Hacker News Reader

Comment by wcerfgba | Hacker News Reader

> Censorship is all these characters need to gain new followers.

No, they also need a platform to make people aware of their existence, their views, and to recast their censorship to be in their favour. The whole point of no-platforming individuals is to make a statement that their views are seen as reprehensible and to stop them from being able to air those views to an audience.

Not all ideological disputes are about rational argumentation, many are based in a fundamental misalignment of values. Those value-based disputes cannot be resolved by open and civil discourse alone, and we know that racists have a tendency to abuse such spaces through techniques such as emotional rhetoric and Gish galloping.

View on HN

> No, they also need a platform to make people aware of their existence, their views, and to recast their censorship to be in their favour. The whole point of no-platforming individuals is to make a statement that their views are seen as reprehensible and to stop them from being able to air those views to an audience.

The only way that this works is to exert total control of the content of all communications.

Otherwise, as in the real world until now, people find each other and network. You're talking about destroying freedom of association and expression in order to root out reprehensible people with the wrong values who could speak to people who want to listen to them.

Doesn't freedom of association also entail freedom of non-association? If an organisation doesn't want to provide an individual with a platform, then they are executing their freedom of association.

I'm not advocating for some global censorship entity.

Freedom of (non) association does not extend to protected groups in public spaces. Businesses can no longer exclusively serve white people, for example, since their stores are considered public accomodations.

Ideology is not a protected class, however. In the case of Haidt, they are free to not present any research at conferences unless it advances their definition of equity, and he has no choice but to go along with it or walk away.

It's worth pointing out that they are not explicitly turning down non-equity-focused research, but that the existence of the question is his interpretation of an ideological pressure to conform.

That freedom of public accommodation is under attack.

If it even existed in the first place; there are plenty of laws that expressly allow discrimination in deference to 'religious beliefs.'

Courts, & the Supreme Court in particular, are giving far more weight to 'christian freedom' at the expense of the rest of us.

Cases include recent PrEP ruling, insane football prayer ruling that willfully ignored facts, bathroom & sports laws targeting kids. crazy ruling on prayers in court.

Adoption discrimination (de-facto govt by transitive property. we have to stop outsourcing government to contractors, especially when it makes religious orgs the only avenue).

Upcoming ruling from CO which will probably allow even more queer discrimination.

that 'pressure to conform' is and has historically been one way, giving one class the legal go ahead to discriminate in the name of some skewed idea of christian ideals

Religious (non) belief is itself a protected class.

If it were not, mosques would be legally compelled to hire rabbis and churches would have to consider hiring druids for services.

Where the line ought to be drawn is nowhere near as obvious as you seem to think it should be.

I'm referencing the many other classes that are perfectly legal to discriminate against. and the allowable discrimination is becoming broader.

But this disagreement highlights this major problem the US faces.

We live in two increasingly separate realities with different 'facts', where obvious is totally different based on your identity.

the one religious non-belief class example I gave is the football coach prayer case.

to me it's an obvious overreach and clearly breaks secular education norms (and past scotus rulings).

to such an obvious degree that the minority (on the court, majority in public opinion) broke precedence and put photos directly refuting the 'facts' the majority claim are truth.

that's also a bit spurious. i don't think anyone is arguing that churches must be forced to interview (or hire) other religions.

but the majority does believe that the state & courts shouldn't create laws that expressly allows someone to discriminate or refuse to provide service to someone else just because they are gay or trans or use different pronouns. or deny an adoption. or disallow kids from playing incredibly low states high school sports. or ban books. or not talk about gender & sexuality. i keep using queer-centric issues because that's my identity and I can speak to it better than race/trans issues. there are plenty of examples there too.

it's minority religion dictating laws that affect our lives and explicitly allowing those beliefs to take away rights from the rest of us.

> You're talking about destroying freedom of association and expression in order to root out reprehensible people with the wrong values

We all have a strong moral obligation to root out "reprehensible people with the wrong values." If you think otherwise then you don't understand what the word "reprehensible" means.

Fundamental attribution error. There are no reprehensible people, there are only reprehensible deeds.

I envy your innocence, but sadly, the world has many reprehensible people in it.

There are indeed people who repeatedly perform reprehensible deeds.

That's an excuse to dehumanize people. Labeling people rather than deeds is simply an announcement that you're willing to compromise your own ethics in order to attack that person. It's what's really happening when we label people as terrorists.

Do you believe terrorists exist? If no, would you say that Osama Bin Laden was not a terrorist?

Are Palestinians terrorists?

As pharrington points out, your words imply that you agree with me that terrorists are reprehensible people, or you are trying to argue that terrorists don't actually exist. Which is it?

Would you call someone who's primary goal is to due good deeds a "good person"? Would you call someone who's primary goal is to due reprehensible deeds a "reprehensible person"?

People certainly can change over time, but someone's state at a given time is what that person actually is at the time.

I wouldn't think either of those people exist, from anyone else's perspective.

After you root out these reprehensible people, what do you suggest doing with them?

Shame them for their bad behavior.

It's not about shaming anyone since most of the people targeted don't give a crap about the opinions of the wokes and the woke-adjacent. Right now the target is to deprive them of employment. You can at the very least be honest about it.

Shaming people for defending themselves is not going to change their minds

That only works when you have mob behind you. What will you do when you find yourself disagreeing with the majority and they apply this technique to you?

Shame them for their bad behavior. It does not matter how many of them there are. It does not matter if I am the only person in the world who knows what right behavior is, I still must follow my conscience.

That's not how shaming works. If you try to shame someone who doesn't think they've done anything wrong, which will be case in this hypothetical scenario, they will not feel shame. They'll just think you are wrong. If a mob of people engages in public shaming, you probably still won't make that person feel shame, but you can cause them to feel humiliated and isolated and so likely silence them, along with others who might have otherwise agreed with them publicly.

Shaming is a way of silencing people who disagree with you and that only works if you do it as a mob. Otherwise you're just making yourself feel good by expressing your disapproval. Mob shaming at least accomplishes something, individual shaming is just a lazy substitute for persuasion.

I think we have a strong moral obligation to root out reprehensible people with the power and desire to censor speech.

>The only way that this works is to exert total control of the content of all communications.

Not true! Just being banned from significant swaths of social media has frequently forced many prominent Nazis/alt-righters out of business. Before Kiwifarms recently had all of their major issues, they were already finding it difficult to keep the site running as a result of continued pressure on every host they switched to.

Regardless of the accuracy of your classification of KiwiFarms, they aren't gone, just moved into the onion. And for conspiracy-minded people that's not a negative sign.

It also introduces readers to the entirety of the uncensored internet all at once, the most 4-chan thing imaginable, which is somewhat counter to the "limit exposure to disinformation" goal being claimed by the original deplatformers.

>Regardless of the accuracy of your classification of KiwiFarms, they aren't gone, just moved into the onion.

And that substantially reduces their reach and ability to disseminate their garbage. It's good.

And yes, they're a bunch of Nazi stooges.

> we know that <snip> have a tendency to abuse such spaces through techniques such as emotional rhetoric [..]

In the spirit of fairness, should one actually no-platform everyone using emotional rhetoric?

Your favourite media outlet will almost certainly have a lot less to say if we do. Depending on your PoV, this may or may not be a bad thing.

It's not a problem if someone with a big audience advocates for and does not use rational arguments, as long as that thing is relatively harmless. (Let's say Bono advocates for peace, or a local group wants a new playground because it would warm their hearts. Or a group wants lower taxes, or a different group wants to tax the rich more. Even this last one, while advocates discrimination, it's not against a disadvantaged group, it's not judging something unchangeable like skin color, IQ, etc.)

Of course it's never good to allow bad arguments into the "marketplace of ideas", because then they'll take over the market, but unfortunately that ship has sailed, or likely never arrived.

> It's not a problem if someone with a big audience advocates for and does not use rational arguments, as long as that thing is relatively harmless. (Let's say Bono advocates for peace [..]

Q: Who gets to define "relatively harmless"?

"Advocating for peace" sounds pretty harmless, yet if you dare to mention any specifics - at least this year - it seems supporting it is deemed anything but harmless. Before my time, but seems the same applied in 1964 – 1973.

> Q: Who gets to define "relatively harmless"?

Each of us defines this for ourselves, using our own moral compass.

Descriptively history, normatively society through whatever mechanisms it comes up with. (Eg. in the US it's done through an "by default everything is allowed, and SCOTUS can make exceptions" mechanism.)

I don't think there's anything wrong with advocating for peace, from a free speech aspect, especially if someone is sincere. (Even if someone is completely brainwashed by whatever propaganda. And even if peace itself is a super meaningless term. After all wouldn't a totalitarian world government bring peace? Etc, etc.)

The Christian right could make identical arguments, and a few decades ago had the political power to deplatform” those who disagreed with them. Why is your argument different?

> Why is your argument different?

Because in a liberal democracy - or anywhere for that matter - not all ideas are of equal value. The same goes for Putin's Russia as it does for, say, Finland. You have to decide what you stand for, a culture has to decide what it wants to value.

Some ideas and actions are quite obviously, objectively anti-life, pro-misery.

Two people saying the same thing or doing the same thing are not inherently achieving the same outcome, pursuing the same end goal, arriving at their ideas from the same place, and so on. All of that matters in a big way.

A liberal, human rights respecting democracy with a constitution is objectively better if human well-being is your standard, than a theocracy. We have many centuries of experimentation and result at this point, no guessing is required.

Which is to say, deplatforming two very different people that are saying entirely different things and attempting to accomplish very different end goals, is not the same thing just because they're both the act of deplatforming.

Shooting and killing an innocent person at random on the street is not the same as shooting and killing a robber that has broken into your home and is intent on harming your family, despite the fact that they both involve you shooting and killing someone. The same exact moral principle is involved in the deplatforming premise.

“I’m right and they’re wrong” is a unpersuasive argument, and doesn’t provide a foundation for deciding the rules in a pluralistic democracy. What best serves “human well being” is highly disputed. How do you create a framework for groups to cooperate democratically without agreeing in advance who is right?

The problem is that you’re begging the question. You’re assuming that maximizing individual freedom is what serves well being. Most humans disagree with that premise. Studies show, for example, that Christian conservatives are both happier and have more children than other Americans. Those are “objective” measures of “human well being.” Indeed, zooming out, nearly every highly individualistic, secular western society is in decline—to the point where they can’t even take care of their elderly population without importing religious Catholics from Latin America (in the US) or Muslims (Europe). “Ability to propagate one’s culture sustainably” certainly seems like at least one measure of success at serving human well being, no? And on that measure, modern "liberal democracies" are failing.

Now of course there are other ways to measure human well being, and liberal democracies do quite well on those measures. My point is that by 2022, it should be clear that people disagree on what constitutes a good life, and societal progress. In the last two decades, we've seen country after country reject secular liberal democracy. And even in the west, reaction is on the rise. A majority of Hindus, Afghans, and Iowans agree that San Francisco isn't their dream for the future of their own society. And if you want to dismiss that as "they're wrong and we're right," what you're advocating for looks more like a holy war than "liberal democracy."

> "The whole point of no-platforming individuals is to make a statement that their views are seen as reprehensible..."

Uh...reprehensible by whom?

You do realize that what's "reprehensible" is extremely subjective, right? And the same tactics and standards that you are using to silence opinions you don't like can therefore just as easily be used against you and yours by people who find your opinions reprehensible.

That's the whole point of promoting the free and open exchange of ideas, it protects everyone's ability to speak freely. And then individuals can make up their own minds about what is "reprehensible" and choose whether THEY want to listen to it or not. In other words, people don't need you to be an arbiter of what is reprehensible for other adults.

I find that all groups including non-racist groups use emotional rhetoric to attract and maintain group bonds. An anti racist group cannot exist without racist groups and racist groups have little reason to exist without non-racist groups. Deplatforming one side kills the other side and without that balance they go hunting for people in the middle.

>No, they also need a platform to make people aware of their existence, their views, and to recast their censorship to be in their favour.

They were doing this long before the Internet if that is what you mean! If you mean a platform as in showing up at a prestigious place, well being denied entrance is just as good, you just have your group stand outside and ask "What are they so afraid of? If our ideas are so bad/crazy/etc. can't they just easily shoot them down with social discourse?" and you get all the awareness and revision of the ideas that you want!

All we need to do to end piracy or pornography is "no-platform" it, right?

Sunlight is the best disinfectant. Rational or not, it's better for bad ideas (ignoring the even more pernicious question of who decides which ideas are "bad") to be examined than have them fester in dark corners.

21st century: “Hold my beer.”

> The whole point of no-platforming individuals is to make a statement that their views are seen as reprehensible and to stop them from being able to air those views to an audience

If they were invited to speak then they already have an audience. Censoring them is working against the cause of fighting their ideas.

Protest or debate them if you consider their views reprehensible.

> Not all ideological disputes are about rational argumentation, many are based in a fundamental misalignment of values.

On one hand, you are acknowledging that some values are not based on rationality, and on the other hand you think they should be imposed upon those who don't share them by censorship?

> The whole point of no-platforming individuals is to make a statement that their views are seen as reprehensible and to stop them from being able to air those views to an audience.

Exactly. No platforming is a naked display of power without any pretence at principle. If you can keep the power forever, great. You win. If not, well, turnabout is fair play and if you have no attachment to free speech or the marketplace of ideas yourself and you couldn’t maintain power with the benefit of censorship you’re probably in for a bad time.

That is assuming everyone else is too stupid to make that decision for themselves.

Who gets to decide what is acceptable and what isn't?

Our/society's rights and wrongs has greatly changed over time and that is only possible because of both good and bad ideas being heard.

No one person should be deciding what's acceptable for the whole of soceity. Every individual should hear different ideas, good, bad and terrible, and decide for themselves what/who they agree with.

> they also need a platform

To your point, IIRC, the impact of deplatforming has been studied. Like when that troll Milo got bounced. It greatly diminished their reach and impact.

Sadly, some trolls (Alex Jones) have enough juice to spin off their own bespoke hate machines.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com