How do you stop the online rise of online fascism and extremism?

Thread Rating: 2 votes, 5.00 average.
(2 votes)
Page 1 of 12 123411 ... Last
Results 1 to 25 of 290

  1. Post
    #1

    How do you stop the rise of online fascism and extremism?

    Letís all agree that we donít like fascists or supremacists off the bat. Weíre all on the same side, so letís not name call. What is the best way to tackle this problem?
    Last edited by frio; 19th March 2019 at 5:05 pm. Reason: took an online out of the title

  2. Post
    #2
    you cannot, the internet has allowed both sides of a spectrum to find anything that confirms their bias, allowed echo chambers to exist and the proliferation of fake news and lack of integrity in journalism has accelerated the general difficulty of consumers to maintain a common sense approach. There was a Joe Rogan segment about fake troll Farms



    Without the societal morale authority to police itself, this is just a consequence of liberal attitudes.

  3. Post
    #3
    It's a battle of ideas imo, consensus and compromise.



    but these fail because of the prisoners dilemma.

    you have to kind of assume that the opposing side has as much value as you do, or you just re-enforce your own ideas.

    In the context of the Chch situation, you have to kind of find the fear white supremacists are feeling and being able understand why they are afraid of the future etc. But most are not at all interested in doing that so we will continue to polarize, until the boat rocks too far one way.

    https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/chr...urch-shootings
    We no very little about this gentleman other than what the media has told us on his, but yet his business is gone and he's probably ****ed financially.. which way does that push him?

    if we try to push those ideas out of society, they just found solace on the fringes. 4chan/darkweb etc.. here they are accepted, understood, helped, armed and then in extreme cases remembered.

  4. Post
    #4
    TBH I think we should be looking more carefully at the middle ground than the true extremists - the truly dangerous extremists are generally out of sight/reach on the dark web; it's the users who post on the 8chan/4chans of the world (and arguably other social media platforms like twitters/facebook/reddit/youtube) where the vast majority are edgelords and trolls who get their kicks out of inciting Helen Lovejoy responses from the general public, but occasionally the odd nutbar (like Tarrant) takes the shitty ball and runs with it.

    I don't disagree that online extremism is an issue, but maybe the most achievable thing is stopping the trolls so that the true risky behaviour is easier to separate from the noise?

  5. Post
    #5
    Yeah, we don't, there is no stopping it. I have my high minded ideals about what we should do but they're not practical. The whole debate is too toxic, one side won't engage in a good faith discussion because they already hold preconceived bias against them which are as powerful as a religious argument. The other side won't be honest about the discussion because they don't want their life ruined publicly because of their beliefs so everything is couched in esoteric terms and obfuscated jargon. So two sides that believe the other is not wrong, not bad, but Evil, and there is no way forward for honest and open debate. The ChCh attack was just a prime example, both sides rushed to twitter/facebook to spin their side and whataboutism the other team. It's just depressing to witness because none of this will end without more violence.

    KevinL wrote:
    I don't disagree that online extremism is an issue, but maybe the most achievable thing is stopping the trolls so that the true risky behaviour is easier to separate from the noise?
    What are you willing to sacrifice to see this achieved?
    John D. Rockefeller award for philanthropic wanks

  6. Post
    #6
    Scatter_D wrote:
    What are you willing to sacrifice to see this achieved?
    I have zero issues with censoring or otherwise prosecuting the trolls, provided there is evidence of harm.

  7. Post
    #7
    Then it becomes a game of whack-a-mole.

  8. Post
    #8
    Sure (see: 4chan --> 8chan --> kiwifarms -->???) but I think it's the unpredictability of the middle ground that concerns me the most

  9. Post
    #9
    I mean - maybe we start with keeping our own house in order and ensuring e.g. the Harmful Digital Communications Act or equivalent is adhered to, but I agree that it's hard to know where to draw the line (and how far we can realistically reach)

    I'm not advocating for e.g. the Great Firewall of NZ, but I think we do need to address the harmful behaviours that risk inciting stupidity in the mentally unstable.

  10. Post
    #10
    KevinL wrote:
    provided there is evidence of harm.
    Harm from words or physical harm? Who is defining it and how? Or all the other questions that need to be answered before enacting something like this 'fairly'.
    I sort of see your argument but with the avenues for free speech still open, as in you can join these sites and offer a counter position etc, isn't there still a chance to pull 'middlegrounders' away?
    If you start knocking out these platforms you may stop a few fragile people from seeing this toxic stuff but you will lose track/sight of the people already enmeshed in this lifestyle and they WILL fight back.
    I don't know, but it feels like the unintended consequences of this line of thinking looms large.
    John D. Rockefeller award for philanthropic wanks

  11. Post
    #11
    Harm from words, as defined by the Harmful Digital Communications Act would be a good start, at least where we have jurisdiction.

    i.e. http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/p...tml#DLM5711856

    22 Causing harm by posting digital communication
    (1) A person commits an offence if—
    (a) the person posts a digital communication with the intention that it cause harm to a victim; and
    (b) posting the communication would cause harm to an ordinary reasonable person in the position of the victim; and
    (c) posting the communication causes harm to the victim.

    (2) In determining whether a post would cause harm, the court may take into account any factors it considers relevant, including—
    (a) the extremity of the language used:
    (b) the age and characteristics of the victim:
    (c) whether the digital communication was anonymous:
    (d) whether the digital communication was repeated:
    (e) the extent of circulation of the digital communication:
    (f) whether the digital communication is true or false:
    (g) the context in which the digital communication appeared.

    (3) A person who commits an offence against this section is liable on conviction to,—
    (a) in the case of a natural person, imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years or a fine not exceeding $50,000:
    (b) in the case of a body corporate, a fine not exceeding $200,000.

    (4) In this section, victim means the individual who is the target of a posted digital communication.

  12. Post
    #12
    KevinL wrote:
    I mean - maybe we start with keeping our own house in order and ensuring e.g. the Harmful Digital Communications Act or equivalent is adhered to, but I agree that it's hard to know where to draw the line (and how far we can realistically reach)

    I'm not advocating for e.g. the Great Firewall of NZ, but I think we do need to address the harmful behaviours that risk inciting stupidity in the mentally unstable.
    I think what's scary about this is that it won't stop it, it will just make more people aware of the dark-web.. which cannot be stopped at this point.

    somehow anexing ideas to the whims of the dark web, and then waiting to see what that spits out down the track doesn't seem all that pragmatic.

    The best medicine imo is for it to be more socially acceptable to discuss ideas like anti-immigration in a more win win way imo. rather than... 'you're a f**kin racist. " etc

  13. Post
    #13
    I suppose my argument is that by pushing stuff into the fringes (i.e. true extremism, organised hate and the dark web) then it becomes more predictable and very much the mandate of law enforcement/5 eyes etc to monitor

    The problem is we have this seething middle ground of stupidity, lulz and trolls where it's incredibly difficult to isolate and pick out the users that you actually need to be worried about.

  14. Post
    #14
    KevinL wrote:
    I'm not advocating for e.g. the Great Firewall of NZ
    I'm happy to offer my services to build this

  15. Post
    #15
    KevinL wrote:
    I suppose my argument is that by pushing stuff into the fringes (i.e. true extremism, organised hate and the dark web) then it becomes more predictable and very much the mandate of law enforcement/5 eyes etc to monitor

    The problem is we have this seething middle ground of stupidity, lulz and trolls where it's incredibly difficult to isolate and pick out the users that you actually need to be worried about.
    Well that's kind of what jail is.. you take individuals who can become logically incapacitated and act out on emotion and through them into a place to become the extreme of that.

    So I guess you could take those who are emotionally incapacitated and force them through societal rejection into an extreme and keep an eye on it?

    pretty sure that's somewhat evil though.

  16. Post
    #16
    Timmi wrote:
    Well that's kind of what jail is.. you take individuals who can become logically incapacitated and act out on emotion and through them into a place to become the extreme of that.

    So I guess you could take those who are emotionally incapacitated and force them through societal rejection into an extreme and keep an eye on it?

    pretty sure that's somewhat evil though.
    You're assuming that there's only one outcome - that if you remove the middle ground, the fence sitters will just become more extreme

  17. Post
    #17
    KevinL wrote:
    You're assuming that there's only one outcome - that if you remove the middle ground, the fence sitters will just become more extreme
    I'm not assuming there's one outcome? I was responding to pushing individuals to the extreme.

  18. Post
    #18
    Can we admit there will always be extremists? There always has been, right? There always will be, right? Then is it better for the non extremists to keep an eye on the extremists instead of losing sight of them. If they disappear into the dark web, good luck finding them without somehow infiltrating the group. Just the act of being watched changes the outcome, whereas if they become true echo chambers the time till real life extremism decreases drastically.

    I'm not convinced the lock em up and throw away the key approach is going to work better than understanding and engaging with better arguments.
    John D. Rockefeller award for philanthropic wanks

  19. Post
    #19
    I'm arguing that there's better visibility of the true extremists on the dark web (at least from a government surveillance/5 eyes/watchlist/anti-terror perspective), then the Tarrants of the world.

    Timmi wrote:
    I'm not assuming there's one outcome? I was responding to pushing individuals to the extreme.
    So as a corollary, say we nuked 4chan today. Some users would move to the more extreme (8chan), some users would fall back to the less extreme (Twitter), some users would just say **** it and move on with their lives.

  20. Post
    #20
    Scatter_D wrote:
    Can we admit there will always be extremists? There always has been, right? There always will be, right? Then is it better for the non extremists to keep an eye on the extremists instead of losing sight of them. If they disappear into the dark web, good luck finding them without somehow infiltrating the group. Just the act of being watched changes the outcome, whereas if they become true echo chambers the time till real life extremism decreases drastically.

    I'm not convinced the lock em up and throw away the key approach is going to work better than understanding and engaging with better arguments.
    Someone is not born an extremist

  21. Post
    #21
    KevinL wrote:
    So as a corollary, say we nuked 4chan today. Some users would move to the more extreme (8chan), some users would fall back to the less extreme (Twitter), some users would just say **** it and move on with their lives.
    So nuking 4chan AND 8chan would achieve a desirable result?

  22. Post
    #22
    KevinL wrote:
    I'm arguing that there's better visibility of the true extremists on the dark web, then the Tarrants of the world.



    So as a corollary, say we nuked 4chan today. Some users would move to the more extreme (8chan), some users would fall back to the less extreme (Twitter), some users would just say **** it and move on with their lives.
    The tech behind the dark web is to make it psudo-anonymous. So I'm not sure how there is better visibility.

    I think the idea of nuking 4chan, is extremely painful for a dominant logical brain.. it's confirming that information and ideas are under attack for the sake of feelings.

  23. Post
    #23
    Timmi wrote:
    Someone is not born an extremist
    Sure, but we are born tribal in a sense. As long as people are grouped there will be extremists within each group and there will be people who can be lead astray, as it were.

    Timmi wrote:
    The tech behind the dark web is to make it psudo-anonymous. So I'm not sure how there is better visibility.
    I'm also curious about this...
    John D. Rockefeller award for philanthropic wanks

  24. Post
    #24
    Vulcan wrote:
    So nuking 4chan AND 8chan would achieve a desirable result?
    Perhaps, let's call it the Great Moat

    Timmi wrote:
    The tech behind the dark web is to make it psudo-anonymous. So I'm not sure how there is better visibility.

    I think the idea of nuking 4chan, is extremely painful for a dominant logical brain.. it's confirming that information and ideas are under attack for the sake of feelings.
    If you think that our intelligence agencies aren't monitoring the dark web then you're pretty naiive.

    Do you honestly think there is anything of value there other than shitty memes and lulz?

    #nukesocts

  25. Post
    #25
    KevinL wrote:
    If you think that our intelligence agencies aren't monitoring the dark web then you're pretty naiive.
    What are you basing this assumption on? I'm sure you understand how the dark/deep web works, you can't just hand wave and assume they've got it all monitored.
    John D. Rockefeller award for philanthropic wanks