3 ms·

> In other words, you know it will do real harm to real people, but you don't care about them and don't want to listen That's an uncharitable and emotionally-

> In other words, you know it will do real harm to real people, but you don't care about them and don't want to listen That's an uncharitable and emotionally-charged way of saying that you think that an edge case affecting a tiny minority should preclude a policy that makes communities better for everyone. Do you not care about the population at large? The state of discussion on the internet seems to have deteriorated since the major platforms abandoned their real name policies a few years ago. > Plenty of people will publish hate speech in the newspapers under their own byline Ah, so "managing identities" is actually just a euphemism for censorship? People should be free to publish "hate speech" (whatever that means) in newspapers and anywhere else. That's what free speech entails and it's a good thing.

pjc50 8y ago
> makes communities better for everyone. Not at all proven, and there's substantial evidence that for certain categories of abuse it makes no difference. > edge case affecting a tiny minority The whole point of equalities law is that you can't inflict things on people simply with the justification that they're a minority; you have to make arguments along the lines of it being necessary, proportionate, and that you've tried to mitigate the harm. > The state of discussion on the internet seems to have deteriorated since the major platforms abandoned their real name policies a few years ago. Usenet people like to date the deterioration of discourse back to ... 1993. Again this is kind of anecdotal and we'd have to define things like "state of discussion" and "deteriorated". > People should be free to publish "hate speech" OK, now you're really going to have to define "state of discussion" and "deteriorated", as well as "makes communities better for everyone", because hate speech is one of the very important things that we're trying to get rid of.
- quotemstr 8y ago
  Who is the "we" that's trying to get rid of "hate speech"? I'm against censorship of ideas *period". The problem with censorship is that even if started with the best of intentions, it ends up being plain suppression of whatever ideas are inconvenient for the censors. It's been that way throughout history. Censorship is always being justified as being done in the name of someone's safey. I take it you're the kind of person who thinks a good community is one free of ideas that make you uncomfortable.

pjc50 8y ago

> makes communities better for everyone. Not at all proven, and there's substantial evidence that for certain categories of abuse it makes no difference. > edge case affecting a tiny minority The whole point of equalities law is that you can't inflict things on people simply with the justification that they're a minority; you have to make arguments along the lines of it being necessary, proportionate, and that you've tried to mitigate the harm. > The state of discussion on the internet seems to have deteriorated since the major platforms abandoned their real name policies a few years ago. Usenet people like to date the deterioration of discourse back to ... 1993. Again this is kind of anecdotal and we'd have to define things like "state of discussion" and "deteriorated". > People should be free to publish "hate speech" OK, now you're really going to have to define "state of discussion" and "deteriorated", as well as "makes communities better for everyone", because hate speech is one of the very important things that we're trying to get rid of.

quotemstr 8y ago
Who is the "we" that's trying to get rid of "hate speech"? I'm against censorship of ideas *period". The problem with censorship is that even if started with the best of intentions, it ends up being plain suppression of whatever ideas are inconvenient for the censors. It's been that way throughout history. Censorship is always being justified as being done in the name of someone's safey. I take it you're the kind of person who thinks a good community is one free of ideas that make you uncomfortable.