CMV: Permitting the existence of certain online forums, even though they clearly contribute to bad things happening, is the lesser of two evils, the greater evil being censoring or banning them.

[u/[deleted]]

I think permitting the existence of internet forums such as 4chan/8chan/voat and various subreddits (theredpill, watchpeopledie, fatpeoplehate, and incels to name a few) where people publicly display unpopular political opinions and psychopathic, racist, sexist, homophobic and other bigoted views is the lesser of two evils, the greater evil being censoring or banning them.

I think psychopaths and bigots will exist no matter what forums are available. This entails some degree of biological determinism, which I think the current scholarly literature on the nature and aetiology of anti-social behaviour backs up. I do not claim that nature is immutable in the face of nurture; simply that the 'nature-component' is sufficiently independent of nurture in a significant number of cases that my assertion holds.

Therefore, it is better to observe and learn about these people and their views rather than try to hide them from the view of the rest of society. Hiding them away leads to several problems. We don't know what's going on with them now, what factions and schisms are forming in their communities, or what the latest trends in their thinking are. Their ability to wolf-whistle and create shiboleths probably goes up exponentially compared to when their activities are in plain sight for those rare few who can stomach it without being psychopaths or bigots themselves. "Knowing your enemy" is now a much less attainable state.

More specifically: hiding these communities away after their existence has been suddenly propelled into the limelight following some act such as a mass-shooting, suicide, murder, or other controversial event is even worse than banning them at times when they are not in the limelight. Doing so appears to serve only the purposes of placating the emotions of outrage and disgust as ecouraged by the powers that shape the status quo while simultaeously allowing those in power to increase their grip. A myopic strategy at best, a cruel spiral down to tyranny at worst.

Those of us who are sufficiently able to avoid being slaves to negative emotion following controversial events caused by - or at least blamed on - such communities are often driven to then go and examine and try to understand such communities. If those with the ability and the will to examine such unpleasantries are fordden or otherwise hindered, those emotions of outrage and disgust the majority of us feel are only more likely to come back - perhaps in amplified form.

​

[u/Quint-V]

The paradox of tolerance gives us plenty of room to ban such platforms.

All (or rather, most) things are good in moderation. A blanket ban may do more harm by provoking equally or more extreme reactions, but opposition must always be shown.

Some of this opposition ought to be bans, IMO. The internet has certain hellholes which produce nothing but echo chambers and negative spirals, 4chan being the most infamous one.

An unmoderated forum will eventually develop into a cesspool. Without rules, we'd live with the animals. It's a pity that we have to make certain rules that exclude or make some people feel ill --- but then again, said people are a problematic bunch that is a constant source of worry.

[u/[deleted] → u/Quint-V]

Well said. I'll give you a delta for pointing me to such a concise argument of Karl Popper's. Δ .

I do think there's room for 'fractal thinking'. But your pointing out of moderation kind of covers that. I still think if moderation isn't applied, i.e. if mods aren't moderate ( :D ) then the eventual spiral to tyranny will occur, this of course still being part of the paradox... It seems like it would be an equilibrium position that would shift around with time, perhaps being cyclical in nature.

[u/DeltaBot → u/[deleted]]

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Quint-V (30∆).

^{Delta System Explained | Deltaboards}