4 ms·
Facebook hate groups are real (anti-immigrant, anti-lgbt, ...). They're getting better at skirting the rules, so there's no way to disband them. I'm seeing doze
by some1else 10y ago
Facebook hate groups are real (anti-immigrant, anti-lgbt, ...). They're getting better at skirting the rules, so there's no way to disband them. I'm seeing dozens of such groups form for a country with a population of ~2 million (Slovenia). I think the mentality those bubbles breed is even more dangerous than Twitter harassment. Instead of manifesting itself in bullying and conflict, it's nurturing the different flavours of toxicity in nicely compartmentalised jars.
I can't agree with the author's statement, that design itself is not primarily responsible for a solution, as it is instrumental in enabling such an environment in the first place.
- Cthulhu_ 10y agoAnd being anti-immigrant or anti-LGBT is their right; it's freedom of speech, which extends to freedom to hate. Lots of people hate Trump, that's their right to have. There's a line drawn when it becomes harassment or incitement to violence (then they veer towards becoming a terrorist organization).
- hashmal 10y agoI feel like today this freedom profits more to awful people than to the good of society.
- 234dd57d2c8db 10y agoWell I'm glad laws are not created based on your feelings, but logic and reason.
- CM30 10y agoWell not really. Freedom of speech is meant to protect all views, including those other people might find wrong, abhorrent or against social norms. This can easily be both a 'good' (in the case of say, a pro gays right campaigner in a conservative theocracy) or 'bad' (in the case of a Neo Nazi in Germany) thing. But your view kind of sums up in a nutshell why freedom of speech is a hard battle. Because it's all too easy to only see 'horrible' people and views benefiting due to them being the type of views people would want to ban if freedom of speech didn't exist. It's the same kind of problem Tor advocates have when arguing that privacy and anonymity are rights people should have. Because people only see the drugs, crime and illegal porn and think that privacy is only something 'bad' people need. Either way, both freedom of speech and privacy benefit everywhere, yet get a bad rep due to people only seeing the negatives they allow rather than the people and rights they may save.
- hashmal 10y agoI completely agree with you. It doesn't change the feeling I have.
- DanBC 10y ago> Freedom of speech is meant to protect all views, Too often one person's freedom of speech is a megaphone used to drown out some marginalised group. http://imgur.com/a/LKiRU http://imgur.com/a/LKiRU
- Chris2048 10y agoFreedom of speech concerns censorship, it doesn't guarantee an audience, and doesn't mean anyone can be forced to listen. Do you have examples of freedom of speech used to disproportionately drown out opposing views, i.e. "marginalis[ation]"?
- adrienne 10y agoHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH oh my god you're serious.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- syrrim 10y agoThat depends on what you consider to be the alternative to free speech. If you take it as "no speaking allowed ever", than freedom of speech benefits all equally. If you take the alternative to be "everyone I don't like isn't allowed to speak" then free speech disproportionately aids those you dislike.
- hashmal 10y agoI don't consider any alternative…
- syrrim 10y agoThat depends on what you consider to be the alternative to free speech. If you take it as "no speaking allowed ever", than freedom of speech benefits all equally. If you take the alternative to be "everyone I don't like isn't allowed to speak" then free speech disproportionately aids those you dislike.