Hacker News Reader

Comment by okmokmz | Hacker News Reader

It is a concern. You either haven't read the literature, or have completely failed to understand it. As the author stated, the effective method of combating hate speech is with more speech and discussion, rather than reflexively trying to ban it out of fear, anger, and ignorance. Wanting to ban it is a common reaction from those who don't truly understand the implications of censorship, but the ACLU, EFF, many respected academics, authors, journalists, and more do not support government censorship for that reason as well as many others. As with most issues, critical thinking is the missing factor that differentiates those who think "BAN IT, MAKE IT ILLEGAL, ARREST THEM" is always the answer vs actual solving the root of the problem

View on HN

>You either haven't read the literature, or have completely failed to understand it.

So I'm either ignorant or stupid, got it.

>rather than reflexively trying to ban it out of fear, anger, and ignorance

Anyone who wants to ban any form of speech is only reflexively acting out of fear, anger and ignorance. No other possible motive. Got it.

>As with most issues, critical thinking is the missing factor that differentiates those who think "BAN IT, MAKE IT ILLEGAL, ARREST THEM" is always the answer vs actual solving the root of the problem

Ignorant or stupid, fearful, angry, hysterically screaming like children, and incapable of critical thought.

Got it.

An ironclad defense of freedom of speech if ever there was one...

The truth hurts, censorship is almost entirely based on anger, fear, ignorance, and misunderstanding. Your comment is so full of fallacies it isn't even worth a reply. I've actually provided sources, and discussion points. You haven't posted any sources, evidence, or arguments beyond: hate speech bad, censorship good. Go ahead and post some pro-censorship sources from any respected author (Mao, Putin, and Mussolini don't count)

>Your comment is so full of fallacies it isn't even worth a reply.

And yet here you are.

>I've actually provided sources, and discussion points.

You provided a book review. For the sake of civility I'm going to assume you've actually read the book.

But since you mentioned it, here are some articles [0,1] claiming that deplatforming actually does work to prevent the spread of hate speech[0] and of course the inevitable HN thread[2].

I actually do sympathize with the free speech position, I just don't believe that unfettered free speech is particularly effective at combating extremism. The web is saturated with arguments against hate speech, fake news and bullshit, yet all of it flourishes, and they flourish most strongly on platforms that censor the least.

I haven't actually seen a credible defense of the premise that the government being able to censor hate speech is worse than the effect of unchecked hate speech itself, that seems to be taken for granted by free speech advocates, it's one of those things you're not allowed to question.

But you're clearly triggered so I won't bother to continue.

[0]https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/bjbp9d/do-social-media-ba... [1]https://www.theverge.com/interface/2019/8/8/20759995/8chan-d... [2]https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18285832

Does anybody have a definition of "hate speech" other than "points of view that I disagree with"? And if your definition is going to be something like "encouraging harm against groups of people" can you then point me to a single quote from a "hate speech" site demonstrating this?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com