= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
RomeoStevens comments on New censorship: against hypothetical violence against identifiable people - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (457)
Well then.
I've heard that firemen respond to everything not because they actually have to, but because it keeps the drill sharp, so to speak. The same idea may apply to mod action... (in other words, MOAR "POINTLESS" CENSORSHIP)
More seriously, does this policy apply to things like gwern's hypothetical bombing of intel?
gwern specifically argued that small scale terrorism would be ineffective.
Implying that whether his post should be censored hinges on the conclusion reached and not just the topic?
discussion of violence by state actors is quite a bit different than discussion of individual violence.
Sure, but why is that a difference that makes a difference?
Individuals are somewhat likely to become violent because of Internet sophistry. If big oils (or likely future big oils) become violent because of Internet sophistry, we have bigger problems.
I suppose the next question is whether it would apply to things like comments in response to gwern's hypothetical bombing of intel arguing that his conclusion is incorrect.
Given the stated principles governing the new censorship policy, I think the answer would be "yes, of course."
Let's not delete posts for disagreeing on uncomfortable empirical questions.
I don't think the policy EY is proposing involves banning people, just deleting the stuff we write that violates policy.
fixed, thanks