[a254613e]

Not everything's a programming language where you need to define exact thresholds for something to be either `True` or `False`. I know this is HN, but I don't think we really need an algorithm to tell us nazis are bad, do we?

And as such it doesn't make sense to write down a specific definition like "groups that goals are to harm others" or similar, even though that would cover pretty much everything. Ideally there would be a public organization, not aligned with specific political groups, making the decisions in a transparent way. Or some sort of a body like WHO where countries can take part in. It's a complex topic, that I don't have a perfect solution for.

[slooonz]

> I know this is HN, but I don't think we really need an algorithm to tell us nazis are bad, do we?

I don’t need an algorithm to tell myself that nazis are bad.

But once you want to censor other people, you need to come up with an algorithm deciding what’s censorable or not. So… where’s your threshold ?

[a254613e]

Any part of nazi ideology should be forbidden in any way, shape, or form.

As to how to recognize it, I think it's easy for humans to do so. And how do we train computers to recognize it? Well, if we can teach it to recognize cars, bikes, etc from photos I'm sure extremist ideology shouldn't be impossible to achieve with some helping hands from people.

And besides, as I said in another comment. I don't have all the answers, just like I don't have an answer on how to teach computers to recognize X in photos flawlessly, but I think this is something we should start working on.

[julianmarq]

> I think [recognizing nazi ideology is] easy for humans to do so.

It isn't, not even when you are one of those who thinks "anyone who disagrees with me must be a nazi"—meaning that in theory you could just train a model with things you like and things you don't like and label the second group with "nazism"—because your opinions can and do shift often too and so the model would become outdated by the month, if not by the day.

> And besides, as I said in another comment. I don't have all the answers

And yet you speak with such certainty, as if you did. On that note, in your first comment you proclaimed that you were willing to sacrifice your privacy, and yet you used an anonymous account to make that declaration.

[a254613e]

It's perfectly fine to wish for something without having all the answers - I don't think I should be attacked for that.

People should be allowed to say that they wish to improve something, even if they don't have the exact scientifically proven step by step way to actually implement it. We are allowed to say that wars should end, that people shouldn't die of hunger, and so on - even if we don't have the exact step by step plan on how to implement it that we can share on HN.

And sacrificing my privacy doesn't have to mean that it's open to public, it refers to actually being able to enforce certain rules. If I were to do something that's illegal on HN the authorities would have no problem finding me.

[julianmarq]

I made no attack in my comment and I don't appreciate the insinuation.

> People should be allowed to say

Well, you're not going to find disagreement on that area from me; everyone is, or should be, indeed allowed to say anything. As I understood it, you were arguing otherwise.

> We are allowed to say [...] even if we don't have the exact step by step plan on how to implement it that we can share on HN.

And other people are similarly allowed to argue with you on anything you might say if they so choose. That's the point of a free exchange of ideas, I think.

> And sacrificing my privacy doesn't have to mean that it's open to public

But... Something is either public or it's private....

Anyhow, not only you suggested that I was attacking you for no reason, but you also brought up "wars" and "hunger" and I don't particularly understand why, and this now seems like an attempt at equivocation. Hopefully I'm just misinterpreting, but I don't feel like you are trying to argue in good faith.

[tacitusarc]

Cool let's censor animal right activists.

And in case you don't follow, it's because the Nazis were very pro animal rights.

[notadev]

What is a nazi? I might say it's someone who was a member of the Nazi party in Germany during the early 20th century.

You might say it's "groups that goals are to harm others"

Someone else might say it's anyone who doesn't support progressive policies because to do otherwise would cause harm to people, many of which are "marginalized" and "under-represented".

Let's see if we can agree on what a nazi is before we start figuring out what people are allowed to say and think in private.

>Ideally there would be a public organization, not aligned with specific political groups, making the decisions in a transparent way.

Good luck with that.

[allarm]

> Ideally there would be a public organization, not aligned with specific political groups, making the decisions in a transparent way.

Like the ministry of truth, huh?