I am generally against censorship, because for every case that is "obvious", there are many more that merely seem so on the surface. This is especially important in cases where you might simply disagree with how someone else thinks, since thoughts can never be allowed to become illegal or immoral; it is only actions where such judgements are applicable.
The proper approach to combating misinformation and dangerous ideas is education. By understanding why an idea is dangerous, you will also understand why it cannot inform your actions.
Using legal tools would be horrific. Government censors deciding what material is too dangerous for the public is exactly one of the elements of fascism.
Private entities on the open market exercising their right to not help promote ideas they object to is a good thing. It means that the more objectionable an idea is, the harder it is to publish and the smaller its reach; and the more in the gray area an idea it is, the easier it is disseminate and the wider its reach. If one of those private entities makes a mistake in judgment, that's an opportunity for a competitor.
Governments have a monopoly on violence. Its power is not kept in check by competitors, but by systems like a bill of rights. Weakening those rights to allow legal tools to control ideas would be disastrous.
Corporations have no responsibility or ability to educate everyone about misinformation. They do have a responsibility not to enable bad people to do bad things, including not promoting ideas they know are dangerous.
> They do have a responsibility not to enable bad people to do bad things, including not promoting ideas they know are dangerous.
This is literally corporate fascism if done in an extralegal way. And no, the free market is not going to care about the 1-5% of people discarded.
To quote a very nice blog[1]:
Declare that you’re going to stop holding witch hunts, and your coalition is certain to include more than its share of witches.
[1] https://slatestarcodex.com/2015/07/22/freedom-on-the-central...
What's "lawful speech" today may not be lawful tomorrow if we go down this path. I don't want governments deciding (except in very narrow circumstances) what people are and are not allowed to say.
I really like the parent's idea that a company deciding to not provide service to someone they find objectionable is just a business opportunity for someone else. If no one wants to take up that opportunity, then the public has spoken. It's not ideal, but it's way better than a government making that choice through threats of force.
Entirely agree and current laws already prohibit encouraging murder
> I really like the parent's idea that a company deciding to not provide service to someone they find objectionable is just a business opportunity for someone else.
Like it was in in the 20th century before civil right laws?
It is like saying that a monopoly is impossible because competitors can always emerge. It just does not work in practice.
Especially when the "competitor" become themselves target of a new witch hunt.
Things like civil rights laws are the flip side of the same coin. I'm comfortable with laws that prohibit threats of violence. I'm comfortable with laws that ensure you can't refuse service to someone just because they're of a race you don't like. I think that's a reasonable compromise of "free speech".
But I'm not comfortable with a government requiring that a company allow their users to build something like 8chan inside their service. If Reddit didn't want to allow users to have a sub dedicated to fat shaming, I'm not comfortable with the government being able to tell Reddit that they're required to allow that sub to operate, unfettered. If Facebook wants to shut down a page or group that promotes hatred of a particular race, I'm not comfortable with the government saying they have to let it run.
So how do we solve this problem? The article you reference even suggests, at the very end, that (despite the examples of past bad behavior) all this worrying might be for nothing:
> My primary hope is that it’s just not a real problem. Certainly there has been very little in the way of speech restriction so far, and what little there has been has been against things which, on the object level, I’m happy to see gone. It’s entirely possible that we’ll escape with only a few things banned that probably deserve it. I certainly hope this is the case.
He also acknowledges that it's not great to be in a position where we have to depend on hope in order to reach a good outcome, which I agree with, but maybe that's just all we have. Legislating behavior only works up to a point. Legislating attitudes doesn't work at all.
I'm happy to see the Daily Stormer gone. I'm happy to see 8chan gone. I'm happy to see Reddit banning some subs (and honestly wish they'd ban more). I don't see the value in tolerating speech that promotes intolerance. But I'm not comfortable with the government stepping in here, and while their handling is far from perfect, the private companies aren't doing too terrible a job at it.
"My primary hope is that it’s just not a real problem. Certainly there has been very little in the way of speech restriction so far, and what little there has been has been against things which, on the object level, I’m happy to see gone."
> This is literally corporate fascism if done in an extralegal way.
I resolutely and absolutely oppose corporations acting extralegally. But Cloudflare and Voxility have an absolute legal right to not do business with 8chan and Epik if they so choose.
Cloudflare took down one website that was directly related to a major tragedy that cost people their lives. If you want to complain about that go ahead, but I don't care. I don't allow people to use my websites to spread that kind of hate, and I have no problem with Cloudflare doing the same in extreme circumstances.
As to whether 8chan 'caused' those abhorrent crimes, I couldn't say, any more than 'violent video games' caused them. I view such crimes as having a root cause of some form of mental illness, which does not (imo) relieve the doers of culpability.
The point is that they are demonstrably not exactly what they claim to be, and thus some level of distrust is warranted.
Where does Cloudflare claim to be content agnostic?
It's sad to see them compromise their principles, but sometimes it only takes one little Twitter mob to make people back down. That's why it's reasonable to question their character.
They may want to claim it, one way or the other, as part of their IPO filing so that potential investors have some idea of liability risks with the company.
He did buckle, but we're only human. But did the pressure come from an angry mob on twitter, as most people assume, or from some guys wearing shades and an earpiece?
It would either mean that the laws are insufficient or that the market is overreaching.
The Christchurch killer livestreamed the event on Facebook, and the enormous well-funded content moderation apparatus within failed to shut it down until well after the innocents were dead.
But Grandma uses Facebook, so we can't go after them.
The Wal-Mart shooter had a Twitter account, and posted plenty of content questionable enough even for the FBI to take notice.
But cousin Jake uses Twitter, so we can't go after them.
It doesn't matter what 8chan was used for, because far more popular platforms were used for far worse content. The only thing that mattered here was popularity.
And 8chan didn't have it.
they want those people there
this is where they radicalize each other
quote: There’s an unfortunate corollary to this, which is that if you try to create a libertarian paradise, you will attract three deeply virtuous people with a strong commitment to the principle of universal freedom, plus millions of scoundrels. Declare that you’re going to stop holding witch hunts, and your coalition is certain to include more than its share of witches.
To most people, that's why 8chan needed to be shut down, but Facebook only needs to be fixed. Why do you think that's irrelevant, and being small is the only crime?
Another reason I don't think this is true is that I also can't find anything suggesting that the content the Christchurch killer posted is illegal (indeed, it has significant newsworthiness and academic value), and 8chan's policy was to allow anything not "illegal in the United States of America" [1] . If it didn't violate 8chan's policies, why did they take down the stream?
[1]: http://web.archive.org/web/20190805065011/https://8ch.net/fa...
you know this doesnt actually stop the murders right? does it feel better to get outraged at the site instead of the murderer?