"Marketplace of Ideas"?

[Chanakya]

As far as the marketplace of ideas, there's two ways to transact. You can honestly examine perspectives and ideas, with emphasis on understanding; or you can (mis?)use the marketplace to push some agenda, use rhetoric and suchlike with a view, primarily, to influence others' thinking.

I agree, when you're sure some instance answers to the latter description, then it may be wise, sometimes, to keep away from those particular shops, to personally disengage from transactions of this nature.

But that can only be a subjective decision, a personal choice.

Attempting to regulate the marketplace itself to suit one's personal likes and dislikes, that is either unwise, or itself the overture to deliberate furthering of specific agendas.

 

[Stout]

I don't think Canada is either but if you read the hate speech laws there's a lot of wiggle room there including the phrase "if you believe it to be true" or something like that, it's been a few days since I looked at it, to make sure it was still there.

There's no advocating genocide, that's for sure but topics like criticizing religion, white pride, etc are still fair and legal.

As to private companies choosing what they want to censor on their platforms, that's up to them but it just seems kind of stupid to design a platform and invite people to share then go all weird when people actually share what they want to share.

The no porn thing makes sense, under 18s and all and getting young people hooked is, no doubt, a large part of their business plan but facebook was up front about that, right from the start.

Remember the breast feeding fiasco ? Now that's an excellent example of facebook uncensoring in the face of reason so lets hope they apply the same reason should they progress down the censorship road.

 

[Belz...]

An answer to what you asked.

Could you specify which thing I asked that you answered? I'm actually not sure here.

 

[Cavemonster]

As to private companies choosing what they want to censor on their platforms, that's up to them but it just seems kind of stupid to design a platform and invite people to share then go all weird when people actually share what they want to share.

I actually disagree on this as well. There really aren't many private platforms that don't have some restrictions.

Even here, we have the MA which censors speech that it would be illegal for the US government to censor themselves.

Without SOME curation, platforms would become very unattractive places for a lot of if not most users. Take a look at chan sites for what little curation except for legal liabilities looks like.

A tiny minority of users wanting to share gruesom pictures of dead bodies or incessant spam can make a platform unpalatable quickly. And as has been noted here and on the other thread, lack of curation can make a private platform a useful tool for something as terrible as genocide.

 

[Darat]

Could you specify which thing I asked that you answered? I'm actually not sure here.

Look back to the post of yours that I quoted, it was the sentence ending in a question mark.

 

[Roboramma]

Just chiming in to restate that they should be allowed to have their platform. Let them be seen and heard. Makes them easier to identify.

If they are restricted to clandestine sites, their exposure to each other becomes a closed echo chamber, and reinforces their beliefs. Let them see themselves and their ideological comrades ridiculed openly. Let every new potential recruit see how society what large thinks of them. The hard core haters won't be moved one way or the other, and will still go on sociopathic sprees; they will with or without facebook. But the less cuckoo may be persuaded that the views are fundamentally sick when sunlight shines on them.

One problem with this line of thinking is that even on Facebook they still become echo chambers that aren't exposed to open ridicule, because the people following one particular ideology simply don't look at the opposing ideology. So it seems like a worst of both worlds solution whether they get the recruiting benefits of a large social media platform and the closed echo chamber that reinforces their beliefs.

 

[Stout]

I actually disagree on this as well. There really aren't many private platforms that don't have some restrictions.

Even here, we have the MA which censors speech that it would be illegal for the US government to censor themselves.

Without SOME curation, platforms would become very unattractive places for a lot of if not most users. Take a look at chan sites for what little curation except for legal liabilities looks like.

A tiny minority of users wanting to share gruesom pictures of dead bodies or incessant spam can make a platform unpalatable quickly. And as has been noted here and on the other thread, lack of curation can make a private platform a useful tool for something as terrible as genocide.

Yes, but it's my choice if I want to work within the framework. Personally I don't care about the no swearing rule.

Were my ISP to suddenly start censoring websites, like the Australian ones did then I'd be motivated to take my business elsewhere. I probably wouldn't though I'd go for the VPN option instead because, like some sort of idiot, I tied my primary email account to my ISP and I'd loose it if I switched.

The cahn format is an example of something I can't work with, it's not so much their content but their layout, Same thing with Reddit.

I want it to be MY choice what I'm exposed to, I can visit a site like stormfront and come away not a nazi. The place kind of embarrasses me to be white TBH.

 

[BobTheCoward]

I'm not fully committed, but I think one thing I'm mostly on board with is publicly funded universities having the freedom to reject a speaker who wants to call their students of color subhuman. I'm happy to argue the merits of that intervention and I'm happy to consider I may be wrong.

The biggest reason to allow it is he may be able to convince them he is right.

 

[Thermal]

These are all arguments I've seen commonly made, but I don't see them pan out in real life.


How do you mean identify? Do you mean outing individuals as Nazis to their employers or friends? Do you mean the issue of people knowing what a Nazi looks and sounds like? Or something else?

Primarily, to recognize their buzzwords and speakers and whatnot, without visiting their cesspools. For example, I thought Pepe the frog was just a 4chan mascot, till Richard Spencer getting punched clued me in. Wearing white polos, and what their leaders say and do I much prefer to be mainstream knowledge, rather than tucked in some dark corner of the net where we are not looking.

That's not how it works out though. In reality, public ridicule doesn't make people back away from extreme viewpoints, it makes them more entrenched and angry. And while they have access to massive social media sites, they can come away from being ridiculed to lick their wounds with a large group of sympathizers who will assure them that it's the mean ridiculers who are wrong.

With some of the more zealous, certainly. It's the Aryan Lites that concern me more though. A ton of them with a little cultural pride today, then a little more superiority tomorrow...I hold out for believing that you can turn them away from all that before they get too comfy. Keeping their talkingheads in the mainstream spotlight seems a good way to discredit them openly, and show them for what they are, rather than how they want to be seen.

The idea that exposure to criticism and mockery defeats bad ideas may make a sort of common sense, but it doesn't seem to really work that way in the real world. Just like fat shaming makes people eat more and yelling about Trump makes people watch more Fox news.

Again, I hear you, but ridicule works wonders with the not-yet-committed. Anecdotally, I gained some weight years back, and it took about two comments from people I hadn't seen in a while to make me drop 40lbs in less than six months. Shaming and ridicule can work wonders if you are not entrenched.

They weren't born that way though. I can't say that banning them from facebook will necessarily prevent a shooting. But if we trace back the paths of white supremecists who are ready to be violent, I feel pretty confident we'd see the path of them finding and nurturing these ideologies. And significant parts of those paths will be encountering and reinforcing these ideas through publicly accessible spaces online.

This is a nice thought, I don't see a reason tho think it's common though. And an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

That's how I see it, but my ounce is in knowing the enemy and keeping him right where you can see him. And talk about him. Challenge him openly. Let the peanut gallery see them being mocked. Show every day and in every way that they are afraid. Remind others of their repeated historical losses. Just don't let them whisper to each other in the shadows unchecked. The good guys don't hide.

 

[Thermal]

Quite sincerely and seriously, what evidence do you have that that works?

I'm not sure we have evidence that either version actually works. It's more of a working hypothesis on human nature. I don't know how we would accumulate data on effective strategies. Ask white supremacists which approach they respond most favorably towards? Not counting on their practical self-awareness on that front.

 

[Thermal]

One problem with this line of thinking is that even on Facebook they still become echo chambers that aren't exposed to open ridicule, because the people following one particular ideology simply don't look at the opposing ideology. So it seems like a worst of both worlds solution whether they get the recruiting benefits of a large social media platform and the closed echo chamber that reinforces their beliefs.

That's true. I guess I'm thinking more of the uncommitteds, or the conservative right who can be coaxed to the alt-right. If the more public platform is seen to all of us, we know what they know, and that knowledge gives us better footing. If Richard Spencer stayed under his cyber rock, fewer may have known about him and his message. But with one punch, he gained notoriety. The last I heard about him, he was being jeered off a college stage down South. Score one for mainstream sunlight, IMO.

 

[Checkmite]

That's true. I guess I'm thinking more of the uncommitteds, or the conservative right who can be coaxed to the alt-right. If the more public platform is seen to all of us, we know what they know, and that knowledge gives us better footing. If Richard Spencer stayed under his cyber rock, fewer may have known about him and his message. But with one punch, he gained notoriety. The last I heard about him, he was being jeered off a college stage down South. Score one for mainstream sunlight, IMO.

You are so backwards about these facts that it's actually impressive in a way.

Richard Spencer was already at the height of his public notoriety when he was face-punched at Trump's inauguration. And the reason you don't hear about him anymore is because of student groups' successful attempts to deplatform his planned college speaking tour, leading many institutions to withdraw his booking or refuse to book him, thus depriving him of access to public forums, and eventually resulting in him having to cancel his public speaking tour - which is why you haven't heard from him lately. Score one for deplatforming.

 

[Baylor]

I feel as though you've stumbled into the wrong thread. I haven't said a word about Trumpian logic.

My position is more targeted to naked White Supremacy and Neo nazi advocacy and the like. I don't have to appeal to emotion or what-ifs to say these ideas can be dangerous. The US already fought a couple wars around this sort of thing. US intelligence agencies will tell you about the danger of these groups. That's not speculation it's reality.

Now as for whether the benefits outweigh the costs, it's not easy to predict, but we can look to countries that have more strict speech restrictions than the US and see if they have experienced negatives that we can't bear. There's room for different opinions on that, but what we don't see in those countries is anything resembling the direst warnings or any reason to believe they're on the brink of such things.

EDIT: I just did a search through the thread to make sure I'm accurately describing the arguments I've made. I did mention Trump supporters once earlier on this page, but not in the context of wanting to ban their speech or argue that it posed a particular threat. It was in the context of the point that ridicule is an ineffective tool to dissuade people from a closely held belief.

Things certainly have changed around these parts. No one in the 9/11 CT section seriously called for the silencing of 9/11 truthers (which has its roots in anti-semitism). The talented members on that board attacked the claims with rigor. The new skeptic position is to advocate for silencing critics. Strange.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

9/11 was something new with lots of things we didn't know.

We know all we need to know about Nazis and White Supremacists, and have for decades.
At some point, goodwill is wasted on those who refuse to learn the basics.

 

[Baylor]

9/11 was something new with lots of things we didn't know.

I knew the Jews didn't put thermite in WTC 7 so speak for yourself.

 

[Darat]

9/11 was something new with lots of things we didn't know.

We know all we need to know about Nazis and White Supremacists, and have for decades.
At some point, goodwill is wasted on those who refuse to learn the basics.

Pity we don't have some evidence of what would happen if a significant number of people followed the Nazi creed so we have to deal in what ifs and hypotheticals...

I mean it could be that following Nazism would result in millions being killed, countries being invaded and so on... How could we know?

 

[Belz...]

Look back to the post of yours that I quoted, it was the sentence ending in a question mark.

I did, but I didn't see how this:

Words are an action. They are not something that stands apart from other actions we do.

Is an answer to this:

Yeah but they don't have the ability to downright call your speech unacceptable at a drop of a hat, regardless of what you actually say, do they?

So if you're refering to a different question, could you please specify which one?

 

[Darat]

I did, but I didn't see how this:



Is an answer to this:



So if you're refering to a different question, could you please specify which one?

Astonishing, its only a few posts up and you cant see it. It is as plain as day that I wass answering the question you asked I.e. "Which process is that?".

 

[Belz...]

Astonishing, its only a few posts up and you cant see it. It is as plain as day that I wass answering the question you asked I.e. "Which process is that?".

See what I mean? You have a serious problem making your points clear. It seems rather to me that you like being opaque.

However, the real astonishing part is, your point can't possibly be an answer to "which process is that?". You asked me about a "process" we've been using for centuries. Since we're talking about the US I specified that I'm not an American, and also asked which process you're talking about. You replied:

Whatever your country has been using, Canada is not that new of a country so it must have developed mechanisms to decide what can and can't be expressed.

Which doesn't really answer my question, but ok. Then I asked you what your question or point was with this. It can't possibly be answering my "which process is that?" since that was in response to that question or point.

So even your attempt at clarifying above does nothing of the sort. ****, it's like pulling teeth. Why can't you answer a straight question?

 

[sackett]

Do you think

And once more I feel exasperation at the people who insist on drawing a false equivalence between the ignoring and deplatforming of odious points of view by private individuals and companies, and actual criminalization by the authorities.

We get the same damn tired line every time some group of liberals decide to boycott a business, even though that's precisely the way the free market is allegedly supposed to work.

that I give a **** about FacePalm or any other private businesses nannying their content? These "social media" enterprises mushroom up all the time, and like mushrooms liquefy, stink briefly, and vanish. Who cares?

But there are always more dangerous fools and rogues who try to raise laws against speech. When their wretched statutes are enacted, they set out to enforce them. There is nothing they will not do to silence any voice they object to. Remember that.

Here's the essential point: It doesn't matter what you may want to say if a government claims to have power greater than your right to say it. You can agitate for more fresh flowers in Sunday School, and there will emerge men who will silence you, perhaps permanently, if you allow yourself to be tamed.

Am I appealing to emotion? Yes I am -- if self-respect is an emotion.

I feel weary, fighting this battle yet again.