You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

twanvl comments on New censorship: against hypothetical violence against identifiable people - Less Wrong Discussion

22 Post author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 23 December 2012 09:00PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (457)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Nominull 24 December 2012 03:29:35AM 11 points [-]

Censorship is particularly harmful to the project of rationality, because it encourages hypocrisy and the thinking of thoughts for reasons other than that they are true. You must do what you feel is right, of course, and I don't know what the post you're referring to was about, but I don't trust you to be responding to some actual problematic post instead of self-righteously overreacting. Which is a problem in and of itself.

Comment author: twanvl 24 December 2012 12:37:25PM 2 points [-]

because it encourages hypocrisy and the thinking of thoughts for reasons other than that they are true

In particular, this comment seems to suggest that EY considers public opinion to be more important than truth. Of course this is a really tough trade-off to make. Do you want to see the truth no matter what impact it has on the world? But I think this policy vastly overestimates the negative effect posts on abstract violence have. First of all, the people who read LW are hopefully rational enough not to run out and commit violence based on a blog post. Secondly, there is plenty of more concrete violence on the internet, and that doesn't seem to have to many bad direct consequences.

Comment author: Viliam_Bur 26 December 2012 12:36:03AM *  2 points [-]

the people who read LW are hopefully rational enough not to run out and commit violence based on a blog post

Anyone can read LW. There is no IQ test, rationality test, or a mandatory de-biasing session before reading the articles and discussions.

I am not concerned about someone reading LW and commiting a violence. I am concerned about someone commiting violence and coincidentally having read LW a day before (for example just one article randomly found by google), and police collecting a list of recently visited websites, and a journalist looking at that list and then looking at some articles on LW.

Shortly, we don't live on a planet full of rationalists. It is a fact of life that anything we do can be judged by any irrational person who notices. Sure, we can't make everyone happy. But we should avoid some things that can predictably lead to unnecessary trouble.