3 ms·
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 see
by 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 agoIs 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 agoif 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 agoIn 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]