22 ms·

Good to see the Valley is starting to get off its "we are just a platform, all information should be free and neutral no matter how bad, so we're not responsibl

• Kalium 8y ago
  > To the people that say "Where does it end?" – that's pretty easy. Let's start with curbing speech that encourages harming others. This may come as a surprise to you, but this response will not be comforting to those with genuine concerns about civil liberties. Avoiding the question of where to draw the final line with the question of where to draw the first one just implies that you intend to draw more lines in the future.
  • kevinh 8y ago
    This isn't the first line though–Facebook already bans things like ISIS propaganda. This is in a similar bucket.
    • ThomPete 8y ago
      White nationalism isn't even remotely like ISIS propaganda. I am no fan of that ideology for sure but it's actually about something very different than most people think and most people haven't actually spent the time understanding their argument before they form an opinion about it. Edit: Find it pretty crazy that this can't even be discussed without people accusing me of all sorts of things.
      • rexpop 8y ago
        Stochastic terrorism? It's still a terrorism pipeline. It's all well and good for you to say "white nationalism is very different from what most people think," but that doesn't stop the OP from being right. Nationalism of all kinds root from an insecurity, and white nationalism in particular is proppogated in colonial societies to encourage the alienation of brown colonial workers via, among other acts, stochastic terrorism. It's a lot like ISIS propaganda.
      • bdhe 8y ago
        How so?
      • elliekelly 8y ago
        > it's actually about something very different than most people think Can you explain what you mean by this?
        • pcbro141 8y ago
          Probably something like: "We don't encourage people to commit terrorist attacks, we only encourage them to do what it takes to ensure the survival and dominance of the white race."
        • ThomPete 8y ago
          It's an ideology and it doesn't in it's essence include any form of violent action at least according to ex their US leader. There are however idiots who support that ideology who end up spewing their hateful crap out on the internet and in forums. Those are two very different things and unfortunately people who are otherwise smart people like here on HN aren't able to separate the two which is why I am being downvoted simply suggesting it's not that simple. ISIS ideology is about killing the infidels and actually doing it, White Nationalism as an ideology about the survival of the white race. Look it up on wikipedia and you will find that it's not the same as the idiots who spew their hateful crap.
          • kjdndisneinj 8y ago
            You're doing exactly what literally every expert on white nationalism says that white nationalists do to make their abhorrent views appealing to a wider audience. Either do some self-reflection or admit you're a white nationalist.
          • checkyoursudo 8y ago
            If the theorists and proponents have such a difficult time separating an ideology from attempts at violent implementation of a program based on that ideology, then perhaps the violence is in fact part of the ideology after all? If it quacks like a violent duck ...
          • josefresco 8y ago
            > It's an ideology ... that's wrong, scientifically and morally. Stop trying to gaslight us all into believing this "ideology" is anything other than backwards thinking, ignorant, hate filled nonsense.
      • anigbrowl 8y ago
        Yeah it is. I'd prefer not to post example content here on HN, but like most political movements ISIS/jihadis and white supremacists have both a public and private position, and the public one may often appear innocuous or reasonable at first appearance, although there are differences in recruiting tactics, eg https://cchs.gwu.edu/sites/g/files/zaxdzs2371/f/downloads/Nazis%20v.%20ISIS%20Final_0.pdf https://cchs.gwu.edu/sites/g/files/zaxdzs2371/f/downloads/Na...
      • Dylan16807 8y ago
        > it's actually about something very different than most people think and most people haven't actually spent the time understanding their argument before they form an opinion about it. That was facebook's policy as of yesterday. They changed it for good reason, and it was not a small reason to overcome that much inertia.
      • pcbro141 8y ago
        These recent white supremacist terrorists like the Christchurch attacker all have the same white nationalist memes and talking points on their social media. The Christchurch terrorist said in his own manifesto the white nationalist memes played a part in his radicalization. The white supremacist groups in their guides admit that the their ironic racist memes are propaganda to get people in their funnel and progressively radicalize them. I'm glad that after these white supremacist terror attacks and seeing how these attackers all share the same things on social media, more people are waking up and realizing these memes are like ISIS propaganda.
      • kjdndisneinj 8y ago
        Your comment is an exceptional example of fascist propaganda, and illustrates how it can spread in "polite society". It even includes a cute attempt to hide it by suggesting you're "not a fan". However, you're not even suggesting that they have a right to speech, but white nationalist ideology HAS MERIT and should be researched. Are you kidding? It starts with an appeal to consider differences of opinion. The white nationalists ease in the ignorant by veiling their true beliefs by using dogwhistles like "white replacement" or "white genocide". This is commonly referred to as "hiding your power level" on white nationalist forums. They suggest that people of different races just shouldn't live together, or are somehow inherently incompatible. To people scared of the uncertainty of the future, or who are otherwise downtrodden, this is appealing. Suddenly you have an easy explanation for that fear. In an more internet context, some join "just for the memes" but are gradually radicalized by the ideology. Then, someone acts on the ideology and kills a bunch of people, exactly what the memes were espousing in the first place. The world, for a short time, realizes what happened. But suddenly all of that is a joke, it's not real, it's just a difference of opinion again. All of this ignores that the white nationalist ideology calls for an ethnostate, which inevitably leads to genocide. It's an inherently violent ideology, not just a "difference of opinion". It's exactly what ISIS wants; a state with absolute control by a particular ethnic group on racial or religious lines. If this was just ignorant, take some time to research how hate groups spread propaganda. If it's not, follow your leader.
        • ThomPete 8y ago
          You are damn right I would ask people to research what things actually mean before they go claiming other people spread fascist propaganda. I am perfectly capable of both trying to understand the world I live and why some people think what they think and at the same time disagreeing with them. If you think you are helping fight their ideology by banning it you are going to be sorely disappointed. That will not end well.
          • kjdndisneinj 8y ago
            Based on your other comments, follow your leader.
      • otikik 8y ago
        One dehumanizes people based on religion and the other dehumanizes people based on skin color. They are both cars, one is blue and the other is yellow.
      • Macross8299 8y ago
        >White nationalism isn't even remotely like ISIS propaganda. I don't think so. One wants a caliphate, one wants an ethnostate. The end result is the same for anyone who isn't part of the extremist in-group.
        • CarlSchmitt 8y ago
          > "extremist..." I guess someone who wants to live in a geographic area with people who are similar to them and share a common culture are "extremist" nowadays...this is very odd to me
  • QualityReboot 8y ago
    It's a surprisingly comforting response. This ends with decentralization. Let's force all platforms to ban anything even mildly offensive.
    • rexpop 8y ago
      Tell us more about your vision for decentralization? Is it anything like twitter.com/BuyThisPlatform ?
      • QualityReboot 8y ago
        I think email works really well as a federated solution. Mastodon is trying to make a Twitter clone that works more like email. That's the logical evolution here IMO. Eventually, we probably arrive at something truly decentralized on a blockchain governed by smart contracts, but that's not at all needed to replace the major platforms. A federated answer similar to email would be good enough. Then each server in the federation can choose what content to replicate or ban.
  • dgacmu 8y ago
    I have genuine concerns about civil liberties, but as others noted, there's a difference between using the power of government to prevent speech and a company refusing to provide a megaphone.
  • anigbrowl 8y ago
    Well, we already have a point of comparison in how platforms handle content from groups like ISIS. The thing about groups who adhere to eliminationist positions is that they so obviously don't care about anyone else's civil liberties, so one could argue that respect for the rights of others is the ante required to sit at the social table.
  • camelNotation 8y ago
    We always draw a line somewhere when we write a law. Saying "I don't want to draw a line at all" is an attempt to abdicate our responsibility to protect weaker members of society under the guise of some higher ideal that is not threatened by good laws.
    • Kalium 8y ago
      You're absolutely right! We unquestionably have a categorical imperative to protect our vulnerable friends, neighbors, and community members. To those ends, I don't want to not draw lines. I want some kind of clear criteria and process around thw drawing of lines. Perhaps we could consider a system whereby we can make sure that the power to draw lines is not used against weaker members of society under the guise of some higher ideal.
  • mcphage 8y ago
    > Avoiding the question of where to draw the final line with the question of where to draw the first one just implies that you intend to draw more lines in the future. No, it just implies that we don't need to have the perfect final answer now. Maybe we'll draw more lines, maybe we'll find out we don't need to, maybe we'll decide that this line was drawn too far and pull it back. We don't need to pretend that we have all the answers yet—we don't even need to pretend we have all the questions yet.
    • Kalium 8y ago
      You are very wise and thoroughly correct! Perhaps people might consider offering such elegant points as yours, instead of making the claim that the current line is correct and that's all that matters.
      • ssully 8y ago
        I would argue that the people who are concerned about "what future lines will be drawn" when the first line being drawn is banning white supremacists are the ones who should be making more elegant points.
  • meroes 8y ago
    FB isn't the government though.
  • MiscIdeaMaker99 8y ago
    I wouldn't doubt that there are genuine concerns, but what Facebook is doing has nothing to do with actual civil liberties, which isn't something that FB grants or could even take away.
• crushcrashcrush 8y ago
  The only reason the valley has trumpeted the "we're just a platform" is that it was better for the bottom line and shareholders. Now it no longer is.
  • ikeyany 8y ago
    Reddit went through this too.
    • anth_anm 8y ago
      Reddit still allows white supremacists and other assorted awful things to go through their platform.
  • skybrian 8y ago
    You make this just about greed when it's also about toil. Nobody likes dealing with the filth that some people share. The armies of content moderators that have to deal with it don't have happy jobs. This is a category of labor that formerly wasn't necessary, and yet somehow now it is. Why is that? How can we make it go away? Perhaps the monetary incentives will provide motivation to solve it.
• xxpor 8y ago
  If this sort of thing leads to Section 230 repeal though, are we really any better off?
  • fixermark 8y ago
    I don't see why this would lead to an S230 repeal if banning nudity doesn't.
• ThomPete 8y ago
  For someone who cares more about freedom of speech and the free sharing of ideas, than what political stance people have it's a sad day. However, at least Facebook now admits their political bias and people can make informed choices. And no I do not support white nationalism.
  • anth_anm 8y ago
    This isn't about sharing legitimate political views at this point, it's about helping prevent radicalization. White nationalist content should be viewed no differently than content by the likes of isis. I think it's completely reasonable and responsible to ban it from the platform.
  • ianleeclark 8y ago
    > And no I do not support white nationalism. Saying that white nationalists, despite their inherently violent nature, deserve a platform is categorically support. You're not acting as a neutral arbiter. Instead, you're saying that this group who spouts violent rhetoric, despite the fact that we as a society have said hate speech should not be tolerated, ought to be able to spread their message.
    • sparkie 8y ago
      > despite the fact that we as a society have said hate speech should not be tolerated Here's your problem. Free speech isn't about "we as a society". "We as a society" had decided that the earth was the center of the universe before Galileo decided to defy "we as a society" to state something unpopular. I'm not suggesting that there is any value in white supremacism like there was in Galileo's speaking of heliocentricism, but his lack of access to free speech protection meant he was persecuted for speaking the unpopular - the idea that you can ban "certain kinds of speech" is going to do precisely the same. Where exactly is the line drawn at what is considered "white supremacism?" What if somebody says something which isn't a white supremacist viewpoint, but some loon misrepresents the view as if it were? You don't seriously think it will end at white supremacism do you? This is just the first step towards incrementally dismantling your right to free speech. The solution to "bad speech" is "good speech", not attempting to issue bans. The Streisand effect is in full force, and each time you try to ban it, you accidentally give them more leverage. The solution is to ignore. Stop advertising for them! That's all you're doing. That doesn't mean that we should ignore actual hate crimes - but can we get back to a sane world where people are innocent until proven guilty, and where we have a legal system where judge and jury get to decide the punishment for crimes - rather than bored, virtue signalling keyboard warriors.
• tylermenezes 8y ago
  You can't show a woman's nipple on Facebook, but you could show white nationalist propaganda. They never genuinely cared about being a platform to begin with.
  • djsumdog 8y ago
    I miss old Tumblr. It was the last true bastion of a lot of different ideas. Now it's just like everything else: trying hard to be advertiser friendly.
• yegle 8y ago
  > To the people that say "Where does it end?" – that's pretty easy. Let's start with curbing speech that encourages harming others. "Speech that harms people" and "speech that hurt people's feelings" are so closely related and sometimes people (intentionally or unintentionally) mix them up.
  • ianleeclark 8y ago
    Are you saying that white supremacists only hurt people's feelings and does not have real and tangible outcomes? Look to Christchurch or the innumerable attacks/murders/gig economy fascism in the US perpetrated by the far right.
    • deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    • yegle 8y ago
      NO, that's ABSOLUTELY not the case. If you are looking for examples, search HN comments that begin with "I'm hesitated to say this but" or "I know this sounds XXX"
    • ng12 8y ago
      That's a fallacious argument. You could make the same argument about pro-Islamist sentiment (which is all over FB if you know where to look).
      • Veraticus 8y ago
        It's not fallacious: pro-ISIS stuff is already banned on Facebook so it's literally exactly the same standard.
        • pathseeker 8y ago
          pro-Islamist != pro-ISIS. It is completely fallacious.
• 99052882514569 8y ago
  >To the people that say "Where does it end?" – that's pretty easy. Let's start with curbing speech that encourages harming others. But that is not where they're starting though, is it? They're going much further: >Today we’re announcing a ban on praise, support and representation of white nationalism and separatism on Facebook and Instagram Praise, support and representation not of speech encouraging harm, but the ideology itself, reprehensible and ass-backwards as it may be. This sentence indicates they're picking and choosing which ideologies to censor. This is wrong (opinion), antithetical to American notions of freedom of speech (opinion), but Facebook has a complete and unalienable right to do this on their platform (fact). Despite that right, things should nevertheless be accurately labeled. This is censorship of political thought, not censorship of "hate speech" as most reasonable people define it.
  • mcphage 8y ago
    > Praise, support and representation not of speech encouraging harm, but the ideology itself The ideology itself is an encouragement to harm.
    • 99052882514569 8y ago
      If you broaden your definition of "encouragement to harm" as strongly as you have done, what other ideologies fall under the exact same umbrella? Marxist-Leninist "revolutionary vanguard" idea certainly seems to fit the bill perfectly. Let's ban that too! Again, Facebook absolutely has the right to censor political views using whatever arbitrary rationale they want. I just object to dressing it up with PR euphemisms such as "Standing Against Hate". They're not doing it to stand up against hate (Facebook is a cesspool of very thinly veiled hate against immigrants, for example). They're doing it for political expediency and PR.
      • dragonwriter 8y ago
        > Marxist-Leninist "revolutionary vanguard" idea certainly seems to fit the bill perfectly. Let's ban that too! Wait, are you thinking there are masses of people who are okay with Facebook deplatforming white nationalists that are going to be upset if they did the same to Leninist vanguardism?
• DisruptiveDave 8y ago
  > Let's start with curbing speech that encourages harming others. You've already disproven your "that's pretty easy" note. Who defines "harm"? The goal posts seem to move damn near weekly on this. That's the problem that can't be solved as easily as you purport.
  • deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  • metamet 8y ago
    Maybe we just start with: "Are Nazis bad?"
    • DisruptiveDave 8y ago
      Nazis would say "no."
      • anigbrowl 8y ago
        Yes, but what do you think of them?
• tathougies 8y ago
  > Let's start with curbing speech that encourages harming others. The day facebook bans advertising about abortion will be the day I believe that line.
• commandlinefan 8y ago
  > "Where does it end?" It ends, as it always does (and must) with massive hypocrisy on the part of the arbitrary censor, since "harm" is so poorly defined that it ends up being replaced with "whatever seems fashionable today".
  • ratling 8y ago
    > It ends, as it always does (and must) with massive hypocrisy on the part of the arbitrary censor, since "harm" is so poorly defined that it ends up being replaced with "whatever seems fashionable today". You are defending literal nazis. Their idea of speech is Christchurch. Deplatforming that is absolutely the correct move.
    • DoofusOfDeath 8y ago
      > You are defending literal nazis. Their idea of speech is Christchurch. This whole conversation centers on the relationship between speech and action. Equating the two will confuse the discussion.
      • ratling 8y ago
        What does that even mean? Like last I checked a whole big chunk of the world may have gone to war for a few years over the subject of, "Nazis are bad." Kicking them off Facebook isn't anywhere close to that large of a response.
• philwelch 8y ago
  If your argument for restricting free expression can just as easily be used to justify, say, Hollywood studios blacklisting communist screenwriters, that's another thing to consider.
• SkyBelow 8y ago
  >Let's start with curbing speech that encourages harming others. Based on numerous past incidents of corporate behavior (not specifically from Facebook) I do doubt a fair and unbiased application of such a standard. Politically we cannot even agree on what constitutes harm or even murder (abortion being an example of such disagreement). How then is it possible to fairly ban speech that encourages harm when we don't agree on what constitutes harm?
  • karmelapple 8y ago
    A platform can define what harm is. We can see what definition is, and we can choose to use a particular platform or not.
    • goodfight 8y ago
      Unfortunately, most of the time we aren't privy to their definitions. If they publish them publically to a literal extent then they MIGHT actually have to follow them! No company wants to have to follow their own rules, it's a Schrodinger situation.
      • tenpies 8y ago
        Not to mention that as we've seen with Twitter the rules don't really matter. The name of the game is selective enforcement and zero accountability because you can always blame the algo/users for not reporting enough.
        • cortesoft 8y ago
          Isn't selective enforcement kind of inevitable? There is no algorithm that can follow code of conduct 'rules' perfectly. You are always going to be able to find instances where the rules aren't applied perfectly.
      • anigbrowl 8y ago
        * If they publish them publically to a literal extent then they MIGHT actually have to follow them! * Conversely, to the extent that they are public and transparent (eg I think twitchy is pretty specific about feedback for content removal) people will game that information and either refine their content to fit within the letter of the ToS while spreading it as widely as possible, or seek to litigate the decisions depending on what's least costly.
• mc32 8y ago
  The virality of violence is a bad aspect of network effects. I think we agree online calls for actual violence should not be promoted. What I have a difficulty understanding is how and who will define "violence". Inciting direct violence is one thing, but people like expanding definitions. Is expressing support for one state which wants to overthrow another state "violence"? Is supporting China (in some aspect) but which none the less persecutes some people, "violence"? Is buying almonds violence because it deprives some people in some areas of California of municipal water violence? What about suppressed minority groups in Sudan who oppose a regime, or likewise South Sudan? Are they proposing and promoting violence? An uprising in Teheran, is that violence? Suppress it? Are they pro regime, are they anti-regime? Is it fluid, is it at times both? What do you do? This gets very dicey very quickly.
  • anigbrowl 8y ago
    There's emerging evidence that emotional contagion via social media is a real phenomenon, and indeed much commercial exploitation of social media arguably depends on that. That has many positive aspects, such as meeting my appetite for heartwarming videos of cute animals, but it can also be leveraged for less wholesome purposes. Definitions are absolutely fluid, not least because the science of measuring and mapping such contagion in virtual spaces is currently in a fairly rudimentary state. We're building our technological infrastructure out much faster than we are developing an understanding of how it impacts our future.
  • chillacy 8y ago
    I would say that if the mainstream narrative is that your ideology shows up in a bunch of mass shootings then you get pushback. We thought it made sense to take down ISIS content, now it makes sense to take down white supremacy content. Presumably this wouldn't be happening if not for the dozen or so mass shootings with oddly similar perpetrators in the past 5 years.
    • FakeComments 8y ago
      There has been more left wing political violence in the US recently, the media simply disproportionately reports on right wing violence. Why isn’t Facebook banning leftist propaganda when groups like Antifa regularly use it as justification for political violence?
• menacingly 8y ago
  I'll skip over over your answering "where does it end" with where we start, but more importantly: This is a game, because it initially masquerades as using the definition of "harm" any reasonable person would use, while simultaneously working the other end to redefine and vastly expand the concept of "harm". We're now supposed to recognize unpersoning, microaggressing, belittling, twitter-mentioning as harm, and it's naivete bordering on manipulative to try to and make the case that our understanding of harm will not continue to expand
• chaostheory 8y ago
  This form of hateful speech will not stop. The only immediate consequence is that it will go underground. The bigger consequence is that it will be much harder to for authorities to monitor. Under the previous status quo, it was an intelligence treasure trove. Suspected future terrorists would openly tell everyone their thoughts, their location, and more importantly their friends and associates. All of that will be gone now.
  • ratling 8y ago
    If they go underground it makes it a lot harder for them to radicalize idiots on facebook. Sounds like a win to me. The average person isn't exactly curious about different ideologies but when facebook and youtubes algorithms throw it in their face constantly? Probably something we want to fix.
    • chaostheory 8y ago
      I don't believe that the average person is interested in racist ideology. The people it tends to attract are disaffected white males. They tend to have poor education and poor job prospects i.e. no hope for the future. My guess is that they were already radicalized before being heavily exposed to racist ideology online. They will still be able to cluster online. It just won't be under our watchful eyes anymore. It'll be similar to how pedophiles cluster online. I hope that you're right and that I'm completely wrong about this.
      • ratling 8y ago
        The average person (which includes these disaffected white males) is an idiot. They'll pay attention to whatever facebook and youtubes algorithms puts in front of them without question. There are always disaffected people, but throwing this crap at them day in and day out for ad dollars is just throwing gasoline on a fire for a percentage of the insurance money.
        • chaostheory 8y ago
          Do we really know who is right here? Do we have data on much social media helps extremist groups grow vs how social media surveillance helps authorities catch and disband members of these groups and their plots?
• black-tea 8y ago
  > that's pretty easy. Let's start with curbing speech that encourages harming others. I think taxes should be higher. Whoops, did I just encourage harming others?
• CamperBob2 8y ago
  To the people that say "Where does it end?" – that's pretty easy. Let's start with curbing speech that encourages harming others. Welp, there goes the Declaration of Independence.
  • ratling 8y ago
    ...because nazis can't use Facebook to plan the next Christchurch? I feel like maaaaaybe there's a few steps in between the two.
    • CamperBob2 8y ago
      Let's ask King George what he thinks about that. Awfully easy to answer questions like this by going straight to "Nazis" or "terrorists" or "child molesters," isn't it? When a complex social problem seems that obvious and straightforward to resolve, that's when you really need to challenge your own thought processes.
      • ratling 8y ago
        When the problem is with actual Nazis? Yep, real easy.
• smsm42 8y ago
  > Let's start with curbing speech that encourages harming others. Raising taxes would certainly harm me. In fact, in much more direct way than impotent babble of bunch of idiots obsessed with the color of their epidermis. So I guess we should start with banning any speech advocating raising taxes?
  • mordae 8y ago
    Not as long as you are represented. You do vote, right?
  • ratling 8y ago
    > Raising taxes would certainly harm me. In fact, in much more direct way than impotent babble of bunch of idiots obsessed with the color of their epidermis. So I guess we should start with banning any speech advocating raising taxes? So impotent that they never walked into a synagogue or mosque and shot up a bunch of people. Oh wait...
    • DoofusOfDeath 8y ago
      The GP's example of raising taxes might be surprisingly hard to refute. For example, if the U.S. government's tax revenues were much lower in the 1960's, would they still have invaded Vietnam? Perhaps not entering Vietnam would have saved far more lives than are lost to domestic mass-shootings. My main point is simply that causal relationships between policies and (various definitions of) harm can be highly speculative and messy.
      • Veraticus 8y ago
        Okay, but "can be speculative and messy" doesn't suddenly mean we can't make any judgments at all. Here the relationship seems quite clear. Why can we not act here, just because a theoretical example exists where it might be more complicated?
      • ratling 8y ago
        There's nothing 'speculative and messy' about the harm Nazis did and do. We went to war over it.
• lukifer 8y ago
  > Let's start with curbing speech that encourages harming others. No doubt, explicit threats or advocacy/conspiracy to violence exist, and should not be tolerated. However, there are countless complicated grey areas subject to interpretation and potential bias. Was Kathy Griffin advocating violence by holding up a mock Trump severed head? Is “Abortion stops a beating heart” a coded message to inspire violence against abortion doctors? What about “Eat the rich” or “The only good billionaire is a dead billionaire”? My favorite edge case is this WKYK sketch, which is clearly satire, yet trivial to indict as an explicit call to unlawful violence: https://youtu.be/eg3_kUaYFJA https://youtu.be/eg3_kUaYFJA
• intended 8y ago
  They point being missed is that this is action on things Facebook CAN understand. How the heck are they going to deal with pro separatist or uzbekian socio-political issues? What FB has realized and is realizing is how to play the PR game, because they have to. ---- And if that means getting rid of Nazis, more power to them.
• stronglikedan 8y ago
  > speech that encourages harming others How can it be consistent when some of the very same people that consider white nationalist speech as harmful encourage the spread of antifa's ideals? I'd rather everyone feel free to share their ideals so I know who to avoid. It's going to happen anyway, and I'd rather it not be restricted to behind-closed-doors, so to speak.
• deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
• deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
• atonse 8y ago
  I realize I kicked up a hornet's nest by accidentally omitting one word: "physical" – I meant to say let's start by stifling speech that directly calls for _physical_ harm. The next would be maybe an argument of banning speech that _indirectly_ calls for physical harm, since that leaves room for interpretation. Calling for a white ethno-state indirectly calls for physical harm to all non-whites. Why? Because how the hell else are you going to move us out, other than by force? Are you planning to pay each of us $2 million to leave the country? Obviously not. The third would be all other forms of hate speech (which arguably would cause even more debate).