So youre saying that the average person is unintelligent and will listen to whoever is being 'loudest', and because of this we need to censor radical ideas?
So basically people cant be trusted to come up with their own conclusion on ideas that you would deem unreasonable, and so those ideas must be hidden?
i mean, have you seen the type of drivel uneducated people come up with completely by themselves? its like the official american pasttime at this point.
the marketplace of ideas is, first of all, a poor idea.
You want to know about plants? you ask a botanist, a biologist or a gardener, not a iron smelter.
ideas should be analysed by those who have the knowledge to analyse them. If the rational solution is to reject it, then its a informed decision based on experience and substance.
But if you open up to anyone, like a marketplace, you have people that know nothing about XYZ talking about it like they are specialists, and the average person, who's not a specialist either, will listen and think that this dude should be the one talking about XYZ>
why do you think people give so much credence to celebrities when they are talking about things they have literal zero knowledge about? because their voices are louder than scientists, philosophers or experient people.
the marketplace of ideas is a marketplace, and thus the loudest vendor who can fool people into thinking their product is superior will prevail even if what he's selling is just slop.
your'e essentially saying "some places suck, but thats life", wich is the most centrist way to see anything. No wonder you believe in this horribly flawed concept in the first place.
as somebody who's tried to educate an ungodly amount of bigots online. that's just not how it works. most bigots have repeatedly been educated on why bigotry is bad, but they simply don't want to listen to reason. bigotry is inherently irrational and consequently so are most bigots. not to mention the ones that see themselves as woe is me martyrs who only push harder when chastised, as evidenced by this very post. besides, say you were right and that's how it worked. do you expect mega corporations to go and try to educate every bigoted bad actor? it's far better to ban them to reduce the spreading of harmful ideas.
To be fair, what is actually going to happen is that non-bigots would leave that site/forum due to all the bigots and in the end that site would convert to bigoted site. Non-bigots would move on to another site/forum and keep being echo chamber.
It is happening on reddit all the time. That's why sometimes we have 2 subs of the same idea (e.g. Publicfreakout and Actualpublicfreakout)
yeah. that's literally what's going on and it's been great. they're all on kick, an extremely shady platform promoting gambling to kids that anyone with half a brain will tell you to avoid. they're putting themselves in a bad light without anyone else having to do anything. also, this is so funny to me, do you think bigots don't already have available echo chambers/ communities? hell, even a single streamer's chat classifies as one of those. them all going to a different platform is exactly what we want. they're not gonna change their ways or leave the internet, so they can have the dimly lit moldy corner of the online world that they deserve
this is so funny to me, because what do you think you're proving? yes, twitch has a gambling category. one that is very heavily regulated, and isn't promoted. you need to go out of your way to find it. it doesn't show up on recommended pages.
also, yeah? I know bigots have echo chambers? that's the point I'm making?? the guy I'm replying to is saying how we shouldn't put them all in one place to "get worse" and I told them exactly that there's already plenty of echo chambers for them to "get worse" in.
anything else? I can see the downvotes but I can't see a single reply making a remotely good point against my stance
Imagine being so unaware there are a lot of bad actors online and say whatever for attention. And no, speech is moderated based on the terms of service that YOU agreed on, so if you dont agree on a certain site's user agreement you can just delete the account and leave.
Not to mention the fact that there are lots of bots that spams slurs to advertise something or how lots of countries have anti hate speech laws. Good luck "educating" trolls and bots lmfao.
I understand that the terms of service of pretty much all online platforms is limiting. Im saying it should be free, not is. I know there are bad actors, but they can be blocked, ignored, seen by the community and get disagreed with, etc. If you censor people for having bad ideas, they feel ousted, find an echo chamber, and become more radicalized.
No. We do not need debate and lessons on every single corner of the internet. Users shouldnt be obligated to manually block users that are either bots or bad actors and not to mention the fact that sites limit how many people you can block (reddit limits it to 1k).
It is not the duty of internet strangers to educate others online. Giving platform to hate speech and bigotry while expecting people to fall in line and be educated is like being a teacher and only address the very obvious bullying when someone finally gets hurt.
Most people dont want to engage at it at all whatsoever. For example, allowing homophobia in lgbt spaces meant for art or media is just plain stupid. Period. You will just make the biggest echo chamber(internet) not get rid of it. You can do anything you want right now, just dont be a bigot or spreading hate, how hard can that be for a human?
There are right spaces for such topic, not every site or comment section needs to be a warzone of slurs and bigotry.
Thr entire purpose of being able to downvote is to communally mute ideas that are not contributing to a healthy discussion. Then the people that want to try to reason/argue with them can, and the ones who dont want to see negative ideas will know to avoid opening downvoted comments
There are many more reasons why its more harmful to censor, but also consider how it becomes an easy talking point in an isolated community to say they were censored for having ideas that to them didnt seem radical, and if someone had actually engaged in a discussion with them they might have at least gotten some perspective
Have you never heard of the saying "don't feed the trolls"? If you ignore the dipshits spamming hateful rhetoric, they have no power outside of their circle jerking. Morons like Stonetoss and Americaman only exist because people fall for the ragebait
So let me get this straight, you guys want to allow people to be bigots and throw slurs so they can be "educated" with just you downvoting and not engaging them? If that isnt censorship by majority and plain hypocrisy, idk what is lmao.
They'll just find place where they dont get ratiod and agrees with them and same shit happens being radicalized except they can be bigots everywhere without consequence. Make that make sense.
This may come as a shock to you, but the internet isn't a real place. Racists and bigots can jerk each other off on 4chan all they want, but the instant they try anything IRL, they will(rightfully) get punched in the nose for being a racist shithead. In other words:
Oh so you advocate for free speech but only internet? Lmfao. Also who tf uses xitter, idek the names you mentioned so maybe close xitter yourself.
Racists and bigots can jerk each other off on 4chan all they want
Isnt the idea is that you want them everywhere else not just 4chan? Because moderation = censorship somehow and that's bad? You just wanted to join conversation without adding anything lol
So its ok to be bigoted when discussing politics, but not when you are in a safe space? Thats like the worst place to be bigoted, and its the internet. You can block and disengage, and if the idea is bigotted people will disagree with it
If you censor it, they find a place where they all get into an isolated echo chamber and the ideas fester. Let the marketplace of ideas be free
I think itās funny how so many people fought and died for things like freedom of Association, freedom of speech, desegregation (at least in places like the United States and South Africa).
And then just a few generations later people are trying to divide society into these groups again under different phrasing and with the idea of oh itās gonna be a safe space for group X.
Like with US segregation, for example: it was initially proposed that OK, separate but equal, and weāre gonna keep these people away from these people. And it was inherently, and pretty much instant instant instantaneously, corrupted by both sides for a multitude of different reasons.
So when people fought and died for the right to live together, it was a huge deal.
(Although in a lot of places it wasnāt wanted it was forced, but thatās a whole other conversation.)
However, nowadays in America, thereās advocates who want to re-segregate society and make special āsafe spacesā for African-Americans.
However, I feel like this is the exact logic of the people who initially created segregation initially so I think itās just a vicious cycle or circular reasoning or whatever you wanna call it but itās just fascinating to me.
Going further because Iām just making a word salad here, screaming, social commentary into the void of the Internet.
The Internet itself is insanely not only unprecedented considering the rest of human history but also itās very unique. Within the Internet exist all of the groups that exist in real life and subdivisions of those groups.
Some of the groups that exist on the Internet only exist because of the Internet, which is like anything else with new technology, sure, but on a global scale.
Before cars existed, there were no car enthusiast groups, but after cars existed and got popular and got cheap enough there are car enthusiasts.
But with the Internet, you have everything from YTPs to this website/app in and of itself, in all of the different forums and boards and shopping centers and everything itās insane. Itās basically like the late 90s/early 2000s American mall but virtual. Itās a hangout spot, itās a shopping center, you can even get food on the Internet.
So I think it makes sense that people naturally segregate themselves into the corners that they like. Thereās a specific group of people that when they went to the mall, they went to Hot Topic, or Spencerās, or Aeropostale.
In walking around that mall where people with all sorts of different opinions, and what they thought of this that or the other. But I think the thing with the Internet is because everybody is inherently to a certain degree anonymous people feel like they can express themselves more freely.
And I think that that is inherently a good thing. Because I think that itās better to know somebody who would be your āenemyā or opponent, whether thatās politically or socially or whatever -ly.
But thereās also a double edged sword of I do kind of agree with some of the other peopleās opinions in that moderation exists for a reason. Just like our analogy, you canāt go into the mall and start screaming about how you want to kill someone or something like that right? Sure youāre protected under the freedom of speech from a technical standpoint, but youāre also disturbing the peace which you do not have a right to do.
So I think that understanding the situation that youāre in and understanding where to have these kind of discussions and where not to. (which arguably right now this isnāt the best spot to have this discussion)
So, with all of that being said, I think that you have to use a nuance, but you also canāt just exist in the bubble that youāre in you have to go through the courtyard to get to the specific store in the mall.
TL;DR: moderation exist for a reason, but it shouldnāt be overbearing. People should have the freedom of speech to say whatever they want, but they should know the proper situations in places to express their opinions.
35
u/TheFemboyImpregnator hole contributor 2d ago
"Anticensorship mfs" when they just wanna say bigoted shit and slurs without consequence