[flagged]
HN isn't really a 'platform'. The reach for a post on HN is tiny. There needs to be a critical mass of people before something can really be called a platform.
And HN posts are moderated, both by the mod team using their tools, and by the users using flagging and votes. It's quite far from being 'free'. You can say anything you want in theory by it won't remain visible for very long.
There are many small forums that spread misinformation because they enjoy trolling. The moderators even encourage it. The DOJ and White House do not care about these forums because they collectively have less than 0.1% of Facebook's DAU.
You want me to verify that there aren't coordinated disinformation campaigns festering all over this site? Well, I can read, so I'm fairly confident.
You're more likely to get in trouble for calling someone a nazi than you are for promoting nazi policies, as long as you don't use any slurs.
Things like ethnonationism, eugenics, categorizing certain minorities as inherently criminal, white natalism: things that, if you could present them to a 1945-style straw nazi they'd say "yup that's us."
And all that aside, you know that people still self identify as nazis right? It's not preposterous that they show up here. They have jobs and kids and hobbies and professional aspirations, and if a chance to talk about the degeneracy of society re: immigration comes on the tech forum, hey, they know also how to slide into that conversation without saying anything too crass.
And yes, you could elide all that as "people I disagree with" if you're devoted to being particularly sloppy. Because I do disagree with them, and don't want them here? Is that not the case for you?
No. I see no value in debating with people who agree with me. Neither party will learn anything new. So I welcome disagreement, as long as there is genuine openness to debate.
So you would prefer that they congregate in their own private echo chambers, rather than come to a place with differing ideals where their own convictions could be challenged? How can we ever bridge the gap if we push people into their own bubbles?
Debating nazi policies in public forums is already a win for the nazis. You don't debate people out of these views you prevent them accomplishing them. Bridging the gap is some liberal bullshit. If they want to repent and rejoin polite society the path is well established.
These people will kill you if you stand in their way. The fact that you don't perceive that as a real threat means you are not standing in their way. Debating their talking points in their venue of choice is not standing in their way; you tell because they're happy to do it.
Racists aren't born, they are molded. I don't anticipate I'll change your mind but I think it's worth stating nonetheless.
HN is not a example of libertarian social media.
Furthermore, it was one of, possibly the very most, free-speaking societies in the world that played a key role—first economically, then militarily—in stopping them.
the incompatible logical extremes of safety vs freedom is starting to line up with historical precedent again
It's certainly possible to get stuck in a recommendation-algorithm Nazi hellscape, where it's a very weird far-right bubble. (I got some interesting recommendations on both Twitter and Youtube after a few posts and videos about that guy making the UFO claims. Quite suddenly the feed became dark, conspiratorial, and with lots references to "globalists".)
It's also, of course, possible to get stuck by the recommendation algorithm in some weird far-left universe, also quite out of step with the mainstream.
Nothing wrong with being out of step with the mainstream in itself; the problem is when you don't know that you are. Some of the people in these social media bubbles don't know they're in those bubbles. As far as they're concerned, everyone else agrees with them and they're getting more and more re-enforcement.
I think that a growing general ineptitude and inexperience with dealing with the fact that some people have radically different worldviews, social beliefs, and political attitudes, probably explains some of the contemporary derangement. If they're literally the only example of disagreement you run into, then obviously they're insane and/or stupid and/or evil, (Surely they know what you know?! We tend to assume that even when it can't be true.) Maybe related to why we seem to be particularly prone to portraying the political opposition as evil, insane, or stupid these days. The viciousness of the in-group towards the dissenters makes all the sense in the world if they're just evil, insane and stupid. And since we can't comprehend their worldview since we never see the world as they see it, (thanks to the algorithm), it just becomes re-enforcing.
Yes. Radicalisation in a nutshell.
But other than that, finally there is a real alternative to Twitter but again owned by Meta. It just means the town-hall and outrage will move to on large social network linked to Instagram and Meta.
It will degrade into a Nazi hellscape anyway. Just like Facebook once did.
[0] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/dec/06/rohingya-...
It's like saying Salem was a witchcraft hellscape. If you were the one saying that, then you were one of the ones creating the actual hellscape.
This is a case where the free market is good at solving a problem, we know this because Nazis have been writing books for nearly a century, yet you probably haven't heard of any of them other than Mein Kampf.
Whether we have a free market in social media is up for debate, certainly the dominant platforms enjoy network effects and go to great lengths to keep their users locked in, even when they have Nazis running around on them and the users don't want to see Nazis. We even have evidence that some platforms will show more Nazis to you if Nazis trigger you and make you want to fight with them! But I think a landscape with more platforms is a good way to try and deal with this. If anything in the Mastodon world you have the exact opposite problem, platforms defederate each other for very small offenses, being a full blown Nazi is definitely not required.
And whether people use the Nazi hellscape argument genuinely or as a straw man/proxy for "things I don't like" is an open question as well.
Because people who engage in violence can be handled by the legal system and people who are merely engaged in protected speech can be left to do so?
Small, basement-run printing press? Sort of like nazi zines?
I remember seeing copies of "Soldier of Fortune" in the 1970's (US) but it was relegated to the one weird military-collectible-store-that-also-sold-Avalon-Hill-games. Extreme ideologies need buy-in from a printer, publisher, and distribution network — combined they create quite a series of hurdles, act as gatekeepers of a sort. I suspect that was enough to keep The John Birch Society and others in relative obscurity.
Letters to the editor in the local newspaper were of course heavily moderated.
The free internet with near zero-cost to print/publish/distribute due to social networks, site comments sections make the fringe voices just as loud as the mainstream ones.
Add bots into the equation and possibly determined state actors and it only gets worse.
Also algorithms that signal boost controversial/inflammatory content as well as unearth more of whatever the user has signaled what they believe in/enjoy/etc, not to mention artificial signal boosts via things like Twitter Blue… with all of this, with social media the extreme fringe can be made to appear popular. It’s like viewing the world through a funhouse mirror.