HNthrow22

>> "Besides, I'm pretty sure banning is only gonna make those community feels like they are being persecuted for being right and itching the man.

>>They then will proceed to find another place that is less easy to control to carry on with their message, and will have a renewed feeling of legitimacy and urgency."

You left out the most important part, by forcing them to 'another place' you cut off their entire supply of fresh young, disenfranchised lonely young men to indoctrinate and recruit into their hateful belief system. Yes they will claim they're persecuted and play that up but by denying them the platform they'll also lose relevance, reach and impact.

This is just a small step in the right direction. Despite warnings from many we've let the internet became a hate indoctrination tool under the guise of free speech. Only now that multiple shooters motivations can be directly connected to 'internet indoctrination' is action being taken. This is long overdue and truthfully just a good first step, closing this pandoras box will require a concerted global effort and even that may still prove to be unsuccessful.

To clarify you're responding to a comment I've quoted from another user-

The issue becomes with the internet being able to silence all dissent and create re-enforcing echo chmabers. The forces at play are not stupid and they target disenfranchised, lonely, young males full of angst.

Imagine a packed hall with hundreds of people loudly cheering for someone calling for genocide of X group, this is what these hate clusters look like and if we saw it in the real world no one would say "This is an acceptable cost of free speech"

There exists speech that has no redeeming qualities and serves only to incite violence and hate. To argue as many commented here have that outlawing this would lead down a slippery slope of authoritarian government censorship is simply ridiculous. We've outlawed child pornography and that hasn't led us down any slippery slopes.

There's a huge difference between covering terrible events as a news story and providing the platform for content engineered to divide and radicalize to proliferate to millions. Also yes YouTube should be liable, not for the video of the NZ shooting being re-uploaded, but for the thousands of hours of hateful violent propaganda they allow to spread on their platform even facilitating it by suggesting it to users with their algorithm.

Drawing parallels between mediums like TV/Film is problematic because there's never been anything like the internet in human history, that being said a TV example of the kind of content that shouldn't be legal: 30 minute produced broadcast dedicated to sharing fake crime stats about Muslims and encouraging viewers to organize violent attacks on their local mosques - this is what goes on the internet. Users from 8chan were (and still are) encouraging and validating the NZ shooter. We have specific incidents and shooters we can point to now. Elliot Rodgers (Santa Barbara shooter) was an active redditor and incel and had his extreme beliefs were both validated and enforced by that community before he took action, ending innocent lives. One could make a case that without the wide ranging communal support these psychotic individuals wouldn't have been emboldened to act on their hateful beliefs. Nothing even close to this is broadcast to a wide audience anywhere but the internet and it shouldn't be permitted on the internet either.

Relevant comment from HN in 2017: taurath on July 19, 2017 [-]

If 20 people were to stand up on a soapbox with a megaphone in times square screaming about /r/redpill, /r/fatpeoplehate, etc concepts they would be removed if legal, and if not legal a huge countermovement would appear to try to force them out. On Reddit you get both the megaphone and the safe space, but are still just as easily accessible to the public as anywhere.

Its "real" freedom of information, without many of the mechanisms that larger society uses to fight back against it. Instead it is just ignored and left to fester and grow until it pops into the public forum at the point where huge efforts are required to fight it.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14806974

> Facebook has no clue what kind of stuff gets posted on their platform, and their AI isn't powerful enough to detect it. The idea that Facebook is causing/enabling such behaviors is ridiculous.

I contend as a society we should hold these massive tech orgs (who have more power than most governments) to the standard of moderating the content that's posted to their platforms. They have the money and profits to hire human moderators, the 'dumb pipe' defense doesn't fly for me anymore.

Twitter/Reddit should face harsh penalties for failing to moderate and remove content that encourages and indoctrinates extremists. I'm not talking about anything that's borderline, I'm talking about pure unfiltered hate speech that directly encourages violence.

The question then becomes who decides what's acceptable content, the only answer is regulations and legislation for this otherwise for-profit tech giants will be the ones who decide and they're more concerned with user-engagement than far reaching detached societal implications.

Tied to real identity - given the current state of the net one could make a case that the S Korean system of requiring gov ID # for all online signups would be an improvement, of course that opens the door to serious abuse but at this point would it be the lesser of two evils?

Agreed, beyond conditioning a generation of addictive consumers the narrative has never been more muddied and easily manipulated. Facts no longer matter and that's terrifying.

The world needs to figure out how to “put into place very strict requirements with appropriate consequences that make it unthinkable to violate them.”

“Everyone agrees we shouldn’t be doing this yet,”

These quotes are from a Bloomberg article* about the Chinese scientist who edited the twins DNA as embryos, found interesting that society is able to recognize the incredible dangers and implications of DNA modifications yet have a huge blind spot for tech, perhaps because it's so useful in our day to day lives. User-engagement, optimizing for addiction and driving individuals into echo chambers and the welcoming arms of extremists looking to recruit, worth it for free email I guess?

* https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-03-13/top-genet...

Wow, thanks for sharing, unbelievable story, hope you can find a quick resolution. Hopefully the buzz from this post ends up being a net positive for your business.

To anyone questioning why breaking up big tech is important, just imagine doing nothing wrong an receiving a form email like this in regards to your livelihood: https://i.imgur.com/gWewbd1.png

amplified by the new model of game design to drive loot box sales above all else, which means fun gameplay is no longer a priority compared to designing systems that encourage users to spend on microtransactions, especially addictive-personality types.

quoting a comment from another thread "it used to be that you felt good because you were having fun. In this new era of micro transactions the games aren’t even fun anymore. There is only frustration, and then you pay to alleviate that frustration. You sometimes find yourself sitting there say, “why am I even doing this?”"

You are 100% correct, I made a similar post and had it flagged/deleted, albeit with a bit more anger in mine. Give up man, this is a safe space for the white SV bros to hang out, they delete articles about minorities/black people in tech are regularly, check out http://hckrnews.com/ to see what they remove. Don't mistake Hn for a discussion platform like I did, this is a curated SV accelerator funded PR platform to promote YC companies before anything else, the anger/frustration comes from this place parading/dressing up as a discussion forum, it is NOT.

Let's not get ahead of ourselves here, BBC iplayer crashed during a ENGvSWE quarterfinal and YouTubeTV went down for 50 minutes during ENGvCRO just a few days ago.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-07-11/youtube-t...

https://news.sky.com/story/world-cup-fans-fuming-as-bbc-ipla...

All things that feel good and releases dopamine ≠ equally addictive.

Video games have reached levels of immersion higher than other forms of entertainment, add real $ loot boxes to that and it's clear publishers should worry about this, smart ones already are - Valve tracks Anti_Addiction_Rating for users to notify/suggest they play within healthy limits: https://www.pcgamesn.com/dota-2/dota-2-anti-addiction.

see the interview with his first wife:

As we danced at our wedding reception, Elon told me, "I am the alpha in this relationship." I shrugged it off, just as I would later shrug off signing the postnuptial agreement, but as time went on, I learned that he was serious.

...the will to compete and dominate that made him so successful in business did not magically shut off when he came home. This, and the vast economic imbalance between us, meant that in the months following our wedding, a certain dynamic began to take hold. Elon's judgment overruled mine, and he was constantly remarking on the ways he found me lacking. "I am your wife," I told him repeatedly, "not your employee." "If you were my employee," he said just as often, "I would fire you."

And no matter how many highlights I got, Elon pushed me to be blonder. "Go platinum," he kept saying, and I kept refusing.

If that's how he managed his wife imagine what his execs deal with.

*https://www.marieclaire.com/sex-love/a5380/millionaire-start...

Disappointing to see this flagged/removed with no explanation.

Share a similar cynical view of this, smells like a preemptive CYA move. Reminds me casinos with the help numbers for gambling addicts posted.

There's been high profile articles shining a light on the predatory design tactics in tech recently so the awareness of the issue is on the rise. The idea of a 'design ethicist' while novel seems fundamentally opposed to the attention-economy.

Overly cynical view is this is google angling to make the case to self-regulate vs. managing an intrusive regulatory body investigating/fining them for violations once more people are aware of the current shenanigans.

I see a lot of comments reading into this with convoluted explanations when it's simply that tv/film is an escapist medium and most people 'live vicariously' through the main protagonist or the character(s) they relate with the most.

I had a driver once mention a promotion uber was running for their drivers if you hit "X rides' in a certain time period you'd receive a $Y cash bonus - the catch was the system made it extremely difficult but not impossible to achieve the goal through subtle gamification techniques.

Big picture tech/gamification has reached a point where oversight/legislation of some sort is long overdue. No restrictions + profit motive with our current understanding of human psychology and dopamine triggers is a recipe for a bad time.