5 ms·
Why are those the only two options available?
by onewhonknocks 8y ago
Why are those the only two options available?
- macspoofing 8y agoIndeed. Also who defines what 'hate speech' is and isn't?
- dmix 8y agoIf recent history is any example it's an ever expanding and often arbitrary list depending on an individuals sensitivity level (particularly when it comes down to the individual level like mod's on subreddits or employees at Twitter). It seems many very vocal people on the internet are essentially pushing an idea that the most sensitive people should be defining what those boundaries are for everyone and the list of things people can be outraged could change at any time, and ignorance of these boundaries is not sufficient excuse.
- dx87 8y agoA Google presentation titled "The Good Censor" was recently leaked where they talk about how themselves, Twitter, and Facebook, should censor free speach. They say that they want to move to a "European model" where civility is valued over freedom. https://www.theverge.com/2018/10/10/17961806/google-leaked-research-good-censor-censorship-freedom-of-speech-research-china https://www.theverge.com/2018/10/10/17961806/google-leaked-r...
- Tomte 8y agoI cannot speak for the whole of Europe, but the German model certainly isn't "civility over freedom", but practical concordance: you have several basic rights which unfortunately almost always collide in some form with each other, and you find a way to give maximum effect to all of them. The difference between America and Germany — very broadly speaking — is that America goes for the local maximum (free speech trumps everything) and Germany goes for a global maximum.
- charlesism 8y agoMod does. Don't like the mod, get out! Social networks don't control the police and jails. They have always had the right - though they neglected it because they are lazy and delusional - to moderate content on their own servers. It's so clear to me that "one size fits all" social networks will go away. They are inherently dysfunctional. Putting everyone from terrorists to toddlers on the same forums was never a good idea.
- nopzor 8y agoNo, they neglected it because they originally wanted protections afforded to “common carriers”. Now they are trying to have their cake and eat it too.
- blueboo 8y agoThe dead, at the very least.
- thetrumanshow 8y agoWhy doth [the suppression of uncomfortable opinions] never prosper, what's the reason? For if it prosper, none dare call it Treason.
- snackbugs 8y agoHate speech is made in full faith by a group that has dominance and power to influence others to harm groups who live under that dominance and power. How many gradations do you think there are between the two?
- macspoofing 8y agoI don't agree with that definition at all. It is an atrocious and immoral definition of 'hate speech' (and dare I say probably racist in practice).
- snackbugs 8y agoWhat can be done to correct this definition? What should be adjusted?
- macspoofing 8y agoFor one thing, this definition eschews a common standard. Rather, violations are based on arbitrary criteria of "dominance" - which is popular with certain ideologues but has very little support in showing that this is actually a good metaphor for understanding our society. Anyway, in practice (and probably in your mind), this definition would entail grouping people by their skin color and labeling one group as extra susceptible for violating YOUR hate speech code and another group being completely exempt.
- snackbugs 8y ago>Rather, violations are based on arbitrary criteria of "dominance" - which is popular with certain ideologues but has very little support in showing that this is actually a good metaphor for understanding our society. I'm fascinated with why people don't acknowledge power structures as having any influence in how one part of society views another; that there is currently no hierarchy in society. You just haven't ever needed to interface with this idea and therefore believe it's not a defined concept.
- blueboo 8y agoYes, there's a third: that the balance they strike is infinitely perfect and the net benefit is zero in all dimensions. It struck me as childishly pedantic to address, so