> If stuff isn't moderated, only the extremely intolerant views will remain.

That's actually the claim here and it's not one you support. Mein Kampf, an extremist work, has existed for 80 some years now and can be bought in most bookstores, yet we don't seem to all be goose-stepping or have any less non-extremist content for it.

Reddit right now is having an interesting problem where by simply subscribing or commenting in a subreddit, others will ban you. That doesn't seem to be "moderation" but instead we're attacking peoples freedom of expression.

The Paradox of Tolerance is against intolerant behavior - one of which is suppressing expression.

It's really ironic that you used Main Kampf to justify your position. Mein Kampf hasn't taken over our society (though there are still plenty of people who read it), but it was an important part of the way that the Nazi's took over Germany in the 1930s.

And continues to inspire and radicalize people. It's only that the world has come through the other end of that insanity and the body count is high enough, that Mein Kampf stands, to most people, as a tombstone monument to complete insanity.

Do we need to let every kind of complete insanity run its course and generate a body count?

As I remember the book didn't start to sell very well until the Nazis took over in 1933, at which point it was a little too late to stop them.

The book did (as I recall) describe Hitlers plans in some detail, so had more people read it, maybe they would have done something.

I'm going to reply the exact same way I did to another comment: Mein Kampf sold 240,000 copies before he became chancellor, so it seems like it was already an important part of the conversation. I'm not advocating for censorship, but obviously the argument that Mein Kampf is available therefore we should stop trying to limit violent speech is not a good one.

Without context, sellling a 1/4 million books to a population of some 62 million is not impressive. I couldn't find out how many books were sold in the late 20s in Germany, but it is hardly a bestseller if less than 1/2 of a percent have read the book.

Anyway my argument was sorta the opposite: the book did manifestly not sell well enough that it became how most people got converted to Nazism, and if more people had read the book they might have realized that Hitler was doing exactly what he wrote in his book and stopped him at an earlier point.

The New York Times Bestseller list covers a population much larger than that. Yet:

"""To make the list, it is estimated that novels sell from 1,000 to 10,000 copies per week, depending on competition. Median sales fluctuate between 4,000 and 8,000 in fiction, and 2,000–6,000 in nonfiction. The majority of New York Times bestselling books sell from 10,000 to 100,000 copies in their first year.""" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_York_Times_Best_Seller...

The Nazi's didn't need a book to take over Germany in the 1930s. Their use of radio, and controlling all theater was much more important to their campaign.

They controlled who was allowed to express themselves and how. They limited everything to their message, even suppressing branches of science that didn't support their views.

That we as a liberal society can tolerate illiberal views is important. You should read things like Mein Kampf and the Unabombers manifesto - not because they are good but because you should know your enemy and how they think.

Mein Kampf sold 240,000 copies before he became chancellor, so it seems like it was already an important part of the conversation. I'm not advocating for censorship, but obviously the argument that Mein Kampf is available therefore we should stop trying to limit violent speech is not a good one.

"Fire & Fury" sold 2.3 million copies. Did it play a role in Trump not being re-elected?

Strawmanning an argument is poor form.

Mein Kampf has existed and been available, and hasn't actually really caused any harm. That doesn't make it a better book but the hallmark of liberal society is that we can tolerate dissent while an authoritarian one can not.

Unless moderators themselves are extremely intolerant already. Moderation isn't black or white - the "what", "how" and "why" of moderating matters.

People seem to forget that Paradox of tolerance is recursive - being overeager with it makes you the enemy you're supposed to fight.

...and if stuff is moderated, only the stuff they moderators are ok with will remain.

Which means that other communities ran by other moderators can be created. (This breaks down probably if the moderator is like, an ISP, AWS, etc.)

Another interesting way this breaks down in practice is when communities interact.

You can observe this today on the Fediverse. A common pattern is a small group pressuring moderators of some community to ban select people, under threat of the whole community being banned by many other communities. They make good on this threat by playing all the other communities against each other, threatening each one with being banned, unless they ban the original target community.

Do you think telling people in Communist China to "make your own government" if you don't agree with their censorship is a valid argument?

Could you please stop creating accounts to post flamewar comments to HN? That's not what this site is for.

I suppose I should add: No, we don't care about your views on China. We're just trying to have an internet forum that doesn't burn itself to a screaming crisp, and also (if we're allowed a stretch target) that doesn't suck.

https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Which isn't perfect but a far better outcome than the above.

Except if the moderators are in agreement with the tyranny. Then you have no views to oppose the tyrants.

Right any force of rule/law enforcement can be corrupted. That's not an argument against having rules or attempting to enforce them, even if imperfect.

"Don't worry everyone I'll be a great arbiter of information"

- Adolf Hitler when he took over the press probably

This is a distortion of the paradox of tolerance, it doesn't endorse censorship. The existence of extremely intolerant views doesn't magically make it impossible to voice normal views. For example, Reddit pre-Pao had plenty of extreme subreddits that existed on the page, and never resulted in a exodus of non-extreme views.

The paradox of tolerance only comes into play when views start getting translated into actions. Let the Nazis march down Skokie. Action should only be taken against them if they start acting on their views. Removal only happens in the interest of self-preservation. The paradox of tolerance is not an endorsement of censorship.

Let’s call moderation what it actually is: censorship. And censorship is very much the path to tyranny, especially when done in collusion with governments.

1. Limited and transparent moderation occurs everywhere in society, and isn't remotely the same thing censorship.

2. No private tech company makes their content moderation "in collusion with governments". Not in the US at least.

Re: #2

https://mobile.twitter.com/DailyCaller/status/14157273544632...

Sorry, thought stuff like this was more well known. They’ve been colluding for quite a while but now it’s so brazenly open the White House press secretary is mentioning it in press conferences.

That was a suggestion Facebook can (and has) ignore. If you are implying that was some kind of legally binding edict, you would be wrong.

I agree it was out of bounds to make a comment like that from the WH, but lets be clear what it was and wasn't. It wasn't political, it was public health. And it wasn't an order, it was a request.

This generation has not experienced anything remotely like censorship. Telling nutters to go elsewhere is absolutely nothing like the draconian measures of last century.

For all their belly-aching, there is literally no insane idea that you can't put out there with essentially zero repercussions.

This response is simply goal post shifting. Censorship is censorship.

Using a recent example: YouTube removes a video of medical Doctors promoting studies of a COVID treatment, one that could save lives. There’s science to back it up, however it’s not science promoted by the medical majority. Thus, it is censored. As a result, people don’t have access to a potentially life saving treatment and will die - this is censorship.

Are there worse examples of this concept happening over the past century? Yes, of course. But censorship leading to the deaths of millions is certainly bad.

> This response is simply goal post shifting. Censorship is censorship.

No. Deplatforming is not the same as censorship. Don't equate them.

If Stanford University throws you off campus for holding up a "Stanford sucks" sign, this is deplatforming. Put it on your own lawn. Nobody has the obligation to host your content.

And no, it's not "effectively censorship" either. Censorship is actively seeking out and removing information from all platforms, everywhere, burning books, etc.

> But censorship leading to the deaths of millions is certainly bad.

What the actual F, no one is being censored leading to millions of deaths. If anything, deplatforming has saved millions of dying of COVID due to actual disinformation about fake cures (Hydroxychloroquine, injecting bleach) and pseudo-scientific FUD about vaccines.

Have a miracle cure for COVID? By all means, share. You'll be both wealthy and a hero. But nope, it's goddamn charlatans all day long with this shit.

Hi again. Deplatforming is censorship. Your example is censorship. I’ll leave the definition here for others and maybe you too if you want to learn what it actually means.

https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/896/censorship

I think the need to redefine words like censorship is to make one seem good and necessary and one seem bad and deplorable. So “deplatforming” is now the good censorship and censorship remains the bad. Again see the link to clarify what exactly constitutes censorship. It doesn’t matter if you get it or not.

>Have a miracle cure for COVID?

Nope, just a suppressed treatment which could save lives. If the medical establishment actually cared about health it would be bending over backwards to study it instead of actively suppressing it. All I can do is post the science, here are 60 studies with more than half peer reviewed:

https://ivmmeta.com/

Calling medical doctors and researchers who risk their careers to publish studies backing up potential treatments are not charlatans, they’re heroes.

> https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/896/censorship

> Censorship occurs when individuals or groups try to prevent[1] others from saying, printing, or depicting words and images.

In the example I gave, Stanford is not showing up to your house to take signs off your lawn. So according to your very definition, they aren't "trying to prevent you from saying, printing, or depicting words and images," they are literally just kicking you off their lawn. You just repeatedly state these things are equivalent, when they are not, as I explained multiple times, and then you post a link to information that has not censored. Frankly I don't even want to argue about whether said link has been deplatformed or not, because it's not censored, and it's just me and you at this point, with zero progress.

[1] prevent, v.

  1. keep (something) from happening or arising.

  2. make (someone or something) unable to do something.