4 ms·

I don't know as much about hate as I should, perhaps, but it seems arbitrary to make rules about what's hate and what's not. This part, especially, from the ar

I don't know as much about hate as I should, perhaps, but it seems arbitrary to make rules about what's hate and what's not. This part, especially, from the article... We also need to get better and faster at finding and removing hate from our platforms. Over the past few years we have improved our ability to use machine learning and artificial intelligence to find material from terrorist groups. Last fall, we started using similar tools to extend our efforts to a range of hate groups globally, including white supremacists. We’re making progress, but we know we have a lot more work to do. My question is, how are you going to know when you're done? What would Facebook look like if they didn't have any more work to do on hate? I'm honestly asking this.

soared 8y ago
The definition of hate speech and its boundaries has been thoroughly explored by the US supreme court. A taste of it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_in_the_United_Stat...
- rmbryan 8y ago
  THANK YOU! That was helpful to read. This is my favorite bit, from right at the top: "Hate speech in the United States is not regulated, in contrast to that of most other liberal democracies.[1] The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that hate speech is legally protected free speech under the First Amendment. The most recent Supreme Court case on the issue was in 2017, when the justices unanimously reaffirmed that there is effectively no "hate speech" exception to the free speech rights protected by the First Amendment."
  - anth_anm 8y ago
    I like that part too, because it also brings up the notion that US version of near absolute free speech is not the only on that exists. That other countries have banned hate speech without falling into totalitarianism, banning legitimate political discourse, or falling into the other traps that a "slippery slope" argument pushes.
    - RcouF1uZ4gsC 8y ago
      Most of the governments of those countries have been around since the end of WWII What happens long-term when the people whose memories of the horrors of the early 20th century die off? That is still an open question.
      - moorhosj 8y ago
        ==What happens long-term when the people whose memories of the horrors of the early 20th century die off?== Surely you could think of race/religious/class based horrors that have occurred since WWII. There have been genocides in places like Sri Lanka, Myanmar and Yemen this century. There is an ongoing one in Darfur, Sudan [1]. Rwanda [2] and Bosnia and Herzegovina [3] had genocides in the 90s. [1] https://www.cbsnews.com/news/witnessing-genocide-in-sudan-08-10-2004/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/witnessing-genocide-in-sudan-08... [2] https://www.history.com/topics/africa/rwandan-genocide https://www.history.com/topics/africa/rwandan-genocide [3] https://www.history.com/topics/1990s/bosnian-genocide https://www.history.com/topics/1990s/bosnian-genocide
        philwelch 8y ago
        Curiously, some of those horrors are actually counterexamples to the way we think about these things. For example, the Rwandan Hutus were historically oppressed by the Tutsis as well as European imperialists (who reinforced the dominant position of the Tutsis). Prior to the genocide, it would have been relatively easy to write off Hutu nationalism as sympathetic and understandable while being more concerned with Tutsi nationalism (especially since there were Tutsi militias roaming the countryside.) Likewise, I don't know about Bosnia, but it would be pretty understandable to sympathize with the Serbian attitude towards Croatia declaring independence from Yugoslavia because the last time Croatia declared independence from Yugoslavia, it was to literally collaborate with the Nazis. So Croatian nationalism would have seemed vaguely fascistic and threatening, but Serbian nationalism, not so much. The reason censorship doesn't actually prevent genocide is because any ideology that's popular enough to actually inspire a genocide is too popular to be censored.
  - fixermark 8y ago
    IIUC, it becomes discerned by US law if someone acts on violent rhetoric. Then, the violent rhetoric can be used as evidence that the actions were part of a hate crime.
    - gpm 8y ago
      I'm 99% certain this is wrong. The boundary is "imminent" "lawless" action. If your speech inspires someone to shoot someone an hour from now, it's legal. It wasn't imminent. If you speech will inspires someone to commit a non-violent but illegal action immediately, such as buying some drugs, it's potentially illegal (outside of 1st amendment protection).
      - fixermark 8y ago
        I agree with you. Apologies; I was unclear. Scenario in my head: actor (a) spreads hate speech, actor (b) goes and kills someone named as the hated party by (a). Unless (a) directly incited (b) (via the boundary test you cited), (a) isn't legally guilty of anything. But if the law discovers (b) heard (a) and acted because they believed (a)'s rhetoric, (b)'s crime rises past just violent crime to hate crime (because their reason to commit violence was a hate-crime motivation).
99052882514569 8y ago
>I don't know as much about hate as I should, perhaps, but it seems arbitrary to make rules about what's hate and what's not. It is arbitrary. This is a closed for-profit platform, run by decree. In the interest of shareholders, it can (and ought to) make whatever rules it wants, as long as they don't violate any laws.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- rmbryan 8y ago
  Yes, well said. That's a fair point. If I think about my response to an announcement that said, "This kind of content is being banned because it reduces our shareholder value." I can't argue with that. I think, "Sure, you're running a businesses. It's a business decision. Good on ya." It's the moralist explanation that confuses me, and your comment helped me see the real decision free of the spin and justification that cam with it.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

soared 8y ago

The definition of hate speech and its boundaries has been thoroughly explored by the US supreme court. A taste of it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_in_the_United_Stat...

rmbryan 8y ago
THANK YOU! That was helpful to read. This is my favorite bit, from right at the top: "Hate speech in the United States is not regulated, in contrast to that of most other liberal democracies.[1] The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that hate speech is legally protected free speech under the First Amendment. The most recent Supreme Court case on the issue was in 2017, when the justices unanimously reaffirmed that there is effectively no "hate speech" exception to the free speech rights protected by the First Amendment."
- anth_anm 8y ago
  I like that part too, because it also brings up the notion that US version of near absolute free speech is not the only on that exists. That other countries have banned hate speech without falling into totalitarianism, banning legitimate political discourse, or falling into the other traps that a "slippery slope" argument pushes.
  - RcouF1uZ4gsC 8y ago
    Most of the governments of those countries have been around since the end of WWII What happens long-term when the people whose memories of the horrors of the early 20th century die off? That is still an open question.
    - moorhosj 8y ago
      ==What happens long-term when the people whose memories of the horrors of the early 20th century die off?== Surely you could think of race/religious/class based horrors that have occurred since WWII. There have been genocides in places like Sri Lanka, Myanmar and Yemen this century. There is an ongoing one in Darfur, Sudan [1]. Rwanda [2] and Bosnia and Herzegovina [3] had genocides in the 90s. [1] https://www.cbsnews.com/news/witnessing-genocide-in-sudan-08-10-2004/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/witnessing-genocide-in-sudan-08... [2] https://www.history.com/topics/africa/rwandan-genocide https://www.history.com/topics/africa/rwandan-genocide [3] https://www.history.com/topics/1990s/bosnian-genocide https://www.history.com/topics/1990s/bosnian-genocide
      - philwelch 8y ago
        Curiously, some of those horrors are actually counterexamples to the way we think about these things. For example, the Rwandan Hutus were historically oppressed by the Tutsis as well as European imperialists (who reinforced the dominant position of the Tutsis). Prior to the genocide, it would have been relatively easy to write off Hutu nationalism as sympathetic and understandable while being more concerned with Tutsi nationalism (especially since there were Tutsi militias roaming the countryside.) Likewise, I don't know about Bosnia, but it would be pretty understandable to sympathize with the Serbian attitude towards Croatia declaring independence from Yugoslavia because the last time Croatia declared independence from Yugoslavia, it was to literally collaborate with the Nazis. So Croatian nationalism would have seemed vaguely fascistic and threatening, but Serbian nationalism, not so much. The reason censorship doesn't actually prevent genocide is because any ideology that's popular enough to actually inspire a genocide is too popular to be censored.
- fixermark 8y ago
  IIUC, it becomes discerned by US law if someone acts on violent rhetoric. Then, the violent rhetoric can be used as evidence that the actions were part of a hate crime.
  - gpm 8y ago
    I'm 99% certain this is wrong. The boundary is "imminent" "lawless" action. If your speech inspires someone to shoot someone an hour from now, it's legal. It wasn't imminent. If you speech will inspires someone to commit a non-violent but illegal action immediately, such as buying some drugs, it's potentially illegal (outside of 1st amendment protection).
    - fixermark 8y ago
      I agree with you. Apologies; I was unclear. Scenario in my head: actor (a) spreads hate speech, actor (b) goes and kills someone named as the hated party by (a). Unless (a) directly incited (b) (via the boundary test you cited), (a) isn't legally guilty of anything. But if the law discovers (b) heard (a) and acted because they believed (a)'s rhetoric, (b)'s crime rises past just violent crime to hate crime (because their reason to commit violence was a hate-crime motivation).

99052882514569 8y ago

>I don't know as much about hate as I should, perhaps, but it seems arbitrary to make rules about what's hate and what's not. It is arbitrary. This is a closed for-profit platform, run by decree. In the interest of shareholders, it can (and ought to) make whatever rules it wants, as long as they don't violate any laws.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
rmbryan 8y ago
Yes, well said. That's a fair point. If I think about my response to an announcement that said, "This kind of content is being banned because it reduces our shareholder value." I can't argue with that. I think, "Sure, you're running a businesses. It's a business decision. Good on ya." It's the moralist explanation that confuses me, and your comment helped me see the real decision free of the spin and justification that cam with it.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]