This is where the analogy breaks down though. If we reach a place where the internet itself is fragmented, then I will no longer be able to access trash like the Daily Stormer, and the child of a radical will no longer be able to access the content that I see.
At this point, the wall will be too high to effectively toss education / ideas over, the internet being the primary form of communication.
So you think we should be debating the nazis about whether or not we should consider genocide?
The problem is that there aren't two sides here. Even engaging, at all, legitimizes the notion that this type of idea is up for debate. It's not.
We can try to stem the flow of people into radicalization and extremism. Guess how that's done? By shifting the window of acceptable rhetoric--ie, ignoring their offered ideas and debate--until it's very clearly not within social bounds to be a nazi. And we're trying to do that.
But to engage with the nazis themselves, no. We need to make it such that espousing those ideas--visibly being a neonazi, running hate sites like the daily stormer--means being lonely, isolated, and powerless. And by showing that when nazis try to pry their way in, they will be hurt, there will be violence, and nobody will be sympathetic. Make it so nobody will join them, ever. and we do that by stamping out their propaganda, by not allowing a single resource to be used by them.
> engaging, at all, legitimizes the notion that this type of idea is up for debate. It's not.
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."
All ideas are up for debate.
> shifting the window of acceptable rhetoric
I agree
> ignoring their offered ideas and debate
This has no bearing on the people whose ideas you are ignoring, it merely reinforces the notion of an acceptable idea within the already existing good-idea-population. So no.
> they will be hurt, there will be violence, and nobody will be sympathetic
So, espousing violence against a group of people. Here the group of people are defined by the fact that they use violence to achieve their means.
Surely, you are not defining this group by their beliefs of racial superiority, as you would not say the same thing if they were merely writing nonviolent blog posts, would you?
* Your anger and hatred have led you to become the very thing that you set out to hate. *
You should be very scared of the world you're creating. I know I am.
Great, I can entertain thoughts without accepting them. I am not the person I'm concerned with here. The social signal required in debating actual genocide is, fundamentally, a problem. This doesn't happen in a vacuum. Debating actual genocide whatsoever in any what at all lends legitimacy to the idea in the eyes of those with a propensity to entertain it. This is not theoretical. This is happening.
* Your anger and hatred have led you to become the very thing that you set out to hate. *
I know very very well that the people I wish to remove from society, I wish to remove for their choice to hate people for who they are. The two key things there are 1) choice and 2)people for who they are.
Do you think the violence of slaveholders is equivalent to the violence of slaves rebelling?
Again, this is, ver specifically, a crowd that shouted "JEWS WILL NOT REPLACE US" during their mob. Again, this is, specifically, a group that is publishing literal neonazi propaganda. Again, this is, specifically, a group that wants non-white people dead because they are not white, that wants non-straight people dead because they are not straight.
The group of people is defined by literal nazis using violence to achieve their goals, the goals themselves being also repugnant and worthy of scorn.
I am done here. You are defending and creating space for nazis, and then further advocating that other people be coerced into using resources to amplify their message. There are not two sides here.
You should be very scared of the world you're creating, in which you suggest that it is permissible to not only be a literal neonazi, but also that moderates will consider the side of the neonazis worthy of having space, to the extent that they will advocate for private entities to be forced to amplify nazi speech. Because that's what you're doing.
It is very important to distinguish something like Facebook blocking an account / Medium taking down a blog from a domain registrar refusing to cooperate.
You are free to create a room where only some ideologies are allowed, but it's dangerous to play the same game with the ability to create the rooms.
First the domain registrars, then networks say that they don't want to peer, and then we end up with a fragmented internet, cutting off all communication.
It is not wise to pretend that an opinion that you do not want just simply does not exist. The extremist in the room who everybody pretends is not there, is eventually going to do more radical things to be noticed. In the echo chamber of extremism, there is now no moderating thought; and the world loses empathy to understand these unpopular perspectives that still exist.
> "Sunlight is the best disinfectant"
> "Isolation only promotes extremism"
Is it? Several wars have been fought over this particular ideology. Massive amounts of resources were expended with the sole goal of stamping it out. The goal then was to eradicate it, because this sort of ideology is the stuff that eats civilizations. We don't have an obligation to amplify it. There is no reasoning with it.
In the hypothetical there's a potential censorship issue which we can address when we get to it. But where's the line? The site called for and celebrated murder and terrorism. On a daily basis they spew actual neo-nazi propaganda. Why, exactly, should we let that be echoed unchecked? We're not even talking about a public entity/government stifling the nazi speech, but rather we're asking whether we should without thinking allowing them to use someone else's private resources to spread their message.
It's not, actually. Fire is much better, and even alcohol is preferable. That's why there's very little open-air surgery.
> It is not wise to pretend that an opinion that you do not want just simply does not exist.
Reality doesn't support this idea. Every single country except the US has more stringent limits on what's acceptable speech. Yet among democratic countries, only the US has para-military right-wing terror groups in almost every state, and no country comes close to the dozens of deaths every year.
Sure, fire is good when you're dealing with them roaches, but kill them as you will, does nothing for the ideas, which sunlight is good for.
Yes, the US actually does have excellent lines on what's acceptable speech. In my not-professional judgement, it's speech that is the proximate cause of violence and incites it, and the daily stormer is outside of that. If you're talking about the US, you'd let the courts decide, and not corporations.
> If you're talking about the US, you'd let the courts decide, and not corporations.
In the US, you let corporations decide how to exercise their right of free expression just as much as anyone else.
Freedom of speech means you are permitted to seek collaborators to help you spread your speech, not that others are obligated to disregard their own views to help promote yours. That kind of entitlement would violate the free speech rights of the forced collaborators.
Sunlight in this case would be doing for Nazis what they themselves won't do because they're unable -- recognize them for who they are and act accordingly.
> In the echo chamber of extremism, there is now no moderating thought
If they are specifically inciting this kind of violence, then yes, I think it is entirely correct to persecute all of them.
If they're talking about violence in abstract, then no. However, it should be sufficient reason for our security services to track the people expressing such ideas very closely, basically assuming that they're up to something, and ready to crack down on them as soon as those abstract ideas transform into any kind of concrete plan.
I completely agree for the need for boundaries, but I think we've done a most excellent job of setting them!
The current boundary is speech that immediately incites violence, I believe the supreme court interpretation has been very generous towards the notion of free speech, including hate speech, as it should be!
Here's why:
We should let the radicals be racist and make radical statements as much as they want. At the point at which they turn violent or call for specific acts of violence we should step in and shut that stuff down.
A blanket militant action against the whole ideology will no doubt show better results on shutting down the movement on a short term.
But the notion of freedom of speech is not meant to protect these radicals, it is meant to protect ourselves and the integrity of society! We cannot make exceptions to these rules just because it's more convenient to us now, because this weakens the principle. This is the whole slippery slope argument.
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
If you wish to change the lines on which we use force, you must make a coherent case based on principle, not on convenience or anecdotes, as the principles themselves already account for, in a deep way, the history to which you allude.
> The current boundary is speech that immediately incites violence
Well good luck then. Just like Hitler famously wanted people to not wait for his orders, but distill his wishes and creatively go beyond in doing things in his spirit to get official support later, the guy who drove his car full speed into people didn't need anyone to specifically tell them to do that.
> At the point at which they turn violent or call for specific acts of violence we should step in and shut that stuff down.
Oh, so the second the car approaches the crowd, time just stops and it gets "shut down"? No wait, that's totally not what happened and also what will happen as this shit repeats under a president who implicitly supports it and a populace that would rather berate those who DO want to shut it down than those who need shutting down.
Only very few will call for "specific acts of violence", I won't join you in holding your breath for that. Read Hannah Arendt and Sebastian Haffner or don't. These aren't anecdotes, these are your betters, casting pearls before pigs. Pearls that were bought with suffering the likes of which neither you or I can even begin to imagine. But if you offer yourself as hostage to the Nazis, then you're out of what I consider polite society, too.
The poster is a Twitter-verified journalist for a major news site. I've issues with Salon's journalism at times, but it's at least a fairly reputable source.
Matthew Sheffield's belief in the claim was not based on hard evidence at the time, but rather based entirely on two tweets from white supremacists known for trolling. He parroted the claim in the off-chance that it might be true. He's a gambler, not a reliable source.
Fair point and I agree that the tweet on it's own didn't sufficiently back up the claim. I posted the link in response to your comment for other readers who might stumble on this discussion.
In my case I did research the claim on my own and verified with other sources prior to submitting, as I certainly don't want to participate in spreading false information :)
It is very important to distinguish something like Facebook blocking an account / Medium taking down a blog from a domain registrar refusing to cooperate.
You are free to create a room where only some ideologies are allowed, but it's dangerous to play the same game with the ability to create the rooms.
First the domain registrars, then networks say that they don't want to peer, and then we end up with a fragmented internet.
It is not wise to pretend that an opinion that you do not want just simply does not exist. The extremist in the room who everybody pretends is not there, is eventually going to do more radical things to be noticed. In the echo chamber of extremism, there is now no moderating thought; and the world loses empathy to understand these unpopular perspectives that still exist.
What about the MANUFACTURERS of cigarettes? And while we're at it, what about junk food?
Take cigarettes. Even if you argue that people ought to be able to make and buy and smoke cigarettes, which I can agree with, I believe certain kinds of promoting cigarettes would be taking advantage of addicts? I have read that cigarette companies also add many additional compounds into cigarettes that make them more addictive.
Would you please stop posting unsubstantive and/or flamebait comments to HN? We're trying for a higher level of discussion here. (Trying and failing, but we can always fail a bit better.)
The best one is: Bayes theorem: http://arbital.com/p/bayes_rule_guide