Who Knew? Apparently Censoring Terrorists From Using Social Media Doesn't Suddenly Make Them Love Us
from the shocking-results dept
We just recently had written about how grandstanding politicians were on this rampage about how Twitter should be forced to censor accounts used by terrorists. This follows on similar complaints in the past by politicians against YouTube. So, it’s good timing to see that the Bipartisan Policy Center think tank has put out a report, noting that there is a legitimate danger in “online radicalization,” and that strategies need to be put in place to deal with threats. But, perhaps more importantly, they note that policies involving censorship are not a reasonable strategy.
The report evaluates the challenge of curbing online radicalization from the perspective of supply and demand. It concludes that efforts to shut down websites that could serve as incubators for would-be terrorists–going after the supply–will ultimately be self-defeating, and that “filtering of Internet content is impractical in a free and open society.”
“Approaches aimed at restricting freedom of speech and removing content from the Internet are not only the least desirable strategies, they are also the least effective,” writes Peter Neumann, founding director of the International Centre for the Study of Radicalisation at King’s College London and the author of the report.
It doesn’t take a genius to figure out why: stifling such commentary often only emboldens people, making them think that they’re “onto something” and attracting more interest from those who want to know who’s done something so terrible that the US government wants to censor them. Of course, even with this report, it seems unlikely that politicians will give up this pointless grandstanding. It’s just too easy and gets their names in the news.
Filed Under: censorship, free speech, terrorists
Comments on “Who Knew? Apparently Censoring Terrorists From Using Social Media Doesn't Suddenly Make Them Love Us”
You would never censor a radical Imam in a Mosque as people would be up in arms about freedom of speech. Why should social media be any different?
Re: Re:
That all sounds a little too logical for my liking.
Oh good somebody has taken to heart the lesson King Canute was teaching his nobles. It is impossible to hold back a tide, and it is impossible to stop people trying to make their views know.
WTF
Indeed, our first concern should be how to make terrorists love us. Really, Mike? Are you that insecure? I suggest you change the headline.
Society should send a clear message that hate speech and incitement against others is unacceptable. Why would we want to breed or even slightly encourage another Hitler? Stifling this kind of thing worked with the KKK and other racists, so why wouldn’t it work in other cases as well?
The question is how to do this. If these people are publishing illegal things then just take them to court. If not, then change the laws or leave them alone.
Re: WTF
How about your country gets their imperialist armed forces out of their fecking country so that they have nothing to brainwash people with?
Re: Re: WTF
Radical groups will ALWAYS find something to brainwash people to their side.
Also, I’m wondering what you are basing your assumption of his nationality on other than a knee-jerk reaction.
Re: Re: Re: WTF
“Radical groups will ALWAYS find something to brainwash people to their side.”
That’s true but it is no excuse for the illegal occupation of their homeland.
Re: Re: WTF
“How about your country gets their imperialist armed forces out of their fecking country so that they have nothing to brainwash people with?”
Really? Is that the only thing your tiny little mind can come up with? Is that what the hate-mongers are feeding you?
Which country are you referring to? Which country EXACTLY would the imperialist troops be withdrawn from that are currently sponsoring terrorism?
Would that be IRAN – one of the chief trainers and equipers of terrorists?
No – there are currently no western troops in Iran
Perhaps you’re thinking of North Korea, who just launched a long range missile over the heads of the Japanese…
No – no “imperialist” troops there either
Oh… I know you must be talking about Syria – no wait. No troops there either. Oh… my mistake… you meant Turkey… no… or Lebanon – no… Lybia? No. Or… perhaps you mean the Palestian “state”… no, not there either.
Seriously… do some homework before you start vomiting forth the hate rhetoric.
1) GROW A BRAIN
2) USE IT
Re: WTF
The KKK and ilk are MUCH different than the extremists that are problematic today. They are taken care of by shifts of behavior and beliefs in society. These folks go by, dare I say, sacred ideals and most likely will never change.
Re: WTF
Society has sent a message that it is unacceptable. Society has also sent a message the picking your nose in public is unacceptable. People still do it, and it’s perfectly legal to pick your nose. In a free and open society there are going to be people that don’t follow the norms. That’s part of a free society. Get over yourself.
No one is saying we want terrorists or possible-future-terrorists to love anyone; not even the title of this article. The report simply says that taking away avenues of speech is not only undesirable for a free and open society, it’s also not effective. This is like the painter who said “I may be slow, but I’m shoddy.” Why would you do something that both isn’t conducive to a free society and doesn’t do what was intended?
Re: WTF
“Stifling this kind of thing worked with the KKK”
What? So what you are saying is that the KKK is no longer active, not recruiting new members every day, and is not promoting white supremacy? That is news to me.
Most of the “terrorist” organizations around the world that are anti-United States are recruiting their members based on the “the US is an evil empire taking over the world and forcing their views on everyone” notion. The report is indicating the obvious – don’t give them ammunition. If you want to slow down organizations that are using the notion that you are a dictatorship to recruit members – not being a dictatorship censoring all over the world is a pretty good place to start.
Re: Re: WTF
Of course you can’t kill an idea, but it is no longer socially acceptable as it used to be and their influence is nil. If we can sideline all the nutjobs in similar fashion, then that’s something worthwhile
Re: Re: Re: WTF
“If we can sideline all the nutjobs”
Unfortunately, you can’t without becoming a police state and censoring everything. That MAY work with organizations that promote racism, but when the “nutjobs” are complaining that you are a police state in disguise, becoming one is probably not the most productive approach.
Re: WTF
Yeah, ’cause the KKK is certainly nowhere to be found now.
Re: WTF
We could also shoot random people in the streets to discourage wear and tear, do absolutely nothing, spread napalm on Amazonas to kill malaria, increase taxation on green products drastically to save the oil refineries and coal power plants. These would also be messages.
Doesn’t mean any of these options are good ideas or even neutral ideas. “Sending a clear message” is code for symbol politics and it is so counterproductive and so expensive that politicians should just stop and think before launching another head in hand move.
Comparing to something that worked many years back is very naive. The internet never forgets and never forgives as a terrororganisation said. Therefore we are left with having to find new ways to deal with information sharing.
Censorship always create backlashes. Sometimes relying on the reasoning skills of people is the best way to discourage terror! “Publishing illegal things” is such a meaningless phrase. What is publishing in this context? What Illegal activity are we talking (plotting, counterfeiting, plotting to counterfeit, threats, derogatory statements etc.)? What does “things” not cover? It is basically a free pass to remove whatever you want removed without clear boundaries.
You seem to think it is easy and what history tells us is bound to be the endless truth, but history had no internet and that is making it less informative on these issues.
Re: WTF
Indeed, our first concern should be how to make terrorists love us. Really, Mike? Are you that insecure? I suggest you change the headline.
I believe you are reading way too much into the headline. The point is that if the goal is to stop terrorists, censoring them doesn’t help. It just makes the more convinced that they’re being persecuted.
Society should send a clear message that hate speech and incitement against others is unacceptable. Why would we want to breed or even slightly encourage another Hitler? Stifling this kind of thing worked with the KKK and other racists, so why wouldn’t it work in other cases as well?
Sorry, but that’s bullshit. Making something socially unacceptable is NOT the same as censoring it. In fact, the two are not even in the same camp. Censoring something only makes people dig in further — and attracts others as they wonder why something was censored. Making something socially unacceptable means *educating* and *fighting ignorance* such that the statements are shunned by individuals, but not by government fiat.
It’s odd that you cannot see the difference.
As for the idea that censorship is what “worked” against the KKK, that’s bullshit. It was the opposite. The gov’t let the KKK speak. They did not censor them. Instead, society itself educated each other against hate.
Re: Re: WTF
I think you missed this line: “The question is how to do this. If these people are publishing illegal things then just take them to court. If not, then change the laws or leave them alone.”
Changing the laws is definitely what worked to stifle the KKK and change social norms (and eventually speech) at least in the South.
For me, hate speech and racism are not part of free speech, and i don’t understand why it is wrong to use censorship in such cases. Censoring definitely deters at least some of the people, though probably not the hard core, and it establishes a social norm, which is important. I agree though that even if society does stoop to censorship, it should at the same time treat the root causes of this kind of hateful thinking.
That said, if you would argue that it is easier and more beneficial to society as a whole to permit and then monitor such communications on social networks, than that is an entirely different point, one which I agree with, and one that the report also makes.
Re: Re: Re: WTF
Changing the laws is definitely what worked to stifle the KKK and change social norms (and eventually speech) at least in the South.
What laws? As others noted, we DID NOT censor the KKK, but allowed them to speak, and fought their speech with other speech that showed how ridiculous they were.
For me, hate speech and racism are not part of free speech
You’re wrong. And your argument is a dangerous slippery slope. You start there, and then you say “and offensive speech” and “speech that challenges politicians.” Where do you draw the line? Either you believe in free speech or you don’t — and you don’t.
Historically, time and time again, we’ve seen that the best response to hate speech and racist speech is not censorship, but more speech. Respond to ignorance. Burying it with censorship just makes the speakers that much sure they’re on to something, in that it needs to be suppressed.
That said, if you would argue that it is easier and more beneficial to society as a whole to permit and then monitor such communications on social networks, than that is an entirely different point, one which I agree with, and one that the report also makes.
I have always said exactly that. This post was SOLELY about the censorship angle, which is not productive and not constitutional.
No one said to ignore the speech, as you seem to have believed.
Re: Re: Re: WTF
Re: Re: Re: WTF
For me, hate speech and racism are not part of free speech, and i don’t understand why it is wrong to use censorship in such cases.
Very slipperly slope. As soon as you start legislating that thinking/saying/expressing certain viewpoints is illegal, you’re on a path to the thought police and every Orwellian dystopia you can imagine.
There is no right “not to be offended” by what someone says. However offensive or crazy someone’s views are, I will defend their right to say it – because my right to refute or ridicule their views rest on the same foundation.
Re: Re: Re:2 WTF
I’m sorry, I don’t understand this approach. If I establish a group that believes that all black people should be killed because they carry a fatal disease,and I give speeches and attract people and start a movement, then that’s ok? A democratic society should allow that?
I’m not talking about offending, about hurting a group’s feelings – who cares about that? I’m talking about incitement to kill other people.Is that OK? Is that part of free speech? I understand the slippery slope, but are there no limits? I keep thinking about how Hitler rose to power…
Re: Re: Re:3 WTF
I keep thinking about how Hitler rose to power…
And…. Godwin’d.
Thread is done.
Re: Re: Re:3 WTF
If I establish a group that believes that all black people should be killed because they carry a fatal disease,and I give speeches and attract people and start a movement, then that’s ok?
You can believe whatever you want, and start a movement behind that, and that’s perfectly ok. And a free society should allow that.
I’m talking about incitement to kill other people.Is that OK?
Deliberately inciting violence against another person or group of people is not ok. Not because of the viewpoint, but because you are directly threatening another person’s life or freedom.
If someone were to start the above movement, then you would be able to start a movement against the first movement to show how misguided and wrong it is. You fight lies and propaganda with truth. The only way I know of to ensure that the counter movement is able to be created is to ensure that the first is also able to be created. And allow society to take part in open discussion and debate without fear that their government will arrest them or deny them their freedoms. Otherwise we end up with the tyranny of the majority – which is exactly what you’re thinking about.
Re: Re: Re: WTF
But for the law, they are part of free speech.
And, I would argue, they should be. I find such speech abhorrent, but in the words of one of the founders “if it doesn’t pick my pocket or break my bones” it is to be tolerated as one of the prices of freedom.
Freedom of speech means freedom of speech that you detest. Freedom of speech means freedom to offend. Another person may equally detest or be offended by a different type of speech, perhaps even a type you engage in yourself.
If people aren’t free to act like jackasses, then they aren’t really free.
Censorship hardens the very speech that is to be censored. It breeds disrespect for law. It does establish social norms, but perhaps not the type you think.
A better way of establishing a social norm is by following the very examples you cite: KKK, racism, etc. That change did not come about through censoring people.
Re: WTF
Stifling this kind of thing worked with the KKK and other racists, so why wouldn’t it work in other cases as well?
What a distorted view of history you have.
The government let the KKK speak, march, and exercise their freedoms – and still does. What severely curbed the KKK’s power and message was society showing how absurd their message really was – in public. Do a quick search on Superman vs. the KKK – the publishers of the comic and radio show made a mockery of the KKK by openly publishing all of thier “secret” codenames and organizations.
Re: Re: WTF
Racism was combated and defeated on many fronts: cultural, legal, as well as in civil war.
For instance, the fourteenth amendment,enacted in 1868, was an important milestone in the fight against racism, providing the legal basis for many subsequent actions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
Re: Re: Re: WTF
Never said any of that was not true. What’s your point?
Re: Re: Re: WTF
racism was defeated?
Hahaha – you so funny
Re: WTF
Indeed. The question is on how to do this. And stifling all the speech on one social network just means a quick migration to another social network. Without massive collusion from every single networked entity, stifling a terrorist on one is just showmanship.
I also think you missed the sarcastic tone of the headline. As you might know, sarcasm hits what is known as the Internet Emotional Firewall.
Re: WTF back at you yogi the unbearable...
1. there is no such thing as ‘hate speech’, there is simply speech, whether you ‘hate’ it or not, is up to you…
2. ‘incitement against others’ really ? i’d ask for a definition, but it will fail…
here’s the thing: *ANY* definition you come up with that ‘makes sense’, will be able to be applied to nearly ANYONE, including reichwing fucktard kongresskritters who ‘incite ag’in others’ ALL THE FREAKING TIME, and bear NO consequences for that ‘incitement’…
as always, the 1% in power get away with breaking laws they excoriate the 99% for…
3. you know NOTHING of free speech… please go change your soiled panties and leave the rest of us alone who aren’t scared of words…
art guerrilla
aka ann archy
art guerrilla at windstream dot net
eof
Right, Mike, BUT the solution offered is... government propaganda!
“Instead, policymakers should focus their attention on the demand side of the radicalization issue, Neumann argues, with the government spearheading outreach initiatives that would bring together schools, community groups and businesses to advance awareness and media literacy and offer a competing narrative to that presented by sites that traffic in radical propaganda.”
That’s on first page; having found what expected, I didn’t bother with the rest.
Anything from a “Bipartisan” source is just an outlet straight from the Establishment, pretending the left-right argument is all there is, when actually it’s restricted to specifics of gov’t control.
And the link is??
Basically, hating other peoples is a choice that a person makes, usually assisted by the society he lives in. Some societies, in some eras, encourage such choices, others don’t. All I’m saying is – every decent culture should be on the side that discourages that choice. This applies to all cultures, imperialist and otherwise.
In other words, there are many excuses for racism and xenophobia and all I’m saying is – we shouldn’t use any of them.
Re: And the link is??
I do not think anyone (except very few) would disagree with that goal. The problem was how you framed the solutions.
Re: Re: And the link is??
Agreed
Re: And the link is??
i am constantly amazed at the milquetoasts, PC apologists, wannabe CENSORS, and other sheeple who don’t ‘get’ free speech:
if you make ‘hate’ speech illegal, you have destroyed your own rights to provide a FALSE (not to mention weird) expectation of a world which will not exist…
you, sir, are an authoritarian and a moral scold who will denigrate (ie HATE: do you GET IT YET?) anyone who is unlike yourself, and yet still be unable to see that fundamental hypocrisy your anti-hate speech engenders…
FOAD, the revolution has no need for royalists…
art guerrilla
aka ann archy
eof
MPAA - We Lack The Tools To Stop On-Line Content Theft
http://blog.mpaa.org/BlogOS/post/2012/12/13/The-Burden-on-Creators-to-Protect-Their-Work.aspx
Re: MPAA - We Lack The Tools To Stop On-Line Content Theft
What does this have to do with the thread subject?
Re: MPAA - We Lack The Tools To Stop On-Line Content Theft
Company makes the MPAA’s life easier. MPAA bitches that it isn’t enough (for the 6758th time).
This is newsworthy, why?
Re: MPAA - We Lack The Tools To Stop On-Line Content Theft
That link’s not safe! WE MUST BURN IT WITH THE FURY OF A THOUSAND SUNS!
Also, there’s a “submit a story” link at the top of the page. Next time, you might want to use that.
Re: MPAA - We Lack The Tools To Stop On-Line Content Theft
So what was the Megaupload takedown all about, then?
No tools to stop “on-line content theft”, my ass.
There’s no terrorist quite like the ones disguised as your fellow countrymen, who infiltrates high offices and pose a direct threat to your freedoms.
Whatever label you ascribe to killers in the world, people have the capability to do harm to one another and no amount of snooping nor broadsweeping security measure is going to keep you safe. By the way, not everyone needs a reason to commit an act of violence. Some people just snap.
it also doesn’t stop them from talking to each other, from conveying plans to each other or, most importantly, from stopping terrorism! at all!
the total bullshit that governments are coming out with atm about desperately needing to be able to spy on all communications of all sorts and types to prevent or stop or bring to justice criminals, pedophiles and terrorists is exactly that, total bullshit. it will make very little difference in these circumstances. people are more clever than governments and law enforcement give them credit. there will be ways used that wont arouse suspicion. what will be achieved though is the governments being alerted to anyone that has and is spreading views that are contrary to what the governments want, even though the views may well be true, or releasing information of wrong doing by governments, politicians or industries that would be detrimental to the people. anyone think of a similar scenario or two from within the last 100+ years and the lengths countries went to to overcome these situations?? all those lives lost to end up being in the same situation those people tried to prevent but caused and encouraged by the same countries that fought against the original ‘perpetrators’. how ironic is that?
Pastor Mimi Asher
I wonder whether the story of Pastor Mimi Asher has something to offer – she dismantled a London gang by feeding them and showing motherly love.
I appreciate there are a million differences between this and radical terrorists, but the idea is to confront something you hate with love instead of more hate.
There seems to be a real cognitive dissonance in some strains of the security theatre community in that there’s a literalist approach to security.
Nowhere is this more obvious than this idea that terrorists would simply announce themselves and their intentions on social media.*
Did the terrorists need Twitter or Facebook to plan the 9/11 attacks? Did the CIA get their intel from MySpace when they warned the Bush administration of an imminent attack on 22 June 2001?
No the terrorists organised the same way armies, freedom fighters and insurgents have organised for thousands of years before them.
How WW2 would have been won if America led the war front I do not know. Rather than try and crack secret messages, they would have just accepted them as innocent love letters and gibberish, whilst looking for the real enemy messages broadcast in clear understandable English.
*Unless your redefining terrorism to include speech that is critical of your endless war.
Really? I used to really HATE slow Internet connections, so I tried to post at my ISP’s forums to complain, but my connection kept on dropping every time I tried to post. Then I decided that since I couldn’t complain I loved my slow Internet connection.
Re: Re:
…Well, until a better, hotter internet connection came along, and I installed it behind by current connection’s back.
Attempting to censor those deemed to be terrorists is bad policy and certainly would not be successful. There are several reasons for this obvious conclusion.
1) definition of terrorist is subjective and would be twisted to suit ones’ purpose
2) those censored in one place would simply pop up in another, resulting in a money wasting game of whack-a-mole
3) it is counter productive to stop your adversary in the middle of making a mistake – if they want to tell you what they are up to, let them
4) the certain to occur collateral damage would only create more resentment towards those who are already viewed as idiots and assholes.
Really?
Maybe somebody needs to study supply and demand a little more. When you reduce the supply and the demand remains, that creates even more demand! Ever heard of a black market?
I also agree, is this really our biggest problem right now?
Sure seems like it’s not.