Forums
Guides
Features
Media
Zelda Wiki
Patreon
    Should the CIA shutdown radicalisation sites like 8chan and 4chan?
    • Yes, absolutely. People like to argue it's about "free speech", but that's always just been a convenient excuse for bigots and sociopaths to feel victimised about their little anonymous safe spaces. If your free speech is the support or influence for a person to commit an atrocity like what happened in New Zealand then you have the right to say it but you don't have the right to not be held accountable. Its like when that girl talked a guy into killing himself when he was depressed; she then got arrested and jailed for manslaughter because believe it or not, you can't influence someone to kill themselves, or kill others, and then wave your hand as "Hey it's free speech, why are you attacking my free speech?!" And if a website cultivates and profits off this stuff and therefore does nothing about it they should be held accountable for what occurs on their platform as well, just like they would be with things like piracy.

      Dens like that still being allowed shows Government priorities imo. There's a website where cretins discuss disgusting, racist views of hated against other people and openly incite violent acts, which then in turn influence genuine real-life tragedies with innocent lives lost as a result? That's fine. They vote for us. Somebody shared a Nikki Minaj MP3 online? GET THE FBI IN HERE RIGHT NOW AND SHUT THAT SHIT DOWN YESTERDAY YOU BUNCH OF DISGUSTING CRIMINALS!!!
      :: makes the :3 face a lot ::





      The post was edited 1 time, last by Mercedes ().

    • Problem is, if you suppress these websites, more like them will pop up, and you will likely even draw attention to them, especially for people in the most vulnerable ages for radicalization (mainly teenagers up to mid 20s). They will see those websites as cool, since they are hated by the general public.

      Moreover, even if you somehow manage to erase them all from existence, people themselves are not going to change, there will always be people supporting atrocities, and they will find a way to express themselves. We aren't going to be able to fix everyone. In fact, I am thinking it might actually be better to have a containment field for this sort of people, especially if it's a open for everyone (including the authorities). Some of them might be finding comfort in just sharing their opinions, who knows what they would be doing if they couldn't express themselves in that way.

      I don't even wanna think of a scenario where these people have to resort to the deep/dark web, which is entirely unmonitored, and the lack of a regular website for them might in fact open the floodgates for more and more people going there for their "needs".
      "Can't post that on a Christian forum."
    • I feel like there's a lot of stuff not defined here that's gonna lead to a lot of confusion.

      The CIA doesn't act openly, it destroys things from behind the scenes without any oversight or accountability. We really don't want to be normalizing the US government using secret police to suppress communities. The CIA and FBI have historically done this sort of thing against progressive parties, and we're rightly outraged by that.

      If we're talking about other methods of doing this, you'd better be sure you have clear, bright-line, standards for when the government is allowed to step in and do that, and it had better be clear and open.

      If you have that then we can start talking about if those standards are set in such a way as to justify the actions being taken.

      Beyond that, you have to ask if it's physically possible, which I doubt. You'd need the US government to take down sites hosted in other countries, by non-US citizens, as soon as they popped up. I can't see that ever being viable.


      So, you've got a lot of ethical issues going on here, coupled with problems that would stop any practical implementation. So I'm gonna say "no", you can't make this work, certainly not in a way that doesn't end up with progressives censored en masse the next time a Trump-like is elected.

      May those who accept their fate be granted happiness;

      Those who defy it, glory!

      The post was edited 1 time, last by John ().

    • We need regulation and restrictions, not shutdowns and takeovers.

      We can't allow our search for law and order to become justification for a police state...

      ...But Both 4chan and 8chan, especially, have a long history of playing a role in things like attack campaigns on private people and publishing child pornography that should have justified these regulations and restrictions long before it got to this point.

      If there's already these proper rules and regulations and these websites have been violating them already then they should have been shut down a long time ago.
    • I mean if the US were to ban these sites they'd just start hosting the sites in another country. We've been through this with torrent sites like Pirate Bay and others that are less well known that I won't publicize here. I don't care either way about the future of 4chan considering the role it has had for its entire existence in promoting crime at varying levels of severity, make them have to move to another country but we have to keep our eyes on the actual issue at hand rather than symbolism.

      Banning them does nothing. Want to make an actual difference, hire some people in Homeland Security to monitor right wing extremism, because currently there is not a single employee monitoring right wing extremism, not one. Countries the world over are hyper focused on Islam and they don't see the terrorists under their nose.

      theweek.com/speedreads/812509/…ghtwing-extremism-anymore

      To borrow an old talking point from the right wing, the governments of the world have to stop being politically correct and call the problem by its name "Radical right wing extremism" because if we don't call it by its name then how can we ever hope to stop it. Once we acknowledge the problem we have to allocate funding towards monitoring and preventing these attacks before they happen.
    • Nite and Deigh wrote:

      We can't allow our search for law and order to become justification for a police state...
      Yet that's exactly what some modern self-proclaimed left wingers want, to use the exact same measures the left wing was created to stand against.

      Yes, it "feels right" when you agree with it, but that's exactly the same thing fascists were feeling when they were employing censorship. It was for the good of the country/people/Fuhrer to them.
      "Can't post that on a Christian forum."

      The post was edited 1 time, last by Please Understand ().

    • Not sure I think outright banning sites is the best option, but there are several things that can be done from a legal/political perspective when it comes to addressing white nationalism from a US perspective (and not limited to online extremism on sites like 4chan and 8chan):

      1) The FBI needs to investigate, purge, and if necessary the DoJ should prosecute state and local police forces with respect to their white nationalist elements. A lot of what can be done to combat white nationalists hinges on the actions of local police, but white nationalists have long been infiltrating police forces across the US and you can't trust some officers not to sabotage efforts to combat extremism.

      2) The FBI and local police can send undercover officers into groups like Identity Evropa and Proud Boys, investigate them and arrest members when they express immediate intent to commit violence. I was shocked to find this out, but there's actually a Proud Boys chapter that operates in my town - in this case, the local police department should send officers undercover to monitor their activities and prosecute anyone who conspires to commit illegal or violent acts.

      3) Homeland Security should actually do their job and monitor extremists on sites like 4chan and 8chan

      4) Stricter enforcement of employee background checks when it comes to a candidate's online history: as a personal example, I had to sign a detailed form at my current job stating that I am not a member of any organization that advocates violence or any means to overthrow the state or federal government by force. I very much doubt that my employer did any research to verify this, but if you're an employer wouldn't you like to know if the person you're about to hire has violent beliefs. Or if you're running a hospital looking for nurses, you'd like to know that your candidate isn't a white nationalist who wants a genocide of non-white people.

      All of these ideas have precedent or are based on enforcing laws that currently exist, and they don't violate anyone's rights or implement widescale censorship. 2) in particular is the subject of a recent Spike Lee film based on true events from the 1970s, so it's not like some these suggestions haven't already been done before.

      John wrote:

      So, you've got a lot of ethical issues going on here, coupled with problems that would stop any practical implementation. So I'm gonna say "no", you can't make this work, certainly not in a way that doesn't end up with progressives censored en masse the next time a Trump-like is elected.

      Regardless of what progressives do the far-right would immediately censor their political enemies en masse if given the keys, I understand that you want to be principled and that's a good thing, but the far-right does nothing but act in bad faith and they won't treat us in kind simply because we were principled to them. This standard of "we don't want to do X because they'll do the same to us" is one that could really fuck us over if the past 10 years of political discourse has taught me anything about the right. We should do things because they're right, not because we expect to be treated well in return.



      The post was edited 2 times, last by Viajero de la Galaxia ().

    • Even if banning such sites and suppressing such speech were possible, even if would effectively prevent killings and other tragedies, even if we could be assured that no other speech would ever be suppressed, even if all of this would be done openly and transparently, I could not endorse legal or extralegal government action against individuals, groups, or platforms based solely on their beliefs and their expression.

      I'm pretty close to a free speech absolutist. The right to think for oneself and the right to express those thoughts are some of the most precious rights we have—perhaps more precious even than our right to life itself. For it is by thinking for himself and expressing his thoughts such that they may change the world that man becomes real and an individual. If we say that some things cannot be expressed, we violate the rights not only of those we silence, but also of every other person who might have heard. Everyone has the right to consider for themselves whether or not they agree with even the vilest point of view, not because it might be right, but because they must decide for themselves whether or not it is right. The alternative is that they cease to be true people.

      So how do we react to abominable views like those of white nationalists? We must use our own freedom of expression, and refute their arguments to the utmost of our abilities. This is not merely so that we can "convert" them—while a few might be saved this way, many are too poisoned by hate to be realistically helped. No, we must refute their arguments for the sake of their potential "victims"—those people who, out of ignorance, are liable to be seduced by hateful lies if they are left unchecked. We need well-designed educational programs that will give unprepared people the tools they need to see through racist falsehoods—and to back it up, we need programs to alleviate the poverty that is such fertile ground for hatemongers looking for recruits.

      This approach is not perfect. A few poor souls will still be lured to the cause of hate. But I believe that not only is this approach viable if pursued with all our might, it is the only one possible in a free society.
      "But I don't want comfort. I want God, I want poetry, I want real danger, I want freedom, I want goodness. I want sin."
      "In fact," said Mustapha Mond, "you're claiming the right to be unhappy."
      "All right then," said the Savage defiantly, "I'm claiming the right to be unhappy."
      "Not to mention the right to grow old and ugly and impotent; the right to have syphilis and cancer; the right to have too little to eat; the right to be lousy; the right to live in constant apprehension of what may happen to-morrow; the right to catch typhoid; the right to be tortured by unspeakable pains of every kind." There was a long silence.
      "I claim them all," said the Savage at last.
      Mustapha Mond shrugged his shoulders. "You're welcome," he said.

      —Aldous Huxley, Brave New World
    • Viajero de la Galaxia wrote:

      John wrote:

      So, you've got a lot of ethical issues going on here, coupled with problems that would stop any practical implementation. So I'm gonna say "no", you can't make this work, certainly not in a way that doesn't end up with progressives censored en masse the next time a Trump-like is elected.
      Regardless of what progressives do the far-right would immediately censor their political enemies en masse if given the keys, I understand that you want to be principled and that's a good thing, but the far-right does nothing but act in bad faith and they won't treat us in kind simply because we were principled to them. This standard of "we don't want to do X because they'll do the same to us" is one that could really fuck us over if the past 10 years of political discourse has taught me anything about the right. We should do things because they're right, not because we expect to be treated well in return.
      Except that Trump hasn't shut down sites and communities. He has made vague statements saying that it should be done, but no one's followed up on it because, at least in part, I think of the norms against it. The right, to some extent, has enough people in positions of power who feel that it would be wrong, or at least wildly unpopular, that they haven't risked it. Once everyone's on-board with it on both sides then there'll be infrastructure in place that can be turned against whoever the current administration doesn't like.

      This kind of stuff does drift and erode over time, but it has momentum to it, and those norms do hold power. At the end of the day all civilization is is norms that people follow. If everyone in a community all decide to break the rules then there's no way to stop them. It's the feeling that there are rules and that they should be followed that means there's something other than chaos.


      Obviously you need more than just norms, but I think it's a bad idea to underestimate just how incredibly powerful they can be.

      May those who accept their fate be granted happiness;

      Those who defy it, glory!

      The post was edited 1 time, last by John ().

    • It occurs to me that it's false to say that "no one has followed up on Trump's statements", because people most certainly have. Relatively few officials have, but Trump supporters attempt the same end results with threats, harassment, and violence.

      I don't think that invalidates my point, but it is worth keeping in mind, because, yes, someone who can motivate people to act outside of official channels still has a lot of power. Not, I think, as much as if they can actually set official policy and put the full weight of the government behind something, but still enough to be a major concern.

      In theory keeping norms against such things in place also weakens the non-governmental actors. Fewer of them will be willing to act if society as a whole says they shouldn't, and society will work to set up barriers against their actions if there's enough consensus that they're in the wrong. But those barriers matter less when someone in a position of power tells them to act anyway.

      As I said, you need more than just norms and conventions to constrain, but I still think they're a very valuable tool that shouldn't be casually discarded.

      May those who accept their fate be granted happiness;

      Those who defy it, glory!
    • i mean we don't need the cia to do this. regular people can do this by engaging in a campaign against these sites; look at the sleeping giants campaigns targetting rebel media and breitbart or the campaigns against the daily stormer or gab. target *advertisers*. drive the revenue out of these shitholes. force financial processing companies like paypal to make a public decision about working with them. yeah, some of them might get propped up by right-wing billionaires shovelling dark money at them but they won't all be.

      Vulpes wrote:

      We must use our own freedom of expression, and refute their arguments to the utmost of our abilities.
      i remember learning about how franklin delano roosevelt debated hitler so hard that hitler surrendered and the allies won wwii


      “Gandalf put his hand on Pippin's head. "There never was much hope," he answered. "Just a fool's hope, as I have been told.”
      ― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Return of the King

    • Avalanchemike wrote:

      Vulpes wrote:

      We must use our own freedom of expression, and refute their arguments to the utmost of our abilities.
      i remember learning about how franklin delano roosevelt debated hitler so hard that hitler surrendered and the allies won wwii
      Thank you for carefully reading the part where I said the point wasn't just to convince bigots to stop being bigots.
      "But I don't want comfort. I want God, I want poetry, I want real danger, I want freedom, I want goodness. I want sin."
      "In fact," said Mustapha Mond, "you're claiming the right to be unhappy."
      "All right then," said the Savage defiantly, "I'm claiming the right to be unhappy."
      "Not to mention the right to grow old and ugly and impotent; the right to have syphilis and cancer; the right to have too little to eat; the right to be lousy; the right to live in constant apprehension of what may happen to-morrow; the right to catch typhoid; the right to be tortured by unspeakable pains of every kind." There was a long silence.
      "I claim them all," said the Savage at last.
      Mustapha Mond shrugged his shoulders. "You're welcome," he said.

      —Aldous Huxley, Brave New World

      The post was edited 1 time, last by Vulpes ().

    • no offense but dehumanising people of colour, lgbt+ and other minorities by legitimising nazis with debate so people can engage in some "marketplace of ideas" bullshit helps literally no one (except nazis)


      “Gandalf put his hand on Pippin's head. "There never was much hope," he answered. "Just a fool's hope, as I have been told.”
      ― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Return of the King

    • Avalanchemike wrote:

      no offense but dehumanising people of colour, lgbt+ and other minorities by legitimising nazis with debate so people can engage in some "marketplace of ideas" bullshit helps literally no one (except nazis)
      I don't see how it dehumanizes them. In fact, my point was that it dehumanizes everyone to take away the right to consider any idea, no matter how vile, which is what making an idea illegal does. Of course, imposing social sanctions is another thing entirely.
      "But I don't want comfort. I want God, I want poetry, I want real danger, I want freedom, I want goodness. I want sin."
      "In fact," said Mustapha Mond, "you're claiming the right to be unhappy."
      "All right then," said the Savage defiantly, "I'm claiming the right to be unhappy."
      "Not to mention the right to grow old and ugly and impotent; the right to have syphilis and cancer; the right to have too little to eat; the right to be lousy; the right to live in constant apprehension of what may happen to-morrow; the right to catch typhoid; the right to be tortured by unspeakable pains of every kind." There was a long silence.
      "I claim them all," said the Savage at last.
      Mustapha Mond shrugged his shoulders. "You're welcome," he said.

      —Aldous Huxley, Brave New World

      The post was edited 1 time, last by Vulpes ().

    • because you are saying we should stand on a stage next to people who are saying either that a) these people do not deserve to live b) these people are less than human and saying we should debate them this lends a measure of legitimacy to nazis. if you can't see how that is dehumanising to people then i really don't know what else to tell you other than you're not an ally to these people and you need to stop lying to yourself about it


      “Gandalf put his hand on Pippin's head. "There never was much hope," he answered. "Just a fool's hope, as I have been told.”
      ― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Return of the King

    • Avalanchemike wrote:

      because you are saying we should stand on a stage next to people who are saying either that a) these people do not deserve to live b) these people are less than human and saying we should debate them this lends a measure of legitimacy to nazis. if you can't see how that is dehumanising to people then i really don't know what else to tell you other than you're not an ally to these people and you need to stop lying to yourself about it
      I don't deny that saying such things is vile, hurtful, hateful. I don't deny that hearing such things can negatively affect the feelings of targeted groups in a profound manner—nor do I deny them the right to feel that way. I don't deny that people who espouse such views are bad people, both because of what they want to do and because of the harm they knowingly inflict by expressing their ignorance and cruelty.

      But I do deny that debating a viewpoint inherently legitimizes that viewpoint. I do deny that any amount of threatening, of insult, of abuse, of hate dehumanizes the victim in the slightest degree or does the least injury to their true worth and dignity. And I aver that there may be nothing more dehumanizing than taking away someone's rights to freedom of thought and freedom of expression. It dehumanizes not only the person you silence—in this case, perhaps not a great loss, you might say—but everyone who might have heard, for it says "you're not allowed to hear this idea, because you might consider it".

      I understand that this is not a popular view. After all, it permits the cause of a great deal of unhappiness in historically oppressed people who do not deserve such pain. But to me, there are some prices too high to pay for happiness—not only theirs, but mine as well.
      "But I don't want comfort. I want God, I want poetry, I want real danger, I want freedom, I want goodness. I want sin."
      "In fact," said Mustapha Mond, "you're claiming the right to be unhappy."
      "All right then," said the Savage defiantly, "I'm claiming the right to be unhappy."
      "Not to mention the right to grow old and ugly and impotent; the right to have syphilis and cancer; the right to have too little to eat; the right to be lousy; the right to live in constant apprehension of what may happen to-morrow; the right to catch typhoid; the right to be tortured by unspeakable pains of every kind." There was a long silence.
      "I claim them all," said the Savage at last.
      Mustapha Mond shrugged his shoulders. "You're welcome," he said.

      —Aldous Huxley, Brave New World

      The post was edited 1 time, last by Vulpes ().