As a child, I admit I was wholly taken in by digital IP extremists. The danger is real!

They convinced me that information should be free, that it was my right to download and share anything digital, and that the internet was a borderless utopia of knowledge, limited only by our imaginations.

Now, I see the error of my ways and the harm I, and those who thought like me, caused to content creators and distributors.

I understand that the internet is safer, more secure, and better when suckled through the benevolent teat of large corporations, whose wisdom and foresight allows it to be restricted, filtered, and repackaged into a socially beneficial form.

Don't make the same mistakes I did! Trust in the system.

You dropped this!

\s

This is a major and serious point. A large part of the discourse has become slapping the "extremist" label on every dissenting argument from the other side, regardless of where the position actually is.

If you ban extremist speech, then what you've done is create incentive to label everything as extremist.

I consider myself a centrist; I have been registered as an Independent since the first election in which I voted (21 years ago), and have voted for Republicans and Democrats. Politically, I try to evaluate each idea on the merits rather than which party espouses it. So at least in my case, there is no "other side" which I can mislabel as extremist.

That doesn't mean others won't label you as "extremist".

Hahaha, of course there is. There is much more to politics than only Republicans and Democrats - in many countries they would both the be considered as on the same side.

It's like the rule: "Don't debate Nazis, just punch them!"

Sounds reasonable, but the real fun begins when you add: "Everyone who disagrees with us is a Nazi."

No, it doesn't sound rasonable. Even if it's real Nazis. It's an absolutely retarded standpoint.

That's just not true.

Which part is not true in what way?

Al-Quaeda might not appreciate being labelled as extremists, but so what?

We have to call things as we see them. And build a consensus around what's core values and within the normal range of debate, and what's beyond that into dangerous, destructive, and even murderous.

You ban dangerous actions, not speech. When you start censoring speech, you give a very small group of people the ability to silence whoever the please.

Surely it's also true that when you start preventing actions, you give a very small group of people the ability to prevent the actions of whoever they please. It's hard to see the point being made here.

The difference is that when you prevent speech, you can't even discuss changes to the laws. The censorship of speech gives a much different and somewhat hidden form of power.

> you can't even discuss changes to the laws.

This is a type of speech, and there's no reason all speech should be regulated uniformly, just as speech and actions should presumably not be regulated uniformly. We could just prevent actions without bothering with speech at all, but (for instance) it seems similarly doable to ban certain forms of speech that cause unreasonable harm while leaving other forms alone.

An argument could be made that this would be yet another slippery slope, but I think at some point every law falls into that category and a society must decide whether the benefits are worth the tradeoff of starting down this path.

> ... but (for instance) it seems similarly doable to ban certain forms of speech that cause unreasonable harm while leaving other forms alone.

Except that the article is dedicated to explaining why it's not doable and is a bad idea in general

The article at best provides some counter-examples, it does not refute the case in general, especially when other commenters in this thread have pointed out counter-counter examples such as in West Germany. The article also does a pretty poor job of the examples it describes; for example, it assumes that the rise in FN is on the backs of those who share the ideas targeted by anti-hate-speech laws, but to support FN one need not have any of the racist views the laws target. The article only shows that the laws have failed to target right-wing thought; it does not speak to their ability to target the spread of far-right ideas which they were designed to do.

The article does not address whether it's a bad idea, rather its entire premise is built upon the fact that whether it's a good or bad idea is preceeded by a question of whether it works. Several commenters in this thread have pointed out that it does work, and is used to this day, from China's authoritarian implementation to the implementation at other points in history.

I think it's reasonable to make the statement: assuming that it does work (and maybe the article is correct - perhaps it doesn't work), would it still be a good idea? What number of people would it need to work on to be a good idea?

> The article does not address whether it's a bad idea, rather its entire premise is built upon the fact that whether it's a good or bad idea is preceeded by a question of whether it works.

An idea that won't work is a bad idea (to me, at least). From the author's point of view, it won't.

> Several commenters in this thread have pointed out that it does work, and is used to this day, from China's authoritarian implementation to the implementation at other points in history. > I think it's reasonable to make the statement: assuming that it does work (and maybe the article is correct - perhaps it doesn't work), would it still be a good idea? What number of people would it need to work on to be a good idea?

Depends on your definition of works, I suppose. Unfortunately, even if the main objective could be achieved, there are drawbacks. I would not call CCP's implementation a success. Sure, in some ways they have squashed extremist speech, but at what cost? They have also severely curtailed speech which criticizes them. They have created a culture of fear where people self-censor. Eventually, I believe something will have to give. It is simply too early to call it a success or failure at this moment.

Who is "we" that is determining the acceptable range of debate?

They might not agree with it at first, but eventually, large numbers will realize how non-sensical their movement's ideas are. CNN has profiled former QAnon true believers who are recovering.

CNN is just Fox News for extremists like you though.

Not only subjective terms like "extremism", but religious terms like "redeemable".

You and the people who talk like you are getting downvoted because you're contrarian without actually stating an opposition view to what you're ranting about.

Someone: Extremism is bad.

You: What is extreme is subjective.

The next step would be for you to try to give counter points of what you think is extreme that others consider not, or better, what you think is not extreme that others consider so.

You're just fishing for a nice and spicy example. Here is a bland one. I have a big cup of coffee on my desk right now. There are very nice people right here in the USA, some of whom have been my neighbors and about whom I will say nothing derogatory, who think I am endangering my immortal soul by drinking from it. Some might consider taking one or the other stance extreme. I think weighing in publicly on whether such behavior is "redeemable" as if it is for you to decide is wholly inappropriate.

You're looking for some pure, objective reality that will never exist. You have to take a stand at some point; you cannot sit and say "who am I to say?"

"Who am I to say if it's wrong to believe people should be killed and enslaved for their skin color? Next thing you know, someone may think I'm extreme for what coffee I drink!"

Your argument is inane.

The redemption of (your fictional) people who merely believe your more inflammatory example is not between them and me.

If "extremism" gets banned, then individuals are incentivized to get things they don't like labeled as extremism.

We wouldn't be having this conversation if the things labeled extremism and thus banned from platforms was limited to ISIS and literal Nazis. It's been far more far-reaching than that. That's probably due to the incentives, not due to actual extremism.

So if extremism is subjective, it will be leveraged in that manner and you can't stop that behavior without removing the incentive. That's the point, not what is or isn't labeled as extremism today, that's just dragging the conversation back into the political gutter.

> The next step would be for you to try to give counter points of what you think is extreme that others consider not, or better, what you think is not extreme that others consider so.

I don't think that's the next step. I think the point is that what is extreme will always be subjective, and there is danger in allowing some group of people to decide what speech is acceptable and what is not.

> You and the people who talk like you are getting downvoted because you're contrarian without actually stating an opposition view to what you're ranting about.

That's true, but it also seems to effectively hold for the originals, only with conformity rather than contrarianism:

> Someone: Extremism is bad.

Also "remorse", which is quite popular among SJW tribunals when they silence someone on unverified testimony of the popular clique members while refusing to hear the "accused" even once.

I'm not even close to being a leftist (but sign me up for Social Justice without the tribunals).

Regarding your parent post's objection to "redeemable", it's not used in religious contexts exclusively.

Yeah, sure, the original post meant that extremists are redeemable for prizes. The other senses of the term are religious metaphor.