3 ms·

How was I trolling? (Note that I didn’t say Facebook couldn’t regulate speech—just that it shouldn’t.)

aplummer 8y ago
It’s not constitutionally protected in basically any other western country for example, what is so bad about the way those countries work? Is the USA an improved society because of this?
- int_19h 8y ago
  > It’s not constitutionally protected in basically any other western country for example, what is so bad about the way those countries work To give just one example, in France, it is currently illegal to wear a t-shirt that says "boycott Israel". https://forward.com/news/breaking-news/323207/france-court-upholds-bds-is-discrimination-ruling/ https://forward.com/news/breaking-news/323207/france-court-u... So yes, USA is an improved society in that regard because of its strong freedom of speech protections. Hopefully we can keep them.
  - aplummer 8y ago
    I’m surprised political speech is not protected specifically as it is in the UK and Australia in France for example, but I still don’t agree the trade off for Nazis is worth it.
    - int_19h 8y ago
      > I’m surprised political speech is not protected specifically as it is in the UK and Australia in France for example It is protected. It's just that hate speech is an explicit exception from that rule (which is the whole point of that designation). Most of hate speech is political in some way. So it all boils down to who gets to define what is "hate speech", exactly. > I still don’t agree the trade off for Nazis is worth it. What trade-off? Neo-Nazis flourish in the very same countries that have extensive censorship of their ideologies and speech. Look at Germany with their "streitbare Demokratie" for an example - they don't just censor speech, they outright ban parties solely on the basis of their platforms. And for those efforts, they get yearly neo-Nazi marches that are several times bigger than the one-off we've seen in Charlottesville, and AfD is now the second most popular party. On the other hand, there's this trade-off: https://theintercept.com/2017/08/29/in-europe-hate-speech-laws-are-often-used-to-suppress-and-punish-left-wing-viewpoints/ https://theintercept.com/2017/08/29/in-europe-hate-speech-la...
azinman2 8y ago
Because hate speech does much more than hurt feelings, which minimizes it as if it’s just a school yard issue. Hate speech normalized ostracizing Jews in WWII Germany, and we know how that turned out. Hate speech incited genocide in Myanmar via the military’s posts on FB. Hate speech normalizes the extreme fringes and pulls nationalism into mainstream politics. Hate speech influences elections and spreads false information to irrationally enrage certain bases. Hate speech and false rumors causes rural villages to assume outsiders are rapists/pedophiles which leads to mob rage that ends in murder. Facebook is effectively a new kind of weapon that accelerates the ability to target hate speech and let it spread uncontested with no basis in reality, but when done enough “becomes” reality via confirmation bias. It allows a very vocal but tiny population a microphone to amplify their hateful messages and grow beyond what would otherwise naturally occur. With great power comes great responsibility, and FB/YouTube/etc absolutely should do their best to minimize evil forces from utilizing these platforms to spread false and hateful messages because it really does end in massive reprocussions for society and even death.

It’s not constitutionally protected in basically any other western country for example, what is so bad about the way those countries work? Is the USA an improved society because of this?

int_19h 8y ago
> It’s not constitutionally protected in basically any other western country for example, what is so bad about the way those countries work To give just one example, in France, it is currently illegal to wear a t-shirt that says "boycott Israel". https://forward.com/news/breaking-news/323207/france-court-upholds-bds-is-discrimination-ruling/ https://forward.com/news/breaking-news/323207/france-court-u... So yes, USA is an improved society in that regard because of its strong freedom of speech protections. Hopefully we can keep them.
- aplummer 8y ago
  I’m surprised political speech is not protected specifically as it is in the UK and Australia in France for example, but I still don’t agree the trade off for Nazis is worth it.
  - int_19h 8y ago
    > I’m surprised political speech is not protected specifically as it is in the UK and Australia in France for example It is protected. It's just that hate speech is an explicit exception from that rule (which is the whole point of that designation). Most of hate speech is political in some way. So it all boils down to who gets to define what is "hate speech", exactly. > I still don’t agree the trade off for Nazis is worth it. What trade-off? Neo-Nazis flourish in the very same countries that have extensive censorship of their ideologies and speech. Look at Germany with their "streitbare Demokratie" for an example - they don't just censor speech, they outright ban parties solely on the basis of their platforms. And for those efforts, they get yearly neo-Nazi marches that are several times bigger than the one-off we've seen in Charlottesville, and AfD is now the second most popular party. On the other hand, there's this trade-off: https://theintercept.com/2017/08/29/in-europe-hate-speech-laws-are-often-used-to-suppress-and-punish-left-wing-viewpoints/ https://theintercept.com/2017/08/29/in-europe-hate-speech-la...

azinman2 8y ago

Because hate speech does much more than hurt feelings, which minimizes it as if it’s just a school yard issue. Hate speech normalized ostracizing Jews in WWII Germany, and we know how that turned out. Hate speech incited genocide in Myanmar via the military’s posts on FB. Hate speech normalizes the extreme fringes and pulls nationalism into mainstream politics. Hate speech influences elections and spreads false information to irrationally enrage certain bases. Hate speech and false rumors causes rural villages to assume outsiders are rapists/pedophiles which leads to mob rage that ends in murder. Facebook is effectively a new kind of weapon that accelerates the ability to target hate speech and let it spread uncontested with no basis in reality, but when done enough “becomes” reality via confirmation bias. It allows a very vocal but tiny population a microphone to amplify their hateful messages and grow beyond what would otherwise naturally occur. With great power comes great responsibility, and FB/YouTube/etc absolutely should do their best to minimize evil forces from utilizing these platforms to spread false and hateful messages because it really does end in massive reprocussions for society and even death.