The intellectual dark web

[PeteMoss]

In Youtube's defense - the vast majority of sites out there that says we are all about free speech and won't remove content (outside of the things mentioned here) - turns into a white supremacist haven that drives out all the other users - see Gab, Voat. Just makes smart business sense to get rid of this types of content.

I see that new site Parler is offering money to Liberals with big followings to join, but suspect they'll end up following the same path as the others.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Bonecrushing Hits

I do think that the slippery slope is worth considering before censoring things we don’t like or agree with

The issue is that we do consider it, and we are aware of it. Everyone seems to agree more or less that white supremacists who promote ethnic cleansing should probably not be given a wide platform. We've all generally sort of agreed on that since at least the 1940s.

What I find interesting is that some people don't seem to take issue with them being provided a free platform to an extremely wide audience anymore, they take issue with that platform being taken away. Or, they "don't" take issue with it, but they certainly use that as an impetus to discuss why censorship is a terrible slippery slope. It's a mindless pseudo-intellectual circle jerk. "Sure they've come for the nazis which we all agree is ok! BUT WHAT IF THEY COME FOR US?? I guess we should consider if it's ok they came for the nazis at all!" ok, well, we can all agree the second part would be bad, but the conclusion is pretty stupid.

To reference what I mentioned earlier, I'll make you a deal. I'll entertain and even express the merits of giving white supremacists a platform in the name of "what ifs", the slippery slope of censorship, and protecting freedom of speech, if you do the same regarding sharing and viewing child pornography.

Go ahead and share why it's important we don't restrict it, or at least why it's important we consider the slippery slope of restricting it, and tell me who has the right to decide and why. Funk is welcome to respond as well.

[Bonecrushing Hits]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

The issue is that we do consider it, and we are aware of it. Everyone seems to agree more or less that white supremacists who promote ethnic cleansing should probably not be given a wide platform. We've all generally sort of agreed on that since at least the 1940s.

What I find interesting is that some people don't seem to take issue with them being provided a free platform to an extremely wide audience anymore, they take issue with that platform being taken away. Or, they "don't" take issue with it, but they certainly use that as an impetus to discuss why censorship is a terrible slippery slope. It's a mindless pseudo-intellectual circle jerk. "Sure they've come for the nazis which we all agree is ok! BUT WHAT IF THEY COME FOR US?? I guess we should consider if it's ok they came for the nazis at all!" ok, well, we can all agree the second part would be bad, but the conclusion is pretty stupid.

To reference what I mentioned earlier, I'll make you a deal. I'll entertain and even express the merits of giving white supremacists a platform in the name of "what ifs", the slippery slope of censorship, and protecting freedom of speech, if you do the same regarding sharing and viewing child pornography.

Go ahead and share why it's important we don't restrict it, or at least why it's important we consider the slippery slope of restricting it, and tell me who has the right to decide and why. Funk is welcome to respond as well.

It is surprising that from my post your take away was that we should debate the merits of giving white supremacy vs. child porn platforms. Obviously neither should have one. You didn’t address any of the examples I provided, although I did get a patronizing reply from Itse that doesn’t require a response.

I just don’t think some of these other topics are as black and white (can I still use that expression?) as you make them out to be and I worry about putting that decision making into the government’s hands. As pointed out already, Youtube and Twitter can decide what content it will not tolerate and that’s fine.

[FunkMasterFlame]

It's an absurd comparison.

We have been discussing the censorship of offensive or controversial "hate speech" and the potential consequences thereof. Child pornography is not speech, it intrinsically involves the trafficking, exploitation, rape and oftentimes murder of innocent children.

It's a straw-man argument that nobody here is advocating for.

[The Yen Man]

Is he getting arrested for his views? If not, then I don't see what part of freedom of speech Youtube violated. He's free to start his own version of youtube and spew his hate on that platform. Youtube doesn't have any obligation to give him a soapbox if they deem his stuff hateful and violates their terms of service. Does that mean they can censor other things in the future? Sure, but again, they're a business. They can do that. If enough people are outraged by what youtube censors, they're all free to migrate to another platform, or start one on their own.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by The Yen Man

Is he getting arrested for his views? If not, then I don't see what part of freedom of speech Youtube violated. He's free to start his own version of youtube and spew his hate on that platform. Youtube doesn't have any obligation to give him a soapbox if they deem his stuff hateful and violates their terms of service. Does that mean they can censor other things in the future? Sure, but again, they're a business. They can do that. If enough people are outraged by what youtube censors, they're all free to migrate to another platform, or start one on their own.

A lot of what is lost in this debate is that YouTube has their own rights to freedom of speech. They can choose to have whomever they want on their private platform (also assuming it doesn't break any laws).

YouTube's worry, beyond their own moral standards, should be whether they will lose audience share if they are perceived as overly censoring. YouTube is no different than a channel on cable TV. Regardless of whether it's good for business or not, they can choose to have whatever content they want.

At the end of the day, even if what you are saying isn't illegal, it may be offensive. In which case, you need to be prepared for the consequences of offending others.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by FunkMasterFlame

It's an absurd comparison.

We have been discussing the censorship of offensive or controversial "hate speech" and the potential consequences thereof. Child pornography is not speech, it intrinsically involves the trafficking, exploitation, rape and oftentimes murder of innocent children.

It's a straw-man argument that nobody here is advocating for.

What about digitally produced or animated child porn that doesn't involve actual children?

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Itse

Also, when classical liberals said "I'll defend your right to say something I really dislike", they were talking about each other, other privileged white men. They didn't mean actually everyone. The classical liberals record with protecting the voices of, say, women, ethnic minorities or the poor is mostly pretty bad. Even today "Classical liberals" are pretty much always white guys and at least middle class.

Well, this is probably true if we're talking about intellectuals and philosophers before the 20th century, but that's not a product of their political philosophy so much as the period they lived in. As for today, I would say that focusing on the gender and skin colour of the people espousing a particular philosophy is a total ad hominem, unless the philosophy is itself concerned primarily with those things, which in this case it's not.

In any event, I think this misses the point. The marketplace of ideas is open to everyone, including Molyneux. But in order for the ideas in question to gain broad discussion, they have to contribute some interesting or worthwhile answer to a question someone cares about. Molyneux, as far as I can tell, doesn't qualify in that regard. So despite the fact that his views may be being suppressed to some extent by moralistic concerns, the reality is that his audience is just too niche for his views to get much attention. He isn't saying anything that most people want to hear, or discussing ideas that most people want to hear about. Which is why he has to use Youtube and other similar non-curated forms of media to communicate his message to anyone. There's a lot to be said about the problems with youtube's business model, so let's look at all of the other places no one is giving Molyneux the time of day: news programs, shows that talk about important intellectual debates, popular podcasts, the general zeitgeist. He's irrelevant, and I'd argue the reason for that is not because people are keeping him down, but because his views, on their merits, don't attract attention or support.

Compare that to Jordan Peterson. For a time, Jordan Peterson was clearly saying things that a significant number of people wanted to hear. He had plenty of outlets, in a variety of different media. His philosophy may have been complete nonsense in my opinion and presumably yours too, but his views got plenty of circulation and attention for a while, because they appealed to some people. To suppress Peterson's arguments and viewpoints because some arbiters of morality (who, incidentally, are also mostly white and affluent, if that matters to you) decided that he shouldn't be heard was objectionable from the "marketplace of ideas" standpoint. He managed to get his message out into the public sphere either in spite of, or in part because of (Streisand effect), those people calling for him to be silenced or de-platformed. And lo and behold, lots of people heard what he had to say, some people thought his views were persuasive, and went on with their lives. Other people thought they were somewhere between silly and heinous, and also went on with their lives. His time in the spotlight ended, and no one hears from him anymore.

... The marketplace of ideas seems to be working more or less okay here.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Bonecrushing Hits

It is surprising that from my post your take away was that we should debate the merits of giving white supremacy vs. child porn platforms. Obviously neither should have one. You didn’t address any of the examples I provided, although I did get a patronizing reply from Itse that doesn’t require a response.

I just don’t think some of these other topics are as black and white (can I still use that expression?) as you make them out to be and I worry about putting that decision making into the government’s hands. As pointed out already, Youtube and Twitter can decide what content it will not tolerate and that’s fine.

I didn’t address the examples because they’re irrelevant examples. We’re talking about white supremacists being booted off YouTube, you agree that they shouldn’t have a platform and it’s fine if YouTube doesn’t give them one, so what point are you trying to make? The only reason the whole freedom of speech/censorship thing got brought up is because Funk used it to criticise YouTube for de-platforming three white supremacists.

I’m just not sure what anti-vaxxers or people who don’t believe in the economic benefits of immigration have to do with what we’re talking about. So I apologise I didn’t address your points, they just seem like off-topic nonsense to me

Originally Posted by FunkMasterFlame

It's an absurd comparison.

We have been discussing the censorship of offensive or controversial "hate speech" and the potential consequences thereof. Child pornography is not speech, it intrinsically involves the trafficking, exploitation, rape and oftentimes murder of innocent children.

It's a straw-man argument that nobody here is advocating for.

It’s absurd on purpose.

You said you were fine with illegal things being the exception and brought up sharing child porn in the same vein as speech inciting violence (which is partially the definition of hate speech) as your examples. But you’re defending hate speech, so why can’t you defend sharing child porn? I mean people who share it aren’t necessarily engaging in it, right? Just like how people who spread hate speech aren’t necessarily engaging in genocide or murdering people based on their race or religion, right? What’s the big difference?

Hate speech, like calling for ethnic cleansing, is something you put quotes around and refer to as “offensive” and “controversial,” you conveniently separate it from the assaults, rapes, and murders committed by White supremacists, Nazis, etc. But you’re not willing to separate the act of sharing a link to child porn with the abuse, rape, and murder of children. Why is that?

One is just speech. The other is just sharing a link. It’s interesting how you’re repulsed by one and viciously defend the other.

[FunkMasterFlame]

I already explained my views on what the limits of free-speech should be. They include incitement of imminent violence, doxxing, and posting illegal content (like sharing links to child pornography).

If you can't see past your own ideology to understand why sharing child porn is a crime I don't know what to tell you other than you won't be babysitting my kids anytime soon.

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by FunkMasterFlame

I already explained my views on what the limits of free-speech should be. They include incitement of imminent violence, doxxing, and posting illegal content (like sharing links to child pornography).

If you can't see past your own ideology to understand why sharing child porn is a crime I don't know what to tell you other than you won't be babysitting my kids anytime soon.

Hate speech is illegal content in Canada (among others I’m sure).

Public incitement of hatred

319 (1) Every one who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Wilful promotion of hatred

(2) Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

[FunkMasterFlame]

Yep, that's a law alright. It's certainly not one that I agree with though. Who decides what is inciteful hatred and what is just regular hate? When does it cross the line of being "likely to lead to a breach of peace" and when does it not? I've seen plenty of hatred directed at Trump and his supporters in the endless Orange Man Bad threads, do they count as an identifiable group?

I guess its a good thing I don't hold any hate in my heart for anyone (except child molesters. Seriously #### those guys).

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by FunkMasterFlame

I already explained my views on what the limits of free-speech should be. They include incitement of imminent violence, doxxing, and posting illegal content (like sharing links to child pornography).

If you can't see past your own ideology to understand why sharing child porn is a crime I don't know what to tell you other than you won't be babysitting my kids anytime soon.

I know why it’s a crime, that’s never been a question. I also know why hate speech is a crime. You don’t appear to.

I just find it fascinating that someone who excuses hate speech and wants white supremacists to have a voice despite the current and historical violence, murder, and genocide connected with the movement, also has some vague moral high ground positions about doxxing and child porn. To me, White supremacists are no better. I’m not sure the difference to you since both revolve around violence and abuse of others. Anything even remotely related to violence against children = bad, but Black people or Jewish people? Eh, that’s just freedom of speech baby!

Since the link thing is troubling you, I guess we could put it this way: You’re ok with online communities of people talking about abusing children, about how children could be used as sexual objects, etc, so long as they’re not actually instructing people to go out and rape a kid, right? That’s something that should be allowed on YouTube? That’s not porn, and isn’t actually related to the act directly, it’s just speech, so it’s ok, right? That’s something you’d be happy to defend?

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

There's a huge difference between "excusing hate speech" and not wanting there to be a law making it a criminal offense. During the last leadership race, Michael Chong was the left-most candidate to lead the CPC, and was for the most part considered a centrist (by some, a LPC candidate in disguise). He favoured a repeal of that law. So I don't think you can cast someone who shares that view as some sort of extremist.

And the difference between hate speech and child porn should be pretty obvious. At best, the analogue to hate speech would be speech that promotes child porn - not the act of creating or distributing it. EDIT: A second read suggests you did get this distinction - and I think it's actually legal to do this. That is, discuss abusing children on the internet. I am not 100% sure, but I'm not aware of that being illegal, anyway. Doesn't mean youtube has to allow it, of course.

I would also note that, in Canada, the creation of and distribution of child pornography is in fact protected speech. It is simply one of the cases in which the Supreme Court has ruled that public interest in preventing harm to children outweighs the importance of being able to engage in that particular type of speech. They came to the same conclusion with hate speech. It's not completely out of the question to think the Supreme Court was right in one of those cases, and wrong in the other.

[JohnnyB]

Originally Posted by FunkMasterFlame

I already explained my views on what the limits of free-speech should be. They include incitement of imminent violence, doxxing, and posting illegal content (like sharing links to child pornography).

If you can't see past your own ideology to understand why sharing child porn is a crime I don't know what to tell you other than you won't be babysitting my kids anytime soon.

Originally Posted by FunkMasterFlame

Yep, that's a law alright. It's certainly not one that I agree with though. Who decides what is inciteful hatred and what is just regular hate? When does it cross the line of being "likely to lead to a breach of peace" and when does it not? I've seen plenty of hatred directed at Trump and his supporters in the endless Orange Man Bad threads, do they count as an identifiable group?

I guess its a good thing I don't hold any hate in my heart for anyone (except child molesters. Seriously #### those guys).

What do you mean?

[FunkMasterFlame]

Originally Posted by Pepsifree

I know why it’s a crime, that’s never been a question. I also know why hate speech is a crime. You don’t appear to.

I just find it fascinating that someone who excuses hate speech and wants white supremacists to have a voice despite the current and historical violence, murder, and genocide connected with the movement, also has some vague moral high ground positions about doxxing and child porn. To me, White supremacists are no better. I’m not sure the difference to you since both revolve around violence and abuse of others. Anything even remotely related to violence against children = bad, but Black people or Jewish people? Eh, that’s just freedom of speech baby!

Since the link thing is troubling you, I guess we could put it this way: You’re ok with online communities of people talking about abusing children, about how children could be used as sexual objects, etc, so long as they’re not actually instructing people to go out and rape a kid, right? That’s something that should be allowed on YouTube? That’s not porn, and isn’t actually related to the act directly, it’s just speech, so it’s ok, right? That’s something you’d be happy to defend?

You sure are good at creating straw-men and putting words in peoples mouths while ignoring completely valid counter-arguments.

Again, I believe that it is better that offensive and hateful speech be called out, debunked and and mocked in the public sphere (and yes, that includes people advocating for child abuse ). Censoring and de-platforming extremists is never going to change their minds, and will possibly bring even more people to their cause due to the fact they are being "persecuted" for their beliefs. I would argue that its more dangerous to society when those people are hiding in their echo-chambers reinforcing each others toxic ideas when there is no dissenting voice there to tell them they're wrong.



You disagree. That's fine.

[FunkMasterFlame]

Originally Posted by JohnnyB

What do you mean?

Incitement to Imminent Violence is the standard set by the US Supreme Court defining the limits of free speech. Specifically that the encouragement of a crime must be directed at a specific person or group, and that it must be a direct call to commit immediate lawless action.

https://freespeechdebate.com/case/th...t-to-violence/

The Canadian Hate-Speech law is so open-ended and up for interpretation you could drive a bus through it.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by FunkMasterFlame

You sure are good at creating straw-men and putting words in peoples mouths while ignoring completely valid counter-arguments.

Again, I believe that it is better that offensive and hateful speech be called out, debunked and and mocked in the public sphere (and yes, that includes people advocating for child abuse ). Censoring and de-platforming extremists is never going to change their minds, and will possibly bring even more people to their cause due to the fact they are being "persecuted" for their beliefs. I would argue that its more dangerous to society when those people are hiding in their echo-chambers reinforcing each others toxic ideas when there is no dissenting voice there to tell them they're wrong.



You disagree. That's fine.

I do disagree. We’ve seen the consequences of hate speech being out in the open largely unchecked save for attempts at mocking and debunking. We’ve also seen the consequences of hate speech festering in dumb little isolated circles. The consequences of the latter really pale in comparison to the former.

If you want YouTube to play host to white supremacists and child abusers, that’s great for you, I just don’t believe those types of people are owed a seat at the table. I get that there’s this fantasy that hateful rhetoric can be overcome by reasoned logical arguments and public shaming, but how well has that worked so far? How have Spencer, Molyneux, and David Duke’s minds been changed as society has grown more and more connected and their audiences have increased? Show me examples.

I’m all for combatting white supremacists with love or whatever on an individual level and showing them examples that they’re wrong, but I’m also all for shutting the people whose sole purpose is to grow and mobilise those movements down. You don’t change people’s minds by giving negative influencers more access to them, you change their mind by increasing their exposure to positive influencers.

As for the straw man thing, get over it. If you want to bring up ridiculous examples like “what if anything right of Mao is banned!?” or the dog whistling of you wouldn’t trust your kids with me because..., then expect the same stuff in kind. No need to play dumb or like you’re above putting words in people’s mouths or relying on argumentative fallacies. I’m just responding in kind, but happy to raise the bar whenever you feel you’re ready.

[JohnnyB]

Originally Posted by FunkMasterFlame

Incitement to Imminent Violence is the standard set by the US Supreme Court defining the limits of free speech. Specifically that the encouragement of a crime must be directed at a specific person or group, and that it must be a direct call to commit immediate lawless action.

https://freespeechdebate.com/case/th...t-to-violence/

The Canadian Hate-Speech law is so open-ended and up for interpretation you could drive a bus through it.

Ah, okay. Still doesn't seem like it's actually that concrete though. There's always need for interpretation, especially in a modern context where speech 'freely circulated through the press' no longer looks like it used to.

Also, as I pointed out before, platforms like YouTube aren't really open marketplaces of ideas. They actually do the opposite, and are more likely to create bubbles where people don't get exposed to the other side while becoming more and more extreme believers in one point of view.

And where would you draw the line between 'vigorous response' and doxing? It kind of seems like doxing is part of a vigorous response.

[FunkMasterFlame]

Originally Posted by JohnnyB

Ah, okay. Still doesn't seem like it's actually that concrete though. There's always need for interpretation, especially in a modern context where speech 'freely circulated through the press' no longer looks like it used to.

Also, as I pointed out before, platforms like YouTube aren't really open marketplaces of ideas. They actually do the opposite, and are more likely to create bubbles where people don't get exposed to the other side while becoming more and more extreme believers in one point of view.

And where would you draw the line between 'vigorous response' and doxing? It kind of seems like doxing is part of a vigorous response.

A vigorous response is what I would say is happening in this thread. We are having a mostly civil debate about a subject that is controversial.

Posting peoples personal information such as home address, phone numbers, personal emails, employer information or credit cards with the intention that someone else will see it and steal, harass, send death threats, have them fired, or actually assault them is a crime and should be treated as such.

I agree there will always be a need for interpretation though. The world is not black and white and there will always be shades of grey when it comes to speech, which is why I'm so firm in my belief that a fully public debate is better than censorship and silencing.

Here are some random free speech memes I'm going to spam you all with now.

Spoiler!