Hacker News Reader

Comment by local_crmdgeon | Hacker News Reader

[flagged]

The best (worst) part was the social credit style graph analysis that linked various people to the alt right via degrees of separation.

He's given people like Alex Jones and Gavin McInnes a platform—something that McInnes himself (for example) has said directly helped recruitment to the Proud Boys.

Alex Jones is nuts but also not part of the alt right. McInness might be tangentially related.

I'm saying this as someone who spends a lot of time in far right spaces. These people are only ever made fun of, same with Ben Shapiro and TPUSA.

Most of the major people at this point are anonymous.

> These people are only ever made fun of

That doesn't mean they're "tangentially related." They sow the seeds that grow into extreme right wing commitments and actions like insurrection. McInness didn't raid the capitol himself, but the organization he founded has five members standing trial right now, including its current national leader.

If we're willing to extend amnesty to AT&T we should extend it to individuals.

Oh no!

Recruitment to a group led by an Afro-Cuban that opposed the organized street violence across our nation, from over a billion dollars in arson damage to dozens of murders (including Antonio Mays Jr and David Dorne)?!?!?

Say it isn’t so!

> McInnes is open about his glorification of violence. In a speech, he described a clash with Antifa outside a talk he gave at NYU last year: “My guys are left to fight. And here’s the crucial part: We do. And we beat the crap out of them.” He related what a Proud Boy who got arrested told him afterward: “It was really, really fun.” According to McInnes: “Violence doesn’t feel good. Justified violence feels great. And fighting solves everything.”

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/10/gavin-mcinnes-proud-b...

Should we deplatform people we don’t agree with?

If we own the platform, yes, we should (and do) have the right to do just that. We can also kick people out of our house we don't agree with, and businesses can refuse service to people they don't agree with. The news doesn't have to print everything it's given. TV stations don't have to broadcast every tape that comes in the mail.

The alternative is to be forced to platform people you don't agree with, and who may even seek to do you harm, which would be a violation of freedom of speech, freedom of association as well as personal liberty.

I did not speak about forcing anyone to do anything, but rather about what would be the right thing to do. Could you steel-man this idea instead?

I don't believe there is an objectively right thing to do. Inherent in the right to free speech is the right to allow dangerous speech to spread - speech isn't value neutral. It balances against the right of association - the right to speak is not de facto a right to be heard on all platforms. Choosing where to draw the line is a matter of personal preference.

Personally, I believe even reprehensible people have the right to speak, congregate and spread their ideas, but also that society has a moral duty to prevent the spread of harmful speech even in the name of free speech (see the paradox of tolerance,) and they aren't entitled to an arbitrarily large platform. Of course such a position is fraught with the potential for abuse, since the definitions for "harmful" and "useful" speech are arbitrary (speech against slavery was considered harmful at one point of course.) but I still think this position is preferable to the alternatives.

I agree.

Should we then respect Joe Rogan’s right to host and give platform to controversial (or even reprehensible) guests if he chooses to do so? Does that reflect poorly on his moral character or not necessarily?

Also, is there value for society in surfacing reprehensible ideas?

Interesting questions. What do you think?

I think we should not judge Joe Rogan for the guests he hosts or who he gives platform to. And I think he is right to interview people some might consider reprehensible.

The conversations are interesting and illuminating, and he is skilled at respectfully interviewing those he does not align with. This is all valuable in our society, and it’s helpful in breaking up echo chambers.

I am not a big fan of Joe Rogan, but I respect podcasters like him or Lex Fridman who facilitate exchange of various ideas without judgement.

Would you disagree?

>The alt-right pipeline has been found to begin with the intellectual dark web community, which is made up of internet personalities that are unified by an opposition to identity politics and political correctness, such as Joe Rogan, Ben Shapiro, Dave Rubin, and Jordan Peterson.

Don't think it's saying he's responsible, but an "internet personality" opposed to identity politics and political correctness.

I don't follow rogan enough to know much about him, but i'd say it's very accurate about jordan peterson.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com