The thing thou lovest, though the body starve.
Who works for glory misses oft the goal;
Who works for money coins his very soul;
Work for the work's sake, then, and it may be
That these things shall be added unto thee.
2,850 karma · joined May 25, 2012
The thing thou lovest, though the body starve.
Who works for glory misses oft the goal;
Who works for money coins his very soul;
Work for the work's sake, then, and it may be
That these things shall be added unto thee.
Everything old is new again.
If you frame your goal as "stop the spread of disinformation" rather than "convince people to return to the fold," is this result even perverse?
If you can make all the people who believe in crazy conspiracies act in a toxic and obviously partisan way, does it limit their ability to spread their ideas? I.e. does debunking push people outside the overton window?
I'm not commenting on the relative value of the endeavors, just pointing out that there are opportunity costs associated with choosing a humanities degree over a STEM degree in our current environment.
More controversially: With a few (<10) lines of code in your setup file, you can make an install-able module out of jupyter notebooks.
Is Stallman actually impeding the FSF's mission, or just pissing off a vocal silicon valley minority who are already on board with the mission?
I answered with a line where he specifically demands the FSF get rid of people "perceived" as misogynist. I.e. apply a modern gender issue ideological purity test.
Now you have claimed this is a defense of abusers. That is an equivocation, an intellectually dishonest rhetorical tactic. The discussion up to this point was about perceptions of misogyny, which is not the same thing as abuse.
Andy's complaint seems to me to be that they are selecting for the wrong kind of ideological purity (i.e. yesteryear's free software ethos instead of today's gender issues), and I think this criticism misses the forest for a tree.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/271714033_Political...
First, some observations:
1. Research has found that the probability of conspiratorial thinking is quadratic with respect to political extremism in either direction.
2. Dangerous political movements are predicated on an "us v. them" mentality, almost by definition of dangerous. What makes a group dangerous is precisely the fact that they are willing to harm people in concrete ways, and willingness to harm requires a targeted "them".
3. Distributed censorship and other forms of persecution are actually conspiracies with an inherent "us" and "them." The more groups (media companies, government, etc) censor similar ideas in similar ways for similar reasons, the more apt appears the description "they conspired against those ideas."
Therefore: the problem with censorship is that it makes the conspiracy theorists right. Censorship is also an acknowledgement that the censor and censored are in fact different and opposing groups. No longer can the censor say "come on guys, we're all on the same team here," they have ceded that high ground.
Both of these effects can actually help extremist groups attract new people. As they say Plures efficimur, quitiens metimur a vobis: semen est sanguis Christianorum: the blood of the martyrs is the seed of the Church.
HOWEVER
All of this analysis is a kind of "perfect sphere on a friction-less plane" view of the market of ideas. We must not fall into the trap of thinking that if we removed all censorship, the market of ideas would be efficient. If censorship is an effort to artificially devalue some ideas, there is also the countervailing force of amplification which artificially inflates.
The problem is that money has always (and technology has recently) enabled people to distort the market of ideas through amplification. There are actually bad actors (e.g. Russia) who actively amplify ideas beneficial to their interests by putting engineered talking points into fake social media accounts.
I do not believe it is possible to fight such a strategy on the same terms. Amplifying contrary ideas simply increases polarization. Attempting to re-level the playing field via censorship has the problems I listed earlier.
https://nationalpost.com/entertainment/books/here-are-the-wr...
However, I have seen some disagreement among different news sources about what exactly led to the bans.
People should be able to live and work with people who are academically dispassionate; no one is perfect and there are worse sins in the world. Indeed, I believe in the benefits of diversity: communities need people who can face emotionally charged issues head-on and come up with new ideas even if unpopular.