3 ms·

The problem is who defines what hate and a hate group is. It is usually the people you don’t want to do so, people that want to tell you what to think. Eg to so

The problem is who defines what hate and a hate group is. It is usually the people you don’t want to do so, people that want to tell you what to think. Eg to some Ben Shapiro, Jordan Peterson and Thomas Sowell are considered white supremacists.

noobermin 8y ago
That is a general problem but it doesn't address the argument. We already find ISIS recruitment videos and suicide ideation groups bad but where do we draw the line? If it's so difficult to define what should not be allowed in the open then I don't know what can be unallowed, including ISIS recruitment videos in the name of freedom of speech.
- asabjorn 8y ago
  Talking about ISIS is a red herring. Are they considered white suprenacists now? If we are to judge by social media companies past behavior [1] it’s regular conservative and liberal opinions that will be considered hate speech or white supremacy [1] https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.foxbusiness.com/technology/google-twitter-facebook-apple-slapped-with-class-action-lawsuit-over-conservative-censorship.amp https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.foxbusiness.com/technology/...
  - noobermin 8y ago
    Huh? How is it a red herring? Their propaganda is considered speech that is worth censoring. May be specifically naming ISIS makes this too easy. How about generally censoring radical Islamist propaganda that doesn't necessarily name ISIS specifically? The point that you're not really replying to is that people are apparently willing to censor speech for various reasons, one of them links to particular ideology. Is this okay or is it not?
    - asabjorn 8y ago
      Free speech doesn’t cover incitement to violence, and it is already illegal and that is why it’s a red herring. Advocating for violence against innocent people is not primarily ideology, but someone being a bad human being that should go to jail for breaking the law. You really don’t need hate speech and white supremacy policies to prohibit speech that is already illegal, but you need it to suppress speech that some people might disagree with when they want to abuse their power to suppress it.
      - ptah 8y ago
        free speech in US does actually cover incitement to violence. in Europe it doesn't
        asabjorn 8y ago
        Incitement to imminent violent action is illegal https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action
      - noobermin 8y ago
        Regarding the first paragraph, I know, but that isn't under discussion. What is under discussion is censorship of speech due to ideology, perhaps because it leads to violence if although there are no direct calls for violence. White supremacy and radical Islamism both need not call for violence, but the ultimate conclusion of the ideology is violence. It sounds like you don't want to censor either, which I think is consistent.
        asabjorn 8y ago
        You are still assuming a clear definition of what white supremacy is, which Facebook doesn’t provide. How do you think about the false positives?
        asabjorn 8y ago
        ADL defines alt right to be white supremacy to be the same: https://www.adl.org/resources/backgrounders/alt-right-a-primer-about-the-new-white-supremacy https://www.adl.org/resources/backgrounders/alt-right-a-prim... SPLC also say they are the same: https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/ideology/white-nationalist https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/ideo... These orgs provide the best definition we can get right now due to Facebook relying on others to define it instead of providing clear definitions, and these orgs is an authority to Facebook. If there was ever an attempt at using power while abdicating responsibility that is it. The reason while any action build upon this is bullshit is that these orgs doesn’t relate it to truth and evidence, use their power to slap this label onto anyone that disagree with them and punish people for things they didn’t do.
  - joshuamorton 8y ago
    The comment I originally responded to wasn't about white supremacy, but about censoring discourse. ISIS propaganda is as much "discourse" as white nationalist propaganda is, so why didn't you defend ISIS when it was deplatformed years ago? I realize that's kind of a gotcha, so I'll ask a similar question: given that it appears you feel that any deplatforming based on ideology is bad, do you criticize facebook for having deplatformed ISIS? To pre-address your other comment, neither white nationalist propaganda nor ISIS propaganda necessarily includes calls to violence. So the incitement of violence standard applies to neither. If not, what differentiates ISIS from White nationalists? Both are violent groups that wish to kill people different from them. As far as I can tell, one just looks a lot more like me. They're both dangerous, and we shouldn't let either recruit people on facebook. What is the flaw in that line of reasoning? As for that case, it was dismissed earlier this month[1], apparently because the plaintiffs didn't actually have any examples of wrongdoing on the part of companies, and just filed the suit to raise awareness of freedom watch's advocacy[2]. [1]: https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/25495855/FREEDOM_WATCH,_INC_v_GOOGLE_INC_et_al https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/25495855/FREEDOM_WA... [2]: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/district-of-columbia/dcdce/1:2018cv02030/199717/44/ https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/distric...
    - asabjorn 8y ago
      ISIS has a clearly defined religious teaching and a core part of their message is using power as well as violence to push their religious teachings onto others to create a world Islamic kaliphate. On the other hand what is being called alt right and white supremacisrs by mainstream organizations is bullshit: - The economist called Ben Shapiro alt right today https://mobile.twitter.com/TheEconomist/status/1111248348114239488 https://mobile.twitter.com/TheEconomist/status/1111248348114... - The guardian says Jordan Peterson is supposedly alt right https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/science/2018/feb/07/how-dangerous-is-jordan-b-peterson-the-rightwing-professor-who-hit-a-hornets-nest https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/science/201... - Bret Weinstein is supposedly alt right And ridiculously enough Ben Shapiro is a Jew that is the biggest hate target of the alt right, and Jordan Peterson is hated by the alt right such as Richard spencer and Vox Day.
- int_19h 8y ago
  Well, ISIS is a criminal organization for reasons unrelated to their speech. Once they have become one, it's not unreasonable to make their recruitment videos illegal to distribute to other people, on the basis that doing so amounts to conspiracy to recruit people to commit crimes (but mere possession and watching them should still be legal, because in and of itself that doesn't help them).
  - laughinghan 8y ago
    What happened to Heather Heyer was also not speech. What happened to Clementa Pinckney and 8 other African-Americans at the Charleston church shooting was not speech. What happened at the Tree of Life Pittsburgh synagogue shooting was not speech. Shouldn't the same argument apply to the videos that radicalized those murderers?
    - joombaga 8y ago
      No. Why should it?
      - laughinghan 8y ago
        My parent comment had said that conspiracy to recruit people to commit crimes is not an unreasonable basis for making it illegal to distribute recruitment videos for ISIS, because they are a criminal organization due to their violence, not their speech. That implies that that should also not be an unreasonable basis for making it illegal to distribute recruitment videos for violent white nationalist organizations. Does that answer your question?
        joombaga 8y ago
        Yes, thank you for explaining. I misunderstood the context of your question.
    - int_19h 8y ago
      If you can prove that any particular video did so, sure, I don't see a problem with that.
patentatt 8y ago
Wait, are you claiming they’re not? Lol
- asabjorn 8y ago
  I do not have to claim that an untruth is such. It is rather those peddling untruth and statements not relating to truth at all (bullshit) that have to confuse everyone else to a sufficient degree to twist their worldviews for their purpose. Unfortunately trying to control others viewpoints hurts yourself as much as anyone else because you are making yourself and what you can learn from others less adaptive to reality.
  - patentatt 8y ago
    Is it trying to control others’ viewpoints to say that the KKK is a racist, white supremacist group? I thought we’re all in the marketplace of ideas here. You are literally telling me what to think, which is what your original comment purported to be against.
    - asabjorn 8y ago
      Show me one example of a white nationalist action by Jordan Peterson or Ben Shapiro, and I’ll be right there beside you fighting it. It’s on you to justify your claim. Marketplace of ideas is not about throwing out unfounded claims and with a high likelihood have others treat them like a proposition founded in truth seeking. Rather it will be treated as the bullshit it most likely is unless you supply evidence to the claim.

noobermin 8y ago

That is a general problem but it doesn't address the argument. We already find ISIS recruitment videos and suicide ideation groups bad but where do we draw the line? If it's so difficult to define what should not be allowed in the open then I don't know what can be unallowed, including ISIS recruitment videos in the name of freedom of speech.

asabjorn 8y ago
Talking about ISIS is a red herring. Are they considered white suprenacists now? If we are to judge by social media companies past behavior [1] it’s regular conservative and liberal opinions that will be considered hate speech or white supremacy [1] https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.foxbusiness.com/technology/google-twitter-facebook-apple-slapped-with-class-action-lawsuit-over-conservative-censorship.amp https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.foxbusiness.com/technology/...
- noobermin 8y ago
  Huh? How is it a red herring? Their propaganda is considered speech that is worth censoring. May be specifically naming ISIS makes this too easy. How about generally censoring radical Islamist propaganda that doesn't necessarily name ISIS specifically? The point that you're not really replying to is that people are apparently willing to censor speech for various reasons, one of them links to particular ideology. Is this okay or is it not?
  - asabjorn 8y ago
    Free speech doesn’t cover incitement to violence, and it is already illegal and that is why it’s a red herring. Advocating for violence against innocent people is not primarily ideology, but someone being a bad human being that should go to jail for breaking the law. You really don’t need hate speech and white supremacy policies to prohibit speech that is already illegal, but you need it to suppress speech that some people might disagree with when they want to abuse their power to suppress it.
    - ptah 8y ago
      free speech in US does actually cover incitement to violence. in Europe it doesn't
      - asabjorn 8y ago
        Incitement to imminent violent action is illegal https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action
    - noobermin 8y ago
      Regarding the first paragraph, I know, but that isn't under discussion. What is under discussion is censorship of speech due to ideology, perhaps because it leads to violence if although there are no direct calls for violence. White supremacy and radical Islamism both need not call for violence, but the ultimate conclusion of the ideology is violence. It sounds like you don't want to censor either, which I think is consistent.
      - asabjorn 8y ago
        You are still assuming a clear definition of what white supremacy is, which Facebook doesn’t provide. How do you think about the false positives?
        asabjorn 8y ago
        ADL defines alt right to be white supremacy to be the same: https://www.adl.org/resources/backgrounders/alt-right-a-primer-about-the-new-white-supremacy https://www.adl.org/resources/backgrounders/alt-right-a-prim... SPLC also say they are the same: https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/ideology/white-nationalist https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/ideo... These orgs provide the best definition we can get right now due to Facebook relying on others to define it instead of providing clear definitions, and these orgs is an authority to Facebook. If there was ever an attempt at using power while abdicating responsibility that is it. The reason while any action build upon this is bullshit is that these orgs doesn’t relate it to truth and evidence, use their power to slap this label onto anyone that disagree with them and punish people for things they didn’t do.
- joshuamorton 8y ago
  The comment I originally responded to wasn't about white supremacy, but about censoring discourse. ISIS propaganda is as much "discourse" as white nationalist propaganda is, so why didn't you defend ISIS when it was deplatformed years ago? I realize that's kind of a gotcha, so I'll ask a similar question: given that it appears you feel that any deplatforming based on ideology is bad, do you criticize facebook for having deplatformed ISIS? To pre-address your other comment, neither white nationalist propaganda nor ISIS propaganda necessarily includes calls to violence. So the incitement of violence standard applies to neither. If not, what differentiates ISIS from White nationalists? Both are violent groups that wish to kill people different from them. As far as I can tell, one just looks a lot more like me. They're both dangerous, and we shouldn't let either recruit people on facebook. What is the flaw in that line of reasoning? As for that case, it was dismissed earlier this month[1], apparently because the plaintiffs didn't actually have any examples of wrongdoing on the part of companies, and just filed the suit to raise awareness of freedom watch's advocacy[2]. [1]: https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/25495855/FREEDOM_WATCH,_INC_v_GOOGLE_INC_et_al https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/25495855/FREEDOM_WA... [2]: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/district-of-columbia/dcdce/1:2018cv02030/199717/44/ https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/distric...
  - asabjorn 8y ago
    ISIS has a clearly defined religious teaching and a core part of their message is using power as well as violence to push their religious teachings onto others to create a world Islamic kaliphate. On the other hand what is being called alt right and white supremacisrs by mainstream organizations is bullshit: - The economist called Ben Shapiro alt right today https://mobile.twitter.com/TheEconomist/status/1111248348114239488 https://mobile.twitter.com/TheEconomist/status/1111248348114... - The guardian says Jordan Peterson is supposedly alt right https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/science/2018/feb/07/how-dangerous-is-jordan-b-peterson-the-rightwing-professor-who-hit-a-hornets-nest https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/science/201... - Bret Weinstein is supposedly alt right And ridiculously enough Ben Shapiro is a Jew that is the biggest hate target of the alt right, and Jordan Peterson is hated by the alt right such as Richard spencer and Vox Day.
int_19h 8y ago
Well, ISIS is a criminal organization for reasons unrelated to their speech. Once they have become one, it's not unreasonable to make their recruitment videos illegal to distribute to other people, on the basis that doing so amounts to conspiracy to recruit people to commit crimes (but mere possession and watching them should still be legal, because in and of itself that doesn't help them).
- laughinghan 8y ago
  What happened to Heather Heyer was also not speech. What happened to Clementa Pinckney and 8 other African-Americans at the Charleston church shooting was not speech. What happened at the Tree of Life Pittsburgh synagogue shooting was not speech. Shouldn't the same argument apply to the videos that radicalized those murderers?
  - joombaga 8y ago
    No. Why should it?
    - laughinghan 8y ago
      My parent comment had said that conspiracy to recruit people to commit crimes is not an unreasonable basis for making it illegal to distribute recruitment videos for ISIS, because they are a criminal organization due to their violence, not their speech. That implies that that should also not be an unreasonable basis for making it illegal to distribute recruitment videos for violent white nationalist organizations. Does that answer your question?
      - joombaga 8y ago
        Yes, thank you for explaining. I misunderstood the context of your question.
  - int_19h 8y ago
    If you can prove that any particular video did so, sure, I don't see a problem with that.

patentatt 8y ago

Wait, are you claiming they’re not? Lol

asabjorn 8y ago
I do not have to claim that an untruth is such. It is rather those peddling untruth and statements not relating to truth at all (bullshit) that have to confuse everyone else to a sufficient degree to twist their worldviews for their purpose. Unfortunately trying to control others viewpoints hurts yourself as much as anyone else because you are making yourself and what you can learn from others less adaptive to reality.
- patentatt 8y ago
  Is it trying to control others’ viewpoints to say that the KKK is a racist, white supremacist group? I thought we’re all in the marketplace of ideas here. You are literally telling me what to think, which is what your original comment purported to be against.
  - asabjorn 8y ago
    Show me one example of a white nationalist action by Jordan Peterson or Ben Shapiro, and I’ll be right there beside you fighting it. It’s on you to justify your claim. Marketplace of ideas is not about throwing out unfounded claims and with a high likelihood have others treat them like a proposition founded in truth seeking. Rather it will be treated as the bullshit it most likely is unless you supply evidence to the claim.