Rejecting people that promote the "Sandy Hook was fake!" conspiracy theory and even harassing the parents of murdered children isn't a way to avoid offending the "progressive attitudes of Silicon Valley". It's just common decency. ... Can we at least set the bar at that level -- that we _don't_ harass the parents of murdered children for clicks?
"We must remove that stuff because those ideas are dangerous/offensive, and if you disagree with removing it then you must agree with that filth!" is extremely helpful to the sorts of people who do edgy stuff to attract attention and then try to memoryhole it once they get a big audience.
I think the truth is the opposite: there are no dangerous ideas. "Sandy Hook was fake!" is stupid and wrong, but the way to defeat it is exposure, not erasure. Sunlight is the best disinfectant.
What's "naïve" is you or anyone else thinking they have the power to "nudge people into better patterns", which is exactly what the kind of behavior you're promoting attempts to accomplish.
You can't, and you never will. Culture evolves slowly, and humans even slower.
> What's "naïve" is you or anyone else thinking they have the power to "nudge people into better patterns"
> You can't, and you never will. Culture evolves slowly, and humans even slower.
There is ample evidence since at least World War I, that both 'positive' PSA type information and 'negative' propaganda/counter information/psy ops absolutely have an effect.
Reminder that the Wakefield fraud in 1998, on M.M.R. vaccines and autism, started a negative sentiment towards vaccination and is directly attributed to the measles outbreaks (and deaths) across the developed world (Amplified by Oprah's platform). [1]
Reminder that still today many people will claim carrots give you better vision (they are indeed healthy). This was a counter-info operation from the British, claiming they were providing Air Control with carrots, in order to hide the existing of newly invented RADAR technology against German Bombers. [2]
The argument isn't that false information doesn't have an effect. It's that your attempts to manipulate people through censorship has the opposite effect.
And keeping Jones off of Rogan would've accomplished what? Someone who thinks the gummint is out to git 'em would believe a different 'gummint is out to gitcha' conspiracy theory instead?
I don't think you can win that battle. The 'Proctor & Gamble are satan worshipers' meme spread across the country before the internet existed. You can't stop people from spreading nonsense, but engaging with and ridiculing nonsense at least makes sure the counter-memes exist, when someone is ready to hear them.
>You can't stop people from spreading nonsense, but engaging with and ridiculing nonsense at least makes sure the counter-memes exist, when someone is ready to hear them.
You can do both. There is evidence that deplatforming works. It isn't perfectly effective, but not giving cranks access to the biggest megaphones and most virulent information-spreading engines in human history does in fact seem to inhibit their ability to spread. Doing so doesn't stop anyone from engaging with or ridiculing them.
But, point of order, we've been "engaging and ridiculing" for years now, it hasn't worked yet. Everyone says sunlight is the best disinfectant, but as far as I can see, this particular strain of infection feeds on sunlight.
"Deplatforming" works, because what you just did is use a nicer sounding euphemism for censorship. Obviously with censorship you can hinder the spread of information, regimes like the CCP do this very successfully. The question is at what cost, and who decides what is misinformation? Does it actually result in a net positive for society over time?
The most livable societies I know are all open societies. Once you start censoring this you might also want to censor that and the misinformation here, and this doesn't sound right either... Maybe your own comment is misinformation. Maybe saying we need more restrictions on speech is a dangerous idea. Should I lobby for your speech to be deplatformed, as you call it?
>The most livable societies I know are all open societies.
If by "open" societies you mean societies in which no form of "censorship" is practiced by any entity, at any level, then no, you do not, because such societies do not exist. Even the United States has limits placed on speech at the Federal level (the level limited by the First Amendment) and elsewhere. Even public squares are regulated. And on top of everything else, society itself imposes "censorship" through cultural and social norms.
Certainly speech on private property can be regulated. You can't go into a restaurant and start campaigning or venting about the government. Platforms on the web, which are also private property, have always been likewise regulated by their owners. I guarantee this is the case in whatever livable societies you're referring to.
>Once you start censoring this you might also want to censor that and the misinformation here, and this doesn't sound right either... Maybe your own comment is misinformation.
Yes, the slippery slope argument, all forms of censorship must inevitably lead to arbitrary censorship something something Orwell something Stalinist purges. At this point it's been invoked so often that it's become something of a thought-terminating cliche. All I can say is I don't believe that the ability of site owners and moderators to police and control content - an ability they've had forever mind you - will somehow inevitably lead to the boot stomping on our heads forever. If you disagree we'll have to agree to disagree.
After all, as stated earlier, there are no societies in which no form of censorship occurs. If the slippery slope argument were valid, all societies would currently be dictatorships. That societies exist which you consider "open" suggests that
>Should I lobby for your speech to be deplatformed, as you call it?
Lobby whom? We're talking about the policies of specific private entities, you're the one who predictably brought up CCP style authoritarianism despite no one actually arguing for governments to "deplatform" anyone from society. But sure - if you think my speech is doing real world harm in the same way as Alex Jones or anti-vaxxers, feel free to "lobby" the mods about it. That would, after all, be your free speech right would it not?
And yet increasing cases of such censorship are exactly what we observe. A recent extreme example was an Oxford professor of epidemiology who had his post removed for 'false information'. They're also outright banning all News in Australia now: https://www.sydney.edu.au/news-opinion/news/2021/02/18/exper...
>feel free to "lobby" the mods about it.
Sure, we both know they won't remove you. If I were an elite and actually had the power to have your voice removed from all popular platforms, as well as access to Visa transactions and banking etc. like it happened to Jones, you'd still support it, right?
It's of course known these Silicon Valley corporations aren't really multi-billion dollar businesses, but collectivized people who have personhood and free speech rights. By creating oligopolies and controlling what information we view, they only exercise their rights as citizens the world.
'Works' in what sense? Does it make the sort of people who believe this stuff less credulous? Or does it just make them less likely to listen to the specific blowhard being deplatformed, and less likely to believe the specific conspiracy theory being peddled? It's not like there's a shortage; both conspiracy theories and con-men are fungible.
(And it goes without saying, that any deplatforming/censorship argument sounds strongest against something patently ridiculous like Sandy Hook not having happened, weaker against something controversial, and positively diabolical against something you personally believe to be true. If you assume the person in charge of the deplatforming is someone you politically disagree with, are you still as big a fan?)
Let me ask you this - if deplatforming doesn't work, what are all of the people concerned about it worried about?
It works in the sense that it deprives people of the power-multiplying capabilities of large platforms to spread disinformation. It doesn't stop the spread, but it does slow the spread. Yes, Sandy Hook conspiracy theorists would still exist without Alex Jones egging them on, but there would have been fewer of them, and they might not have been so invested in the meme that they decided to harass victims of the shooting.
>And it goes without saying, that any deplatforming/censorship argument sounds strongest against something patently ridiculous like Sandy Hook not having happened, weaker against something controversial, and positively diabolical against something you personally believe to be true.
Yes, that's why I'm making it against the first group, and not the second or third. I'm saying if you're spreading patently ridiculous nonsense like "Sandy Hook was a hoax," and that ridiculous nonsense is doing actual societal harm, it's perfectly legitimate for platforms to decide that you should take your big breadboard and tinfoil hat elsewhere.
>If you assume the person in charge of the deplatforming is someone you politically disagree with, are you still as big a fan?
I'm not supporting deplatforming in the case of simple political disagreement, so in that case, no.
I think the main thing we disagree on is: I don't think Alex Jones has any power, or changes anyone's mind. He doesn't have a silver tongue, a deft wit, or evidence on his side. He's just a schmuck who tosses out bullshit to see what sticks.
What you're dancing around, though, is that you can't talk about why this particular piece of bullshit sticks if you're pretending it's apolitical. The Sandy Hook hoax idea, as I understand it, is the theory that there are forces within the US government plotting to restrict gun rights, and they staged a fake school shooting to gain support. Right?
Well, you can pin the second bit on Alex Jones, at least partly, but the other part, the "there are forces within the US government plotting to restrict gun rights" part, that's a meme that the mainstream right has been pushing relentlessly for something like two generations. And it is not a conspiracy theory; it's literally true (albeit often exaggerated).
So my point, the reason I think deplatforming Jones would be ineffectual, is that the damage is already done. A generation has been convinced that the anti-gun brigade is so powerful and pernicious that faking a school shooting is something they might realistically do. That is the problem. I don't know if that problem is solveable, but I don't think deplatforming people like Alex Jones really affects it.
This description of Alex Jones doesn't sit well with the fact that Jones was a friend of a sitting POTUS and has thousands of fanatical listeners driving around with 'InfoWars' bumperstickers. He may be a blithering loon but he's also powerful and influential.
Looking at things through a consequentialist soda straw like that is a terrible way to make decisions -- it is like trying to decide if I will drive or walk solely based on the number of birds I might kill. Decisions are much larger than this single aspect.
Some people hearing a crazy idea might adopt it. Some might criticize it. Some might learn how crazy ideas work. Some might adopt it for a little while, then reject it, and be wiser through the experience. Someone who goes on a crusade to fix this one falsehood might be exposed to it. You cannot know what all effects the sum of a discussion has.
But I can certainly tell you this: censorship doesn't work. It didn't work in ancient Rome. It didn't work in the Holy Roman Empire. It didn't work in Soviet Russia. It doesn't work in Communist China. It's not working right now for vaccine disinformation. Driving crazy ideas underground does not make them disappear, and it does not make them unpopular -- it makes them spread without criticism. And in fact, telling people they can't do something generally makes them want to do it. It appears to work for a little while, but I cannot think of a single historical case in which this actually worked out. Somehow the banned ideas always seem to survive beyond the death of the regime that banned them.
We will always have crazy ideas. We will always have crazy people that buy them. Depriving them of respectability is perhaps a little helpful, but opens up a different danger: just who gets to decide what and who is crazy? I didn't vote for you, and I didn't vote for Spotify either.
1. Is that all publicity is equivalent. Rogan is no James Randi. He's much more likely to nod along with anything a guest says than debunk it. His podcast is entertainment, not a crucible for the truth.
2. Is that every time we broadcast nonsense that fewer people believe it and society as a whole becomes wiser. If this were true, then when the ex-President talked about drinking bleach you'd expect bleach ingestion calls to 911 to decrease. In reality they increased at least on a short timescale. On a long enough timescale, maybe the anti vaccination population will fall below the level it was when Dr. Wakefield published his infamous anti vaccination paper. Given the last few decades of suffering, I'd guess there are better ways to educate the public.
I think you've misunderstood which direction I imagine the sunlight going here.
1. You seem to think that Joe Rogan is not very reliable or trustworthy. How do you know that? Because of past interviews where he nodded along with a crackpot, right? Isn't that valuable information? Doesn't that help you evaluate new information you get from him?
2. The choice we are faced with is not, "Should we allow nonsense to be broadcasted"; it is "What should we do in response to it." In each of these cases, I think it's pretty important to be aware of what happened.
If you could time travel back to, say, 2000, and you had a choice of either trying to "bury" Wakefield's work to keep people from hearing about it or to promote the idea that his work was bunk, which would you choose? I think the latter would be more effective, wouldn't it?
Because there’s so little cross pollination today everyone lives in a bubble. If your Facebook is full of right-wing stuff, you only watch Fox News and only listen to Larry Elder, you’ve got an echo chamber, breeding ground for radicalization.
Having a wide variety of guests actually fights that. You listen to Bernie Sanders, then Alex Jones, then Ben Shapiro, then Edward Snowden. Rogan breaks the echo chamber. People who might only listen to Alex Jones have a chance at listening to Bernie.
Why? Why do I suddenly need to know everyone's take about everything? Why is it important that we know what our favourite actor thinks about Trump?
Everything is publicity. It's not achieving some important social need, its driving people towards new products. Interviewing Alex Jones isn't doing anything except making more people know what an Alex Jones is.
Is that why the kardashians are so famous, because their continued media presence is our opportunity to see if they make sense? No, they are just crap and giving them more sunlight just gives them more undue fame, money, and power.
Surely a company choosing not to publish certain material falls under the umbrella of their free speech rights? Or are we all for compelled speech now? If someone has a podcast that Spotify carries and then say they think the Holocaust was a good thing, is Spotify committing a sin by removing that episode or kicking that person off their platform?
Pro tip: needing to make up a scenario of Nazis usually means you're creating a straw man.
Spotify is well within their rights to pick and choose who to platform. I, personally, think de-platforming is counterproductive. Conspiracy theorists like Alex Jones may be trash human beings, but I don't think Spotify having Rogan's interview with him -- which by the way is a lot of Jones looking insane, and Joe challenging him every step of the way -- is in any way equivalent to "Spotify supports Alex Jones." Censoring people just pushes them to echo chambers.
People are not morally monolithic -- having been awful in one moment doesn't mean they can't be helpful or insightful in the next. I wouldn't listen in to someone harassing grieving parents, but I might listen to someone who haddone that, if they were talking about something else.
This sort of hyperventilating moralistic fear of certain people makes me laugh, in its similarity to Victorian or conservative Christian communities. You cannot possibly want anything to do with that vagabond! I don't know, he has some vices, but he also has some perspective I am enriched by hearing. You don't have to fear sinners. Don't imitate them, but your life will be richer if you're less of a prude.
Milo is a gadfly. He offends me sometimes, too. And sometimes he has stinging observations I don't hear anywhere else. I don't want to listen to him every day, but I would be poorer for having never made the acquaintance. Alex Jones is energetic and occasionally unhinged, and when he says something completely insane that also happens to be true, I find it a comedy experience like no other. But he can also be a wakeup call to some of the naive views I hold. I don't want to listen to him every day, either, but I would again be poorer if I never had.
But at the end of the day, I really resent gatekeepers who want to make these sorts of decisions for me. I read history -- which means I read lots of things lots of very evil people have written. I would actually rather have the opportunity to read and study Hitler's words than have them banned on the assumption that they are too dangerous for me. I would like to think I am wise enough to judge evil for what it is, and I would like to be able to prove that to myself against real villians of history. The versions I was given in elementary school hardly illustrate the dangers. Goodness knows I can't avoid encountering dangerous ideas in the real world anyway, so what is the point of trying to protect me? I would rather be strong than safe.
People are not children. They can handle reading history's dangerous ideas, and they can handle hearing society's dangerous ideas. It is better to encounter those ideas on Joe Rogan with thoughtful and open questioning and discussion, than to encounter them quiet and unopposed in private. Strong people are better than safe ones. Victorian moralizing and shunning didn't really work out for them either.
