Yeah I guess that's what it really comes down to. I am willing to make you sad to make it harder for nazis to organize and recruit.

A true advocate of free speech would defend someone's right to be a nazi even if they vehemently disagree with them.

Do you have a specific definition of "nazi" in mind we can apply in a reasonable way?

The usual problem I see is anti-"nazi" rhetoric quickly descends into dehumanization rhetoric about how such people don't deserve to live, should be ejected from all civil society, and must be relentlessly persecuted by every legal and social mechanism possible; in fact, all the suspension of every civil right is acceptable if it means stopping nazis. At the same time, it seems that almost everybody who lived in 1940 would be considered a Nazi by today's rather loose standards, and everybody tries to paint their opponents as nazis (even conservatives have the rather inept 'actually, Nazis were SOCIALISTS" retort) and apply this sort of rhetoric to what even 10 years ago was a completely mainstream liberal.

Certainly 4chan is full of reprobates of every flavor. But if you live in a society where the existence of Nazi rhetoric is actually dangerous, well, you've already lost your free society. People don't read deranged Internet rants and become mass murderers unless they were born in raised in an already broken, atomized society. The ideology is the excuse for the violence, not the cause. And unfortunately, this sort of rhetoric (we have to do whatever it takes to stop nazis) is also indicative of an worsening social environment.

And typically, in worsening social environments, where a variety of ideologies become excuses for broken and/or desperate people to become violent, the government will become more and more totalitarian in response. And we’ll cheer it along.

If someone is stupid enough to fall for the lackluster logic of Neo-Nazis then I see that as a problem with our public education, not with the moderation policy of a website. Sure, enforcing "correct" speech at all times could potentially lead to more harmony in society, but I would much, much rather invest in empowering people to think critically for themselves. Many are already able to resist the persuasiveness of propaganda, ads, conspiracy theories, and extremist groups that are all around us today. Teach this skill of resistance instead of trying to baby-proof society.

And then all you have to do is define "everyone who disagrees with me is a nazi" and you've got not only full-blown censorship but also the moral high-ground!

I know, I know for the sake of appearances we don't define everyone who disagrees with us as a nazi, that would be too obvious (although we still do alot).

We describe the broad spectrum of perfectly main-stream, otherwise unremarkable views (but that disagree with us) as "nazi supporters", dog-whistlers etc.

Too easy.

And I'm willing to make you sad by letting anyone come together and express themselves. Leftist censorship will never win

Remember when the Nazis were cancelled in WW2? You will be censored in the same way one day.

You can't just threaten to kill people because they're rude on the internet.

Who made a threat?

It must be hard for you if your idea of free expression requires absolutely no limits. I personally think it’s a bad faith argument and you’re not actually interested in reducing radicalization.

> free expression requires absolutely no limits

But doesn't it?

Usually it's the authoritarians, dictators and generally "bad guys" who need to limit speech, censor, burn books, etc.

Society isn’t a system we can reason about in absolutes. The spirit of the law says that you can’t tell “fire!” in a crowded building, I think we collectively agree that there are limitations on free speech and we’re fortunate to let the courts map out the nuance rather than a mob or a dictator.

Nothing is absolute... but for example, in my country (former socialist one), things like affirmative action would be considered very racist, while some countries (mostly USA) consider affirmative action anti-racist. If I argue with an american about this, which one of us is racist, and who decides that when it comes to censorship?

You seem to have put your finger on one of the more nuanced issues that the OP suggested courts can resolve.

Which courts? American ones, that approve of affirmative action, or ours here, that don't?

Do you really need courts to settle a verbal (well.. written) argument online?

Yes, it's just one of many examples where cultural differences cause issues, and where two people consider themselves "good" and the other one "bad" and in turn, censor all speech, since both are racist in atleast some of the courts.

I guess I'm suggesting each countries courts of course decide what's best for their country.

You imply (but I am not convinced) that there are serious consequences for having one opinion or the other on these "cross country" online communities. I suspect instead that for the more nuanced issues like affirmative action there will just be the usual arguing back and forth and little else.

Some of us appreciate that the internet effectively allows for discussion that is less popular in their own country.

> The spirit of the law says that you can’t tell “fire!” in a crowded building

Of course you can. Especially if there's a fire.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_the...

Very interesting, thank you. I’m taking a law class at a local community college and have a research paper due next week- I think this is going to be my topic.

Humanity has never had to deal with global echo chambers where individuals who are mostly harmless on their own can come together and feed on their common rancor.

> Humanity has never had to deal with global echo chambers where individuals who are mostly harmless on their own can come together and feed on their common rancor.

Do you not realize that "echo chamber" describes this place, and any place with groupthink enforcement mechanisms (voting, karma, flagging, and excessive moderation) much more accurately than 4chan? For example, HN groupthink has endorsed low-carb and ketogenic diets almost since its inception, and as a consequence, has also promoted the dissemination of dangerous health misinformation, like LDL cholesterol denialism and downplaying the risks of excessive sodium and satrated fat consumption.

I must have missed the last time HNers convinced themselves to start a race war by murdering a bunch of people.

I think that fat and cholesterol have killed more people than any kind of race war in the last decade.

> you’re not actually interested in reducing radicalization.

Could you perhaps share some studies of effective ways to reduce radicalization? I highly doubt “not visiting or posting on 4chan” is one of them.

Glad to see some others around here call out dang for being a tone policer, and a bad one at that.

He constantly butts in where he doesn't belong, to claim that good discussion is "flame wars". HN truly is overly moderated and would benefit from less heavy handed moderation.