Of course you can do it in theory. The question is, whether you can do it today and whether those attempts will turn out more dangerous than helpful. IT achievements allows for extremely easy exchange of the information throughout the world. You can easily circumvent many kinds of blocking. You have E2E conversations available to masses, so you can't effectively censor anything centrally.

Whether that's good or bad is for history to decide. Recently I saw some guy watching video about terrorists executing some prisoner. He got it via whatsapp. That video was pro-terrorist, they obviously are trying to recruit more people by spreading their propaganda. Of course I would prefer such kinds of conversations to be silenced. The thing is, it can't be silenced. Russia tried to block Telegram, they poured lots of IT resources, they used DPI and other methods but they did not succeed and did lots of collateral damage in the process by blocking innocent websites.

I think that genie is out of the bottle already and we have to learn how to live with it. IMO governments right now are trying another method: they put lots of disinformation, hoping that average folk won't find out which one is true. Not blocking specific information, but making it hard to find and distinguish truth from false. That works for me, I already stopped to trust most of the information on the web.

> Of course you can do it in theory. The question is, whether you can do it today and whether those attempts will turn out more dangerous than helpful.

Allow me to restate my position more precisely. I believe the supresion of information has worked in the past. And based on this I will need very compelling evidence to convince me that we live in a special time when it is impossible and no longer is effective.

I'm happy to be wrong but am skeptical when people begin claiming their circumstances are special in history.

The article itself makes the arguments for this. One, hate speech just rebrands. Two, the assumption that what you want censored is what will get censored is false, especially if you feel you are the marginalized group already. So what censorship is effective? Pushing existing already popular ideas that are widely held already. This makes censorship basically useless, and more so creates problems for anyone who doesn’t strictly believe I the most popular ideas. Flat earth is a perfect example of an idea that doesn’t get censored and doesn’t need to be because culture already accepts it is wrong. The truth is almost all ideas don’t need censorship for the same reason flat earth doesn’t. We already make violence and calls to violence illegal which is the generally accepted tipping point of interfering with someone’s life. Censoring views that some may lead to violence is starting to get into a gray area, and censoring views that are just “hate” goes well beyond gray to pure opinion of the person interpreting and we don’t want to give tech companies the ability to deem their interpretation of what we say as “hate” when it has no basis.

> The article itself makes the arguments for this. One, hate speech just rebrands. Two, the assumption that what you want censored is what will get censored is false,

I don't believe either point is true. For example, the concerted efforts to silence, defame and de-platform socialists in 1950s America were highly effect.

And further, while you maybe can make an argument that it wasn't possible ten years ago, we're headed in a very centralized direction at this point. There are basically three places where broad populations can engage in discourse/recruit/radicalize and there may be fewer in another ten years.

> Of course you can do it in theory.

It worked practically in practice in history. It works also practically in countries like Saudi Arabia. Once in a while censorship does not manage to stop all opposition, which is why once in a while revolutions and such succeed.

But practically speaking, censorship works. That does not makes it right thing to do or something, which would be different claim.

Just because people manage to say censored things here and there just means it cant stop completely all such claims and materials. But it does minimize who will run into them, how many of them will be available and so on.

China?

> If you cannot censor away opinions, if suppression of ideas doesn't work then why in exactly these kinds of articles do people bemoan it as dangerous?

They may think censorship doesn't work but can still do damage, such as by lowering the standing and integrity of the left, damaging the liberal commons, or paradoxically making censored ideas more appealing.

>If you cannot censor away opinions, if suppression of ideas doesn't work then why in exactly these kinds of articles do people bemoan it as dangerous?

Because instead of treating the disease (terrible dehumanizing ideologies) it treats the symptom (them talking about it).

Instead of a fire, it creates a bomb.

>It worked for centuries to maintain familial control and enforce sexual monoculture in many countries. Information control works so well, it prevents people from even understanding themselves or what they really want in the face of ideologically imposed values.

It worked before the Internet.

>controlling the conversation, its constraints and determining the status quo are profoundly powerful tools.

In the short term. Determining the status quo isn't up to censors. It's up to society. And while censors have some power, they're not omniscient, so they always get circumvented eventually.

> In the short term. Determining the status quo isn't up to censors.

I don't agree. Before WWII, America had a very small standing army. It was practically an American value that the country demilitarized after each war. But from 1900 through WWI and especially through WWII there was a deliberate effort by the government and elites to change that. In just 40 years America went from barely militarized to having a large and expensive standing force that was viewed as a bedrock of American virtues.

Similar things happened throughout history regarding sanitation, citizenship, traffic laws and more. I believe the information ecosystem has a tremendous impact on people's beliefs and values.

Have you considered the possibility that the experience of WWI and WWII changed their model of the world? Maybe the public felt that another war could break out and therefore deemed necessary to have a strong military to protect themselves

>If you cannot censor away opinions, if suppression of ideas doesn't work then why in exactly these kinds of articles do people bemoan it as dangerous?

Because the unintended consequences are harmful to bystanders. Probably more harmful than to the intended targets, since they're already socially ostracized for their openly bigoted views. Take, for example, the recent upswing in deplatforming. Most of the statistical data seems to suggest that the masses have become more afraid to speak openly, but it doesn't seem to have actually stopped extreme racists from saying racist things.

Which statistics?

> suppression of ideas doesn't work then why in exactly these kinds of articles do people bemoan it as dangerous?

Because then these bad ideas fester in dark places and emerge as an entrenched ideology that is more difficult or impossible to respond to before they have resulted in adverse outcomes.

> I may agree that most censorship is wrong but it does work. It worked for centuries to help maintain systems of inequality.

It seems you’ve answered your own question then. Censorship is bad because it sustains systems of inequality.

> It worked for centuries to maintain familial control and enforce sexual monoculture in many countries. Information control works so well, it prevents people from even understanding themselves or what they really want in the face of ideologically imposed values.

You are attributing effects to censorship when material circumstances and ideology contributed in large amounts. Its much easier to destroy ideas by burning books when all the books are manufactured by skilled craftsman using their hands.

> We are steeped in a culture of Hollywood telling us what the lessons of history are about. One of the off repeated "hopeful" messages we are fed is that you can't kill an idea but my reading of history has led me to the other conclusion entirely. That controlling the conversation, its constraints and determining the status quo are profoundly powerful tools.

You can’t kill an idea but you can delay it or make people too terrified to spread it openly.

>If you cannot censor away opinions, if suppression of ideas doesn't work then why in exactly these kinds of articles do people bemoan it as dangerous?

I've read a screenshot of some anonymous post that goes like:

"There's a general phenomenon I've noticed on the internet. Any forum with free speech and little to no moderation becomes right wing. Leftist ideas cannot exist without censorship and moderation."

Which I think misreads the situation slightly. When sites censor people, it pushes those censored to other sites. Concentrates them. When all sites censoring have a left bias, both the censored and uncensored areas become echo chambers. Censorship then is segregation, but instead of having water fountains for blacks and whites, you have websites for lefts and rights. The only reason sites like gab and parler exist is because twitter censors.

If you really believe in equal rights and desegregation, you would not censor people based on their diversity of opinions. If you really believe diversity is our strength, then you tolerate diverse opinions, even if you find some of the opinions repugnant.

As the article points out, it's not a question of "should" you censor. It's a question of "can" you censor. Clearly censorship fails in the worst possible way. It further radicalizes both sides. If you read both /r/politics and patriots.win, it's like both groups live in two entirely separate worlds. When you isolate populations their evolutions take separate paths.

And that's how it is ultimately dangerous. Censorship leaves you with two groups of radicals with no common ground. At some point, those two groups meet and that's when bad things happen.

>"There's a general phenomenon I've noticed on the internet. Any forum with free speech and little to no moderation becomes right wing. Leftist ideas cannot exist without censorship and moderation."

I've noticed similar and I'm not entirely sure it's right wing but more of extremism of ideas in general. Essentially, the "loudest" people (or ideas) win the conversation without moderation.

I'd say this has more to do with group think and populism. If there is any moderation it's going to steer the ground in a specific direction of populism. The more aggressively shared an idea is, the more successful it tends to be. It's not a linear relationship, but ideas tend to pick up steam (the flat Earth phenomenon blows my mind to this day). Extremists seem to be the ones most willing to verbalize and share these ideas that make them "loud." There's probably some overlap here on how effective propoganda is through repetition. Just look at how ads tend to focus on spreading an idea through repetition and seem to work.

Sometimes modern "right wing" ideas are difficult to discern from other extremists because the spectrum has slid and much of the modern right wing is extremist. To be fair, we have a lot of left wing extremists verging on being bananas as well. I know plenty of conservatives who feel fairly disenfranchised by the current right wing we've been seeing. I don't agree with many of their ideas but they make good points and have civil discussions about their different opinions and perspectives.

> "There's a general phenomenon I've noticed on the internet. Any forum with free speech and little to no moderation becomes right wing. Leftist ideas cannot exist without censorship and moderation."

I suspect that "right wing" here is euphemism for more of sexism and racism. Because I can tell you that moderate conservative, economic conservative and for that matter libertarian forums all have moderation too. They cant exist without moderation and censorship either.

What happens however is that without moderation people will use harassment, trolling, both including massive sexist and racist statements to push away people who disagree with them. And people who dont want to be subjects of those leave. So you end up with people who are fine with trolling, racism and sexism and the end result is biased toward right wing. You know who will be harassed the most? Anyone perceived as feminist or sjw.

The actual extreme left, which I guess would be defined more as a marxism or communists, is relatively small in numbers. They are also pretty often sexists and racists too, so I dunno how it crosses with that.

>They cant exist without moderation and censorship either.

Back when email arrived with a "You've got mail!" AOL chats were not moderated. I assure you they existed. All you needed was the ignore button. People are perfectly capable of deciding who to talk to on their own. Current UX seems designed to make you think you need moderators, but that is not a requirement.

> "If you cannot censor away opinions, if suppression of ideas doesn't work..."

> "I may agree that most censorship is wrong but it does work."

that's at least falling for an availability bias. we have a extraordinarily tiny, highly-fragmented, and highly-idealized view into history. the more reasonable null hypothesis would be to assume folks had a range of opinions on any given topic, but their behaviors were modulated through social norms and coercion.

That's exactly my point. I don't think censorship changes people's minds immediately. But over time, the absence of an idea creates a status quo bias. People born into a society where certain ideas are circulated less are less likely to encounter and adopt them.

People change their behavior based on what is acceptable not just based upon what they believe. If using a racial slur will get a person written up at work, they have an incentive to hold back when the instinct arises to use it. The absence of racial slurs at work will make new workers less likely to use them as people often copy the environment they inhabit for the sake of cohesion.

>If you cannot censor away opinions, if suppression of ideas doesn't work then why in exactly these kinds of articles do people bemoan it as dangerous?

Because the process itself involves heaping lots of social costs on people in the attempt to hurt their narratives, and that normally we would consider this bad? I mean, if we concede that literally throwing people in prison is ineffective then shouldn't the argument for not throwing people in prison be obvious?

> Because the process itself involves heaping lots of social costs on people

I'm open to that argument. But I think this writer is really trying to have it both ways. They literally say, censorship doesn't work and we shouldn't do it because we are the ones who will be censored. It just seems like a kitchen sink argument. Either it is dangerous to society because it works or it is dangerous to a few because it is unjustly punitive.

I am not fully in agreement with what is happening right now because I believe it is fundamentally immoral to force someone into a society where they must provide for themselves and then to take away their means of provision.

But I also see our society as deeply censoros before this and a lot of people who are very upset now were fully willing to ignore that as long as it didn't broach opinions they value. Two wrongs don't make a right but it does leave me a little suspicious of how genuine they are and how magnanimous they will be when the pendulum of discourse swings back in their favor.