Back to the index

Censorship

Table of Contents

How a minority can silence a non-unanimous idea

Imagine a town with ten police officers, who can each solve one crime per day. Left to their own devices, the town’s criminals would commit thirty muggings and thirty burglaries per day (for the purposes of this hypothetical, both crimes are equally bad). They also require different skills; burglars can’t become muggers or vice versa without a lot of retraining. Criminals will commit their crime only if the odds are against them getting caught – but since there are 60 crimes a day and the police can only solve ten, the odds are in their favor.

Now imagine that the police get extra resources for a month, and they use them to crack down on mugging. For a month, every mugging in town gets solved instantly. Muggers realize this is going to happen and give up.

At the end of the month, the police lose their extra resources. But the police chief publicly commits that from now on, he’s going to prioritize solving muggings over solving burglaries, even if the burglaries are equally bad or worse. He’ll put an absurd amount of effort into solving even the smallest mugging; this is the hill he’s going to die on.

Suppose you’re a mugger, deciding whether or not to commit the first new mugging in town. If you’re the first guy to violate the no-mugging taboo, every police officer in town is going to be on your case; you’re nearly certain to get caught. You give up and do honest work. Every other mugger in town faces the same choice and makes the same decision. In theory a well-coordinated group of muggers could all start mugging on the same day and break the system, but muggers aren’t really that well-coordinated.

The police chief’s public commitment solves mugging without devoting a single officer’s time to the problem, allowing all officers to concentrate on burglaries. A worst-crime-first enforcement regime has 60 crimes per day and solves 10; a mugging-first regime has 30 crimes per day and solves 10.

But this only works if the police chief keeps his commitment. If someone tests the limits and commits a mugging, the police need to crack down with what looks like a disproportionate amount of effort – the more disproportionate, the better. Fail, and muggers realize the commitment was fake, and then you’re back to having 60 crimes a day.

Censorship can be similar. The censors are so fervent that nobody wants to speak out first. They crack down on anyone who talks about the issue, which leads to an illusion of consensus. In fact, the majority of people may not agree with them, and equilibrium could be forced to the other direction, where the opposite view would becomes the carefully protected illusionary consensus.

This is why they might react strongly to ideas that even come close to the taboo. They want to avoid a real slippery slope.

Scott gives the example of gay rights going from a seeming consensus against, to a seeming consensus for quite quickly (whereas actually, the number of people who changed their minds might be smaller than it seems.

This (including the story) comes from an idea here https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/04/02/social-censorship-the-first-offender-model/

Back to the index

Last modified 2019-06-26 周三 13:35. Contact max@maxjmartin.com