2 ms·

They don't have to be mutually exclusive. Imagine that you empower users with the tools create and manage their own content filters. You allow them to decide w

by RpFLCL 8y ago

They don't have to be mutually exclusive. Imagine that you empower users with the tools create and manage their own content filters. You allow them to decide what types of content qualifies as the "hate speech" they want to avoid, if any. Make it as easy as possible for them to share their filters and understand what is affected. In such a design any "hate speech" can be defined differently by each group or individual, and "censorship" isn't imposed by a central authority. In a distributed system this pattern is easier to defend. There is no one company that has to explain why the content is on their servers.

Eridrus 8y ago
I don't think this is sufficient for those calling for filtering of hate speech. The goal is not so that you personally don't see it, but rather that no-one sees it. You see this in the reporting about hate speech in private facebook groups - these groups are quite happy with their speech, but chunks of society are not. [EDIT]: To be clear, I am not arguing for censorship, but rather pointing out that the way most people see the problem of hate speech is not as one where they come in contact with it, but that it is allowed to exist at all and that others come in contact with it. Maybe the US won't legislate on this and being free from advertisers will be enough, but the EU (and Germany in particular) does legislate on these grounds, so you may find yourself in conflict with a bunch of governments if your solution is that users do their own filtering as they like.
- RpFLCL 8y ago
  Is that a good or a bad thing? It seems like that's precisely one of the issues the 'dweb' hopes to solve: To prevent certain chunks of society from imposing censorship on the other groups through centralized services.
- beaconstudios 8y ago
  if every significant group had the ability to prevent the speech of other groups they didn't want to hear from, no-one would be able to speak.
- deno 8y ago
  In the US there’s no such thing as “hate speech.”[1] [1] https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/15-1293_1o13.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/15-1293_1o13.pdf [pdf]

by RpFLCL 8y ago

Eridrus 8y ago

I don't think this is sufficient for those calling for filtering of hate speech. The goal is not so that you personally don't see it, but rather that no-one sees it. You see this in the reporting about hate speech in private facebook groups - these groups are quite happy with their speech, but chunks of society are not. [EDIT]: To be clear, I am not arguing for censorship, but rather pointing out that the way most people see the problem of hate speech is not as one where they come in contact with it, but that it is allowed to exist at all and that others come in contact with it. Maybe the US won't legislate on this and being free from advertisers will be enough, but the EU (and Germany in particular) does legislate on these grounds, so you may find yourself in conflict with a bunch of governments if your solution is that users do their own filtering as they like.

RpFLCL 8y ago
Is that a good or a bad thing? It seems like that's precisely one of the issues the 'dweb' hopes to solve: To prevent certain chunks of society from imposing censorship on the other groups through centralized services.
beaconstudios 8y ago
if every significant group had the ability to prevent the speech of other groups they didn't want to hear from, no-one would be able to speak.
deno 8y ago
In the US there’s no such thing as “hate speech.”[1] [1] https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/15-1293_1o13.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/15-1293_1o13.pdf [pdf]