Simply ignore the internet-radicalised mass shooters! Ignore the people raising funds for murderers. Ignore the people gathering molotovs to protest, and the others encouraging each other to run them over with cars. I'm sure none of that stuff will ever happen to you.
People protest for different reasons and I don't like all of them.
Homicide is actually something very rare in humans apart from formal war. A tiny subset is perhaps radicalized by internet content, but I would guess there are actually underlying issues for everyone.
Your reaction seems to indicate panic, not rational thought.
I don't agree with this.
To be honestly, I would consider around 1/3rd of the world wide population to be currently living under authoritarian regimes of varying degrees of bad.
This is where free speech absolutists lose me. They say that all speech should be protected and as soon as they find an exception that is just labeled "not speech". Why then can't we use a definition of "not speech" that includes Blood Libel?
When the govt starts talking about “speech to foments discord” that’s a hell of a slippery slope.
In Germany, the line is drawn much further back. It doesn't matter if what you say incites crime, the speech in and of itself is illegal.
If they came out and said "Facebook does not support free speech on it's platform", then at least they'd be hoenst.
Food for thought.
No, that's not how the Internet - or people in general - work.
Once you convince people that the other side is evil and your side must win at all costs, they'll rationalize any behavior. This includes censoring and de-platforming voices that don't agree with them.
After you've convinced yourself that "I believe that we should hire whoever is the most qualified, regardless of their ethnicity" or "I believe that all lives matter equally, none more than any other" are HATE SPEECH, it's very easy to convince yourself to ban people with those opinions from being able to speak their opinion. This is why throwing around "Nazi!", "White Supremacist!" for people not actually exhibiting those behaviors is so dangerous. Once you de-humanize someone, it's easier to convince yourself to take away their human rights (like free speech).
I believe it does. And I don’t believe it’s a dishonest argument.
But I sincerely respect your position (to use the cliché: I understand where you’re coming from...). And I agree to disagree.
Will you agree to disagree with me, though?
If you don't like the way other people are thinking, you have to have a conversation with them and try to change their views the hard way.
Censorship may even protect people with views you find objectionable -- because that person is shielded from having disagreements with others.
Again, that’s not how people work. “The marketplace of ideas” is an idealism, a mini-utopia. It does not account for known and unpatched vulnerabilities in human psychology - and a fix from the vendor is not expected any time soon.
Just look at the past 20 years and the success of the gay rights movement. Views changed because of millions of one-on-one conversations between people who disagreed on gay marriage. No censorship was required for progress. In fact, censorship would have been counterproductive, as I believe it is here.
It's no coincidence that the countries with the least free speech also tend to be the most regressive on civil rights and some of the worst places to be an ethnic minority.
Feels like this is an attempt to simplify something complex. Most Western European countries have more restrictions on speech than the US, but many of them do a better job of upholding civil rights. Just today someone posted a thread about the broken bail system in the US - for example.
It's also worth noting that only half of the EU member states have legal gay marriage -- something that all Americans have access to.
https://www.pewforum.org/fact-sheet/changing-attitudes-on-ga...
That is not actually how it happened.
The individual gay were not about to go out of closet unless it was safe to do or unless they had strong motivation to risk.
I agree with you that this is not exactly how people work, but I believe the parent comment was going in the right direction, they just went just a bit off the mark. To quote what they said.
>> If you don't like the way other people are thinking, you have to have a conversation with them and try to change their views the hard way.
So yes, while having a conversation with someone who is strongly holding onto some insane beliefs is unlikely to help that specific person, however, it definitely helps with steering other people (who observed that exchange and who are a bit more on the fence) in the right direction and away from those insane views.
You don't even need to go far to find examples of that working, just look at HN. While the views here won't normally be as insane as an average "hot take" on FB, there were definitely some heated arguments (about higher-level fundamental ideas, not technical matters) that swayed my opinion one way or the other, despite those arguments clearly not really changing the minds of people actually involved in those arguments.
Yes, this is just anecdata and not a peer-reviewed study, but I have a belief that this experience is not that uncommon at all.
You and I have a right to not do anything with those people. But for the sake of discussion, I'm willing to do that with people where we disagree on reasonable things. I'm not willing to have a civil discourse with people that adamantly refuse to believe facts and think I'm a part of a larger conspiracy.
Does that mean censorship of all of these people / ideas is the answer? I don't think so. But I know that if I ran a platform where people were discussing holocaust denial I would ban them. I'm willing to admit I might be a hypocrite on that front, but alas I am a human.