What about the slippery slope of slippery slopes? Once you give in to fear about slippery slopes, where will it end? You’ll never be able to say no (or yes) to anything again!
Exercising judgement is a difficult act, but not one that is black or white. It shouldn’t be painted as something that is or isn’t, either. A slippery slope either existing or not is a false dichotomy trying to shoehorn a complicated situation into an on/off configuration.
Calling the application of social pressure to get cloudflare to stop enabling hate a slippery slope is ignoring that it’s arguably the first instance of something like this to happen, it took an enormous amount of effort for it to happen, while it was not happening the livelihoods of individuals were being harassed, harmed, and destroyed, and it involved a private enterprise making a decision for themselves and is not reflective of how others in the industry will respond.
Of important framing, did we call the workers rights movement a slippery slope? Racial justice? Feminism? I think the more contentious the public perception is of a movement, the more likely people are to call something enabling said movement a slippery slope. However, on the opposite side of things we usually recognize the reduction or removal of human rights or governmental representation universally as a slippery slope when the issue is no longer contentious or is broad enough to apply to all individuals (while nobles may have framed the rise of democracies as a slippery slope away from monarchistic and feudal governmental systems, I doubt the same was said by the majority of individuals who stood to benefit from this paradigm shift). Applying the wording of ‘slippery slope’ to make demons out of issues they simply disagree with seemingly only happens by conservative individuals to protect a worldview that suppresses others.
I agree with you. People forget that ‘slippery slope’ is a logical fallacy, ie, ‘slippery slope fallacy’. It’s like when homophobes say that allowing gay marriage will lead to people marrying their dog or something. Like, no the fuck it won’t.
The problem with this is simple: Not taking down dangerous information is a dereliction of duty of care for information custodianship.
Why?
Confidentiality refers to the prevention of unauthorized, unwarranted, and unacceptable access to information. In this case, if you are hosting the information of an individual (PII, for instance) you have an obligation to protect that data both for yourself, and the individual that data represents. To publicly share PII like this is a violation of information ethics.
Integrity refers to the ability to protect data from unauthorized access. What most people forget, ignore, and blatantly argue against is that it also refers to the accuracy and “correctness” of the data. Data that is inaccurate, incorrect, or otherwise improper can not adequately be used for any sort of analytical work, and more importantly impacts the information flow in real time. Flawed data, allowed to continue propagating, prevents the flow of correct information with high integrity. The very publication and repetition of dis- and misinformation is a violation of integrity.
Availability refers to the appropriate and proper access to the data or information being protected. In these cases, data allowed to be accessible by others is not only a violation of confidentiality, but is a de facto violation of availability. The protection of availability is often at odds with, but always tied to, the confidentiality of the data. Without proper confidentiality protection, and without authorization restrictions to allow for appropriate access to the data or information, availability is out of balance.
Say what you will about things, but the flow of dis- and misinformation and everyone who allows for it to continue is by very definition a threat to both small-scale information security, and larger-scale information security.
The view that all viewpoints are valid and equal is demonstrably dangerous throughout history. German has a word for those who are willing to allow for an extreme group to rise, despite knowing better: Mitläufer. It’s commonly used, in German, to refer to anyone who hitches their wagon to an extremist horse and indirectly supports them. Note: not someone who actively supports them, but the kind of people who say “FREE SPEECH IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN ANYTHING ELSE!”
Edit for further clarity: I wanted to add that I am perturbed that archives were also destroyed. Keeping those, scrubbed of doxx’d data and information, would have allowed investigators the ability to find the people in charge of Kiwi Farms and get a clear view of who the individuals were. That is now lost, but at the expense of proper information custodianship. Admittedly, the task of cleaning that data for ethical storage would have been a nightmare to undertake.
Removed by mod
For further reading on the Marxist view of Free Speech: https://www.marxists.org/history/erol/ncm-1a/nv-speech.htm
The lack of oversight is disturbing. We have a couple of places dictating what can and cannot be on the internet.
I’d prefer to no oversight to arbitrary or bad oversight.
