[doubleshame]

It is very important to distinguish something like Facebook blocking an account / Medium taking down a blog from a domain registrar refusing to cooperate.

You are free to create a room where only some ideologies are allowed, but it's dangerous to play the same game with the ability to create the rooms.

First the domain registrars, then networks say that they don't want to peer, and then we end up with a fragmented internet, cutting off all communication.

It is not wise to pretend that an opinion that you do not want just simply does not exist. The extremist in the room who everybody pretends is not there, is eventually going to do more radical things to be noticed. In the echo chamber of extremism, there is now no moderating thought; and the world loses empathy to understand these unpopular perspectives that still exist.

"Sunlight is the best disinfectant"

"Isolation only promotes extremism"

[rpearl]

> "Sunlight is the best disinfectant" > "Isolation only promotes extremism"

Is it? Several wars have been fought over this particular ideology. Massive amounts of resources were expended with the sole goal of stamping it out. The goal then was to eradicate it, because this sort of ideology is the stuff that eats civilizations. We don't have an obligation to amplify it. There is no reasoning with it.

In the hypothetical there's a potential censorship issue which we can address when we get to it. But where's the line? The site called for and celebrated murder and terrorism. On a daily basis they spew actual neo-nazi propaganda. Why, exactly, should we let that be echoed unchecked? We're not even talking about a public entity/government stifling the nazi speech, but rather we're asking whether we should without thinking allowing them to use someone else's private resources to spread their message.

[matt4077]

> "Sunlight is the best disinfectant"

It's not, actually. Fire is much better, and even alcohol is preferable. That's why there's very little open-air surgery.

> It is not wise to pretend that an opinion that you do not want just simply does not exist.

Reality doesn't support this idea. Every single country except the US has more stringent limits on what's acceptable speech. Yet among democratic countries, only the US has para-military right-wing terror groups in almost every state, and no country comes close to the dozens of deaths every year.

[doubleshame]

Sure, fire is good when you're dealing with them roaches, but kill them as you will, does nothing for the ideas, which sunlight is good for.

Yes, the US actually does have excellent lines on what's acceptable speech. In my not-professional judgement, it's speech that is the proximate cause of violence and incites it, and the daily stormer is outside of that. If you're talking about the US, you'd let the courts decide, and not corporations.

[dragonwriter]

> If you're talking about the US, you'd let the courts decide, and not corporations.

In the US, you let corporations decide how to exercise their right of free expression just as much as anyone else.

Freedom of speech means you are permitted to seek collaborators to help you spread your speech, not that others are obligated to disregard their own views to help promote yours. That kind of entitlement would violate the free speech rights of the forced collaborators.

[thinkfurther]

Sunlight in this case would be doing for Nazis what they themselves won't do because they're unable -- recognize them for who they are and act accordingly.

> In the echo chamber of extremism, there is now no moderating thought

This is not how any of this works.

[doubleshame]

We are NOT fighting the people here, we're fighting the ideas. I don't think we should ever forget this.

[int_19h]

We're absolutely fighting people. There was a man behind the wheel of that car, you know - it wasn't an abstract idea that drove it into the crowd.

[doubleshame]

I agree, so take action against that specific man, and take action because he was responsible for an act of violence.

If ten people standing in a row have an idea, you cannot destroy the idea by shooting all of them in the head.

If one of them causes violence, you should not shoot all of them in retaliation.

What would be your judgement if this radical group was just sitting away in their homes typing out blog posts? Would you still censor them?

[int_19h]

It depends on the nature of the blog posts.

If they are specifically inciting this kind of violence, then yes, I think it is entirely correct to persecute all of them.

If they're talking about violence in abstract, then no. However, it should be sufficient reason for our security services to track the people expressing such ideas very closely, basically assuming that they're up to something, and ready to crack down on them as soon as those abstract ideas transform into any kind of concrete plan.

[thinkfurther]

You too should read this:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15032018

and maybe this for good measure:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15014737

I forgot nothing, I'd rather say I know things you haven't yet understood.

[doubleshame]

Thanks for these choice quotes.

I completely agree for the need for boundaries, but I think we've done a most excellent job of setting them!

The current boundary is speech that immediately incites violence, I believe the supreme court interpretation has been very generous towards the notion of free speech, including hate speech, as it should be!

Here's why:

We should let the radicals be racist and make radical statements as much as they want. At the point at which they turn violent or call for specific acts of violence we should step in and shut that stuff down.

A blanket militant action against the whole ideology will no doubt show better results on shutting down the movement on a short term.

But the notion of freedom of speech is not meant to protect these radicals, it is meant to protect ourselves and the integrity of society! We cannot make exceptions to these rules just because it's more convenient to us now, because this weakens the principle. This is the whole slippery slope argument.

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

If you wish to change the lines on which we use force, you must make a coherent case based on principle, not on convenience or anecdotes, as the principles themselves already account for, in a deep way, the history to which you allude.

[thinkfurther]

> The current boundary is speech that immediately incites violence

Well good luck then. Just like Hitler famously wanted people to not wait for his orders, but distill his wishes and creatively go beyond in doing things in his spirit to get official support later, the guy who drove his car full speed into people didn't need anyone to specifically tell them to do that.

> At the point at which they turn violent or call for specific acts of violence we should step in and shut that stuff down.

Oh, so the second the car approaches the crowd, time just stops and it gets "shut down"? No wait, that's totally not what happened and also what will happen as this shit repeats under a president who implicitly supports it and a populace that would rather berate those who DO want to shut it down than those who need shutting down.

Only very few will call for "specific acts of violence", I won't join you in holding your breath for that. Read Hannah Arendt and Sebastian Haffner or don't. These aren't anecdotes, these are your betters, casting pearls before pigs. Pearls that were bought with suffering the likes of which neither you or I can even begin to imagine. But if you offer yourself as hostage to the Nazis, then you're out of what I consider polite society, too.