whereabouts, and your address, e-mail and phone number. They'll clone your persona and act as you online, trying to put words in your mouth. They'll contact your friends and family and spread lies about you. Blocking someone does nothing to solve this.
> What ? How is that even possible...
https://voice.google.com/u/0/signup
This was several years ago, but today it's even easier using a variety of platforms. Haven't you noticed an up-tick in robo-calls recently? Harassers use the same techniques to DOS your phone. My wife couldn't get legitimate calls because she was receiving a constant stream of automated texts and phone calls from her ex.
> Wins ? What exactly ?
The goal of the harasser is to control you and make you miserable. Forcing you off of platforms you enjoy gives them a feeling that they control you. It empowers them. Even if they do stop harassing you, they still move on to another victim. To suggest that the harassee should just run away and the problem is solved does nothing to curb the general atmosphere of harassment; it just creates another victim, and empowers more harassers.
> From my experience they lose a victim and move on to an other one.
Exactly. Victims get marginalized and forced off platforms, harassers are allowed to reign free and continue to victimize. It's no surprise then we have an Internet full of empowered harassers and a growing list of victims with no end in sight.
> Unless ofc they have access to you IRL...
Which they often attempt.
From your responses, I'm getting the impression you haven't been the victim of any serious harassment. This is more than just simple trolling I'm talking about here.
You can say people shouldn't care about getting off social media but people form communities and connections that can be incredibly important to them. Telling them to just suck it up or leave is not a solution to harassment.
You can't conceive of this because you have never been the victim of genuine harassment by someone who has nothing better to do but to harass you.
If the person harassing you is willing to invest the time, he can make your life profoundly miserable as you, rightfully, don't wish to spend the same amount of time fighting the harassment.
And, yes, you can block someone in real-life. It's called a restraining order.