A huge problem, which is the cause of this far more than "free speech" ever was, roots in these platforms optimizing for engagement. And then vacuous controversy maximizes engagement so you're really optimizing for controversy, which is a dumpster fire.
But separating the combatants doesn't just stop the algorithmically-promoted unintelligible flame wars. It stops the debate entirely. You lose the ability to even encounter the other tribe or have any idea what their views or concerns are.
> roots in these platforms optimizing for engagement.
I don't think so. This pattern has been observed, and has been a problem, since well before the modern eyeballs-and-engagement-obsessed era of the internet, and before ads were even present on forums at all. What you're describing makes it worse, but even in its absence there is a certain vocal subset of humanity for whom dominating a discussion is its own reward. As a forum grows eventually you will attract one of these people, and from that point on the discourse of the forum will be determined by Survival Of The Loudest.
The pattern existed, but it was never such a serious problem that so many people started using it to justify the current level of censorship and excommunication until after "maximize engagement" turned it up to eleven.
Oh no it really was. I moderated forums in the late 90s early 00s and it was a lot of work to keep things on topic. Back then of course being a moderator was seen as a thankless service to the community rather than some censoring devil.
Pragmatically speaking, that will happen anyway. I’m not gonna use any platform that allows me to encounter Nazis. Voilà: the debate is stopped entirely, even though the platform has done nothing to stop it.
And on that topic, do we really need to debate Nazis? Like, are we so committed to the idea of moral relativism that we can’t draw some lines? Because frankly, I have zero interest in debating with anyone whether or not my family and I should be gassed to death.
I agree with you, and so it seems that actually allowing completely free speech is not that great of an idea in the end - as if it is banned from a major platform they will form their micro-platforms where they will think they are more numerous, and that their ideas are accepted. So I do believe that Europe see it well, there should be a certain border of free speech
Thanks, I hadn't run across that writeup, though well aware of the issue.
This was a little gem in that article, seemingly highly relevant now:
> However, Rawls qualifies this with the assertion that under extraordinary circumstances in which constitutional safeguards do not suffice to ensure the security of the tolerant and the institutions of liberty, tolerant society has a reasonable right of self-preservation against acts of intolerance that would limit the liberty of others under a just constitution, and this supersedes the principle of tolerance. This should be done, however, only to preserve equal liberty – i.e., the liberties of the intolerant should be limited only insofar as they demonstrably limit the liberties of others: "While an intolerant sect does not itself have title to complain of intolerance, its freedom should be restricted only when the tolerant sincerely and with reason believe that their own security and that of the institutions of liberty are in danger."
So that's the stance "the liberties of the intolerant should be limited only insofar as they demonstrably limit the liberties of others" most of the major social networks take and it falls short in that it's hard to draw that line. (also the ideas of constitutional safe guards applying to private entities is a whole other can of worms; id argue the speech the government can limit should be a subset of what any given private moderator might choose to)
Two examples:
what im going to call the "im not touching you" type of harassment -- that is posting things clearly designed to hurt and wouldn't make sense in context unless designed for harassment. The platonic example here is the image macro that's the trans flag with the words "Your parents will burry you with the name they gave you". Cuel to the extreme, but doesn't technically call for violence against the given person, or the protected group at large so twitter and facebook, etc happily leave it up (and people wanting to be assholes hyper optimized pretty quick; ive seen the macro posted by multiple people in multiple places).
Second being the idea of stochastic terrorism. Painting a group as an unchecked evil means you don't have to tell anyone specifically they should commit violence, but, it's hard to be surprised if they come to that conclusion. See the shootings in Charleston or Christchurch.
The idea of stochastic terrorism covers all passionate political rhetoric. See the Reagan assasination attempt and the congressional baseball shooting.
I think being scared of coming into contact with bad ideas (and tackling them) just stops people from understanding why they are bad ideas. E.g. if we create a cultural taboo long enough, I do believe people will stop caring if something is bad.
Just look at all the edgy teenagers who think Nazi stuff is funny -- because it's taboo and not talked about enough. Sure, teens will be teens.
But just enough people slip through the cracks and become radicalised in their little bubble, with nobody to deprogram them because of the taboo status. If everybody was still sharing the same space (i.e. popular platforms like reddit) then there's less polarization going on.
> I think being scared of coming into contact with bad ideas (and tackling them) just stops people from understanding why they are bad ideas.
You can learn about these topics in scholarly environments taught by actual experts who can provide you with real analysis. Refusing to have conversations with klan members does not prevent me from understanding and analyzing racism in america. In fact, I'm going to get a much better understanding by speaking to historians than klan members, since klan members aren't exactly incentivized to provide a dispassionate analysis of their ideology.
People aren't scared of coming into contact with bad ideas. People are frustrated with having to come into contact with propagandizing bigots who want to murder them.
> I’m not gonna use any platform that allows me to encounter Nazis
The main reason you think of your political opponents as nazis is because you haven't been interacting with them and talking to them.
"Nazi" as a label is pretty useless as there are dozens of beliefs that are associated with "Nazi" (normally used as a label for rejecting any of the core tenants of progressivism), most people called Nazis might agree with a watered down version of one of them and disagree with the rest (The amount of conflation going on is a bit ridiculous, someone who believes in using military power to acquire resources and someone who believes in a "traditional" gender roles and someone who thinks those with learning difficulties should be steralized and someone who thinks Jews have too much influence in media are all "Nazis" but will agree with eachother on nothing else).
Of course, because someone who voices one of the views will get ejected from their community and go to the community of rejects where other people who had a single "Nazi" belief are... they'll become radicalized and adopt some of the other "Nazi" views they would otherwise have opposed (though rarely all). :/
"Nazism" in today's usage is a collection of ideas (many with some ressemblance to the ideas of 1940 Germany). The label "nazi" is applied to anyone who believes any of them.
The biggest reason why holding one of these ideas makes it likely you'll hold the others are the effects oulined above (people being pushed into the wotch community). So, in essence, the modern censorship environment created the modern Nazi. :D
And how do you explain the correlation in the past? Because the correlation of these ideas is not modern development, it was like that already during Nazi era - and when before it.
Let’s look at a sample of posts on the Voat front page as of right now:
- Where else can I say “Kill yourself, you glowing n+gg+rf+gg+t landwhale k+ke” without being banned? Voat is the only place I know of where I can do that.
- The Holocaust is a lie. It didn’t happen, but it should have,
- Voat will go away but its deep disgust of jews will forever remain in my heart.
Slurs not censored in the actual posts, obviously. So, you’ll forgive me for thinking Voat is full of literal Nazis.
Edit, censored with plus signs because asterisks were italicizing the text.
But separating the combatants doesn't just stop the algorithmically-promoted unintelligible flame wars. It stops the debate entirely. You lose the ability to even encounter the other tribe or have any idea what their views or concerns are.