9 ms·
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
by 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 agofree speech in US does actually cover incitement to violence. in Europe it doesn't
- asabjorn 8y agoIncitement 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 agoRegarding 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 agoYou 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 agoADL 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.
- noobermin 8y agoYou were given a definition of white supremacy below and elsewhere so I won't repeat others. It just seems like under this sense of freedom of speech we shouldn't censor radical Islamism or white supremacy if we can't ban speech merely due to ideology leading to violence. That is a consistent and fair sense of morality I think.
- asabjorn 8y agoThat is a bit extreme from my worldview and not necessary to be more balanced. I am arguing that facebooks process is biased, and facebooks authoritative sources are unaccountable to fix their own mistakes and ideologically biased in a way that is not evidence based. A better process with an adversarial appeal with authoritative viewpoint opponents would have compensated for some of this. To figure out if we disagree where it matters the most, do you think it is justified to ban or suppress content on social media from people that SPLC/ADL view as part of the radicalization process? Eg jordan Peterson, Ben Shapiro and Dave Rubin.