3 ms·
Sure, that doesn't mean that arbitrarily defining things as 'hate-speech' and censoring them completely for everyone is the right solution.
by ZoF 10y ago
Sure, that doesn't mean that arbitrarily defining things as 'hate-speech' and censoring them completely for everyone is the right solution.
- st3v3r 10y agoI don't think there's anything arbitrary about defining death/rape threats as hate speech.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- nitrogen 10y agoSo define and ban those things directly, rather than something nebulous.
- cuckcuckspruce 10y agoThis would be best. It's sort of telling that Steve Huffman, CEO of reddit, had this to say about reddit's content policy enacted about a year ago: >When you draw really clear lines in the sand at a site like Reddit, “there will always be some a—–,” Huffman said, “looking for loopholes.” He eventually came to the conclusion that virtually every other major social site has come to: that content guidelines for online communities work best when they’re “specifically vague,” giving the contours of clarity on what sort of content is forbidden, while affording those in charge of enforcing the rules some leeway with when, precisely, the rules apply.[1] That's the CEO of reddit saying that selective enforcement should be the default, and that users should not lean on the actual, written rules to determine what is acceptable and unacceptable. [1] Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2016/05/18/the-one-thing-reddits-ceo-regrets-about-their-anti-harassment-crackdown/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2016/05...
- Turing_Machine 10y agoDeath and rape threats are crimes, not "hate speech".