ForumTouchy Subjects ► Social Media Situation
If twocansandstring.com allowed Nazis to openly express their thoughts, genocidal or otherwise, I would leave this site as well. There's no fear of that and so here I am. Having said that, I would not try to get the site banned.


lmao do we all have collective amnesia about LoveInVein or what?
  
I might, I don't remember LiV being a Nazi. Were they?
  
All due respect, this is a pretty steep accusation to suggest it was designed with Nazis in mind.
Parler was created for people who were banned from mainstream social networks because their views were already too far right to not get banned on those social networks. Seeding it with alt right users and giving it a so-called "Hands off" approach to moderating is not the intent to create a neutral environment. This accusation is not steep.

Although I did not want to be part of a forum with Nazis, it never occured to me to try to get the group banned
Why not?

While we're not super close to that right now, I don't want to risk moving anywhere near it, and a majority acceptance of censorship on private platforms may one day be channeled into support for restrictions of speech in the public sector which could spell disaster for democracy as I know and love it.
Disaster for democracy? Parler has more than its fair share of blood on its hands for the storming the capitol incident. It's the primary source of evidence in the impeachment and various individual trials.

I'm sure the results would drive it underground.
...where thinly veiled fascism won't as easily leak over to our facebook-using friends and family who have insecurities that get easily filled by a well-worded explanation that involves immigrants or feminists. The first step of solving fascism is preventing it from taking root in those that are vulnerable.

I didn't explicity say that Parler was good or bad.
Yes. I noticed.

On a less important side note, I don't use human characteristics like "mean" or "nice" when talking about business. The cliche, "Its nothing personal, just business" exists because business is not a human entity that human attributes can be ascribed to. Business is just business, nothing more and nothing less. Its an impersonal, amoral entity that can be used for good, evil, or something in between, but almost always as a byproduct and nearly never as a primary directive.
Do you see the problem here?

That being said, Google used to have the motto "Don't be evil" which they have since changed since not being evil may no longer be a concern of theirs.
Internally, it was thinly veiled in roughly the same language you used in the previous quote. It was pretty upsetting to most of us on the inside.

If I felt confident their rights could be infringed on while I and my friends' rights stayed intact, I'd be all in favor of banning them on private platforms today, and criminalizing them publicly tomorrow.
See "paradox of tolerance". When someone's whole platform is that certain people should be eliminated (a clear violation of their rights), protecting this under the premise of protecting their rights is counter-productive to that which you are claiming to defend.
  
re: last point
Rights don't apply to just one group. It is wrong to deprive any person of rights that every person deserves.
@Water Phoenix You may wish to rephrase?


--edit to add what I came here to say in the first place secondary stuff--
Grayseff said:
69420
Obligatory "niiice".

The more I turn off media that tells me [...] what to believe about people [...] the more I realize most people are pretty decent
This is an important message. (Assuming I haven't snipped out too much of what you really meant?)
  
By that logic, it's wrong to put a serial murderer in prison because they also have a right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness. We do so because allowing them their rights in this regard hurts other people.

There's a key difference between banning someone because of their political views and banning someone because they threaten the safety of a space. It is a greater evil to allow people to implicitly threaten genocide and violence than it is to take away their right to speak.

It is entirely possible to take this too far and to begin suppressing speech that you simply don't like. That does not mean you shouldn't moderate at all. Just like how the possibility of the prison system being abused doesn't mean we should abolish it.
  
Blake said:
When someone's whole platform is that certain people should be eliminated (a clear violation of their rights), protecting this under the premise of protecting their rights is counter-productive to that which you are claiming to defend.
I'm going to focus the conversation on this. I just read the wikipedia page on paradox of tolerance. I found it very fascinating, thank you for the recommendation. The short version seems to say that in order to preserve liberty it is paradoxically necessary to not tolerate those who would oppose liberty, something I think its safe to say that Nazis oppose.

Its a pretty heavy and lengthy reading into this and its a new concept to me, so I haven't developed an opinion on it yet.

What I have realized reading this, is that people who are in favor of censorship have the same goals as I do when I am against censorship. That is, the goal of preserving freedom. This concept suggests that my methods could be counter productive to the preservation of freedom.

It definitely sheds a new perspective on this for me. This is so new I'm not sure what to make of it concretely. I'd like to learn more about it if you have some good suggested reading on the subject, Blake. My goal is ultimately the preservation of liberty, and if my methods are counter productive to that, I'd like to know more so I can adapt.

Blake said:
Although I did not want to be part of a forum with Nazis, it never occured to me to try to get the group banned
Why not?
Because the forum was founded and run by anti Nazis, people of various colors and creeds and genders. The emphasis on free speech was what allowed the Nazis to come in and make posts. I was right in the end though, I said that they would derail and not listen and only talk at people. Their first posts would have been their last if it were up to me. So why didn't I try to get it banned? In my mind, I don't feel that my opinion or morality should supersede someone else's. I wasn't the founder, I was a moderator, and I decided not to moderate if I couldn't moderate by my principles. But I felt that's where my authority ended, it didn't seem like it was up to me to decide what kind of group the admins wanted, but it was up to me to decide if I wanted to participate.

I was raised in a strict religious community and I hated it. Since leaving religion, I have never wanted to put anyone through what I went through. I am very loathe to exert moral authority or control over anyone as long as they are not violating my boundaries or the boundaries of others. I'm happy to walk away from situations, but I am resistant to trying to take control over people's value systems when I don't think I have that right. Its because I don't think anyone had the right to tell me what I had to believe as a kid, they just took it by force because they were adults and I was a kid. I never want to do that to anyone. I never want to use power to enforce morality, only to enforce rule of law.

There are slight distinctions for me between morality and law even though law should be based on morality, there are some morals that should not become laws when they are personal beliefs that do not harm others.

On the business tangent which might warrant its own thread, I do believe in having good principles in business. I do believe in making less money justly than making more money by having a negative impact on people, the planet, etc. Even on that silly investor show Dragon's Den, one of the investors refused to invest in a profitable venture because they found it to be immoral and against their principles and (at least when the cameras were pointed at them) that was more important than the money in that moment. And that left an impression on me.

Coldfrost, on the prison tangent, prisons are so over sentenced and over filled right now in the USA, many more deserving people would go free if it were abolished (which like you said doesn't mean we want the serial killers at large killing people). But prison is mostly made of people "who have long paid for their crime but are a victim of the time" as Johnny Cash says in Man in Black.

I knew a sweet guy who went to a Federal Prison. His crime? Picking our produce without a Visa. Yeah, get that dangerous working man to the federal prison and deportation, welcome to America. To top that off there are black people serving life sentences for being setup with marijuana. I really hate our justice system.

Your point still stands and I agree with it, its just another interesting tangent because prison is such a horrible thing in the USA, at least in my opinion it is.

gws said:
Rights don't apply to just one group. It is wrong to deprive any person of rights that every person deserves.
@Water Phoenix You may wish to rephrase?
No, that's a concise way of putting it. I see people on Twitter calling for the extermination of different groups they don't like. Hashtag kill all men was trending for a bit. "Oh its just a joke" Then there was this tasteful tweet which was allowed to joke about murdering children who were born in the "wrong" political party. "Oh its just a joke". You know "its just a joke" used to be the battle cry of the alt right when they posted seriously evil things. Now liberals are doing it. The major difference is that they are not getting censored. I'd be a lot more supportive of shutting down evil posts by right wingers if evil posts by left wingers were getting shut down. The fact that only one evil is allowed to exist makes me suspect that its not about good or bad posts its about right wing or left wing posts that are getting censored.

Basically, I think some people are using morality as a smokescreen for political censorship. I'm not on Parler, but I wonder what the percentage of Nazis to non Nazis are and are the Nazis being used as an excuse to censor a mainstream userbase of mostly normal conservative people? I haven't been on, so I don't know. These are the thoughts that run through my mind. Censorship has been a bit one sided on main stream platforms. If the demographics of users are anything like the demographics of people in my rural conservative town, then Nazis should constitute less than 1% of the userbase. We hate Nazis here, and I imagine there's a similar sentiment across other rural, conservative towns in the States.

gws said:
The more I turn off media that tells me [...] what to believe about people [...] the more I realize most people are pretty decent
This is an important message. (Assuming I haven't snipped out too much of what you really meant?)
No, that about sums it up.
  
@Jaxxie I apologize; I was imprecise with "deprive" and should have said something like 'selectively apply'. Judicial punishments are (thus far) out of scope.
  
I don't have a problem with censoring people advocating genocide, no matter what ideological angle they're doing it from. I think the problem is when this reasonable-sounding narrow definition gets used in the justification, but a much broader definition gets used in the application. People that don't call for genocide get defined as Nazis anyway, someone sticks up for them, and that person gets told Nazis need to be censored because they call for genocide.
  
I might, I don't remember LiV being a Nazi. Were they?
"Nazi" is no longer a meaningful term on Internet forums. But he was for sure an English nationalist and proponent of the idea that white people are suffering genocide. My recollection is that he advocated for an English ethnostate, but I'm not sure about that and don't want to misrepresent his views.
Coldfrost said:
By that logic, it's wrong to put a serial murderer in prison because they also have a right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness. We do so because allowing them their rights in this regard hurts other people.
Words and thoughts aren't violence. When we're talking about government restriction of freedom of speech and expression, we need to be extremely precise when drawing the limitations because the potential for abuse is so high. The imminent lawless action standard works well there.

It's clear that as social media companies take ownership of a larger and larger portion of public discourse, we're going to need to build a more robust legal framework for the rights and responsibilities of these companies with regard to restriction of speech.
  
I understand the argument that social media companies are private companies which can set any rules they like, and that "freedom of speech" only applies to criminal charges. That's always been my position. I suppose I can think of four issues:

1 - I feel like some people play the "private company" card selectively. If it's okay for private companies to refuse conservative rhetoric, it's okay for private companies to refuse wedding cakes for gay couples.

2 - It's probably unhealthy if the majority of the world's most important public discourse takes place on a platform owned and actively censored by a handful of private companies in one valley in California.

3 - Does this logic apply to all forms of communication technology? Should Vodafone censor speech said on the Vodafone network? Should Gutenberg have gotten a say on what people printed?

4 - What about when people actually do face criminal charges for non-violent social media posts?
  
I always laugh at how people jump to, "if there's no genocide, then it's not Nazism." You obviously do not understand history if that is your first instinct. You might as well be saying, "it's not racism if they're not wearing a pointed white hood." There were many, many layers to Nazism, much of which can be found in modern-day conservatism.

But first, let us do a break-down of the people that were killed in the concentration camps and find modern-day parallels.

Socialist, Communists/Bolshevists, liberals (technically not the modern liberal, but close enough), anarchists, Jewish sympathizers, and trade unionists; these people received a red triangle badge in the concentration camps

Immigrants, especially Spanish refugees; these people received a blue triangle badge in the concentration camps

Criminals and convicts; these people received a green triangle badge in the concentration camps

Gay men, transgender women, bisexual men, pedophiles, and zoophiles; these people received a pink triangle badge in the concentration camps (which the inverted version of the badge is used by LGBT+ groups today in defiance and remembrance)

Jehova's Witness and pacifist religious groups; these people received a purple triangle badge in the concentration camps

Lesbians, trans men, bisexual women, prostitutes, the mentally ill, people with intellectual disabilities, alcoholics, drug addicts, the homeless, pacifists, and Roma and Sinti people (gyps*es); these people received a black triangle badge in the concentration camps

Jews; Well, we all know this one because it's the only one that American history textbooks and documentaries ever talk about.

Noticing anything peculiar? Socialists and Communists were in the camps (which I will delve into later) and LGBT+ people were also there alongside immigrants from other nations. Also, notice that gay men and trans women are lumped with pedophiles and zoophiles, while lesbians are in the same group as the "mentally ill". Even a fringe Christian group was among the others despite the fact that Nazi Germany was heavily Christian. Even the homeless were persecuted in Nazi Germany.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_concentration_camp_badge

Are you not seeing the parallels yet? This is modern-day conservatism. "LGBT people are pedophiles and their degeneracy will lead to having sex with animals (while they consume the highest amount of lesbian pornography in conservative states according to PornHub)", the constant attack on immigrants that spans decades for Hispanic and Latino peoples, and even the attack on other Christians just because it's not their flavor of Christianity and the attack on people outside of their brand of religion (today it's Muslims).

It doesn't stop there, either, does it? There's still the situation with Socialists, Communists, and other "leftist" groups. And that right there was the final nail in the coffin for me. This attack on "socialism" proves exactly what has happened over the years, that the Nazis have successfully infiltrated right-wing politics. Hitler was an absolute tyrant against what scholars know as socialism and Communism. He labeled all of his political enemies as socialists/communists and blurred the meanings of the two so that the population would not actually understand what either of the terms meant; even adopting his own "national socialism" term that boiled down to meaning an Aryan (white) ethnostate and had no relation to socialism. And this is exactly what modern-day conservatives have done. No conservative has ever told me the proper meanings for socialism- ever. Socialism is absolutely not about taxation, not even close. In fact, Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution clearly goes against their definition of socialism. Yet, the right-wing pundits have buried into their heads the idea that "socialism" is bad and that "socialists" are evil baby killers. That is Hitlerism 101.

This is why deplatforming is INCREDIBLY important, and I'll proudly stress the caps lock. Right-wing forums have never once turned away the Nazis from their groups and now they are proudly stepping in line with Nazi rhetoric without question all because they felt the need to defend "opinion". They are even parroting Nazi slogans as they fight against "cultural Marxism", put "America first", and defend people wearing shirts that declare that killing 6 million Jews wasn't enough while they beat cops with American flags and literally shit on the floor.

So there is this amazing Twitter thread that shows what happens when you start letting Nazis, racists, and all the others start entering your bar. The story may or may not be true, but the results are always apparent on social media platforms like Parler, 4chan, 8chan, Voat, and all the others. Nazis may seem like reasonable individuals at first, but they always bring a friend, and those friends bring friend, and soon, you've got an entire Nazi party in your place who have pushed out the good people and now feel completely comfortable to be themselves in the open- and Nazis are NOT good people (I know, I used to live with a literal Nazi grandmother with my Jewish mother, it was not pleasant, to say the least). For instance, when the subreddit The_Donald was facing annihilation from Reddit, they tried to move over to Voat. Voat used to be the bastion for exiled communities on Reddit, gaining popularity when the Reddit CEO Ellen Pao was being removed. However, by the time it was The_Donald's turn to be removed, they found absolutely no home in Voat because the community was far more Nazi-riddled than The_Donald, pushing The_Donald's community out. Think about that, Reddit's most notoriously fascist subreddit was not fascist enough for an incredibly vile community. Now, Voat is no more thanks to the fact that it could not gain any funds, most likely because it couldn't gain any new users, and its old users pushed out the more good people. Their community killed the local watering hole by catering to just a few Nazis. However, Reddit refused to act fast enough and The_Donald has its own community, which is now dwindling in popularity and facing its own schism.

Time and time again it has been shown that deplatforming and censoring works. Studies have even been done on Reddit's efforts to deplatform hate. Just think back and you may even be able to see how deplatforming has worked on Reddit if you're an avid Reddit user. Just ask yourself when you have last seen "fren" or "clownworld 🤡🌎" mentioned? These used to be highly prolific neo-Nazi dog whistles and now they are pretty much nowhere to be found a year later. Granted the anti-Semitism and anti-LGBT messages still exist, but the communities that were meant to appeal to children are long gone and can no longer spread their ideals.

Finally, let's back up to the legal end of things and peel back some fun little observations that nobody makes. The First Amendment, as it stands, has no bearing on civilian life. Civilians are free to do whatever they want in regards to speech, and that includes holding people accountable. It is only the government that cannot restrict speech. However, even that in itself has exceptions. For instance, can you freely threaten the life of a person? Nope, that is called incitement and you will be jailed for it. Can you freely copy another person's intellectual property, change a few things, and then sell it as your own words? Nope, you will be breaking copyright laws and the original owner can sue you for it or you can be placed in jail. Can you place a large billboard of your adult entertainment business that features nudity and sexual content? Nope, that's public indecency and you can be fined by your local government. Can Congress pass a law respecting an establishment of religion? Nope. Oh wait, is that not the very first line of the First Amendment? Is not the very first line an exception to the Amendment itself? How intriguing, eh? It seems that the First Amendment was designed in such a way that it can be used to protect the public's interests and safety over the individual's, just like what is allowed when prosecuting incitement, copyright, and public indecency. What if something like hate speech was looked at as a public safety issue rather than an individual's right? I mean, could hate speech incite others to act on their desires? These last six years have proven that to be true, with the biggest proof happening on January 6th of this year.

Now, let's finally peel back some of the fun observations. Conservatives will tell you that corporations have no right to regulate speech. However, was it not in 2011 when those same Conservatives were telling you that corporations are people? So when a corporation removes you from their platform, are they not exercising their free speech by telling you that they do not support your speech and that you are not welcome on their property by banning you? So which is it, are corporations people, or are they just there to act as the arm of the government? The other fun observation is that never once has any group ever taken legal action against any social media company. Why? Because they will lose, and they know they will lose. A corporation has every right to its property. When you are on Facebook's servers, you are on their personal property. The Supreme Court case of Marsh vs. Alabama clearly lined out that corporations have no obligation to cater to your speech on their property. So when you hear things like, "it's my freedom of speech", know that it is a complete lie and they are only trying to escape accountability by hiding behind false legality.

All-in-all, if it Honk Honks like a goose and steps like a goose, then it is obviously a Nazi and it absolutely is imperative to remove them, both for the health of your platform and for the health of your nation- maybe even the world due to how much all of this has spread. They have no legal footing that does protect their speech, and they have no way to legally reprimand any corporation that does remove them. I shouldn't have to personally go into my own years of living within their communities as a junior alt-righter in order to make my point and case. These people are extremely dangerous and need to be removed the minute they are discovered, not given time to build communities and spread their hatred, especially as they continuously launch attacks on vulnerable communities like LGBT youth, the homeless, and those with mental health issues.
  
I always laugh at how people jump to, "if there's no genocide, then it's not Nazism." You obviously do not understand history if that is your first instinct. You might as well be saying, "it's not racism if they're not wearing a pointed white hood." There were many, many layers to Nazism, much of which can be found in modern-day conservatism.
I'm not the one defining Nazis by genocide. I agree someone can be a Nazi without advocating genocide. This was true 1919-1945, so why shouldn't it be true now.

But genocide was the reason given earlier in this thread as to why we should be censoring Nazis from social media. I'm accepting the justification given. People say "We need to ban Nazis because Nazis advocate genocide" in the beginning. That sounds fair enough, but in the actual application the scope is far wider, encompassing a broad range of nationalist-type sentiment.

Someone pipes up and says "But you're lumping in people who don't advocate genocide" and the response is "You don't have to advocate genocide to be a Nazi". I agree that you don't have to advocate genocide to be a Nazi, but you do have to advocate genocide to advocate genocide, which is the reason given for censoring Nazis.

You complain about socialists being equated with Communists, but in the same post you equate conservatives with Nazis. If you want to ban not just Nazis but conservatives as well, then why not say so? Is it because that's a harder sell?
  
Jews; Well, we all know this one because it's the only one that American history textbooks and documentaries ever talk about.
the reason they are emphasized in American history is because America was complicit in antisemitism at the time. Hell, the whole world more or less hated the Jewish people. Many Jewish Folk were desperately clawing and fighting for the right to exist. It was the one awful thing the whole world seemed to agree on: that Jews were bad. It took the Holocaust to get the human species to rethink their collective antisemitism.

They were made public enemy number one to the Nazis above all other prejudices and hatreds. That's not my opinion. Mein Kampf, a soul chilling read, confirms very clearly where Hitler believed Germany's problems came from. Many people were targeted by the Nazis, but only the Jewish people were on the Bullseye center of their aim.
This attack on "socialism" proves exactly what has happened over the years, that the Nazis have successfully infiltrated right-wing politics.
That's Reductio Ad Hitlerum.
Yet, the right-wing pundits have buried into their heads the idea that "socialism" is bad and that "socialists" are evil baby killers. That is Hitlerism 101.
That's Reductio Ad Hitlerum.
They are even parroting Nazi slogans as they fight against "cultural Marxism", put "America first"
That's Reductio ad... Well, you get it by now. The communists of the world have many enemies, and not all of their enemies are Nazis.

I can conclusively say that sharing things in common with Nazis does not make you a Nazi. Here is a list of things most of us share in common with Nazis:

We drink water.
We eat food.
We sleep.
We travel in cars.
We wear pants.
Some of us have facial hair.
We like our alone time.
We enjoy our together time.
This list could go on forever...

The point is, many groups have overlaps. What makes people a Nazi is if they are a part of the Nazi party, or they wish they were. Nothing more, nothing less. People need to stop calling each other Nazis and literally Hitler.

Honestly, so many people are calling each other a Nazi nowadays that I almost wouldn't believe someone was a Nazi unless I saw a swastika tattoo on their face. Its just so hard to tell nowadays with all the false alarms and all the non Nazis being called Nazis.
  
Forum > Touchy Subjects > Social Media Situation