The fundamental principles of the internet haven't changed. If racists want a platform, they can have it and the underlying web standards still exist for them to make it themselves and to self-host it.
If their providers want to cancel these business relationships, that is their right as well.
What is really problematic and has been since its inception is the overuse of commercial and centralized services by public institutions and organizations. Twitter and other services of that nature are not public utilities.
And yet we were okay with sharply curtailing freedom of association in some areas. Twitter (or a landlord) would be in legal trouble if it tried to ban black people.
Edit: To the replies pointing out the protected class distinction: I'm well aware of it (as my example shows). What I am highlighting is that "freedom of association" isn't as absolute as the parent post implies, and that in the past the law was changed and that freedom was diminished when it allowed behavior we didn't like.
All races are a protected class. You can’t discriminate against white Europeans either.
In fact, if you were to start a group that wanted to destroy white Europeans (like how the Klan wants to destroy non whites, Catholics, Mormons, Jews, and sanity itself) then you would quickly find yourself ostracized.
I would bet an anti white group would quickly find itself branded as a terrorist organization in the US.
There is a marked difference between race and opinion. You can't change the color of your skin, but you can change your opinions or keep them to yourself if you wish.
Anti-Semites are not a protected class. Political opinion is not protected in private space. The policies of these private platforms are clear and available for anyone to read, and include a ban on racist speech. If you want to stay on the platform, follow the rules.
You have no control over what color you were born, and you can't change it. That's why race is a protected class and opinions are not. Free speech only protects us from the government, not from private consequences.
I assume your implication is that Twitter is banning conservatives, as opposed to the other interpretation, which is that conservatives, regardless of what forces are to blame, have a higher ratio of participants who are worthy of being banned from a non-political point of view (e.g. actual racism, higher desire for violence, etc). Reality might be somewhere in between, but it seems obvious to me that it is very close to the latter.
In 1997 the big tech platforms lobbied that not only they wouldn't censor views, that it was basically impossible for them to do so.
This is what allowed the internet to grow without onerous regulation (ie they were treated as a carrier not a publisher).
Now that big tech is moving towards "being publishers", you're now going to reverse it all and cause massive regulation to take place. In the end, "the internet" will look no different than mainstream tv.
>In the end, "the internet" will look no different than mainstream tv.
I worry about this, but I also suspect we're heading in a direction that will mostly avoid this fate. However, even if given a hard binary choice between TV land and the current popularity of hatred that Duke exemplifies, I wouldn't have to think on it.
The merchants of war and division thank you for helping in this effort.
The censors aren't stupid, of course they are going to go after the David Dukes first, then over the next decade watch how the internet slowly transforms into a massive establishment mouthpiece.
Maybe explain to your kids, "we were afraid of bad words".
Often if you find yourself seeing some group of people in your head and hating them and referring to them as "you people", you're probably not going to be able to express yourself in a valuable way, and should consider backing up emotionally.
Seems like a win-win to me. Far right users congregate to a niche platform where they can do as they please, and as a result it's easier for everyone else to ignore them.
Not suggesting any sympathy with David Duke, but there's a basic problem with this statement: what is "racist"? The definition depends who you ask, and is constantly in flux.
If I say I'm anti-racist, but disagree with you as to what constitutes "racism", which of us is right and which should be banned? Who gets to judge?
>The definition depends who you ask, and is constantly in flux.
Saying the term "racist" is "constantly in flux" seems to imply its definition is completely arbitrary, or that no commonly accepted or generally agreed upon definitions exist. Regardless of what else people may say it does or doesn't mean, I think most people would agree that the white supremacist views of David Duke could be considered racist.
>If I say I'm anti-racist, but disagree with you as to what constitutes "racism", which of us is right and which should be banned? Who gets to judge?
In the specific case, obviously the owner of the platform. Despite what people say (or want to be true) Twitter is not a public space, it's a private platform and its owners can ban whomever they please for whatever reason they want, and that's probably spelled out in their terms of service somewhere.
In the more general case, possibly a framework of law, common societal or religious norms and cultural influences, or no one. Truth can't always be determined with absolute certainty when one is dealing with social constructs in the subjective and abstract landscape of modern hyperreality. People can't even agree on the world being round anymore, and it's easier to accept that everything one is told is a lie than attempt to reconcile a complex and fragmented media universe of mutually opposed, violently overlapping magisteria. Obviously, if we can't even agree on what race is, we may not agree on what what racism is, or opposition to it. How do you even do that when some people believe most of the people they pass on the street are holograms in the Matrix?
That said, when David Duke talks about "the Jews" and their campaign of "white genocide" or about his desire to live in an all "white" society, it's entirely possible to see what he means in that context and form an opinion accordingly.
Let's start with the KKK and David Duke are racist. I don't think any reasonable person questions whether open white supremacists like the KKK are racist, the whole organization is based on racism and white supremacist terrorism.
No but it is clearly far left to take over city blocks, declare autonomous zones, destroy public property, terrorize citizens and public officials, etc. and there's plenty of Antifa sympathizers or supporters on Twitter. There's plenty of moral hazard with the amount of influence and propaganda power that tech companies have today and it's a very corrosive, dangerous, long-term destructive thing that scares me far more than David Duke.
I regularly see promotion and defense of rioting, anti-white racism, and threats of violence from Twitter. Hell, I'll never forget all of the blue check marks saying they wanted to punch that high school Covington kid for literally standing in place with an awkward smirk.
Twitter absolutely safe-harbors the extreme left. I think it's the only tech company I would refuse to work for due to their moral failings.
I'm sure a lot of the accounts of ISIS members and supporters that Twitter banned weren't "relevant" people either. Still happy they're gone from the platform. David Duke did have tens of thousands of followers and was a head of the KKK terrorist group, so he probably wasn't a complete nobody like you suggest. I'm not tied into white supremacist circles to know how much sway he still has there, but good riddance.
What about "White lives don't matter. As white lives" from a Cambridge University professor? Twitter didn't ban her for that, and the university defended her statement as free speech [1]. The same Cambridge University that rescinded Jordan Peterson's speaking invitation because “[Cambridge] is an inclusive environment and we expect all our staff and visitors to uphold our principles. There is no place here for anyone who cannot,” [2].
Edit as reply due to posting limit: It wasn't meant to convince you the KKK shouldn't be banned. It was only meant to correct the misleading implication that opposing the KKK is as "left" as Twitter gets.
(Scare quotes around "left" because I don't believe there's anything inherently left about "white lives don't matter". I.e. one can be a radical leftist without believing that.)
Simple they should both be banned for violating the terms of service.
That said as much as I think that that professor is a door knob that should’ve been fired instead of promoted I also don’t think that she has nearly as much impact as the fucking leader of the KKK on social media.
> Seems like a win-win to me. Far right users congregate to a niche platform where they can do as they please, and as a result it's easier for everyone else to ignore them.
It's a real dilemma: pushing these people to niche platforms limits their ability to spread their hateful ideology, but then those same niche platforms could then become radicalizing cesspits for the few that get sucked into them:
> Bowers had earlier posted anti-Semitic comments against HIAS (formerly, Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society) on the online social network Gab.[11][12][13] Dor Hadash[14] had participated in HIAS's National Refugee Shabbat the previous week. Referring to Central American migrant caravans and immigrants, Bowers posted on Gab that "HIAS likes to bring invaders in that kill our people. I can't sit by and watch my people get slaughtered. Screw your optics, I'm going in."[15]
> pushing these people to niche platforms limits their ability to spread their hateful ideology, but then those same niche platforms could then become radicalizing cesspits for the few that get sucked into them.
Maybe. But then again they're radicalizing people on the mainstream platforms as well.
Of course, if we admit that radicalizing people with hateful ideology is a problem, then we might have to admit the ideology itself is also a problem, and that would suggest that all speech isn't perfectly equal and equally valid relative to all other speech, and that some speech can actually be harmful. We would have to treat different ideas, ideologies and claims differently, and judge their merits on a case by case basis, and allow there to be consequences for harmful speech just as there are consequences for harmful actions, both in society as well as legally.
We can't do that in the current political climate, so perhaps the next best thing is to simply reduce the number of people being radicalized as much as possible by not giving racists as big a megaphone as possible.
Was he really prominent? I had totally forgotten about him having not seen his name in the news for years. Most of what he was known for happened twenty years ago. Since then a few lame attempts to ride coat tails and pretty much disavowed all the time.
What we should be happy about is they have to dig this far off the mainstream to find someone like him.
We are the chosen ones, we have Right on our side, we need not listen to anyone who disagrees with us. Better in fact if they did not even exist, no? Maybe if we're vigorous enough in protesting our orthodoxy while tossing the heretics in the fire, no one will think to question whether our thoughts are utterly proper.
No reasonable person thinks it's up for debate whether the KKK terrorist group or ISIS is on the right side of history or not. Sounds like lazy "slippery slope" concern trolling.
I find this hypocritical. It seems obvious to me that it's possible to reasonably respond to news that a KKK leader was banned on Twitter by expressing gratitude without that signifying a likely personality flaw.
My reaction to seeing this news was also a tiny jolt of happiness, and thinking about that, I've learned that I dislike white supremacists and their philosophy.
The problem is with using that as justification for censorship is that it can be use to justify censorship on a wide range of unorthodox speech. We can all agree as a baseline that advocating for intolerance in the form of imminent lawless action[1] should be banned, but what else? Any lawless action? What about advocating for lawful action that leads to direct discrimination of minorities? eg. internment of japanese americans. What about advocating for lawful action that leads to indirect discrimination of minorities? eg. war on drugs. What about advocating against discrimination that helps minorities? eg. affirmative action. Finally, what about saying facts that are true, that might be misleading or lack nuance? eg. "blacks account for 52.5% of all homicide offenders, but only make up 13.7% of the population"
Tolerance becoming the dominant ideology in an intolerant society is much easier than merely remaining dominant in an already tolerant society. If it could do the former while society tolerated intolerance, then surely it can do the latter.
There was this thing called the Holocaust. It made a lot of people think. Certain members of the far right think that it's still cool to spout antisemitic propaganda that was the precursor to, and the platform which supported, the Holocaust. A tolerant society won't want to relive that history, and folks will exercise their right of free association to deplatform such intolerance.
I tend to prefer free market censorship, done by a private entity as an exercise of their right, than unilateral censorship from any government entity.
53 comments
[ 5.1 ms ] story [ 125 ms ] threadIf their providers want to cancel these business relationships, that is their right as well.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_association
What is really problematic and has been since its inception is the overuse of commercial and centralized services by public institutions and organizations. Twitter and other services of that nature are not public utilities.
Edit: To the replies pointing out the protected class distinction: I'm well aware of it (as my example shows). What I am highlighting is that "freedom of association" isn't as absolute as the parent post implies, and that in the past the law was changed and that freedom was diminished when it allowed behavior we didn't like.
In fact, if you were to start a group that wanted to destroy white Europeans (like how the Klan wants to destroy non whites, Catholics, Mormons, Jews, and sanity itself) then you would quickly find yourself ostracized.
I would bet an anti white group would quickly find itself branded as a terrorist organization in the US.
Anti-Semites are not a protected class. Political opinion is not protected in private space. The policies of these private platforms are clear and available for anyone to read, and include a ban on racist speech. If you want to stay on the platform, follow the rules.
You have no control over what color you were born, and you can't change it. That's why race is a protected class and opinions are not. Free speech only protects us from the government, not from private consequences.
In 1997 the big tech platforms lobbied that not only they wouldn't censor views, that it was basically impossible for them to do so.
This is what allowed the internet to grow without onerous regulation (ie they were treated as a carrier not a publisher).
Now that big tech is moving towards "being publishers", you're now going to reverse it all and cause massive regulation to take place. In the end, "the internet" will look no different than mainstream tv.
I worry about this, but I also suspect we're heading in a direction that will mostly avoid this fate. However, even if given a hard binary choice between TV land and the current popularity of hatred that Duke exemplifies, I wouldn't have to think on it.
The censors aren't stupid, of course they are going to go after the David Dukes first, then over the next decade watch how the internet slowly transforms into a massive establishment mouthpiece.
Maybe explain to your kids, "we were afraid of bad words".
Wikileaks and Julia Assange are commiting crimes were they in the US. There is a long list to cut.
On the other hand parler might only be popular because twitter started banning these people in the first place.
If I say I'm anti-racist, but disagree with you as to what constitutes "racism", which of us is right and which should be banned? Who gets to judge?
Saying the term "racist" is "constantly in flux" seems to imply its definition is completely arbitrary, or that no commonly accepted or generally agreed upon definitions exist. Regardless of what else people may say it does or doesn't mean, I think most people would agree that the white supremacist views of David Duke could be considered racist.
>If I say I'm anti-racist, but disagree with you as to what constitutes "racism", which of us is right and which should be banned? Who gets to judge?
In the specific case, obviously the owner of the platform. Despite what people say (or want to be true) Twitter is not a public space, it's a private platform and its owners can ban whomever they please for whatever reason they want, and that's probably spelled out in their terms of service somewhere.
In the more general case, possibly a framework of law, common societal or religious norms and cultural influences, or no one. Truth can't always be determined with absolute certainty when one is dealing with social constructs in the subjective and abstract landscape of modern hyperreality. People can't even agree on the world being round anymore, and it's easier to accept that everything one is told is a lie than attempt to reconcile a complex and fragmented media universe of mutually opposed, violently overlapping magisteria. Obviously, if we can't even agree on what race is, we may not agree on what what racism is, or opposition to it. How do you even do that when some people believe most of the people they pass on the street are holograms in the Matrix?
That said, when David Duke talks about "the Jews" and their campaign of "white genocide" or about his desire to live in an all "white" society, it's entirely possible to see what he means in that context and form an opinion accordingly.
Twitter absolutely safe-harbors the extreme left. I think it's the only tech company I would refuse to work for due to their moral failings.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priyamvada_Gopal#%22White_live...
[2] https://www.theguardian.com/education/2019/mar/20/cambridge-...
Edit as reply due to posting limit: It wasn't meant to convince you the KKK shouldn't be banned. It was only meant to correct the misleading implication that opposing the KKK is as "left" as Twitter gets.
(Scare quotes around "left" because I don't believe there's anything inherently left about "white lives don't matter". I.e. one can be a radical leftist without believing that.)
That said as much as I think that that professor is a door knob that should’ve been fired instead of promoted I also don’t think that she has nearly as much impact as the fucking leader of the KKK on social media.
It's a real dilemma: pushing these people to niche platforms limits their ability to spread their hateful ideology, but then those same niche platforms could then become radicalizing cesspits for the few that get sucked into them:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pittsburgh_synagogue_shooting:
> Bowers had earlier posted anti-Semitic comments against HIAS (formerly, Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society) on the online social network Gab.[11][12][13] Dor Hadash[14] had participated in HIAS's National Refugee Shabbat the previous week. Referring to Central American migrant caravans and immigrants, Bowers posted on Gab that "HIAS likes to bring invaders in that kill our people. I can't sit by and watch my people get slaughtered. Screw your optics, I'm going in."[15]
Maybe. But then again they're radicalizing people on the mainstream platforms as well.
Of course, if we admit that radicalizing people with hateful ideology is a problem, then we might have to admit the ideology itself is also a problem, and that would suggest that all speech isn't perfectly equal and equally valid relative to all other speech, and that some speech can actually be harmful. We would have to treat different ideas, ideologies and claims differently, and judge their merits on a case by case basis, and allow there to be consequences for harmful speech just as there are consequences for harmful actions, both in society as well as legally.
We can't do that in the current political climate, so perhaps the next best thing is to simply reduce the number of people being radicalized as much as possible by not giving racists as big a megaphone as possible.
What we should be happy about is they have to dig this far off the mainstream to find someone like him.
I find DD to be repelling- but moves like this are more repelling than yet another asshole on Twitter.
Twitter apparently wants to save its users from ever being critical thinkers.
Is that what you meant?
- Karl Popper
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action
The latter conveniently unconstitutional.