Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[faust]

There is this LessWrong article Well Kept Gardens Die By Pacifism about how refusing to moderate a platform will yield to total value loss of the platform.

I find this article very interesting. Like, I agree with it, but also I feel like this comes from a community that I associate with "free speech absolutism". The article is very specific about dealing with online communities, but it doesn't take much to generalize it to society at large, and then I feel like it would contradict a lot of the beliefs held by this crowd.

So either my opinion of the community is wrong, or else they would argue that this doesn't in fact generalize, but I'm not sure which one it is.

[silverspawn]

I enjoy the movie take here btw. I don't tend to watch a lot of movies but I like to think that when I'm in the mood for one I can come here and find something good.

Have you seen Everything Everywhere All At Once? That move got very hyped and I don't really have a good prediction for how you would rate it, so I'd be interested to hear your opinion.

Thanks! I did, yes. I gave it a 7, pretty close to an 8. I don't think it's super smart or anything, it's just a ton of fun to watch. I wasn't annoyed at anything and it just kept doing crazy things that were all entertaining. My favorite part was the universe with the two rocks.

It's kinda funny because Katja Grace had this post on LessWrong about the movie where to her it seemed like the worst, most pointless thing ever and she was asking other to explain what's so great about it -- and I really  don't have a great answer other than that it was entertaining. Also didn't think anyone else could really explain it. One person said it's all a metaphor for meditation, but I don't think I buy that. And I agree that the nihilism treatment and the drama are both really not special.

Although just showing a believable family dynamic is a bar most movies don't pass and this one definitely did.

[silverspawn]

There is this LessWrong article Well Kept Gardens Die By Pacifism about how refusing to moderate a platform will yield to total value loss of the platform.

I find this article very interesting. Like, I agree with it, but also I feel like this comes from a community that I associate with "free speech absolutism". The article is very specific about dealing with online communities, but it doesn't take much to generalize it to society at large, and then I feel like it would contradict a lot of the beliefs held by this crowd.

So either my opinion of the community is wrong, or else they would argue that this doesn't in fact generalize, but I'm not sure which one it is.

Does free-speech absolutism mean that the government specifically should never ban any speech unless it's explicitly a call for violence, or that platforms shouldn't do this? If it's the second, I think that's wrong.

Going by past surveys, there are a lot of libertarian-leaning people in the community (afaik if you just ask whether people associate most with "democrat" "republican" or "libertarian", then the last one is a plurality), but it's also left-leaning (I know for some reason libertarian ideas are associated with the right in the USA). But what that gives you depends on where you apply it. You could say it's the libertarian thing for platforms not to censor, or you could say it's the libertarian thing for platforms to be able to do whatever the hell they want. I'm guessing most people would say the second thing. So as long as the government doesn't interfere, then e.g. twitter would be free to become anything, even a right wing propaganda machine, if it chooses to.

[faust]

Does free-speech absolutism mean that the government specifically should never ban any speech unless it's explicitly a call for violence, or that platforms shouldn't do this? If it's the second, I think that's wrong.

So you think it makes a difference whether it's the government or platforms? Why?

[Awaclus]

I find this article very interesting. Like, I agree with it, but also I feel like this comes from a community that I associate with "free speech absolutism". The article is very specific about dealing with online communities, but it doesn't take much to generalize it to society at large, and then I feel like it would contradict a lot of the beliefs held by this crowd.

So either my opinion of the community is wrong, or else they would argue that this doesn't in fact generalize, but I'm not sure which one it is.

I'm not a very active LW user so I'm not going to speak on their behalf, but I strongly agree with the article and I would argue that it does not generalize. It is, for example, not important that political discussions can be had on a specific platform, but it is important that they can be had somewhere, which is why it is completely fine if a specific platform bans all political discussion and completely unacceptable if the government does.

(I know for some reason libertarian ideas are associated with the right in the USA)

Because low taxes and minimal government involvement in the economy are, like, core right wing ideology. Hence both the Democrats and the Republicans are right wing.

[silverspawn]

Note that I meant "that's wrong" as in "that's not true for how the community thinks" though in this case I think I agree with the community. But now it comes apart because idk how others would justify the difference.

Me, there are two things that strike me as strongly dissimilar between the government and e.g. twitter. One is that if the government censors a correct view, the results are potentially catastrophic, so better not risk that and just be against any censorship. (Whereas if twitter does, you can still say the thing elsewhere.) The other is that platforms work like market to some extent, so if an idea is popular and twitter bans it, it should create an incentive for another platform to allow that view point.

I'm actually more in the not tolerating certain content camp than most, e.g. I think LessWrong should not touch any culture war issues ever, and there've been debates about this before.

[silverspawn]

Because low taxes and minimal government involvement in the economy are, like, core right wing ideology. Hence both the Democrats and the Republicans are right wing.

Yeah, I don't think that LW people are for low taxes. I know that's a libertarian thing classically but I think that's a really stupid way to apply the libertarian ideas. Like the way that it makes sense is to basically think that large bureaucracies are really bad, and in many cases large government means more bureaucracy. But high taxes don't do that. *simplifying* the tax system is another thing, but unfortunately this is often used as an excuse for lowering them.

[faust]

I'm not a very active LW user so I'm not going to speak on their behalf, but I strongly agree with the article and I would argue that it does not generalize. It is, for example, not important that political discussions can be had on a specific platform, but it is important that they can be had somewhere, which is why it is completely fine if a specific platform bans all political discussion and completely unacceptable if the government does.

Me, there are two things that strike me as strongly dissimilar between the government and e.g. twitter. One is that if the government censors a correct view, the results are potentially catastrophic, so better not risk that and just be against any censorship. (Whereas if twitter does, you can still say the thing elsewhere.) The other is that platforms work like market to some extent, so if an idea is popular and twitter bans it, it should create an incentive for another platform to allow that view point.

I debate the meaningfulness of this distinction. If a specific platform bans political discussion, it can be had on another platform. If a specific country bans political discussion, it can be had in another country.

How viable each of those are depends not on the country/platform distinction but rather on the size of each and ease of moving elsewhere.

[Awaclus]

Because low taxes and minimal government involvement in the economy are, like, core right wing ideology. Hence both the Democrats and the Republicans are right wing.

Yeah, I don't think that LW people are for low taxes. I know that's a libertarian thing classically but I think that's a really stupid way to apply the libertarian ideas. Like the way that it makes sense is to basically think that large bureaucracies are really bad, and in many cases large government means more bureaucracy. But high taxes don't do that. *simplifying* the tax system is another thing, but unfortunately this is often used as an excuse for lowering them.

It's not a stupid way to apply the libertarian ideas. Obviously if you want the state to have less control over people's lives in general, letting people decide how they spend their own money rather than having the state take some of it to control how it's spent is working towards that goal.

[Awaclus]

I debate the meaningfulness of this distinction. If a specific platform bans political discussion, it can be had on another platform. If a specific country bans political discussion, it can be had in another country.

How viable each of those are depends not on the country/platform distinction but rather on the size of each and ease of moving elsewhere.

There is still the difference that countries are tied to physical places on Earth, of which there is a limited amount, and everywhere is already occupied by one of the existing countries. Meanwhile, there is no limit to how many websites can exist. If you don't like any of the existing websites, you can just make your own website; if you don't like any of the existing countries, you can't just start a new independent country.

[faust]

I debate the meaningfulness of this distinction. If a specific platform bans political discussion, it can be had on another platform. If a specific country bans political discussion, it can be had in another country.

How viable each of those are depends not on the country/platform distinction but rather on the size of each and ease of moving elsewhere.

There is still the difference that countries are tied to physical places on Earth, of which there is a limited amount, and everywhere is already occupied by one of the existing countries. Meanwhile, there is no limit to how many websites can exist. If you don't like any of the existing websites, you can just make your own website; if you don't like any of the existing countries, you can't just start a new independent country.

I don't think that's relevant. You can start a website, yes, but we are talking about platforms. If your website is supposed to be a platform, then it doesn't help that you can buy a website; you actually need a critical mass of people to be there.

So in the realm of countries, this would be more analogous to starting a separatist movement, and those do exist and have been successful in the past.

[silverspawn]

Because low taxes and minimal government involvement in the economy are, like, core right wing ideology. Hence both the Democrats and the Republicans are right wing.

Yeah, I don't think that LW people are for low taxes. I know that's a libertarian thing classically but I think that's a really stupid way to apply the libertarian ideas. Like the way that it makes sense is to basically think that large bureaucracies are really bad, and in many cases large government means more bureaucracy. But high taxes don't do that. *simplifying* the tax system is another thing, but unfortunately this is often used as an excuse for lowering them.

It's not a stupid way to apply the libertarian ideas. Obviously if you want the state to have less control over people's lives in general, letting people decide how they spend their own money rather than having the state take some of it to control how it's spent is working towards that goal.

If the metric you care about is how much control the state has, yes. I think the metric that LW people tend to care about (and certainly the one I care about) is how much of a bureaucracy it creates. I guess there isn't really a term for this. Negative Bureaucracy Liberatarianism rather than Control Utilitarianism!

[silverspawn]

I'm think this "more control/individualism = good" thing is very non-obvious. Arguably people can be very happy feeling like they're part of a greater thing, and I can imagine a society where the state has a much greater role than it does in Germany or the USA to work really well.

[silverspawn]

Control Utilitarianism!

*control libertarianism

[Awaclus]

I don't think that's relevant. You can start a website, yes, but we are talking about platforms. If your website is supposed to be a platform, then it doesn't help that you can buy a website; you actually need a critical mass of people to be there.

So in the realm of countries, this would be more analogous to starting a separatist movement, and those do exist and have been successful in the past.

You don't actually need a critical mass of people to be there. Any number of people who are interested in discussing something that's banned on Twitter can start their own platform and then they'll get to discuss that thing there.

[Awaclus]

I'm think this "more control/individualism = good" thing is very non-obvious. Arguably people can be very happy feeling like they're part of a greater thing, and I can imagine a society where the state has a much greater role than it does in Germany or the USA to work really well.

The thing is that people have to actually feel like they're part of a greater thing for that to work, which they won't if they don't have any control over anything.

[faust]

Because low taxes and minimal government involvement in the economy are, like, core right wing ideology. Hence both the Democrats and the Republicans are right wing.

Yeah, I don't think that LW people are for low taxes. I know that's a libertarian thing classically but I think that's a really stupid way to apply the libertarian ideas. Like the way that it makes sense is to basically think that large bureaucracies are really bad, and in many cases large government means more bureaucracy. But high taxes don't do that. *simplifying* the tax system is another thing, but unfortunately this is often used as an excuse for lowering them.

It's not a stupid way to apply the libertarian ideas. Obviously if you want the state to have less control over people's lives in general, letting people decide how they spend their own money rather than having the state take some of it to control how it's spent is working towards that goal.

If the metric you care about is how much control the state has, yes. I think the metric that LW people tend to care about (and certainly the one I care about) is how much of a bureaucracy it creates. I guess there isn't really a term for this. Negative Bureaucracy Liberatarianism rather than Control Utilitarianism!

I'm just not sure how useful a metric this is. Noone is in favor of more bureaucracy for bureaucracy's sake. I don't think it makes any sense to have an ideology just for that. The question is, what are you willing to give up in order to achieve less bureaucracy?

[faust]

I don't think that's relevant. You can start a website, yes, but we are talking about platforms. If your website is supposed to be a platform, then it doesn't help that you can buy a website; you actually need a critical mass of people to be there.

So in the realm of countries, this would be more analogous to starting a separatist movement, and those do exist and have been successful in the past.

You don't actually need a critical mass of people to be there. Any number of people who are interested in discussing something that's banned on Twitter can start their own platform and then they'll get to discuss that thing there.

This is very reductive. It might be true if we were talking about some messenger app like WhatsApp, but Twitter is a social media platform and you post there because you want your ideas to reach a lot of people. That just cannot happen if you move somewhere else.

[silverspawn]

I'm just not sure how useful a metric this is. Noone is in favor of more bureaucracy for bureaucracy's sake. I don't think it makes any sense to have an ideology just for that. The question is, what are you willing to give up in order to achieve less bureaucracy?

Right, it's about how much you penalize bureaucracy, and I'm saying penalize it a lot. not infinitely, but very highly. I think this is very different from how most people approach policy.

[silverspawn]

I mean the actual ideology is just utilitarianism. Everything else is a question of results. And as a general rule, I think bureaucracies are a lot more bad than most people think

[silverspawn]

I debate the meaningfulness of this distinction. If a specific platform bans political discussion, it can be had on another platform. If a specific country bans political discussion, it can be had in another country.

If all countries had open borders and the cost of traveling were cheaper (both $ cost and cost of leaving stuff behind), then there'd be a lot to this argument

[faust]

I'm just not sure how useful a metric this is. Noone is in favor of more bureaucracy for bureaucracy's sake. I don't think it makes any sense to have an ideology just for that. The question is, what are you willing to give up in order to achieve less bureaucracy?

Right, it's about how much you penalize bureaucracy, and I'm saying penalize it a lot. not infinitely, but very highly. I think this is very different from how most people approach policy.

So are you in favor of police abolition?

[silverspawn]

no, that's a case where some bureaucracy seems to be required. You gotta enforce the law

[faust]

no, that's a case where some bureaucracy seems to be required. You gotta enforce the law

And here we see how you question buraeaucracy only in areas where it's ideologically convenient for you.

[silverspawn]

no, that's a case where some bureaucracy seems to be required. You gotta enforce the law

And here we see how you question buraeaucracy only in areas where it's ideologically convenient for you.

that seems very uncharitable. I said that you should value the BMV (bureaucracy-minimizing vector) very highly but not infinitely, so yeah there are cases where you go in the direction opposite to the BMV. This doesn't prove anything. It's not even surprising since you pick one policy from a very large set.

Analogously, suppose I put the pdf (1-p)^3, suitably normalized, over the interval [0,1]. I declare that my pdf strongly prefers values close to 0. You look at 100 sampled values and pick the largest one, which is 0.93733444888. You then declare that I dont care about small values unless I'm ideologically incentivized to

Or more practically, I think minimizing bureaucracy is a pretty obvious constant behind my policy views. Here are some of them

- have the most draconian CO2 tax anyone has ever seen
- UBI or low-wage subsidies
- remove most welfare programs (not all)
- have a high tax on purchased goods, especially non-essential ones, especially especially luxury goods
- remove most other taxes (not all)
- open borders
- legalize all drugs and tax them as high as possible without seriously incentivizing a black market
- criminalize most forms of advertising

What is the single principle that most closely approximates this list of not "minimize bureaucracy?" Note that I deliberately included the final point which increases bureaucracy as another example of where we go against the BMV. (Do not abolish the police isn't something that would have occured to me bc it seems very obvious that you do need the police.)