4 ms·

Google has every right morally and legally to not wish to provide a platform for hate speech.

wang_li 9y ago
The more Google chooses what content is hosted on their platforms, the less authentic their claims of independence from the content and the more liability to which they should be exposed.
- foobarbazetc 9y ago
  They're not hosting anything. These Nazis got kicked off one registrar and decided to make it Google's problem. Companies have every right to choose who they do business with. There are plenty of registrars out there that have no issues with hate speech. This is just a PR exercise for the Nazis.
  - wang_li 9y ago
    I was responding to the general statement made in the comment to which I replied.
desbest 9y ago
The funny thing about hate speech is that no one can make a unanimous conclusion for what hate speech is. Nowadays hate speech is a euphamism for any idea or opinion someone doesn't like, so the term hate speech has lost its meaning. It now means using gender pronouns to refer to people, using gendered job names, saying that men and women are born with different brains, saying that there's only 2 genders, saying that feminism is cancer, saying there's a link between islam and terrorism, saying that black people underachieve in society due to genetics instead of the evil racist oppressive white male - and much more.
- Eleopteryx 9y ago
  Well you pretty much just concisely spelled out your political leanings. >no one can make a unanimous conclusion for what hate speech is Would it be a "unanimous" conclusion if it were a conclusion drawn by a singular person or entity? >It now means using gender pronouns to refer to people Do you have an example of this being identified as hate speech?
  - desbest 9y ago
    > Would it be a "unanimous" conclusion if it were a conclusion drawn by a singular person or entity? Which singular person or entity should be responsible for determining what "hate speech" is? According to SJWiki I am a neurosexist for believing that men and women have different brains and that gender is not a social construct. Should SJWiki be trusted? According to the ADL, Gavin McInnes and Mike Cernovich are hate preachers. Should the ADL be trusted? > Do you have an example of this being identified as hate speech? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lMl4kIxw-jo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lMl4kIxw-jo Also it's a slippery slope because once the "hate speech" clampdown happens, we'll then be punished for microaggressions, so even if you're not a racist, you'll be seen as racist for asking what race or ethnicity someone is?

The more Google chooses what content is hosted on their platforms, the less authentic their claims of independence from the content and the more liability to which they should be exposed.

foobarbazetc 9y ago
They're not hosting anything. These Nazis got kicked off one registrar and decided to make it Google's problem. Companies have every right to choose who they do business with. There are plenty of registrars out there that have no issues with hate speech. This is just a PR exercise for the Nazis.
- wang_li 9y ago
  I was responding to the general statement made in the comment to which I replied.

desbest 9y ago

The funny thing about hate speech is that no one can make a unanimous conclusion for what hate speech is. Nowadays hate speech is a euphamism for any idea or opinion someone doesn't like, so the term hate speech has lost its meaning. It now means using gender pronouns to refer to people, using gendered job names, saying that men and women are born with different brains, saying that there's only 2 genders, saying that feminism is cancer, saying there's a link between islam and terrorism, saying that black people underachieve in society due to genetics instead of the evil racist oppressive white male - and much more.

Eleopteryx 9y ago
Well you pretty much just concisely spelled out your political leanings. >no one can make a unanimous conclusion for what hate speech is Would it be a "unanimous" conclusion if it were a conclusion drawn by a singular person or entity? >It now means using gender pronouns to refer to people Do you have an example of this being identified as hate speech?
- desbest 9y ago
  > Would it be a "unanimous" conclusion if it were a conclusion drawn by a singular person or entity? Which singular person or entity should be responsible for determining what "hate speech" is? According to SJWiki I am a neurosexist for believing that men and women have different brains and that gender is not a social construct. Should SJWiki be trusted? According to the ADL, Gavin McInnes and Mike Cernovich are hate preachers. Should the ADL be trusted? > Do you have an example of this being identified as hate speech? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lMl4kIxw-jo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lMl4kIxw-jo Also it's a slippery slope because once the "hate speech" clampdown happens, we'll then be punished for microaggressions, so even if you're not a racist, you'll be seen as racist for asking what race or ethnicity someone is?