Comment by newacct583 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by newacct583 | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Don't you see you're falling down the same rathole? Your language and imagery is... kinda violent. It's not an argument about principles, with nuance, you've got enemies. You're warning about "blowback". You're saying that the insurrection is "vindicated". You're implying that this action against Parler is a foreign conspiracy too.

Now... is that one post beyond what HN should allow? Probably not, and it's not my call, we'll see what dang says. But imagine a whole community of people like you warning constantly about imagined terrors and existential threats. And everyone gets to one-up each other.

That's what Parler is. Before long you get senior thought leaders like the President's former attorney (or whatever Lin Wood is) expressly calling for the Vice President to be executed to stop an imagined "steal" of the election. And then the mob attacks the VP and congress trying to do exactly that.

It has to be stopped somehow, right? We can't have online communities pushing real world violence. And it all starts with content moderation. The reason this seems so extreme is that it should have happened LONG ago.

Interesting choice of words "imagined terrors and existential threats".

This is what Glen Greenwald was arguing that the left has been doing.

Greenwald was outrageously wrong, though. It's clear the threat the left was imagining is real, we saw that on Wednesday.

Greenwald is a crank who rage quit because his editors asked him to provide actual sources. I’m not sure why anyone listens to him anymore.

I do worry about the consequences of Twitter, Reddit, et al banning the more marginal content, though.

When The_Donald was on reddit, it was more easily monitored in one place. People who used it at least were forced to confront evidence daily that they weren't holding the majority opinion. And grownups from the platform could remove (and report to LE) the worst stuff.

When you ban those people from mainstream platforms, you do deny them some of an audience. But you also encourage them to make their own echo chambers and congregate elsewhere, which may be on the balance worse.

Now we see the same things happening with Twitter / Parler and Gab.

It's definitely hard to know where to draw the line. Karl Popper and all that.

FWIW, I've almost never seen this argument made by people who aren't secretly or openly supporting those who are banned (you being the exception here).

I believe there's quite a bit of data now that shows that deplatforming tends to work. I have forgotten all the names, but someone named "Milo" seems relevant, and wasn't Alex Jones also banned from somewhere and lost a lot of influence since?

And those are the cases where bans would tend to fail, i. e. people that had years to grow a loyal fan base, collect names & emails, etc. If it works in those cases, it should be extremely powerful when being used a bit more proactive. Anybody watching /r/thed... would have known it's toxic two weeks in, before it had time to spiral entirely out of control.

I think that maybe, if you ban really early, you can interrupt some of the badness--- but this is also the time it's hardest to justify quelling speech.

But by the point they have a large community together, they'll go somewhere else and be worse. Better would be to constantly prune off the worst bits of the community that are most over the line rather than purging all at once (which guarantees a migration).

It's hard to disentangle what the exact causes are, but it sure seems like the discourse has gotten even worse over the past couple of years even as these types of deplatforming choices have been made.

e.g. thedonald.win is infinitely worse than /r/TheDonald was.

I do also worry a bit about a few powerful parties becoming intermediaries to communication (Twitter, Facebook) and imposing their own standards, too. Right now the choices being made are relatively benign, but will they always be?

Once you have an isolated pile of mostly violent extremists with no content control-- go ahead and censor away, though.

FWIW I only discovered reddit because I was "deplatformed" from Digg due to sharing the image below.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AACS_encryption_key_controvers...

Can't be the only one. Reddit was a libertarian cesspool at the time, a crime for sure. RIP Mr.Swartz <3

> It has to be stopped somehow, right? We can't have online communities pushing real world violence.

Seems like a function of a democratic government, not Jeff Bezos. Because Jeff Bezos isn't the government. Well, maybe, but not officially right?

What more could the FBI want than to have every extremist in the country communicating from one centralized server on AWS? Sad. Now they'll probably adopt a secure decentralized communication strategy and form into cells that can't easily be tracked.. wait, this happened before didn't it

The fact that you think his post is violent and want to tattle to the moderator is all I need to be afraid of censorship.

Every bit of his comment is a valid concern and Matt Taibbi had a similar and sadly predictive post about this a few weeks ago on this subject [1].

[1] https://taibbi.substack.com/p/the-youtube-ban-is-un-american...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com