Based on an (admittedly imperfectly) related paper with Stevie Chancellor & Munmun De Choudhury [1], I would expect that the spillover to other sites results in a 1) smaller, but 2) more committed group of users.

http://comp.social.gatech.edu/papers/cscw16.thyghgapp.chance... (see Summary of Findings, page 10)

Which is good - concentrate the hate speech into a single place and then take it down.

And tbh, this does sound very aggressive and Nazi-like; round up the [group we don't like] and exterminate.

It's quite a hateful philosphy to have.

Never mind that the slippery slope argument is a known logical fallacy, never mind that these companies are private entities and can do what they like, never mind that if Nazis ever gain power they will literally, physically exterminate people they don't like, never mind that people are still free to express their own views on public platforms, never mind all of that. Ugh.

The only consolation is that these communities are being censored, taken offline, and driven onto platforms where they cannot reach nearly as many people as before, and that this will continue to happen, no matter what HN libertarians say. And that the tech community is not nearly a-ok with hosting racist speech as HN would make you believe. We are moving forward, and what you're seeing is a last-ditch reaction to pro-racism, neo-nazi communities being marginalized.

No, I think it's unhealthy and may lead to such a society, not that we live in such. Do not confuse a fear of a possible future with an irrational fear of a present that isn't.

>Never mind that the slippery slope argument is a known logical fallacy,

I hope you're aware of the fallacy fallacy, yes? I think that might clear things atleast partially up.

The problem I see here is that this is a slippery slope that my country has gone down in the past already and it pains me to see tendencies of this happening in the us.

>never mind that these companies are private entities and can do what they like

An argument can be made that sufficiently large social networks (2 million users or more, for example) should be held to the same standard as a government by the nature of exerting a real power over the people in the network.

>never mind that if Nazis ever gain power they will literally, physically exterminate people they don't like

I think you misinterprete the argument. My worry is not Nazis. Not that I would consider the US citizens who claim to be Nazis to be real Nazis (they're more like kids playing lets-pretend in comparison).

My actual worry is people who will be hurt by this that you don't see because you and people who want to silence Nazis are wearing blinders on each side of your head.

If you want to prevent Nazis from taking power, the easiest solution is to find out why these people are doing the things they are doing and going against the root cause. Nazi-ism is merely a symptom.

>never mind all of that

First they came... I think you know how the rest goes. I forgot.

>and that this will continue to happen, no matter what HN libertarians say

The daily stormer is on Tor now, no? Can you censor Tor?

All the pitchforks do is to drive these people into places where they are safe from them and where the most dedicated of their followers can fester and boil the ideology.

>We are moving forward, and what you're seeing is a last-ditch reaction to pro-racism, neo-nazi communities being marginalized.

Maybe. Maybe people are reacting to things you don't want to acknlowedge and not to actual neo-nazi communities being banned.

There are risks there and I do hope you recognize that people who say this is bad are not automatically defending Neo-Nazis. As that too would be a fallacy.

It also raises questions about whether modern societies should expand notions of private and public divisions over digital infrastructure, so that the tools for public assembly might be adapted for the norms of modern communication.

Your country has literally banned Nazis, mentions of Nazis, symbols of Nazis, etc. Hell, even Twitter blocks Nazis in Germany.

Has it descended down the slippery slope into authoritarian disaster?

You may hold any opinion which does not violate the dignity of humans, no matter right or left. And we do have a fairly active right and far right.

I appreciate that you're trying to trivialise this into some kind of "different sports team" difference of opinion to score a cheap point but you're wrong - these people want others dead, removed, or subjugated purely because they're different.

And that is something that in 2017, the human race should be saying a very strong "No, get to fuck, you scrotes" to.

And the other sports team just wants different things to be done. Admittedly not as drastic... yet.

>And that is something that in 2017, the human race should be saying a very strong "No, get to fuck, you scrotes" to.

In 2017, almost 2018, the human race should have learned how to control these kind of ideologies without using brutish tribe mentality.

It hasn't. Therefore we can either shrug our shoulders and let people get on with their subjugations and violations or we can accept that we're not an enlightened race of ubermensch ripped from a Star Trek episode and utilise our "brutish tribe mentality" to protect those who need it.

Not that you are wrong because of that but you are wrong for different reasons. Possibly because Star Trek has little to do with an Übermensch and considering the context you also used the word wrong.

Love this idea!

But I get to decide what's permitted and what's not.

We're going to start with art that I don't understand, then off to literature that I don't care for, when all of that filth is cleaned out, it's on to expressions of thought that everyone intuitively knows are wrong, then we progress to purge politics of incompatible policy and incorrect voting patterns.

Ok?

In compromise toward the middle-ground, I'll only eliminate art that I don't value.

With some simple common-sense, I think we can really fix the art world.

What are your credentials for this job?