The Futility of Censorship
nybooks.com
nybooks.com
This is pretty successfully done in the western world, you really dont see it. When they bust people for it, it's always TOR or whatever. But it's literally uncensorable. Child porn is explicitly legalized all over africa and asia. What are you going to do? Go to their sovereign country and tell them to stop? What if they tell you no?
Censorship even on this subject is effectively impossible.
So flipside, how about subjective political issues. Age of consent isn't much further from this subject and there's literally no correct answer. Middle east sometimes has 6-8 year old girls in arranged marriages. Africa and Asia age of consent is somewhere around 10-12 often. So can we censor this subject?
How about other hot topics? Gender roles, gender identity? Again big differential in the world. You literally can't censor the subject but boy do we ever.
What does this censorship do? Make people think that the issue is solved or unified? No. Clearly the censorship doesnt work, and instead shines a light on the issue and radicalizes people on the subject on both sides. Often making things much worse.
Censorship works.
So, does banning individuals from social view preferentially on one side actually shift the Overton window, or centrism itself?
What seems to be actually happening is everybody who tries to do business with those people knows what they're trying to do and finds it objectionable. At what point will you consider that if nobody wants what they're selling, what they're selling might actually be bad? How many times do they have to fail before we can collectively accept this? If you keep getting kicked out of zoom meetings for being disruptive, at some point shouldn't you accept that you are at fault? I get the feeling that some entrepreneurs get sucked up into this idea that we can create a world where no one is ever wrong, without realizing that's a horrible idea. That's another form of toxic positivity.
Your 2 examples are people who are clearly not censored. Censorship have made them greater in celebrity because of the censorship. Both of them have nice long wikipedia pages and you can go read or listen to what both of them have to say.
“When you tear out a man's tongue, you are not proving him a liar, you're only telling the world that you fear what he might say.”
― George R.R. Martin, A Clash of Kings
By censoring these 2 people, and even naming them right now, you have made them a greater celebrity than they were ever going to be.
>Censorship works.
I honestly haven't cared to listen to either of these people, they aren't in my political sphere and they are not my political opponent. However absolutely not. These 2 examples are censorship backfiring to huge degree.
So whatever (or whoever) actually caused the bad stuff gets lost in the shadows.
And the next time the bad stuff comes around we're blindsided like a bubbleboy catching the flu.
It happened rather sooner than 40 years later:
on May 13, 1946, the Allied Control Council issued a directive for the confiscation of all media that could contribute to Nazism or militarism. As a consequence a list was drawn up of over 30,000 book titles, ranging from school textbooks to poetry, which were then banned. All copies of books on the list were confiscated and destroyed; the possession of a book on the list was made a punishable offense. All the millions of copies of these books were to be confiscated and destroyed. The representative of the Military Directorate admitted that the order was in principle no different from the Nazi book burnings. [..] Artworks were under the same censorship as other media: "all collections of works of art related or dedicated to the perpetuation of German militarism or Nazism will be closed permanently and taken into custody." The directives were very broadly interpreted, leading to the destruction of thousands of paintings and thousands more were shipped to deposits in the US. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denazification#Censorship
But while blunt censorship more often than not backfires, there are plenty of ways to effectively suppress ideas. News guidelines on what should or shouldn't be included in articles, which movies or research* gets funded, which books get published.. A recent HN submission on literary censorship went into this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30836184
*The authors also submitted different test studies to different peer-review boards. The methodology was identical, and the variable was that the purported findings either went for, or against, the liberal worldview (for example, one found evidence of discrimination against minority groups, and another found evidence of "reverse discrimination" against straight white males). Despite equal methodological strengths, the studies that went against the liberal worldview were criticized and rejected, and those that went with it were not. - https://theweek.com/articles/441474/how-academias-liberal-bi...
I think that's a disingenuous reading of Ariel Dorfman's assertion. Dorfman is known in Latin America as the author of "How To Read Donald Duck" (a political book about cultural penetration) and he is of course referring specifically about the burning of his own book by Pinochet's thugs. He didn't mean this was the earliest case of censorship after WW2.
Not all censorship is equal. I understand the principle of anticensorship is valuable, but it's not ok to equate banning Nazi works during Germany's denazification period to the repression and censorship during Pinochet's dictatorship. One is censorship in the aftermath of toppling a dictatorship; the other is a dictatorship doing what it does best.
It wasn't meant as any kind of comment on Dorfman's assertion at all, and even less as a claim that all censorship is equal. Just a factual correction of that assertion, and of the article's title.
I think Dorfman's point stands. I explained why before.
Does it? It seems to me, it is in fact effective in shaping opinions of populace. Sometimes it backfires. In particular, it did in fact worked for Nazi.
Censorship does not work is expression of hope and political statement. But in fact, it does work. It does not necessary creates better overall culture/environment. But it has actual effect.
I wonder about this paragraph. The author is comfortable summarizing conservatives censoring left-wing ideas but he becomes flustered when dealing with the reverse. His prose suffers. Of course using free speech to "safeguard odious prejudices" isn't new, what's new is civil libertarians losing their nerve.
Why is free speech important? Is it an end in itself, a natural right? Or is it important because open debate is necessary for truth-seeking and truth-seeking is how we make the world better?
The problem with the latter justification is that it's contingent. If we decide that free speech does not lead to truth-seeking, or that truth-seeking won't lead to a better world, we can withdraw our support for free speech. I think we should keep with free speech even if it ruins us. At least we'll have learned something. If we give up our values, we'll be just another example of a culture losing a game of chicken with itself.
Nobody questions the importance of individual thought. Collective thought might even be more important. By squelching free speech we lose the ability to think collectively.
Free speech is important because thought is important.
The major battleground seems to be school boards. And besides mentions of anything outside sexless heterosexual marriage, the only issue that will trigger the censor is… anything vaguely mentioned the possibility that Black people might exist.
JCS Criminal Psychology, an organization which posted FOIA'd police interrogation footage practically in full, being forced off of YouTube is a relatively wellknown non-political example of a victim of such censorship.
I think this much is now obvious. Unrestricted free speech, particularly of the kind that's backed by a commercial or political agenda, is not leading us to some idealised view of a marketplace of ideas, but a torrent of bullshit where the loudest voices are often heeded regardless of merit. Many people are not seeking to find the best ideas, they are seeking tribal identity and ego reinforcement.
> I think we should keep with free speech even if it ruins us. At least we'll have learned something.
This seems ... counter intuitive. I wouldn't expect that, should society tear itself apart over such things, any significant proportion of people will learn anything much from it.
> If we give up our values, we'll be just another example of a culture losing a game of chicken with itself.
Why is "allowing motivated bad actors to destroy our society" one of "our" values?
We already have limits on speech (no yelling "Fire" etc etc), I would expect over time, and as new forms of speech arise, that those boundaries shift around.
What I find absurd is the absolutist position - if trolls aren't allowed to spew the most vile hatred on all social media with no comeback and no removal, shadowing, anything, we've lost our freedom! All moderation is censorship!
None of this is an argument for government censorship, but the ideals of a marketplace of ideas leading to advancement and intellectual progress, all fuelled by free speech, seem (to me) as busted as the idea that evolution necessarily causes advancement - the natural environment doesn't optimise for progress, but procreation. I think it's time to acknowledge that speech is subject to similar forces.
Actually, it's falsely yelling "fire" in specific and very limited circumstances.
You're actually encouraged to yell "fire" when there actually is one and in most circumstances, you're perfectly free yell fire when there isn't one.
The point is we already recognise that there are circumstances when expression crosses a line.
(Probably worth noting why they can't.)
I do believe in the free exchange of ideas, the right to oppose government etc. All the usual concerns about who watches the watchers, abuse of power if granted censorship rights etc etc etc, are perfectly valid.
But the notion that free speech necessarily promotes positive progression in an honest marketplace of ideas, or the discovery of 'truth', seems naive and really quite outdated.
Remind me - how often have censors turned out to be the good guys?
How often have censors "[promoted] an honest marketplace of ideas or the discovery of 'truth'"?
We have experience with censorship. Free speech may not be perfect but the alternatives have been worse.
Why will this time be different?
> Free speech may not be perfect but the alternatives have been worse.
Define free speech. Define censorship. Is the action of private citizens or businesses declining to propagate your words censorship? A lot of people seem to think so these days.
> How often have censors "[promoted] an honest marketplace of ideas or the discovery of 'truth'"?
Define who is a censor? Because if you consider (for instance) moderators on internet services 'censors' then the answer to that is "a lot", by getting rid of trolls, spammers and shitposters.
The terms of the debate are important, and trotting around saying "Free Speech! No censorship!" is not really very useful most of the time, when people are constantly changing the definition of both.
However, the US Govt has asked Facebook, Twitter, et al to close accounts, remove posts, etc.
You say that government censorship is bad but I wonder why. Why is the first amendment a good thing? I gave two possible reasons: people have a natural right to say what they think, consequences be damned or free speech is necessary for truth-seeking. You rejected the latter.
What concerns me is not social media moderation (though I'm generally against it) but that people like you, who have rejected the standard arguments for free speech, actually have no rationale for supporting free speech at all.
> To you, it's obvious that free speech does not lead to truth-seeking.
> free speech is necessary for truth-seeking
These are not in conflict.
It is necessary that football-kicking be legal for football (soccer) to take place. However, football-kicking being legal does not necessarily lead to soccer, and may in fact lead to all sorts of other ball-kicking related activities.
Yes, freedom of speech is indeed necessary for the free exchange of ideas, and for the concept of a marketplace of ideas as envisaged by such philosophers to exist.
That doesn't mean that the marketplace of ideas that they envisage actually exists or functions as they would imagine. Specifically we see the public commons becomes dominated by commercial and politically driven messaging, often both made and propagated in bad faith. The idea of a functional marketplace of ideas, of "truth-seeking" as you put it, requires honest actors for whom this truth-seeking is a goal. That turns out to be fine in the context of academia, but wider public discourse doesn't operate that way.
> What concerns me is not social media moderation (though I'm generally against it) but that people like you, who have rejected the standard arguments for free speech, actually have no rationale for supporting free speech at all.
Of course it concerns you, because for you free speech is a point of religious faith. You've already said you'd rather see society fail than compromise on it. It looks like you'd rather have that than even examine what it is you mean by free speech and why that's worth protecting.
Because I absolutely believe the principles of freedom of expression are worth protecting. I just disagree that trolls and shitposters getting banned from twitter is the slightest bit relevant, or that all we can do in the face of campaigns of lies and disinformation is to throw our hands up and say "Oh well, free speech", while attempting to argue with people who are not the least bit interested in truth-seeking or arguing in good faith.
The irony of course, is we're having this discussion on a heavily moderated social media site...
Such as...? The only people being actively censored these days are conservatives - the least heeded voices in modern western discourse. Censoring communists in the 40's didn't stop their ideas from spreading then, either.
Downvotes that hide your reply. Post removal. Automated post removal. Secret forbidden word lists. Banning. Shadowbanning. Blocking.
We have so much censorship now that we need to create a new language to talk about it.
Forget piles of burning books. The library is on fire.
We're just talking about conversations here.
Censorship, banning, and the threat of all that, definitely steps on sincerity like a 5000 pound gorilla foot. ESPECIALLY the sneaky invisible kind.
It turns a nice conversation into mass psychosis. Are we seeing a lot of that these days. Maybe.
There’s a difference between being forced to promote something and being compelled to not censor.
in turn, we are NOT obligated to accept that as good or normal.
Then combine their email inbox and spam folder for a day, and there will be riots.
"But that's not what I meant!" Well, algorithmically sorting through your incoming mail and hiding a bunch of it from view based on opaque criteria decided by a large tech corporation is the very definition of censorship. And yet we are okay with it since it makes our personal experience better.
People who cry about big tech censorship are perfectly fine with a curated experience with 99% of the garbage removed. By debating endlessly about the remaining 1% you aren't making some great moral point.
Of course there will be a degree of necessary censorship. For example, yes, it is practical to censor the spambots.
> Forget piles of burning books. The library is on fire.
You are not entitled to use other people's platforms. Sorry.
If you feel that they are so central that it's effectively silencing you, it may be that you should put down social media and step outside for a bit. It's not the world. It's not all that important.
To an extent. You can't host it on AWS, and Cloudflare might refuse to route traffic to it. Expect that to get worse.
The internet itself is the public square. Not the individual websites.
For example, If a site has a mechanism where after X number of downvotes by users, your comment is hidden, that's not censorship.
You've spoken your piece, and other users voted on if they liked your comment or not, or if it contributed to the conversation or provided useful information, etc.
Those other things you mentioned, you do so without context. No social media site can function and be a useful and valuable place to visit without some form of content moderation.
The distinction lies in where the line is drawn. Can you (constructively) criticize the site mods or parent company? Speak your own views in a reasonable discussion that don't cross the line (calls for violence, unintelligible ranting, trolling)?
There's a fine line for a lot of this.
Not at all. Whenever some individuals posts ONE piece of content that's not acceptable for some obscure non-written reason, the censorship hammer falls on the whole profile/account of said person, thereby removing all historical acceptable communication as well.
If it was really different, you would ONLY censor the problematic piece of content, not everything back to the roots of history.
There should be a difference, but in practice, content moderation tools are abused to enact agenda-driven censorship. Always.
You DO have a right, in the US, to be protected from a government limiting your speech through law. And it is our responsibility, as US citizens, to uphold that right.
Social media cannot censor you. Social media, or any content publishing platform, can only moderate content. Only a government - which has the power to legislate arrests or fines - has the power to censor you. Demanding that the content publisher publish the content you have submitted is akin to demanding the New York Times publish your letter to the editor. Both are unreasonable requests.
Unless a content platform is an absolute natural monopoly, there should be no reason to legislate that it must publish all content submitted to it. Forcing a content publisher to publish all content is akin to forcing it to not publish content; both are a removal of freedom from the content publisher.
If your posts submitted to a content publisher are removed, consider spinning up your own content publishing platform - many are available free online, or even pay for the printing of your views in pamphlets or books. If your government does not imprison you for your views, then you are not being censored.
I do have problem if publishers / media / shops are actively promoting it.
Thought not.
Mein Kampf is important reading.
If it were trivial to counter it as a poorly written book, it never would have gained the influence it has. A well intentioned mediocre teacher could lead to people agreeing with the book, and I'd guess making Mein Kampf a mandatory study would also draw in a lot of teachers that aren't well intentioned.
Come to think of it, I live in a university town. Lots of students probably have it as required reading.
But there is/was never any shame in selling or promoting it - “promoting” in the marketing sense of putting it where it can be easily seen by someone passing by.
And what does active promotion mean in your example? Is having it on display in the "historic" section promotion? Should it not be in libraries at all.
I think most of us would agree that a bookshop proudly displaying Mein Kampf with a neon sign saying "Bestseller in Politics" might be overstepping, but the complexity comes from drawing that line.
Even during WWII, UK bookstores sold Mein Kepf (with an intro by George Orwell) with proceeds going to the Red Cross.
I strongly recommend reading it. You can’t deny the holocaust after reading it. Or be suprised at the any other part of Hitlers rule. He spells it all out.
I think the big concern with Mein Kempf is neo-Nazis will venerate it. But it won’t convince anyone of anything they don’t already think.
It’s literally Hitler talking to himself.