Comment by adamrezich | Hacker News Reader

Comment by adamrezich | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I have to ask though... what is the actual problem with all of this "harassment"? Yes, many people pseudonymously post a lot of hateful garbage on Twitter, but it's just words on the Internet—if you put yourself out there as a public figure, assholes are gonna be assholes.

A few months ago, a VICE editor wrote a piece originally titled "Let's Blow Up Mount Rushmore" (the title was later changed)[0]. Being a South Dakotan, this was pretty offensive to me, and my reply got the most likes and retweets, putting it in the prominent "first reply" spot[1]. I got a lot of very nasty comments from various extremely angry people, including one who implied I was a Nazi or something by saying "I wonder if "rezich" [my surname] is supposed to be similar to "Reich" or it's just some amazing irony"[2]

I just shrugged it all off as the vitriolic Internet being the vitriolic Internet. I engaged with a few of the replies, but I let many of them just be, because really, what is the use in getting worked up over rude and angry Internet comments, that take nearly zero effort to post?

I understand that Twitter improving its harassment reduction systems will lead to better experiences for its users and overall make it a more attractive platform for people in general, but there's this idea that it is the "moral duty" of Twitter to prevent assholes on the Internet from being assholes on the Internet, and I just can't for the life of me understand it.

Words only have as much power as you let them have, and for some reason (which I won't speculate on here), it seems like everyone these days seem to want to give "hate speech" as much power as possible.

[0] https://twitter.com/VICE/status/898266524183662593

[1] https://twitter.com/rezich/status/898268626511306752

[2] https://twitter.com/DejaVerdin/status/898817028663816192

You're lucky that you don't have to take any of the death threats seriously, and that you don't fear being fired because of what people are writing about you on the internet. Women generally have this worse. Sometimes the harassment escalates to things that are actually illegal, like bomb threats. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/jul/31/bomb-thre...

If you hosted a party and someone got super drunk and started shouting racial slurs at everyone, would you tell them to leave? Or would you laugh it off and tell everyone else to chill because it's just words?

> I understand that Twitter improving its harassment reduction systems will lead to better experiences for its users and overall make it a more attractive platform for people in general

You seem to have answered your own question here.

That’s not the same thing. It’s much easier to just disengage on the Internet than in person. Presumably if this person is at your house you’d know them, which would add an element of emotional drama that isn’t there when some random person on frog twitter is posting Pepe memes. Just, like, look away.

In this analogy, Twitter is the host, users are guests. If a racist asshole shows up at the party, everyone else can easily disengage, by just leaving. Should the host just leave the door open and sit in the back making sure the lights stay on, prioritizing absolute free speech over who is having a good time? Or should they kick out toxic guests, so the people they like will stay?

But if someone shows up wearing a black coat and jackboots because they think they look cool(or posting pepe memes because they think the images are funny), can you brand them as racist and kick them out?

You sure can, especially if they're making the party uncomfortable and unpleasant for the rest of your guests. Their crime is not so much dressing like a Nazi, but intentionally antagonizing other people for no reason. If it wasn't intentional, they should note the reactions, take other people into consideration, and either leave or correct their behavior. Why don't other people have to consider the Nazi-dresser's feelings? Well, they do. They'll consider them for 10 seconds, realize there is no legitimate reason to be dressed like that, and rightfully suspect bad intentions.

If you want to be accepted into a community, earn it. Other people have no obligation to tolerate your presence and listen to your speech. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom to be heard.

This is such a dangerous path to go down, and it's really easy to see where we end up.

Let's say I'm vehemently anti-abortion, and have a YouTube channel where I discuss that topic. If some sufficient amount of users find my content "intentionally antagonizing" I could be de-platformed. YouTube is perfectly within their legal rights to do this, of course, at least currently. But these tech companies have all become critical infrastructure in how we communicate. Do you honestly think it's a good idea for these tech companies to start enforcing ideological conformity? What's perfectly normal speech for one is intentionally antagonizing to another.

No, I don't think tech companies should enforce ideological conformity, but they shouldn't enforce ideological equality either. A lot of people, especially on HN, seem to have this idea that if a rule or policy can't be exactly defined, it shouldn't be used. It's not possible to codify "no assholes allowed", so we should just abandon that idea.

Look, the reason we don't have a law against Nazi ideas in America is that it's too dangerous to give the government that power. If we did have such a law, and it were abused, there's no higher power to appeal to. We have nearly absolute free speech not because all speech deserves equal consideration, but simply because there is no practical legal alternative. But it is crucial to understand that since we can't give the government that power, society is obligated to pick up the slack. Nazis cannot be punished legally, so they must be punished socially. We all wish we lived in a world where any idea could be freely discussed, and "bad" ones would be naturally dismissed, but we don't. The world doesn't naturally improve, people force it to, and not just by hosting neutral discussion spaces.

What I'm describing is basically majority rule, and I understand how dangerous it is. Frankly, over the course of history, it's usually gone poorly. But there is no alternative. If you decide to be neutral, you're just giving more power to those who aren't. If you don't like racism, so you decide to live your life "colorblind", you're helping racists, as they obviously won't join you. As a member of society, you have an obligation to not only avoid helping racists, but actively work against them by loudly arguing with them, depriving them of opportunities to promote or implement their ideas, and maybe kicking them out of a party if they try to start some shit.

Twitter can't be neutral, because everybody else isn't. In fact it's not really possible to be neutral, they can either endorse the status quo, or work against it. If they abuse their incredibly powerful position, there is a higher power we can appeal to who is required to be neutral in such cases.

No one is saying they should "enforce ideological equality". What I am saying is that it's dangerous for a tech company to tip the scales like this.

Under your majoritarian rule proposal we'd just end up with any idea sufficiently derided by the loudest groups and most influential twitter personalities effectively banned. Especially given that 140-characters isn't enough space to realistically make full throated arguments, the prospect of people being misinterpreted is resoundingly high.

>We all wish we lived in a world where any idea could be freely discussed, and "bad" ones would be naturally dismissed, but we don't. The world doesn't naturally improve, people force it to, and not just by hosting neutral discussion spaces.

This statement is just Neomarxism repackaged. Taken to its logical conclusion, these corporations should become essentially political entities that enforce whatever ideological consensus the majority deems palatable. Twitter thus becomes a tool for sociocultural engineering. Given how poorly the company operates today, they should probably stay away from trying to broaden their mandate.

>If you decide to be neutral, you're just giving more power to those who aren't...

What? No I'm not. No one is neutral and those who say they are are lying. It sounds like you're half trying to Kafkatrap me. Just because I don't endorse Twitter's rule-making in this context does not mean I'm "helping racists". Especially since the definition of who is a Nazi or a racist seems to be continually expanding, forgive me for being skeptical that if they abuse their power anything would be done. You'd be helping the Nazis, remember?

Sorry, I'm just using "you" because I need a subject for my examples. It's the colloquial "you", I'm not literally talking about you. I'll stop.

Anyway, I agree that no one is neutral, that's my point. Twitter already is a political entity, it already is a tool for sociocultural engineering. It can't not be. The policy of "any and all legal speech will be allowed" is a political choice and an endorsement of the status quo. Allowing Nazi speech is obviously not as bad as literally being a Nazi, but it is an acceptance of the way things are. Allowing speech is just as political as blocking speech.

There is no way to avoid making these decisions, and the more power one has, the more the choice matters. A free-for-all policy is equivalent to an individual staying silent when their friend makes a racist joke, but with much greater consequences. If the people in charge of Twitter didn't want this responsibility, they shouldn't have created the site.

Have you read about what happened to the original targets of gamer gate? Not only did tens of people just constantly synonym rape and death threats but people actually doxed them and went after them at their physical addresses. Those addresses got posted on Twitter, along with phone numbers and other things.

Internet hate mobs, no matter what site they use, can cause real psychological and physical damage. They can make it extremely difficult for someone to get a job or cause all their personal information to be stolen.

There’ve been so many examples over the years of things that of come off of Reddit or Twitter or other 4chan i’m surprised someone would say that this stuff isn’t something people need to worry about.

I mean… Pizza gate exists.

Also gamers had their families threatened, were doxxed, and had dangerous goods posted to their houses.

You realize the internet is real right? There are actual people getting work done and building relationships on Twitter. If someone posts information about you, others could show up at your house or lie to your boss about you. If your feed is full of gross descriptions of rape it's hard to get work done. If a mob of hundreds of people start wishing you harm, you might realize it's not just "words". And large groups are forming now to sway elections.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com