I don't understand how one could look at the current state of affairs regarding rampant misinformation online and say "yeah this is the best we can do without compromising our ideals". Its not good enough.
I think that's the real issue in all of this discussion: there is simply no will.
It's too hard, it's too impossible, we've decided big tech has already won, we've ceded decades of open progress in tech to moguls who don't give the fuck about us, or we're so ideological that any step to the "left" or "right" is perceived as abdicating principles of freedom.
My gp was a former-Jew (thanks anti-semites) that flew over nazi germany. My other grandfather served in Europe after that whole debacle. I feel I have as much right as anyone to say that it's bullshit going on Reddit and running into the same hateful misinformation on every thread, of "arguing" with holocaust deniers on conspiracy that think Sly Stallone kisses dolphins, use the same canards they've been suing for 2k years, and I can promise you were the first to notice my crypto-Jewishness. These same dummies love Q and have never found covid information that fit their narrative that they didn't love.
We really gonna relitigate (and lose) historical issues like the Holocaust for the next 10,000 years? We gonna sit by and whine about "principles" as people are murdered on a daily basis because of misinformation like that? That's not good enough.
What marketplace of ideas? How many serious challenges have there been to big tech by any company in the last decade? What freedom is there if you can't walk out your front door without being directly impacted by disinformation of various kinds on a daily basis?
I'm sorry but I don't quite understand how Reddit--a bastion for young 20-somethings, among which leftism is a major demographic, could ever be construed as a Q-Anon stronghold.
I feel as though this may more reflect your fears than the state of the site, and I feel as though so reflexively writing off a population that already largely agree with you illumines the opposite argument--that reaction to speech is largely an overreaction, and we will, without careful consideration, largely consider any bloc to be constituted of what we fear.
You seem to be projecting onto me what you think I'm projecting. ;)
I didn't call it a stronghold. There are certain subreddits that were aligned. The donald before it moved, conspiracy, conservative, etc. You ever see the greatawakening subreddit where they were acting like Trump was giving secret messages in speeches and calling for executions?
If that exists on a site with leftism as a major demographic, what does it look like elsewhere? You're making my point for me.
BTW, one of the longest-running mods of conspiracy that finally got banned has admitted that they are a Russian national. Not that this means anything, but it's interesting that a subreddit could be dominated by an individual with such strong beliefs about politics in another country.
To give context, I'm very much what some people would mock as an "enlightened centrist" (I felt so sad when I realized this is bad?). I think much of the "hateful mistinformation" is actually more aligned torwards the left. I can't read a thread about pitbulls or my home state without people frothing at the mouth and acting like my dog should be put down today or that my state is an ISIS stronghold.
But consitutionally? If someone is being an asshole on your property, it's your right to kick them off.
I don't believe I am, though--you are, if I'm not mistaken, asserting that it's some prolific iniquitous undercurrent which these platforms are subtending in some manner. (Which would seem somewhat misleading to me, as your assertion that r/TheDonald moved was of their own volition, rather than a banning by the site.)
Any platform harboring content will, as a matter of course, simply through the caprice of a moderator, let slip by insane opinions--but opining that these are some growing tide and, more dangerously, representative of their moderate counterparts (a la the r/Conservative subreddit, which seems constituted of largely by-the-numbers right of centers,) seems disrespectful to all parties involved and serves only to distract from your central assertion that communicating these ideas will in some way seed wanton chaos. (Comparing the ideas directly to those that precipitated the tragedy of the Holocaust.)
Edit, as I'd written my reply to a previous version of your own:
I am sympathetic to the idea that seeing these more fringe ideals is unfortunate--but the argument which I believe bears greater importance is that acting in this manner against them, striking them from the whole of our public discourse and pre-empting any who could, in some way, divine inspiration from the muck is far more deleterious to discourse. It serves all too easily as a means to silence disquiet and cast a veneer of unanimity.
I think the number of discussions that are off-limits should be very small and platforms should be much much more transparent.
However, if allowing certain discussions means also allowing other discussions, I'm not broken up if sites like reddit were to ban a subreddit like conspiracy or at least try to reshape it to something much more objective.
If the owners a property decide certain views are abhorrent, that's their right, I can't think of a valid moral or legal complaint against that - it is their property. If we lack competition that is an issue of market competitiveness more than propaganda.
You're correct in that it's really a market capture problem as things are. But the popular proposals that try to co-opt Big Tech into the censorship game are popular precisely because of that market capture - it's a way to make it extensive without putting the government in charge of it explicitly.
So we can't really treat these two as completely separate right now. Indeed, if those schemes are allowed to go forward, the next thing you'll hear is that we can't break Facebook etc up, because doing so will limit how effectively some information can be suppressed. The more power is concentrated, the more it seeks to sustain that state of affairs, and the better it is at that - so why would we hand those companies so much power when they already are a major problem?
There're certainly multiple places one could draw the line--the efficacy of a given position for these sorts of things varies by your objective or simply the severity one perceives.
Thanks a ton for providing the opportunity for some discussion on this!
Every day? No. But when it's 2021 and you gotta worry about getting gunned down for being a Jew?
Putin loves to use anti-Semitic rhetoric when convenient. Which is the big part of this...the stand pat and do nothing approach doesn't work when the resources of nation states can (logically) and have been behind harnessing disinformation.
The Jewish issue isn't the only issue, better examples might be the Christchurch shooting where the gunman was livestreaming on and because of 4chan.
If you get a chance check out HBO's doc about Jim Watkins and Q.
Christchurch shooting is a good example, because the follow-up crackdown on associated content showed just how far this can go. Remember his "manifesto"? In NZ, its distribution was banned outright by law (or rather government order, but they have laws on the books that allow for it). Not so in Australia - they couldn't find any legal means to restrict it, so the government basically informally asked the ISPs to "do something".
And they did - to the point where a bunch of websites with forums were blocked outright because of their hands-off policy wrt comments (usually in some particular subforum; it's a fairly common way to keep it civil elsewhere) meant that there were a bunch of posts with links to the document.
The end result is that a bunch of completely unrelated stuff was blocked in Australia outright for a while, by private companies in charge of communications acting in unison - effectively, a censorship cartel - with no political or judicial recourse, since the government was not involved in it, and the ISPs were in their right, legally speaking.
Ironically, someone (6f8986c3) replied to this claiming to be Jewish and sharing his experiences...and his post was flagged and removed... In a thread about censorship.
I don't understand how one can say "it's not good enough" without proposing options that are actually better. I've yet to see any; all the censorship proposals on the table are far worse than the present state of affairs.
What, we aren't allowed to talk about issues if we haven't already solved them? Surely you can see how ridiculous that sounds. Ironically, you're also saying "these proposals aren't good enough" without proposing options that are actually better.
Of course we're allowed to talk about them; it's just that "it's not good enough" isn't helpful.
The option that is actually better than all the proposals on the table is what we have right now. I'm not claiming it's perfect, or even good - merely better.
