[CodiePetersen]

This just sounds like a giant can of worms that is going to blow up in people's faces. Remove for a moment any potential future government alignments, just so we aren't talking about hypothetical fictitious governments. Let's just examine the governments currently signed to it.

Indonesia has harsh religious laws, crack downs on illegal reporting, and literally raids on LGBTQ gatherings. The Senegal government arbitrarily arrests dissidents, the LGTBQ community has to hide because it's illegal, and protests are outlawed. India already overuses counter terrorism laws to charge dissidents and activists and there are religious minorities that suffer heavily from discrimination.

This type of call to action will only further entrench government strangles over freedom of speech. Now people have given them moral authority to curb an already very broad and ambiguous category of terrorists and now extremists. Sure I get it, there is a bunch of vile on the internet and the world would be a better place without it. But my "better place without it" is different from somebody else's and so is the "it". This won't end up like what is in your head.

The hate isn't "spreading through social media" the hate and the fear were already there. These people grew up with it. Social, cultural, religious, sexual, moral borders, you name it, every border we have is being rewritten and when you rewrite those borders, especially this quickly, people are gonna get scared, they're gonna lash out, and because of it more people are getting scared and want to control one of the most powerful tools to freedom.

[qball]

>Let's just examine the governments currently signed to it.

The interesting thing is that this really doesn't matter that much in the grand scheme of things.

Consider weapons treaties, like the UN ones banning the use of land mines and cluster munitions. The only countries that have signed them either don't have any reason to use them, or are allied with a nation that hasn't signed that treaty.

This is much the same story. The US hasn't signed this, and never will (because it explicitly contravenes a cornerstone of its supreme law), and at that point what the other countries do is pointless unless they outright block US services from their networks- in which case there will be riots in the streets. Governments don't survive for long when they alienate the vast majority of their population, and the majority of the population uses US services.

Combine that with the simple fact that 100% effective moderation of an online service is unscalable to the point of being impossible without prohibiting any meaningful content/conversation means that countries that do sign this and implement it in their law will never be able to develop a competitive Facebook alternative, and all you've accomplished (as a signatory nation) is political posturing and shooting yourself in the foot.

You can't outcompete a free nation. That's kind of its main advantage.

[giancarlostoro]

> Combine that with the simple fact that 100% effective moderation of an online service is unscalable to the point of being impossible without prohibiting any meaningful content/conversation means that countries that do sign this and implement it in their law will never be able to develop a competitive Facebook alternative, and all you've accomplished (as a signatory nation) is political posturing and shooting yourself in the foot.

Hell 4chan trolls moderation with really bad content for sport from time to time. I hate to go there but I think its sometimes necessary to see it happen to prove that laws dont stop people already violating laws from gasp violating laws. You cant moderate them IRL what makes you think you can stop them online?

[CodiePetersen]

That's true. I never thought of it that way. I mean I hope the effort would evolve into something more sensible but you don't know with the willingness of brilliant people signing on to bad ideas.

[ionised]

> unless they outright block US services from their networks- in which case there will be riots in the streets.

People aren't going to be rioting in the streets because they lose access to Google and Facebook, come on.

People in western democracies put up with a hell of a lot worse than that from their governments without rioting.

> You can't outcompete a free nation. That's kind of its main advantage.

I'd like to believe that was true, but I think China will prove us wrong in the coming decades.

[sorokod]

"You can't outcompete a free nation."

This may or may not be true, but a free nation can collapse on itself. The Weimar republic and modern day Hungary and Turkey are just a few examples.

[pryce]

> The hate isn't "spreading through social media" the hate and the fear were already there.

This is an idea worth examining more closely. In one view, social media acts as simply a passive reflection of an existing culture; in another, social media reproduces that culture which later becomes (in part) a reflection of social media etc. The causality goes both ways.

Organised white supremacists have decided that social media can also be used to help steer society, and it can be -and is- used as a recruitment vector, two things that wouldn't be possible if the 'passive reflection' model was accurate.

For what it's worth, I'm undecided as to whether this particular proposed response is workable or harmful or effective or whether it risks liberties collaterally. But I view that as a separate question from whether social media plays a significant role in white nationalist recruitment.

[CodiePetersen]

I definitely agree. I totally understand that they use it. And hell with the amount of demographic information advertisers give, I'd wager you could target down to the individual for your message. I just don't think censorship is the way. If anything you just run them into more private circles where potential recruits won't readily see the other side of the argument.

[meheleventyone]

Seems like a false dichotomy you can both run white supremacists into private circles and provide a counter-narrative that’s readily available. See Islamist radicalisation for example.

The other issue with the concept of winning a war of ideas is that the other side isn’t usually available in the venues espousing white supremacy. They are already private circles in that sense with moderation. So we’re in the situation of hoping the people being actively radicalised by them happen on other side of the argument and haven’t already been poisoned to it. Which seems like wishful thinking.

[DarkWiiPlayer]

I believe it's something in between both views: Society is just shifting its operations to social media. This does bring a few changes, but ultimately nothing new is happening, it's just happening somewhere else and becomes easier to identify.

[roca]

I think the growth of flat-earth and anti-vax believers are two examples that disprove your statement. Before the Internet, the average person simply would not have come into contact with material promoting these ideas.

[yc12340]

> I think the growth of flat-earth and anti-vax believers are two examples that disprove your statement

What growth are you talking about? Is there an actual research, that indicates that number of flat-earthers have grown compared to previous decades?

And why do you think, that there is a relationships between flat-earth nuts and social media, as opposed to, say, HIV, cancer and other diseases and social media? Social media made you more aware about flat-earthers than before, but it didn't turn you into one.

[DarkWiiPlayer]

Good point.

Then again, the same way people can become aware of the problems with their political system through the internet. I understand this has happened in Syria within the last generation or so.

[wpietri]

This is definitely incorrect:

> The hate isn't "spreading through social media" the hate and the fear were already there.

If extremism couldn't be effectively spread, extremists wouldn't bother trying. But they put quite a lot of effort into recruiting and propaganda.

For those interested, I strongly recommend Neiwart's "Alt-America": https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01MT2KCB2/

He's a journalist who in the 80s and 90s was covering extremists (e.g. violent white supremacists, "patriot" militias). He makes a very good case that the Internet has been an enormous boon, enabling significant growth and normalization.

[CodiePetersen]

Extremism was spreading long before the internet. We literally had a cold war to try to stop the spread of communism not to mention there are countless examples in history where the populace was swayed by extremism. The nazis didn't have internet but they were perfectly capable of getting people lined up for war. It's definitely not the technology, they will find any method they need to spread their message.

[zimpenfish]

> Extremism was spreading long before the internet.

Yes but not as quickly, cheaply, or effectively. You might as well say "planes do nothing because people were migrating between continents before they existed".

[wpietri]

Again, read the book. The Internet made all sorts of communication and organizing easier. Most of that is good. Some of it is terrible.

[lm28469]

Don't you think the medium used to communicate ideas determine how fast and far they spread ?

Sure I can go down in the streets, shout my hate speech at the top of my lungs, put propaganda flyers in random mailboxes, &c ... Or I can upload a video to all video hosting websites and reach more people a single day than I could do in a lifetime of organic propaganda.

It's like saying internet didn't reshape the world because we could already send data over long distance before, yeah sure if you consider that a boat going from EU to US with hand written letters is just as good as our current 60 Tbps ocean internet cable.

Also, don't forget that the Nazis were elected to power and were the official government, it's much easier to use propaganda when you're in that kind of position.

[ThrowawayR2]

> Sure I can go down in the streets, shout my hate speech at the top of my lungs, put propaganda flyers in random mailboxes, &c ... Or I can upload a video to all video hosting websites and reach more people a single day than I could do in a lifetime of organic propaganda.

Because the printing press, newspapers, filmed movies, radio and television never existed? /s

Mass media has been around for a long time.

[lm28469]

First off these mediums are mostly controlled by state regulated entities, meaning that it was mostly used for state sponsored propaganda. It's not like I can press 696 on my TV remote and dial on ISIS-TV with live executions.

Second, yes, they did exist, and they also did increase the reach of ideas over what was available before them, so what's your point ? You're basically extending my argument.

Progress in communication technology means increased propaganda / hate speech / whatever reach. Now you have two choices, do nothing, or try to curb down their reach. Should we be ok with live executions on twitch/yt/fb ? You're free to think that we should, but I'd argue most people are against it.

[CodiePetersen]

"First off these mediums are mostly controlled by state regulated entities."

Pirate radio, printers, peer to peer sharing, digital formats in general, not controlled by the state and you can still use or access much of that equipment or content. It's not convenient or easy for people, but for the most part it is doable.

"Progress in communication technology means increased propaganda / hate speech / whatever reach. Now you have two choices, do nothing, or try to curb down their reach. Should we be ok with live executions on twitch/yt/fb ? You're free to think that we should, but I'd argue most people are against it."

Those are private entities and they can choose what they want to do on their site. Also, you have distorted the argument as against any type of action against all forms of speech. No one here is saying we should allow streaming of rape, child pornography, murder, etc. Those are already illegal and that problem is already dealt with. The issue we are talking about is allowing people's ideas to be spread.

Already in this thread within a day you see people talking about anti-vaxers and flat-earthers in a debate that is actually supposed to be about extremists and terrorists. But, as these things do, you start pondering the scope and what other bad ideas we shouldn't have let spread or could have been stopped if only we capped our freedoms.

I don't think the state should be in charge of deciding what is and isn't protected speech in this case. Once it is done, when its in the hands of the state, good luck trying to get it undone. It's the edge our understanding. We are more connected than we have ever been before and the complexity of the issue is extremely high. Rushing into the situation and putting a blanket ban on types of speech is a bad idea.

[avip]

>The hate isn't "spreading through social media" the hate and the fear were already there.

Well, hate and fear maybe we all share. But the idea to express them in terms of killing innocent people is factually "spreading through social media".

[monksy]

That being said, India blocked reddit a few days after the Pakistan attack earlier this year.

[fit2rule]

>This type of call to action will only further entrench government strangles over freedom of speech.

There is a certain fringe of society which believes that the real reason for the censorship of the Christchurch attack is not because it motivates and inspires further killing, but that it shows he was not a lone wolf and had handlers helping him step through the scene - and the video clearly shows evidence of this.

IF this were true - and I'm not saying it is - then yes, we have reason to be concerned about being lied to in this fashion. If the general public is never able to tell the truth about these kinds of incidents because they are wrapped up in even more dire secrecy, then the incidents themselves become even more dangerous to society as a whole.

Whether we like it or not, there are very powerful actors and groups out there would seek to profit at every turn from terrorising the general public - they're not all jihadi's or right-wing nutcases, but certainly know how to present themselves - and/or their Manchurian candidate co-criminals - as such.

This sort of duplicity is only going to get worse in a culture of utter secrecy - the only thing that can save the general public from the nefarious deeds of those who would use terror to control our minds, is the light of truth.

This means having the courage to let videos of these events be accessible to the general public. This means, not living in a protective bubble provided to us by higher powers, but rather living the kind of life that will be unhindered by such evidence, when it is presented.

This is a very difficult subject, precisely because people are overly sensitive about the kinds of things they wish to be exposed to. In the same sense that the American public are virulently anti-war when presented with real evidence of the effects of War - e.g. Vietnam - they are violently pro-war when they only see one side of the mighty military-industrial-pharmaceutical complex's pitch deck.

If we want to be ruled by terror, we must merely allow the locks of secrecy to be closed around our eyes. If we want to live in a world where different cultures and different religions, and people with vastly different points of view to our own nevertheless get along, we must never hide from the truth, no matter how traumatising it can be.

This move by the coalition governments is a cynical, duplicitous attempt to make it harder for whistle-blowers and evidence seekers to know the truth about these kinds of attacks, and puts us all in the position of being liable for the lies told to us by those who have the means to pull off such operations - i.e. the military-industrial-pharmaceutical complex.

[endorphone]

"Let's just examine the governments currently signed to it."

You picked three. How about Australia, Canada, European Commission, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Jordan, The Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom. Are you going to examine those? Most of those are the most free, most protective countries.

"The hate isn't "spreading through social media" the hate and the fear were already there."

There has always been hate. There have always been incredibly ignorant beliefs like flat Earth, anti-vaccine, etc. Usually it is isolated and the community -- the village -- keeps it in check and provides a pressure valve. Social media, however, allows us to surround ourselves with a bubble that makes us think that it's normal if not somehow heroic, our graph of similarly extreme believing people cementing our resolve. That guy who became curious and got some bad information isn't being reasoned with by rational people, he's being indoctrinated by a distributed group that only reinforced their own beliefs.

It absolutely has made the problem worse in otherwise reasonable societies.

[rudedogg]

> It absolutely has made the problem worse in otherwise reasonable societies.

I'm genuinely curious, has it really? I wonder if it's just more widely reported?

I tried looking up terrorism statistics and found this: https://ourworldindata.org/terrorism

For most countries, it doesn't look like much has changed from 1970-2017.

I glanced at hate crime stats on the FBI website (just looking at 2008 and 2017), with 7,783 and 7,175 crimes reported for each year). So not much change there either.

Obviously this is a half-assed attempt, but I just wanted to counter the idea that the world is falling apart. Hopefully someone who has more interest in these things can provide some studies with more comprehensive statistics.

[Reelin]

Many people seem unaware of how bad the 70s were, and that definitely predates Facebook.

https://www.npr.org/2015/04/05/396359930/explosive-protests-...

I suspect people just like to have a boogeyman to blame so that they feel they have more understanding or control of the situation than they actually do. "It's a bad situation and we don't know what the cause is or how to fix things" isn't something you'll hear very often, particularly from politicians.

[avereveard]

and in the 80s too. anarchist &Nazi&friends in Italy were engaging in an actual bomb marathon with huge loss of innocent life, and I'd argue that if being mean on internet is action enough today for these groups so that they disregard their traditional methods, like literally bombing places, then we are all better off with that

[stallmanite]

I can never wrap my head around the thought process. Kill innocents and somebody else will be impressed with Anarchism somehow?

[Izkata]

Think of it as hostage-taking at mass scale, intending for fear of continued bombings leading to capitulation.

[CodiePetersen]

"Are you going to examine those? Most of those are the most free, most protective countries."

I could I suppose go over more of them. The point though, that I was making when I mentioned in exempting fictitious future governments, is that it can be used NOW by real governments. Sure there will be nations that don't abuse it indefinitely, but you can't ensure a governments intent 5 years from now let alone 50. There are plenty of cases I could see in some of those nations where it could be used against the people that may be less black and white, like organization efforts for the yellow vest protests being censored and removed or any peaceful protest that could get out of hand for that matter. Or maybe even Google and Facebook making anti-tech protests less visible because black bloc may show up.

"There have always been incredibly ignorant beliefs like flat Earth, anti-vaccine, etc. Usually it is isolated and the community -- the village -- keeps it in check and provides a pressure valve."

Well for one the idea of a "non geocentric universe" literally had a man burned at the stake for blasphemy, people were burned as witches, religious wars were all over the planet, so the problem isn't technology, it's humans. And I'd argue the only thing that has made us more tolerant is the freedom of information, the freedom of speech, and the exposure to ideas. Debate changes minds, telling them to stay hermits doesn't. Not only does it not change minds though, as others have pointed out, in this age, the intolerant will spread their message somehow some way.

I would also argue, that the bubble you are talking about doesn't have much to do with the ability to connect and instead has more to do with the way social media has designed their platforms. They are just like casinos. Just look at twitter. There is no down thumb, only likes and views. So you don't get the "oh you lose" social cue, you only get the flashy bling of increasing likes and views. In normal society you get a disgusted look or ridiculing laughs to tell you if you are saying something unacceptable in public. But that's not how "social" media works. And I think that specific point is what needs to be worked on. So I think we might have a common agreement in that at least. But I still think censoring is the wrong way to go. Just let the world see the true social acceptance score and I think you will see a lot of that isolation of bad ideas.

[PorterDuff]

"...is that it can be used NOW by real governments." "They are just like casinos. Just look at twitter."

Two good, but arguably separate points. I'd say that the internet generally (besides the .0001% of it that is of bonafide intellectual content) has gone down the same road as slot machine design and they're getting better at it.

The main point (and threat) of agreements like this is that they set up a legal framework and the physical ability to control what people see from a central switch. Combine that with the ever-improving ability to both addict people to pictures on screens and to nudge them in a desired direction, it's really all about power.

I suppose in the final analysis it's all just takes the place of state sponsored religions.

[endorphone]

But for your example it isn't needed whatsoever. They do what they want without it. Denigrating a good initiative by association with a small number of suspect participants is not convincing.

"Or maybe even Google and Facebook making anti-tech protests less visible because black bloc may show up."

Google and Facebook can do anything and everything they want right now. And we know that they, among others, bring forward the most contentious and the most divisive because it draws engagement. We know that they immerse people in their own filter bubble where suddenly they live in a world where seemingly everyone is a flat Earther, or believes in Pizzagate, or whatever.

"so the problem isn't technology, it's humans"

This is specious. In a period of ignorance, ignorance reigned supreme (not to mention a theocracy, which is dangerously close to re-emerging in the US). We now, at least in some realms, have an ability to reason and to cite and use fact.

[CodiePetersen]

"They do what they want without it."

That argument goes both ways, if they can do what they want now, then there is no need to sign it and it's just a fluff feel good piece of paper. But the fact is, there is power behind people, governments, and organizations throwing in public support.

"This is specious. In a period of ignorance, ignorance reigned supreme (not to mention a theocracy, which is dangerously close to re-emerging in the US). We now, at least in some realms, have an ability to reason and to cite and use fact."

This is literally the point I'm trying to make. The hate is ignorance, and the only way to stop that ignorance is to allow the flow and freedom of information and the exchange of ideas. That's the only way we are going to be able to change any minds.

[Zuider]

>So you don't get the "oh you lose" social cue [on twitter]

You don't get the silent downvoting that occurs on sites like reddit, but you do get overt disagreement which can go viral and result in consequences in real life such as being fired and harassed. Added to that, twitter is very proactive in banning people. My point is that the absence of one form of feedback does not preclude the use of other kinds.

[TheTrueTDF]

That's a strawman, plus nazis/white nationalists are groups that actually spread anti-LGBTQ propaganda

[captainredbeard]

Sorry, that’s not what a straw man fallacy is. You may not agree that the danger of censorship misuse is high but it’s not fallacious.

[tathougies]

Really? A lot of the alt-right seems pro-LGBTQ to me.

[incompatible]

Are you suggesting that certain countries would describe LGBTQ activities as "terrorist and violent extremist content"? I don't think they would need to, they have special anti-LGBTQ laws already.

[int_19h]

Given that Saudi Arabia considers atheism to be a form of terrorism already, I don't see it as particularly far fetched. The reason to do so is because it allows making misleading claims for propaganda purposes.

[incompatible]

I suppose it's a familiar strategy, pass draconian laws against terrorism, then expand the definition of "terrorism" to anything you don't like.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/13/us/politics/georgia-offic...

[CodiePetersen]

Correct and now they have the moral authority and excuse to continue doing it. That sort of support, especially when you can say from a podium "The world is behind us in this effort" is a powerful tool for governments to use. Imagine being gay or lesbian and hearing you might as well give up because the whole world is against you.

[Grue3]

Well, at least Russia routinely bans LGBTQ-related websites for extremist content.