[kodah]

> If a user engages in trolling, criminal activity, or abuse, they will be identified and ostracized. Furthermore, they will incur a financial loss, as their reputation will be ruined. Thus content moderation problems are addressed without ill-fitting and abusable corporate or government interventions.

I'm sure that won't go wrong or impact certain groups at all.

There's a lot of content on the internet today that I just don't want to see. Coincidentally, while I had a conversation with people about the benefits of intersectionality a Robin DiAngelo follower joined. This person masked themselves as "just asking questions" and then proceeded to do the oddest form of theatrical racism and subsequent victim position seeking I've ever seen. As much as I'd love to "ostracize" this person and never hear of them again, as much as my day would've been far better without knowing people like this exist, I don't think it's right to ostracize people. That's how we got flat Earth to get so big. We mocked, ostracized, and argued them out of common spaces until they created their own. I'd rather flat Earthers and DiAngelo followers find their way back to rational society, not out from it forever.

[phailhaus]

> We mocked, ostracized, and argued them out of common spaces until they created their own.

They weren't pushed out, they walked out because their views weren't accepted. That's the problem with this line of thinking: people will only stick around if you're willing to accept their beliefs as reasonable to some extent. But nobody accepts that for ideas like Flat Earth or white supremacy, so they formed their own communities where they do.

There's no way around this. If you try to "keep them around", then you have to say that these are reasonable ideas. And if they are reasonable ideas, then why should they drop them? This is how they spread.

[throwaway0x7E6]

>They weren't pushed out, they walked out because their views weren't accepted

none of youtube/twitter/reddit/twitch knockoffs existed (or had much traction) before massive purges on those platforms

[wahern]

4chan predates all of them. And there were plenty of thriving forums where odd and extreme ideas of all sorts were discussed before 4chan.

What mass social media sites like Twitter and Facebook provided was an easier way for the less technologically literate to discover extremist forums (as well as extremist ideas generally) without having to know someone from those circles beforehand.

IMO, what happened is that Western culture over the past 60 years became increasingly cynical, including it's intellectual culture (e.g. post-structuralist, deconstructive ideas have come to dominate both the left and the right). So you have a mass of people who simply don't know what to believe, because everything is about "they" coming to get you or oppress you. Anti-corporatism, cultural wars, identity politics etc, etc. Then we take a massive population--educated and uneducated--which has internalized this notion that all "conventional" ideas are inherently suspect, and dumped them into cyberspace.

I'm reminded of this quote from Oliver Wendall Holmes,

> When the ignorant are taught to doubt they do not know what they safely may believe. And it seems to me that at this time we need education in the obvious more than investigation of the obscure.

Years ago I would have reflexively thought that sentiment oppressively paternalistic. Now not so much, partly because in reflection on my own life I can see how our culture effected how I processed ideas. I've learned (or relearned) to appreciate the fact that simply because Holmes often was oppressively paternalistic does not invalidate the central truths reflected in that sentiment.

[A4ET8a8uTh0]

<< They weren't pushed out

I struggle hard to take this comment in good faith given how blatantly inaccurate it is. Still, I will assume poster is just ill-informed.

There were entire communities, who were effectively forced out of their respective online spots with arguments presented to them in order were: 'well find a different forum, website, cloudflare provider, isp'. Most recent such community was kiwifarms, but even before those there were multiple others than keep being 'moved'.

<<then you have to say that these are reasonable ideas.

No. A rational person can tell that 'sky is made of marshmallow' is bs. If they cannot, some thinning of the herd is clearly necessary. If a person struggles with basics of life and cannot comprehend basic language, I have little to offer.

edit: Seriously. If I tell you that all humans are in fact cappucino makers, do most people go into existential crisis? No, they don't. Do you know why? Me neither, but I don't see you serving me a cappucino either.

It is a ridiculously bad argument. Please rewrite.

edit: I apologize for the angry language. In retrospect, I would have written it differently. I decided not to remove as it would potentially change the flow of the argument ( and make it look like I am trying to hide it or something ). I admit that something about parent's post rubbed me the wrong way and I can't quite put a finger on it. It is a lesson for me of sorts.

[phailhaus]

> No. A rational person can tell that 'sky is made of marshmallow' is bs. If they cannot, some thinning of the herd is clearly necessary. If a person struggles with basics of life and cannot comprehend basic language, I have little to offer.

Not sure what point you're trying to make here. What in the world does "thinning of the herd" mean?! Are you advocating for eugenics?

> If I tell you that all humans are in fact cappucino makers, do most people go into existential crisis?

Who's going into an existential crisis? Flat Earthers are being told that their beliefs are garbage, and they are going into crisis and forming their own communities to reinforce their beliefs.

[A4ET8a8uTh0]

<< Are you advocating for eugenics?

eugenics - the study of how to arrange reproduction within a human population to increase the occurrence of heritable characteristics regarded as desirable

I am advocating for taking off warning labels. Take it as you will.

<< Who's going into an existential crisis?

You are. You chase people with 'wrong ideas' away. You cannot co-exist with an idea that somehow is not one that you believe in, which is why you equate existence of an idea next to you with your passive acceptance of that idea, which is ridiculous. Ideas exist regardless of whether you accept them or not. It is both fascinating and scary to me that you think presentable ideas require your explicit permission to exist.

Hell. I am this close to arguing with you on behalf of flat earthers, because I am almost certain based on the conversation so far you are the type of person, who would have sent Gallileo to jail for heresy.

[phailhaus]

> I am advocating for taking off warning labels. Take it as you will.

What are the "warning labels" on believing that the Earth is flat?

> It is both fascinating and scary to me that you think presentable ideas require your explicit permission to exist.

Not sure where you're getting any of this. You seem to have built up quite a straw man that you are getting really upset about. Here it is put simply: I am under no obligation to entertain your beliefs. If you get offended by that and run away to form your own community, thats your problem. You can't force me to pretend as if Flat Earth is a reasonable idea. We're thousands of years past that point.

I really don't understand your position. You are simultaneously aggrieved that Flat Earthers are being ignored, but also seem to think they should die.

[A4ET8a8uTh0]

<<They weren't pushed out, they walked out because their views weren't accepted.

Your assertion is not valid. Your attempt at characterization and framing is misleading. They did not 'walk out'. They were either banned, shadow banned, or w/e current equivalent in a given community of removed is. As a result of said banning, they formed their own communities. Your entire premise is flawed from misrepresentation of that one key element.

<<I am under no obligation to entertain your beliefs.

We are in agreement. Note that the same applies to others. Others are under no obligation to entertain your beliefs and and yet they have every right to occupy same sphere.

<< You seem to have built up quite a straw man that you are getting really upset about.

It is not a straw man. You saying 'flat earthers' just picked up their toys and went away is, however, a lie. I am just calling it out.

<< I really don't understand your position.

I don't like misrepresentation of simple facts, but bold misstatements like those above require corrections.

<<You are simultaneously aggrieved that Flat Earthers are being ignored, but also seem to think they should die.

I will defend idiot's right to say stupid stuff. I have no problem with an idiot dying. It is not some sort of mystery.

[pessimizer]

> Here it is put simply: I am under no obligation to entertain your beliefs.

What I'm wondering is why you think that you're the host.

[vineyardmike]

> There's no way around this. If you try to "keep them around", then you have to say that these are reasonable ideas.

This works both ways. Queer and other minority groups identity weren’t always accepted as reasonable ideas so they made their own spaces until they were allowed back in.

[kgwxd]

It doesn’t work both ways, the same people being ostracized now are the ones that didn’t/don’t except queer and other minority groups. The ones that want people in prison or dead for having attributes beyond their control. Not wanting people like that around has always been considered a reasonable idea by reasonable people.

[vineyardmike]

Yea that’s true.

My point was that the “group X needs to be accepted or they’ll make their own space” is a universal behavior.

If we make it hard for outsiders to make their own space, it will impact queer and similarly marginalized groups. Queer people still need their own space today because they’re still not always accepted. While we should accept reasonable people and allow them into our space, we do need a society that allows people to make their own space.

[generalizations]

> If you try to "keep them around", then you have to say that these are reasonable ideas.

There is a giant middle ground between mocking an idea and accepting that it's reasonable, which you are ignoring.

[amanaplanacanal]

Something like "your ideas are completely wrong, but we won't mock you for them"?

[mcbits]

Something like: This person gets put in my personal ignore filter, which over time will get better at predicting who and what I want ignored. I can always go back and review what's being ignored and make changes. Individuals and their content can be ignored separately, so "I don't like this topic" doesn't ban someone who I like to engage with on other topics.

I'll also tag this person as a flat-earther so my computer will learn to cluster similar content, so I can query "flat-earther" when I want a chuckle.

[amanaplanacanal]

Sounds like creating your own email spam filter. Maybe that could work, but it doesn't seem likely.

[klabb3]

> There's no way around this.

Uhm, yes there is.

> If you try to "keep them around", then you have to say that these are reasonable ideas.

No, you don't.

Apologies for the terseness, but there are solutions here. It's a problem of signal-to-noise ratio, not an issue of principles and tolerance. Reddit has done a lot by looking at user behavior, as opposed to content, and it's the best system so far for any public, global social media with plenty of bad actors. They've also federated human moderation, which is a step in the right direction.

[joshuamorton]

> No, you don't.

But your actions are doing that. You can say "I think these are unconscionable words" until you're blue in the face, but who are people going to believe, you, the person who lets people say those words, or someone else who bans people who say them?

Part of influencing user behavior is controlling which ideas can be discussed. Subreddits very aggressively do this by, like, having rules about what content can be discussed. More than a banlist of unacceptable topics and ideas, they only allow discussion of very particular topics. You can't post about politics on /r/pets. That is influencing user behavior by influencing content. What it feels acceptable to post (user behavior) is influenced by what you see (content). The two are inseparable. The difference between /r/science and /b/ is what content is allowed, because content creates community.

[phailhaus]

Reddit is my go-to example for effective moderation. Here's how they do it: every so often, they straight up ban entire communities from the platform.

[klabb3]

Yeah they do that too, but that's what I don't like, because I don't think opinions should be regulated by corporations. Also I can't tell if you're sarcastic. In case not, what is it effective at? Silencing people with bad opinions?

[ekidd]

I've moderated a number of internet forums. And at the end of the day, you have a choice:

1. You can keep the deliberate assholes, the abusers, the white supremacists, the people with actual swastikas in their profile photos, etc. (Some of these people are much worse than others, obviously.)

2. Or you can keep the nice, pleasant people you want to hang out with.

If you choose to keep (1), you'll eventually lose a significant fraction of (2).

I have zero desire to participate in unmoderated internet communities. Social spaces require some basic norms of behavior, and there has to be some mechanism for kicking people out.

If you want to encourage successful communities, people need to have the freedom of association.

[phailhaus]

Banning hate groups has been provably effective at reducing toxicity on the platform, [1] so the idea that bans will just cause the toxicity to spread to other subreddits turned out to be false. Analogously, there's no obligation for us to bend over backwards to avoid ostracizing hate groups and fringe conspiracy theorists. They are not interested in good-faith debate.

[1] https://www.engadget.com/2017-09-12-reddit-hate-subreddits-b...

[galaxyLogic]

> We mocked, ostracized, and argued them out of common spaces

I think we must argue against bad and/or crazy ideas. If we don't soon people will attack the Capitol....

A good way to argue against crazy assumptions like flat Earth I think is to realize that while there are only a few consistent thus possibly true physical explanations of the world, there are an infinite number of crazy and untrue and inconsistent explanations.

So when someone proposes a crazy idea, we can ask why not these other 10 ideas which are just as crazy as flat Earth? Why not square Earth? Why not Dodecahedron Earth? Why not Triangular Earth? Why not Flat Sun?

[giantrobot]

> That's how we got flat Earth to get so big. We mocked, ostracized, and argued them out of common spaces until they created their own. I'd rather flat Earthers and DiAngelo followers find their way back to rational society, not out from it forever.

How are you going to bring irrational people back to rational society? If someone has signed on to some fantastically unrealistic position and made it a part of their personality the only way out is deprogramming. That takes so much effort. It's also not something most people are equipped to handle. It's also not something the general public should be expected to do.

[pessimizer]

> the only way out is deprogramming.

The non-propaganda word for this is "convincing."

[kibwen]

As the old saying goes: you cannot reason someone out of a position that they did not reason themselves into.

[giantrobot]

There's no convincing people that have left rationality behind. All of these types of conspiracy theory movements operate the same way. They pull people away from rationality and convince them that rational discourse are attacks against them.

It's little different than how cults operate. They go after marginalized (or convince people they have been marginalized) and prey on their insecurities and desire for belonging.

[kodah]

> How are you going to bring irrational people back to rational society?

This is probably where our work needs to be, and I agree it's not everyone's burden to undertake. It's taxing and requires a lot of emotional energy that some might not have. My personal experience with people that believed in conspiracies is that with enough normal human contact they eventually adjust. Sometimes there's an underlying issue that leads to conspiratorial thinking; I'm not even necessarily talking about mental health. It could be financial or interpersonal.

I'm just saying that the alternative of banishment isn't great. It doesn't dissolve the things we don't want, generally.

[dinosaurdynasty]

Problem is if there are enough of them they end up storming a capitol building

[lzooz]

>proceeded to do the oddest form of theatrical racism and subsequent victim position seeking

I read this and I don't know which side of the spectrum this was about :P

[kodah]

DiAngelo followers don't generally like intersectionality because their views are incompatible with it.

[thrown_22]

How?

[kodah]

DiAngelos book focuses on painting a monoculture out of white people with unilateral experiences. It also turns race into what closely mimicks a religion and amplifies the concept.

Intersectionality acknowledges race as a component of struggle but more aptly paints a picture of class issues. It's a far healthier way to look at the world.

[projektfu]

I found "White Fragility" provided an interesting insight into a blind spot in my view of the world but I don't see how her abusive-sounding corporate seminars are supposed to help anything. Even as she described them in the book they sounded disastrous.

[zoklet-enjoyer]

Maybe you're both wrong

[A4ET8a8uTh0]

I don't think it is that complicated. Either private groups can exist or they can't. Either I can choose my audience or I can't. Either I can say "No women." or I can't. In other words, internet becomes a set of private clubs or not.

Horrible people exist whether we are aware of them or not. If delineation is clear, enforceable it could work.

It would destroy current social media.

And that.. is not something I am ambivalent about.

[PaulDavisThe1st]

This is not really correct.

I can create a private group that excludes people who wear purple, because purple wearing is not a protected class under law. I can do the same for people who program in APL, or who have ever ridden a tricycle, or listen to "Freebird".

However, I cannot create a private group that excludes on the basis of any protected status (e.g. sex, religion, ethnicity, age).

[kibwen]

Worth noting that this is how you address the "tyranny of the majority" in a democracy, by enshrining a limited number of rights that even a simple majority cannot revoke, with the goal of protecting the fundamental rights of the minority.

[A4ET8a8uTh0]

I beg to differ. There are private groups in existence right now, who are excluding protected classes and everyone is perfectly fine with it ( sex ). I don't even have to troll 4chan. They are right there in the open[1]

Unless that kind of double standard is ok.

[1]https://verilymag.com/2020/08/women-only-find-your-tribe-gir...

[PaulDavisThe1st]

I will admit to not understanding the scope of the "discrimination" against protected classes that is barred by law. It clearly has some significant extent, but I've never really been able to find a clear description of where the edges are.

[peteradio]

> That's how we got flat Earth

Come on, is there any evidence this isn't just a group of trolls?

Don't feed the trolls people!

[TheCowboy]

NBA player Kyrie Irving has been in the news recently for other comments as well:

https://www.nba.com/news/kyrie-irving-regrets-flat-earth-com...

Not exactly a nerd.

[kbenson]

Even if it started that way, who is to say life hasn't imitated art to the point that now people truly believe it because they can't tell the different between a straight-faced joke that's only detectable because of the ridiculous content when they don't understand enough to identify the content as obviously fake?

[peteradio]

If you can't tell the difference between a troll or a genuine idiot, err on troll. Frankly it's much more flattering for the likely troll.

[zoklet-enjoyer]

I'm a fan of giant tree truth. It's often hard to tell who are true believers and who are trolls. I love it

[shagie]

Inside a Flat Earth convention, where nearly everyone believes Earth isn't round - https://youtu.be/1gHbwT_R9t0

This is not "just a group of trolls."

[DaiPlusPlus]

What’s your uncle like at Thanksgiving?

[peteradio]

Let me put it this way, the only people who've I've ever heard talking about flat earth are incredulous nerds.

[DaiPlusPlus]

I think you underestimate the prevalence of incredulousness in society.

[christkv]

Great Chinese social credit system with ever changing goal lines for punishment

[zoklet-enjoyer]

I googled Robin DiAngelo and expected to read about a far-right Jordan Peterson type. Instead I found that she's the person who created the term "white fragility". From her wiki page, I don't see any reason to compare her to a flat earther

[LAC-Tech]

Peterson is still well within the Overton window, isn't he? He's still very popular (and not banned) on youtube, and would have broadly been considered a social liberal 25 years ago.

Or is this me taking "far right" more literally than you meant it? Are you talking merely from your perspective, and not human history and all obscure corners of political thought?

[kodah]

She's socially accepted by some groups. If you want to understand why I dislike her book I'd suggest reading it. It's one of those that either makes you a follower or question whether you've traveled into a parallel dimension.

Farther up I provide a critique juxtaposed with what I generally follow (intersectionality).

[beebmam]

>That's how we got flat Earth to get so big.

What evidence do you have for the causality here? I'm not convinced that's what has fueled the surge of anti-science movements like flatearthism.

Please share with us why you are so confident of this assertion!