
8chan: The far-right website linked to the rise in hate crimes - hhs
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/aug/04/mass-shootings-el-paso-texas-dayton-ohio-8chan-far-right-website
======
RandomGuyDTB
Some (two) criticisms of the article:

> "But extremism has been central to 8chan identity since it was founded in
> 2013 by a computer programmer and self-proclaimed eugenicist Fredrick
> Brennan."

Brennan himself is both disabled and has said (I can't recall where so forgive
me if I'm wrong) that he was just trolling when talking about eugenics.
Article says in the next sentence "(Brennan has since distanced himself from
his earlier writings and beliefs and has cut ties with the site.)" but I can't
help feeling that the initial mentioning of his discussion about eugenics was
unnecessary.

> "Protection from Cloudflare"

This entire section looks to me like the article is blaming Cloudflare for
8chan's existence (and subsequently the El Paso shooting). If the author had
that in mind they're making pretty big grasps here. Cloudflare has a
reputation for trying to support HTTPS for as many sites as possible and offer
protection from DDOSing ((disclaimer: I use their registrar and DNS)). This is
mostly just my personal thought rather than an actual argument though.

\---

I think 8chan is probably the seediest search-engine-indexed site on the web
right now. Even members of 4chan's random board, popularized as the shithole
of the 'net, disavowed the actions of the El Paso shooter. Cloudflare can
choose to tolerate 8chan, and I find that decision to uphold free speech
admirable, but 8chan is far worse than the Daily Stormer.

~~~
geofft
There isn't a meaningful distinction between ironic advocacy of eugenics and
genuine advocacy of eugenics. The only question is whether the advocacy is
received successfully or not.

Don't forget the _Daily Stormer_ style guide:

> _The unindoctrinated should not be able to tell if we are joking or not.
> There should also be a conscious awareness of mocking stereotypes of hateful
> racists. I usually think of this as self-deprecating humor - I am a racist
> making fun of stereotype of racists, because I don 't take myself super-
> seriously. This is obviously a ploy and I actually do want to gas kikes. But
> that's neither here nor there._

~~~
RandomGuyDTB
Yeah, you're probably right.

------
fooey
I wish everyone would quit giving them free publicity

Just call them a fringe website instead of driving traffic to them.

------
Buldak
I wonder how many people who subscribe to the "contagion" theory of mass
shooters also think that 8chan is innocuous. These two lines of thought seem
at odds, but I suspect what they have in common is a wish to deny the role of
a particular strain of right wing ideology in these shootings.

------
meerita
It wont work. Lunatics find their way to get together and talk. Call it
Telegram group or Whatsapp.

~~~
chillwaves
This article suggests otherwise.

> What they found was encouraging for this strategy of reducing unwanted
> activity on a site like Reddit:

> Post-ban, hate speech by the same users was reduced by as much as 80-90
> percent. Members of banned communities left Reddit at significantly higher
> rates than control groups.

> Migration was common, both to similar subreddits (i.e. overtly racist ones)
> and tangentially related ones (r/The_Donald). However, within those
> communities, hate speech did not reliably increase, although there were
> slight bumps as the invaders encountered and tested new rules and
> moderators.

[https://techcrunch.com/2017/09/11/study-finds-reddits-
contro...](https://techcrunch.com/2017/09/11/study-finds-reddits-
controversial-ban-of-its-most-toxic-subreddits-actually-worked/)

~~~
vidarh
An interesting round of "invaders encountering and testing new rules" was when
far right mods tried a takeover of /r/libertarian. /r/libertarian has always
had a level of interesting with groups like /r/The_Donald, and has been full
of right wing memes, but is also full of left wing libertarians (the original
libertarian - Joseph Déjacque, was an anarcho-communist - left and right
libertarian mostly split along the view on whether enforcement property rights
are an unjustified state intervention leading to loss of liberty, or a
necessity to ensure liberty), and new mods were added that started banning
left-wing libertarians all over the place, even for things like just
mentioning Joseph Déjacque.

Amusingly, they went too far, and the original founder of the sub came back,
revoked their mod privileges and put in place a new "head moderator" who was
an anarcho-communist, so it backfired spectacularly.

Though the new head moderator did take care to appoint moderators that
represented a cross-section of the community, and things went somewhat back to
normal, the explicit support inherent in having a left-wing head mod did
embolden a lot of left wing users of the sub to post more commentary
countering the right wing posts to a greater extent.

------
lone_haxx0r
Unoccupied people making racist jokes are as unpleasant as journalists writing
biased articles to push their political agenda against freedom of speech.

~~~
geofft
So we would have more freedom of speech if journalists refrained from
publishing and people with political opinions refrained from expressing them?

~~~
lone_haxx0r
Being pro freedom of speech doesn't mean that I can't critizice the opinions
of people.

If the author had just pointed out how racist and unpleasant 8chan users are,
I would have agreed. If she had said that racism and shootings are a bad
thing, I would have agreed too.

I don't agree with questioning the freedom of people to say abhorrent things.
And I don't agree with questioning a service provider that's just doing its
job.

And answer to your question is no.

~~~
geofft
Sure, you can criticize the opinions of people. But you did not. You said that
the fact that they had set forth their opinion, the fact that they had engaged
in a speech act, was _itself_ unpleasant.

Now that's your right, of course, but it strikes me as hypocritical. Argue why
their position is wrong and take delight in the fact that they set out an
argument that you can respond to. Or, perhaps, argue that their position is
too dangerous to be stated and poses a long-term threat to the freedom of
speech—but distinguish that argument from their own, which is much the same.

~~~
lone_haxx0r
> the fact that they had engaged in a speech act, was itself unpleasant.

I obviously think the author has the right to say whatever the hell she wants
to say, but I'm against the content of her message.

I could write a really long argument to say why she's wrong, but in short:
Because freedom and justice are the most desirable values to have in a
society, even when people can use that freedom to say disgusting things.

Why is freedom desirable? Because it's the only way that an individual can
develop their own life, chase their dreams and be happy in a manner that
respects the freedom of other individuals. (My definition of freedom is that
you can't physically attack other people or steal their property. Trying to
expand freedom to things such as "freedom from being insulted" (i.e.
censorship) is a contradiction, so the only logical way of defining it is
around physical actions.)

Additionally, censorship implies that someone has to decide what speech is
acceptable and what isn't, at that point, things become really arbitrary. What
would the author think if her opinions were labeled as "hate speech" and
people made posts wanting prohibit her from posting them? Where do you draw
the line of acceptability? It's arbitrary and unjust.

