[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.