[BREAKING] Livestreamed mass shooting in Christchurch Mosque, New Zealand - Sensationalist Headlines

that's cute and all but the entire problem is that the far-right don't play by these rules, so insisting we should use these rules to remove their influence is fairly naive; when debating them just gives them legitimacy, deplatforming is the way to go. The entire reason they flourish is because they play fast and loose with facts and fair analysis, they literally have guides on how to manoeuvre debates because their existence is based on recruitment and radicalisation, not thoughtful and sincere discussion. Or, to put it another way: do you think they'd exist in the first place if all the factual evidence and reams of debates extant on the internet actually worked the way you want it to?

I'm also in favour of pushing facts in a debate rather than silencing people, but the way internet and social media work right now, it's literally impossible

I'm 100% with contrapoints on this. People don't care about facts, they care about their internal narrative of the truth, about stories.

That's noble and all, but it treats people as if they were always rational and swayed by factual positions, which is, ironically, very far from being a fact

My facts or your facts? That's the problem. When everyone thinks they're right and the other side is misguided, you're not going to get very far.

If we assume shit is functioning properly, there's only one set of facts, and everything else is opinion.

Anti-vaxx Flat earth The Great Replacement The days of destroying someone with hard facts and evidence is over. All that matters now is to shout louder than your opponent, it doesn't matter if they have three libraries full of supporting evidence, all you have to do is discredit their character through whatever nebulous means and you're guaranteed a horde of similarly dim-witted followers. You mean much like what the far-right would do without a second thought if they were given free reign? Fun fact if you challenge any of God-Emperor Trump's decisions on t_d you get banned! Wow! Great debate! Much converse! This is really working! Here's a better idea: If you advocate the death/displacement of an entire group of people, your ideas should not be entertained anywhere. Abide by that golden rule and we can completely avoid any ~sLiPpErY sLoPeS~

So what do we do? This is a pretty violent introduction into thought policing, right now it's extreme views on how to deal with immigration but how long till we can't speak about our Tiananmen Square? It's a precedent I'd rather not set personally.

I mean if you want to be consistent here, you'd have to also advocate in support of social media sites lifting their moratorium on ISIS propaganda and other forms of terrorist propaganda. The prevailing opinion on the parts of the internet which are being discussed here is that it was a very good thing that this young man did what he did, and many of the posters in question there are egging others on to do the same. That goes beyond freedom of speech. That's conspiracy to commit murder.

Change how social media works on a fundamental level. Right now, it's a toxic influence motivated solely by greed and corporate PR that's forging society apart from within to farm more traffic by exaggerating every controversy to unsustainable levels, all while separating people into completely different mental realities.

https://chicago.suntimes.com/news/new-zealand-mosque-shooting-hero-allah-gunman-credit-card-machine/

pretty much exactly the point dude. If you create systems for enforcing control over free speech it won't always be the "good guys" in your mind that have control over those systems, either. Soon enough people you disagree with will have the reigns and use those tools against different targets. It would be extremely dangerous in the current climate where it's so easy to tar and feather innocent people by association. Suddenly whoever disagrees with this new system also get silenced for "defending bad people", and then there's no way out of the hole that's been dug. It's not like anyone's fucking happy about this situation but there needs to be a hard refocus from censorship as a solution to our rapidly decaying education, physical and mental health systems as a solution. Do note, fixing those things are *also* things opposited by /pol/ and nazis so you can still get the rightous "being against nazis" boner if you want, but pushing things like nationalized single payer healthcare and education system reforms will quite literally improve the state of living on average for everyone and bring people out of the gutters that lets them get into these stupid mindsets to begin with.

The gunman returned, firing. Aziz said he ran, weaving through cars parked in the driveway, which prevented the gunman from getting a clean shot. Then Aziz spotted a gun the gunman had abandoned and picked it up, pointed it and squeezed the trigger. It was empty. He said the gunman ran back to the car for a second time, likely to grab yet another weapon. “He gets into his car and I just got the gun and threw it on his window like an arrow and blasted his window,” he said. The windshield shattered: “That’s why he got scared.” He said the gunman was cursing at him, yelling that he was going to kill them all. But he drove away and Aziz said he chased the car down the street to a red light, before it made a U-turn and sped away. Online videos indicate police officers managed to force the car from the road and drag out the suspect soon after. That guy is ballsy. Good on him. Glad he managed to survive.

Aziz said as he ran outside screaming, he was hoping to distract the attacker. He said the gunman ran back to his car to get another gun, and Aziz hurled the credit card machine at him. He said he could hear his two youngest sons, aged 11 and 5, urging him to come back inside. The gunman returned, firing. Aziz said he ran, weaving through cars parked in the driveway, which prevented the gunman from getting a clean shot. Then Aziz spotted a gun the gunman had abandoned and picked it up, pointed it and squeezed the trigger. It was empty. He said the gunman ran back to the car for a second time, likely to grab yet another weapon. “He gets into his car and I just got the gun and threw it on his window like an arrow and blasted his window,” he said. The windshield shattered: “That’s why he got scared.” He said the gunman was cursing at him, yelling that he was going to kill them all. But he drove away and Aziz said he chased the car down the street to a red light, before it made a U-turn and sped away. Online videos indicate police officers managed to force the car from the road and drag out the suspect soon after. Holy shit

Would you give the same answer Resonant gave in regards to T_D? Do you think banning it would be a bad idea? Is any deplatforming the first step on a slippery slope to widespread censorship, and if not, what kind of deplatforming is?

This man deserves a medal. What a hero this guy is.

Man that gunman sounds like a real coward

When faced with someone that isn't willing to run from him he chickened out like a little fuckin' pussy. These mass shooters are big tough guys until someone else is willing to put them down/the police arrived. Then they try to run or just off themselves rather than face the fire.

Deplatforming is doublespeak for censorship, it's just talking about a method for censoring people so the question is a bit malformed. Widespread deplatforming would be widespread censorship, for example. If you create and normalize systems for deplatforming that would be the same as "create[ing] systems for enforcing control over free speech"(from my post). In my opinion reddit is already well down that route and they just keep T_D around as a totem to show they don't delete their political opponents, when they already do. It's better if they didn't, and also unbanned a number of other subs. T_D in particular exists because of rampant censorship on other political subs across reddit, not that T_D is any better, they're just a broken mirror of subs like r/politics that pretend very persistently to be neutrally moderated but aren't. One is definitely worse than the other, but it doesn't matter, the problem is just that people have retreated into their polarized echo chambers, just deleting one side's echo chamber may make things appear better in the short term but it's just going to make everything worse in the long term because it's the next step in the same chain of events that lead to T_D's creation. People will separate not just into their own subreddits but reinforce separation into separate websites, and for a lot of "deplatforming" fans the next step is to take those websites and try to get them deleted too through payment blockades and ddos attacks. The endgame here is worse than you realize, it's forcing them to create their own payment processors and ultimately creating a parallel society which again, makes all of this worse, not better. Some people think that everyone they disagree with will just vanish once this goes far enough and enough people are deplatformed, some people have never opened a history book. Like i've explained in a few other threads on FP over time, in regards to websites like reddit, twitter, facebook i think as platforms they are too large to be allowed to operate independently, the role they play in modern society is too big and there is too much room for abuse of that power on levels even beyond politics. I would modify safe harbor protection law to mandate a level of free speech enforced on large public social media websites and furthermore curtail them from any curation that might allow market manipulation or for them to abuse ownership of the site for monopolization purposes. If you wanted to operate a site like facepunch with house rules you still could but without certain safe harbor/responsibility protections. Basically, if your site is too big to moderate manually it'd need to be a free speech website or be responsible for everything that gets posted there.

I imagine if they ban t_d, its community will seep into other subreddits. The admins probably want to avoid that.

Why should we keep neo-nazis around in the scope of the normal internet when we can push them back to the deepweb where they spawned/belong? T_D only exists because they wanted to circlejerk Trump to the top of the ballots, nothing more. It was used by Russia to propogate stuff during the election. It's dangerous, and the fact that Reddit admins haven't deleted the sub entirely and kicked them out is because they'll "leak into other boards", they're nazis, or T_D has blackmail on the admins. What's the worst that could happen if we hit the hive and scatter everyone in it? Sure, they'll probably spam gore or some other edgy garbage on other boards in a fury, but that's what bans are for. They'll use proxies, but you keep banning them until they give up. They're pussies, they rely purely on fear and intimidation. If Reddit stood their ground and weren't so complicit with nazis, then they'll get scared and run away.

Keeping it as a containment board isn't going to work because they're still going to seep regardless, so you might as well just deal with the small splinter groups that come from banning it than deal with the breeding ground of keeping it around

In other Steam related news... https://files.facepunch.com/forum/upload/58120/21c36e7a-2d90-48e2-a839-2922874a5b79/image.png Steam Community Market ...yeah.....

Reminder that these are the same people that isolated themselves to a corner of the internet where they could sustain their thought process on the echo chamber they created because they were too afraid to venture out to a different style of thinking in the least. Too afraid to face anybody that isn't on your side or willing to submit to it. Both online and in the real world.

You act like you're a proponent of free speech and then end your post with a plan which involves further government control over free speech. It makes me truly doubt the sincerity of the ideals you claim to hold here. The absolute last thing I want right now is the US government deciding what large aggregator and social media sites can remove from their sites. What you advocate for will end with the government forcing every large site to host it's own version of /pol/, which is only going to make this problem worse than it already is. Likewise, for the above stated reason, a danger that you explicitly outlined in a post further up on this very page, the likelihood of government intervention as to what must be preserved as 'free speech' on these platforms is likely to be enforced unevenly, which goes back to what I said earlier: The last thing we need is for the US government to be deciding what sites NEED to host. You'll get people calling for the jews to be gasses but "haha it's only ironic man" getting left up and protected by law while other people with similarly repugnant views will be getting taken down because they're not ~favored~ by the establishment. I'm not really for government intervention here anyways, to be honest. I think that sites should be allowed to do as they wish, and my hope is that they'd look at these recent events and see that hosting /pol/ boards isn't worth the trouble. As I said, they're more than free to set up their own sites, but I'd rather see most large sites decide that it's not worth hosting terrorists and people who egg on terrorists.

If T_D just starts banning people who openly call for genocide, will you be okay with the subreddit continuing to exist? If we have a community of white supremacists proclaiming Islam to be the downfall of Western civilization, wanting its practice to be outlawed, and believing Middle Easterners are subhuman, that's fine as long as they don't call for death or displacement? If not, then it sounds like you're asking for a more nebulous, restrictive, and potentially abusable set of rules (governed by whom?), and saying 'just ban people who literally advocate genocide' makes it sound more clear-cut than it is. I think T_D and /pol/ need to go, but I can't pretend I have any objective, impossible-to-abuse justification for it it. If we only deplatform people who openly advocate the death/displacement of an entire group of people, it's not going to fix things. It's easy for extremists to deny extreme beliefs, and playing thought police always has potential for abuse.

More information on the writings: (may have to open in new tab to see full size) https://files.facepunch.com/forum/upload/1383/8ba17e1d-ae72-4b52-8a1e-279e47659c51/1552666310271_1.jpg

Matt50k, do you have any way to assure me that government enforcement of 'forced' free speech on websites will be even-handed and won't give favoritism to any political group or ideology?

My plan did not involve further government control over free speech, it's an incentive for huge websites to take first amendment style free speech rules and apply them to their website. There's a big difference between a system enforcing censorship and a system that asks large social media websites to stay hands off with extra protections if they do, they aren't really related at all so you may have misread something or it wasn't explained well enough. Even then i'm not "anti government intervention" either , i did just post about how we need to push single payer healthcare and education reform, those are the opposite of "anti government intervention" in a general sense. The deplatforming issue is more of a corporate power issue to begin with, i absolutely do not want corporations to accumulate power in the way they are. There's a lot less room for corruption in a system that has a very simple standard compared to something that can be subject to interpretation, the first amendment is proven already.

Private entities have no obligation to host any type of speech on their platform. That's not what free speech means. There's no reason for FP mods to suddenly allow neo-nazis to spout their bullshit freely on here, for instance. No site has any obligation to do so, no matter how "big" they are. You're not suddenly losing any fundamental right just because some websites decide to better curate their platform. Nor should sites like Facebook - which is already a springboard for a lot of Nazi rhetoric as of right now - be forced to turn into fucking 8chan in terms of moderation. Besides, hate speech is not free speech. A lot of what forums ban or suppress in terms of hate speech wouldn't even be protected and might even result in prosecution in some western countries. The whole "slippery slope" spiel that people keep bringing up whenever people argue that literal terrorist sympathizers should be denied a platform is nonsensical.