My current view is that while I want to promote openness and free speech that can really only work in a context where the person exercising their speech feels some necessity to use it responsibly and in an honest way.

On the internet that takes a lot of self control because the social norms of every day life don’t always apply because:

  • no one knows who you are
  • there is not a human being right in front of you that you might feel empathy for
  • there are no consequences to anything you say
  • not all posts are even by humans.

With all these taken together there is a compelling argument that speech may need to be more highly regulated on the internet than in face to face interactions. However there are people with legitimate ( beliefs and ideas honestly held that they wish to discuss ) views that I worry are going to be silenced and further marginalized.

This is bad for society because if people get dismissed or pushed aside it just breeds resentment, distrust, and more misunderstanding. I think as we start defederating and making decisions we are setting up a dangerous situation where it becomes potentially easy to defederate for the wrong reasons.

For instance “we think they are being racist” or “they are spreading misinformation” could have unintended consequences. Some religions and communities might have beliefs that appear to be pseudoscience or even discrimination. However if these are honestly held beliefs that they are willing to engage in civil discourse around I don’t think it’s right to actually block them.

This is likely just the beginning of a much larger discussion so what are your thoughts?—

  • Shihali@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    6·
    2 years ago

    I worry that this “banish them to the corner” policy will combine with rapidly changing limits on acceptable speech and thought to hand the extremists a growing captive audience of resentful exiles. Is it really worth banishing Jane Churchlady if the price is making Gab a mainstream social network?

      • Shihali@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
        3·
        2 years ago

        I think we might be arguing two slightly different things here. You’re worried about the consequences of not shunning extremists hard enough to keep groups that are already down, down. I’m worried about the consequences of shunning people who are neither bien-pensants nor extremists as extremists, because it’s a strong incentive for the mal-pensants to support the extremists if not become extremists.

        Also, your argument turns on the assumption that the extremists are incapable of making their own platforms and must rely on platforms offered by others. My argument is that if you deplatform anyone within eyesight of an extremist, it’s a matter of time before you’ve deplatformed so many people that they build their own successful platform. And the platform of the deplatformed will be ugly.

          • Shihali@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
            4·
            2 years ago

            You deeply misunderstood my argument and threw in gratuitous insults. So I’ll try to explain it again with a character.

            Jane Churchlady is a social conservative. She believes that God disapproves of homosexuality. She thinks same-sex marriage shouldn’t have been made legal, and she says so. She votes for the local right-wing party, but she can’t bring herself to vote for the racist far right party. Jane Churchlady will not change her belief that God disapproves of homosexuality, and isn’t willing to lie about it to stay on a social network.

            What do you do when Jane Churchlady registers for Lemmy?

            1. If you let Jane Churchlady stay, she says that while she prays for gay people, they are sinful in the eyes of God.

            2. If you ban Jane Churchlady, she’s out of your feed, but she registers for Gab instead and starts voting for the racist far right party after reading the posts there. Because you tried to deplatform her, she has been radicalized. If you hadn’t tried to deplatform her, she wouldn’t have switched to Gab and wouldn’t have been radicalized.

            3. If you’ve got a third scenario, tell me what happens to Jane Churchlady.

              • Shihali@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
                2·
                2 years ago

                If you’ve already concluded that Jane Churchlady, a figure I constructed to be a social conservative who isn’t an extremist, is in reality an extremist then we’ve been talking past each other for quite a while.

                So you’re very worried that if Christian bien-pensants are exposed to Jane Churchlady saying that gay marriage is against the will of God and she’s praying for gay couples, several of them will think she has a point and drift rightward, and preventing that is worth driving Jane Churchlady herself into extremism? I’d discounted the possibility that Jane Churchlady would convert anyone rather than be a nuisance. I can follow your logic now, although your conclusion that building a fence around bien-pensants is worth outright handing a 10-20% market share to extremists is a hard pill to swallow.

                But the way, if you felt insulted it might be because the hat fits, my last paragraph was purely rhetorical.

                Your answer to being called out making a backhanded accusation is to make another backhanded accusation?

              • Feweroptions@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
                11·
                2 years ago

                Ah yes, the good old “if I insinuate or say something awful about you and it offends you, it’s because you’re guilty.”

      • ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
        41·
        2 years ago

        Actually, it is legal to be in the kkk, or organize as the kkk, assemble and spread those ideals. It is not legal for them to commit crimes like arson (cross burning) or murder (lynching), or conspiring to do those crimes, but simply existing, calling yourselves the kkk, wearing hoods, and saying racist shit is legal.

        In fact:

        that didn’t go away by trying to compromise with them!

        Actually, it kinda did. More accurately, it “went away” by convincing their potential converts (mostly their kids) that those old fashioned ideals are stupid and untrue, it was actually exactly through conversation and exposure to other cultures and their arts that the kkk saw their numbers dwindle to their meager membership levels of today.

        I’m not saying we need to follow that playbook, just because it worked once doesn’t mean it will again I suppose, but it was through discussion that their membership suffered, not through “bans” (or in this context making being in the kkk illegal. Since it isn’t illegal, they can’t have done that.)

          • ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
            2·
            2 years ago

            I believe that part is what one would consider “crime.”

            It is still, currently, not illegal to be in the kkk or be a racist POS no matter what either of us think about that. It still exists actually, remember 2016? David Duke, the leader of the thing, who is a real person who’s name and location is known, has not been arrested for being the leader of the thing, supported trump on the news? They do get arrested for crimes they commit all the time of course, since they often do commit crimes, but putting on a hood and saying stupid shit is simply not one of them.

            There have actually been three separate KKKs btw. The first one was actually made illegal, but that was declared unconstitutional in the 1880s. Making it illegal actually isn’t what killed it either, it continued on even as people got locked up, the leader disbanded it because it was becoming generalized violence and he “only” wanted racist violence, he basically said “look how they massacred my boy” and pulled the plug. And then the supreme court case said it was unconstitutional.

            The second one in the 20s had somehow convinced it’s members they were upstanding members of society, until their leader got convicted of rape and murder, and all the protestants they had recruited said “are we the baddies?” So they splintered and declined for years, until the organization literally got sold, and the IRS hit them with a lein for back taxes, and they shuttered their doors like a failed company.

            Then from there they tried to immediatly start a new one a few years later from what was left, but it was outed in superman comics and books, more splintering and low membership as a result, the civil rights movement won, more splintering and low membership, and now we’re at today, where historians attribute the decline to the Klan’s lack of competence in the use of the Internet, their history of violence, a proliferation of competing hate groups, and a decline in the number of young racist activists who are willing to join groups at all.

            Again, though the klan has been in decline steadily since like 1945, it is still legal, so “making it illegal” clearly isn’t what caused the decline. The decline was caused by Superman…

            …Or you know, that stuff I said earlier about exposure to other people, culture, and art making them not want to be racist against those people. Don’t minimize the role desegregation and the civil rights movement played in all of that, it wasn’t just the FBI (who killed MLK btw) prosecuting the criminals in the kkk, it was people of different races playing together on the playground, eating lunch together in the cafeteria, and becoming the next generation of kkk “recruits” that wanted fuck all to do with them since they already knew how dumb it was due to those experiences. Literally, people like MLK “won,” unless you count “winning” complete destruction, but I’d count 3,000 total members (down from 4-6 million peak) out of 334,967,580 total US population low enough to call a win, personally, and again that isn’t because the FBI made the klan “illegal.”

              • ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
                1·
                2 years ago

                You implied that their decline was due to one incident in 1958 and the prowess of the FBI, at least, and I disagree. I, like the historians, attribute it to the KKK’s failings and the Civil Rights movement’s winnings.

                You were replying to (and “correcting me” on) a post claiming that “the kkk isn’t ilegal, but commiting crimes dressed as one or otherwise is illegal” so I figured you disagreed since you argued against it, my mistake, I guess your “correction” was misplaced.