4 ms·

I don't understand why we don't let such platforms adopt a more laissez faire approach to such situations. There's an inordinate amount of pressure to curb free

by pbreit 8y ago

I don't understand why we don't let such platforms adopt a more laissez faire approach to such situations. There's an inordinate amount of pressure to curb free speech these days which seems very un-American.

munk-a 8y ago
I was in this camp for a while but the current political reality has shifted me towards viewing the normalization and acceptance of such hate speech as a negative to society. When I was growing up nazis and white supremacy were always framed in a negative light to make it clear they were wrong (this is mostly relevant in the developing years, less than 14 or so where children don't have a developed moral compass) now a days the extreme right is being treated as just another opinion you can have, normal adults recognize the danger associated with unrestrained nationalism and hate speech but young people are unexposed or unfamiliar with what it can lead to. This stuff is dangerous, it can warp the way you view the world, any information glorifying it should always be accompanied with explanations and warnings as to the hate it is imbued with... It is un-American to hate another person because of their origin or their religion, it's also un-American to squash an open discussion on that topic but... that discussion needs to happen between mature adults in a setting that makes it clear how unacceptable it is to lean on racist tropes.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- eponeponepon 8y ago
  Can we be clear on this, please? It's inhuman to hate another for their origin or religion - not just un-American. This problem isn't about whether or not you're a good American, it's about whether or not you're a good human.
  - munk-a 8y ago
    I absolutely agree with this while acknowledging that in some circles being inhuman carries less weight than being un-American. I'm currently in Canada anyways[1] so... good luck down there folks! [1] Expat, still a US citizen.
  - dmurray 8y ago
    Hating people from outside your tribe is as human as any behaviour gets. It's a behaviour we have to work so hard to suppress precisely because it's so natural.
    - eponeponepon 8y ago
      It's a throwback to our feral ancestry. I'd contend that the urge to overcome our animal nature is the bedrock of what makes us human.
- malvosenior 8y ago
  Nazis and white supremacists are still shown in a negative light. In fact, I'd say it's even more negative now with people openly suggesting violence against them ("punch a nazi"...). I think the problem with all of this, and one that we're experiencing now is the widening of the definition of nazi and white supremacists. That's where the danger lies and that's where free speech is most valuable. Once you say it's ok to censor nazis then the game changes to redefining your opponents as nazis. A lot of people will say people who wear MAGA hats are white supremacists for instance. It's a slippery slope, and a dangerous one.
- tropo 8y ago
  An easy way to encourage unthinking hate towards a group is to falsely tag them with the term "nazi". Be careful here.
Zecar 8y ago
The argument is "private companies can do what they want" which does absolutely nothing to address the fact that most human communication is now carried out in private "common areas". It's an absolute travesty.
spurcell93 8y ago
Uhh, that's what we have been doing the whole time. That's the status quo. We're talking about changing it because it's caused massive societal problems.
darkerside 8y ago
I generally agree with you, and I'm trying to parse through this myself. I think one difference in the modern era is that the Internet and social media have blurred the lines between broadcast speech and individual speech. Historically, we recoil at any restrictions on individual speech. They exist (can't yell FIRE in a crowded theater), but they are generally considered an unfortunate necessity. However, most people agree that broadcast speech should be censored. Now we're in an era where speech can start out as individual, and then be broadcast. Or perhaps it's better considered a false dichotomy in the first place. Either way, we definitely haven't figured out how to handle this as a society.
- deltron3030 8y ago
  Social media is in a way a hack similar to money and property law, where you can carry or own more than you actually could in natural way without losing it or having to leave behind, only that this time it's with the local space that hooks into the global space and vice versa. Smashing natural boundaries like that creates anomalies that we have to learn to deal with. I think it's also something that will enable us to spread to other planets sooner or later, hopefully. Hacking natural boundaries and overcoming the self regulating mechanism that otherwise would take place could be painful in a way and bite us back. But just think about the global exchange of knowledge, people getting interested in things they never thought they'd have access to under pre internet circumstances. A hell of a ride indeed..
  - darkerside 8y ago
    Great comment, thank you.
RickS 8y ago
I agree. I think the only lasting solution to this is to raise a populace smart enough to be impervious to the radical left and right, both fringes being the domain of sloppy thinking and emotionally driven agendas. And in a way that keeps the flywheel of education spinning. We do a bad job of that today, I think. But that takes time, strength, money, and – most critically – unified vision that I'm not sure America has right now. So how do you implement education reform that takes 50 years, when nobody even agrees that it's needed, and kids are getting killed and radicalized today? Do you allow it to continue in defense of the underlying principle of truly free speech? Maybe. To abandon that principle is a terrifying slippery slope. This is just one of the ways where tech and culture vastly outpace science and regulation. I have no answers.
meko 8y ago
Really? I've witnessed zero efforts on behalf of the government to curb free speech. But if you're talking about private speech that happens on privately owned websites, then that's flat out what is allowed by the constitution. Seems to me that the issue is actually with private ownership being able to censor. Which can only be addressed with, guess what, government intervention.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
pjc50 8y ago
The US has always had effective limits on broadcast speech, a history of bans on pornography and "communist" literature, as well as a number of quasi-self-imposed rules (Hays Code, MPAA ratings, Comics Code, "color bar" on radio and live music, etc). Effectively you could have very free speech so long as it was small-scale, but anything sufficiently controversial or offensive on a mass scale attracted attention.
asplake 8y ago
Un-American maybe, but they’re global. Here in Europe, their behaviour is highly controversial and I believe that regulation would be popular.
fixermark 8y ago
In the specific context of Facebook ad targeting, reports and investigations concluded that it was used as a propaganda channel in the US by foreign national agents attempting to tip the scales in the US Presidential election in 2016. "Why is that a bad thing" or "Why is that Facebook's problem" is a reasonable question, but it won't be seen as popular in the US if Facebook accepts those questions publicly as its business attitude.
madrox 8y ago
"Inordinate" is in the eye of the beholder. Free speech is curbed all the time in the interests of maintaining smooth operation of society, and as even the most intelligent among us tend to forget, free speech is not guaranteed on platforms like Facebook. There are quite a few laws on the books about hate speech, and how that extends to, say, Facebook ads, is what's being discussed here.
- pbreit 8y ago
  "Free speech is curbed all the time" No, it really is not. "There are quite a few laws on the books about hate speech" In the USA I believe there are zero. [1] There's a misnomer that free speech only exists somewhat arbitrarily as a bill of right. In fact, we actually value free speech even when granted by a private entity. 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_in_the_United_Stat...
evrydayhustling 8y ago
Letting the government use its monopoly on force to stop speech is un-American. Holding Facebook accountable for the voices it chooses to amplify and profit from is the market/society at work. Free speech was never something that makes distributors not responsible morally or ethically for what they distribute. Separately, hate speech crosses over into a form of speech many societies, America included, have decided can cause direct harm and needs special treatment (including legal restrictions). People can disagree about that, but should probably get that disagreement sorted before diving into the additional questions of speech versus distribution.

by pbreit 8y ago

munk-a 8y ago

I was in this camp for a while but the current political reality has shifted me towards viewing the normalization and acceptance of such hate speech as a negative to society. When I was growing up nazis and white supremacy were always framed in a negative light to make it clear they were wrong (this is mostly relevant in the developing years, less than 14 or so where children don't have a developed moral compass) now a days the extreme right is being treated as just another opinion you can have, normal adults recognize the danger associated with unrestrained nationalism and hate speech but young people are unexposed or unfamiliar with what it can lead to. This stuff is dangerous, it can warp the way you view the world, any information glorifying it should always be accompanied with explanations and warnings as to the hate it is imbued with... It is un-American to hate another person because of their origin or their religion, it's also un-American to squash an open discussion on that topic but... that discussion needs to happen between mature adults in a setting that makes it clear how unacceptable it is to lean on racist tropes.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
eponeponepon 8y ago
Can we be clear on this, please? It's inhuman to hate another for their origin or religion - not just un-American. This problem isn't about whether or not you're a good American, it's about whether or not you're a good human.
- munk-a 8y ago
  I absolutely agree with this while acknowledging that in some circles being inhuman carries less weight than being un-American. I'm currently in Canada anyways[1] so... good luck down there folks! [1] Expat, still a US citizen.
- dmurray 8y ago
  Hating people from outside your tribe is as human as any behaviour gets. It's a behaviour we have to work so hard to suppress precisely because it's so natural.
  - eponeponepon 8y ago
    It's a throwback to our feral ancestry. I'd contend that the urge to overcome our animal nature is the bedrock of what makes us human.
malvosenior 8y ago
Nazis and white supremacists are still shown in a negative light. In fact, I'd say it's even more negative now with people openly suggesting violence against them ("punch a nazi"...). I think the problem with all of this, and one that we're experiencing now is the widening of the definition of nazi and white supremacists. That's where the danger lies and that's where free speech is most valuable. Once you say it's ok to censor nazis then the game changes to redefining your opponents as nazis. A lot of people will say people who wear MAGA hats are white supremacists for instance. It's a slippery slope, and a dangerous one.
tropo 8y ago
An easy way to encourage unthinking hate towards a group is to falsely tag them with the term "nazi". Be careful here.

Zecar 8y ago

The argument is "private companies can do what they want" which does absolutely nothing to address the fact that most human communication is now carried out in private "common areas". It's an absolute travesty.

spurcell93 8y ago

Uhh, that's what we have been doing the whole time. That's the status quo. We're talking about changing it because it's caused massive societal problems.

darkerside 8y ago

I generally agree with you, and I'm trying to parse through this myself. I think one difference in the modern era is that the Internet and social media have blurred the lines between broadcast speech and individual speech. Historically, we recoil at any restrictions on individual speech. They exist (can't yell FIRE in a crowded theater), but they are generally considered an unfortunate necessity. However, most people agree that broadcast speech should be censored. Now we're in an era where speech can start out as individual, and then be broadcast. Or perhaps it's better considered a false dichotomy in the first place. Either way, we definitely haven't figured out how to handle this as a society.

deltron3030 8y ago
Social media is in a way a hack similar to money and property law, where you can carry or own more than you actually could in natural way without losing it or having to leave behind, only that this time it's with the local space that hooks into the global space and vice versa. Smashing natural boundaries like that creates anomalies that we have to learn to deal with. I think it's also something that will enable us to spread to other planets sooner or later, hopefully. Hacking natural boundaries and overcoming the self regulating mechanism that otherwise would take place could be painful in a way and bite us back. But just think about the global exchange of knowledge, people getting interested in things they never thought they'd have access to under pre internet circumstances. A hell of a ride indeed..
- darkerside 8y ago
  Great comment, thank you.

RickS 8y ago

I agree. I think the only lasting solution to this is to raise a populace smart enough to be impervious to the radical left and right, both fringes being the domain of sloppy thinking and emotionally driven agendas. And in a way that keeps the flywheel of education spinning. We do a bad job of that today, I think. But that takes time, strength, money, and – most critically – unified vision that I'm not sure America has right now. So how do you implement education reform that takes 50 years, when nobody even agrees that it's needed, and kids are getting killed and radicalized today? Do you allow it to continue in defense of the underlying principle of truly free speech? Maybe. To abandon that principle is a terrifying slippery slope. This is just one of the ways where tech and culture vastly outpace science and regulation. I have no answers.

meko 8y ago

Really? I've witnessed zero efforts on behalf of the government to curb free speech. But if you're talking about private speech that happens on privately owned websites, then that's flat out what is allowed by the constitution. Seems to me that the issue is actually with private ownership being able to censor. Which can only be addressed with, guess what, government intervention.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

pjc50 8y ago

The US has always had effective limits on broadcast speech, a history of bans on pornography and "communist" literature, as well as a number of quasi-self-imposed rules (Hays Code, MPAA ratings, Comics Code, "color bar" on radio and live music, etc). Effectively you could have very free speech so long as it was small-scale, but anything sufficiently controversial or offensive on a mass scale attracted attention.

asplake 8y ago

Un-American maybe, but they’re global. Here in Europe, their behaviour is highly controversial and I believe that regulation would be popular.

fixermark 8y ago

In the specific context of Facebook ad targeting, reports and investigations concluded that it was used as a propaganda channel in the US by foreign national agents attempting to tip the scales in the US Presidential election in 2016. "Why is that a bad thing" or "Why is that Facebook's problem" is a reasonable question, but it won't be seen as popular in the US if Facebook accepts those questions publicly as its business attitude.

madrox 8y ago

"Inordinate" is in the eye of the beholder. Free speech is curbed all the time in the interests of maintaining smooth operation of society, and as even the most intelligent among us tend to forget, free speech is not guaranteed on platforms like Facebook. There are quite a few laws on the books about hate speech, and how that extends to, say, Facebook ads, is what's being discussed here.

pbreit 8y ago
"Free speech is curbed all the time" No, it really is not. "There are quite a few laws on the books about hate speech" In the USA I believe there are zero. [1] There's a misnomer that free speech only exists somewhat arbitrarily as a bill of right. In fact, we actually value free speech even when granted by a private entity. 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_in_the_United_Stat...

evrydayhustling 8y ago

Letting the government use its monopoly on force to stop speech is un-American. Holding Facebook accountable for the voices it chooses to amplify and profit from is the market/society at work. Free speech was never something that makes distributors not responsible morally or ethically for what they distribute. Separately, hate speech crosses over into a form of speech many societies, America included, have decided can cause direct harm and needs special treatment (including legal restrictions). People can disagree about that, but should probably get that disagreement sorted before diving into the additional questions of speech versus distribution.