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!
Sharing of credit card info I for sure agree with should not be allowed, but sharing things like employer info, email is different. I mean, I don't see why the right to free speech should include anonymity. Even that first meme points out that ignorant free speech is harmful to the speaker as a reason for free speech, but that only works if the speaker is accountable and not anonymous.
__________________
"If stupidity got us into this mess, then why can't it get us out?"
Doxxing is no joke. Posting a persons private information online with the purpose of inciting threats, intimidation or assault against them is very illegal. Innocent people have died after having their info leaked online which led to them being swatted.
Even CP has a rule against it in the TOS:
8. Don't post anything harmful or dangerous to another poster's welfare. This includes posting personal information, viruses or malicious links, and posts designed to abuse or threaten the mental or physical welfare of the other poster.
Last edited by FunkMasterFlame; 06-30-2020 at 09:03 PM.
Doxxing is no joke. Posting a persons private information online with the purpose of inciting threats, intimidation or assault against them is very illegal. Innocent people have died after having their info leaked online which led to them being swatted.
Even CP has a rule against it in the TOS:
8. Don't post anything harmful or dangerous to another poster's welfare. This includes posting personal information, viruses or malicious links, and posts designed to abuse or threaten the mental or physical welfare of the other poster.
That really doesn't seem to reconcile with your other positions.
__________________
"If stupidity got us into this mess, then why can't it get us out?"
The Following User Says Thank You to JohnnyB For This Useful Post:
I don’t see how revealing someone’s name, employer, or email is any worse or should be any more restricted than saying Whites are the superior race and an ethnic cleansing is best for White to thrive.
Neither is really instructive, but both can inspire negative action. I certainly wouldn’t be looking to ban the former if the latter is fine.
You seem to want a forgiving interpretation of incitation to violence with speech, but a very unforgiving interpretation of incitation to violence with doxing. And you seem to want vigorous opposition where people need to stand behind their ideas in front of their peers, but also you are also in favour of anonymity that prevents accountability.
I'm really not sure how your ideas fit together.
__________________
"If stupidity got us into this mess, then why can't it get us out?"
The Following User Says Thank You to JohnnyB For This Useful Post:
I feel like I've been pretty consistent in expressing my beliefs, but I can explain it again since it seems I have lost you.
In my opinion, people should only be censored/banned/de-platformed for:
- Inciting Imminent Violence: "Lets go burn down that n-words house tonight" or "I'm going to kill you tomorrow"
- Doxxing: "JohnnyB is a NAZI and his real name is Johnny Banana and he lives at 123 Fake Street. Do your thing."
- Posting Illegal Materials: bomb-making instructions, child porn, bestiality, etc..
All other forms of speech should be allowed, and if disagreed with, vigorously and publicly debated. I understand that in today's world this concept of expansive free expression is fairly controversial, however it wasn't but a few years ago when it was still considered the norm (as referenced in 2012 by Obama).
Last edited by FunkMasterFlame; 06-30-2020 at 10:21 PM.
The Following User Says Thank You to FunkMasterFlame For This Useful Post:
So what about things like "That lady said some hateful, awful stuff. Let's make sure her boss knows what kind of person she is outside of work."? That's not inciting violence, but it is doxing.
Or, something like "People who are part of X group are destroying our way of life. This is what we have 2A and our training for. They're all around us, even in your neighborhood. You know what to do."? That certainly seems to be inciting violence, certainly much more than the above example of doxing, but it does require license for interpretation.
__________________
"If stupidity got us into this mess, then why can't it get us out?"
If that lady that posts hateful, awful stuff online has previously released public information about herself such as her place of employment that is fair game, but it still opens up the doxer to potential civil lawsuits and criminal charges including harrassment, intimidation, stalking and even assault. The intent of the Doxer may not matter.
Doxxing also promotes online vigilantism which I believe should be discouraged as it is painfully easy to make up fake quotes or allegations about innocent people and have their lives destroyed in this highly charged atmosphere we're living in right now.
Its all fun and games until the Dox gun is pointed at you.
Last edited by FunkMasterFlame; 06-30-2020 at 11:07 PM.
I guess it sounds to me like you're ultimately supporting a situation in which anonymous online trolls are actually protected and enabled to increase hateful speech without consequence. It sounds like a situation ideal for amplifying trolling, which actually leads to less civil discussion, worse exchange of ideas and a worse overall experience for the large majority.
I can accept if that's where you're at. It just doesn't seem desirable to me and seems like it inhibits quality exchange of ideas rather than encouraging it.
__________________
"If stupidity got us into this mess, then why can't it get us out?"
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to JohnnyB For This Useful Post:
If that lady that posts hateful, awful stuff online has previously released public information about herself such as her place of employment that is fair game, but it still opens up the doxer to potential civil lawsuits and criminal charges including harrassment, intimidation, stalking and even assault. The intent of the Doxer may not matter.
Doxxing also promotes online vigilantism which I believe should be discouraged as it is painfully easy to make up fake quotes or allegations about innocent people and have their lives destroyed in this highly charged atmosphere we're living in right now.
Its all fun and games until the Dox gun is pointed at you.
Hate speech fairly easily leads to online (and in person) vigilantism too, and it’s not much fun having a target put in your back for your sexuality, or race, of gender.
What makes victims of doxxing so special? I mean hate speech is all just “offensive” right? Until a literal gun is pointed at you and the trigger is pulled. But that never happens...
Shouldn’t we just let doxxers do their thing and reason with them why it’s bad and dangerous? Shed a little light?
The obvious reason people like this get de-platformed is for a site like Youtube, the customer is the advertiser. If the advertiser is not happy having their ads run alongside certain videos, they are going to pull their ads. So financially there is an incentive to keep people like this off the site. And we can see that happening right now with Facebook, who is trying to allow as much as possible, and major corporations are pulling their ads.
So if you don't like it, blame capitalism.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Fuzz For This Useful Post:
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"
Typically a judge decides...
The Following User Says Thank You to Scroopy Noopers For This Useful Post:
In my opinion, people should only be censored/banned/de-platformed for:
- Inciting Imminent Violence: "Lets go burn down that n-words house tonight" or "I'm going to kill you tomorrow"
- Doxxing: "JohnnyB is a NAZI and his real name is Johnny Banana and he lives at 123 Fake Street. Do your thing."
- Posting Illegal Materials: bomb-making instructions, child porn, bestiality, etc..
All other forms of speech should be allowed, and if disagreed with, vigorously and publicly debated. I understand that in today's world this concept of expansive free expression is fairly controversial, however it wasn't but a few years ago when it was still considered the norm (as referenced in 2012 by Obama).
It seems to me Obama was talking about the government banning things, not private organizations.
There's a huge difference in what governments should be allowed to limit and what private platforms should be allowed to limit.
__________________ Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
While I certainly am on board with a private organization like Youtube being able to shutter whichever content they wish, I do find the Molyneux situation to be worthy of some conversation. I'm not a fan of the guy and he's definitely a bit of a weirdo in most respects, but I'd contend that he isn't really an espouser of hate speech per se, and certainly isn't a Nazi (or even a white supremacist).
It may just be that he's adept enough at tightrope walking on the fringe that he conceals his true motives, but from what I've seen of his content, his primary thrust seems to be advocacy of anarcho-capitalist ideology. He's definitely anti-immigration (not very anarcho-capitalist, I know), but his ethnic differences/race+IQ stuff hasn't ever fit the definition of white supremacy if you ask me (a strain of white nationalism at most, perhaps?). He filmed a documentary in Poland that seemed to irreversibly convince him of the benefits of a more ethnically homogeneous society, but hasn't ever approached anything like support for ethnic cleansing, as some in this thread have asserted.
I suppose I'm just not sure about what finally prompted Youtube to extinguish his channel. He'd been on there for something like a decade and a half, so what was the final straw that rendered a guy like him beyond the pale? Was it the meme identity that had formed around him as being a Nazi or radical right-winger? Was it individual pieces of content he'd posted more recently? Was it what Youtube determined to be dangerous views among his following? I'd be intrigued to know what goes in to the process.
__________________ Is your cat doing singing?
Last edited by Max Cow Disease; 07-01-2020 at 11:26 PM.
YouTube is a company and can do what they want, clearly. These people they ban are ####ty people basically, so while it's not a big loss, I do wonder when a private company as a platform becomes too central to the spread of it's information that it becomes more than just a company.
I'm fine with these guys getting banned, but I think the necessary change is to YouTube's algorithm so if someone views some reprehensible video it doesn't proceed to pummel them head first down the rabbit hole to keep their emotional levels ramped and thus their engagement time higher.
If I watch a Steve Bannon interview or a debate he's part of on I2, I don't really need YouTube to assume that this is all I want to watch now. A few clicks and your recommendation feed really goes straight to hell. This is more the Tristan Harris point of view where the fundamental methods of these places are totally toxic as much as the videos that are on them.
The platforms themselves need a reckoning, and not just some whack a mole bans.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by MisterJoji
Johnny eats garbage and isn’t 100% committed.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to nik- For This Useful Post:
Couple of facts:
1) De-platforming, as far as anyone has looked into it, seems to work. There might be a short Streisand-effect, but long-term it seems to be quite effective. (Obviously more research is needed.) https://techcrunch.com/2017/09/11/st.../?guccounter=1
2) When it comes to inciting violence, literally inciting violence isn't the only or even necessarily the most dangerous thing one can say. De-humanizing and othering is. Once you sufficiently de-humanize a group or label them as "the other", they will pretty much automatically become a target of oppressive or bigoted action whether anyone suggests it or not. (This type of speech is btw the type everyone should be watch out for in their own language. Few will say Trumpists should be shot, many will on a bad day call them scum. It's not the same, but it's still dangerous.)
There is no one link for this, but the research relating to dehumanizing speech is rather extensive and its connection to increase of violence and political oppression is quite clear, although obviously not direct.
Therefore supporting freedom of speech for dehumaning speech is wrong, unless you are indifferent to the actual violence and oppression it causes. There is unfortunately very little middle ground there.
The idea that hatespeech regulation is somehow indicative of the society becoming more puritan or overly sensitive morally is ignorant. It's the equivalent of saying that strictly limiting the use of asbestos happened because of oversensitive environmentalism. Neither is true. When we learned just how dangerous asbestos isz we started to limit its use.
Societys have started to put limits to dehumanizing talk because we have discovered through research that it's actually very dangerous to people's health.
Edit :
Much of the groundbreaking in our current understanding of hatespeech happened while people studied the genocide of Rwandan tutsis in 1994 and the Yugoslavian Civil war, both situations where previously seemingly peaceful coexistence erupted into horrific violence and persecution. It's been a long process to turn that understanding into legislation, and it's likely not perfected yet, but in general I would consider this a case where science is winning over ignorance.
We didn't previously really understand just how dangerous hatespeech is, but now we do, and we're starting to do something about it.
Last edited by Itse; 07-02-2020 at 06:33 AM.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Itse For This Useful Post:
Let's not forget the Molyneux is a grade A redpill ####wit that advocates holding women "accountable" for marrying certain types of men, and wants forced pairing of women to the "right" men.
That constant gong he bangs should be enough to get his ass deplatformed, esp in light of every MRA shooting in the last 10 years.
The obvious reason people like this get de-platformed is for a site like Youtube, the customer is the advertiser. If the advertiser is not happy having their ads run alongside certain videos, they are going to pull their ads. So financially there is an incentive to keep people like this off the site. And we can see that happening right now with Facebook, who is trying to allow as much as possible, and major corporations are pulling their ads.
So if you don't like it, blame capitalism.
Youtube actually takes less money to promote the sort of messages and creators they prefer.
Youtube isn't a single company, it's one part of a massive corporate conglomerate, so if they are being capitalistic, that means their corporation finds it more valuable for them to promote certain messages than to maximize profitability.
