3 ms·

What if you take out "makes a thousand accounts" and substitute "spreads hate speech" or "calls people racial slurs"? In that case there's no abuse of the syste

What if you take out "makes a thousand accounts" and substitute "spreads hate speech" or "calls people racial slurs"? In that case there's no abuse of the system; only the speech itself is problematic. Would censorship-free platforms have a way to suppress that speech? Should such speech be suppressed? In my opinion, yes, but I'd like to know what you think.

leereeves 7y ago
I haven't seen a platform that actually banned hate speech; they all allow such speech, as long as it's directed at acceptable targets (often white people or Christians). These platform's actions aren't about problematic speech, but about identity politics. But in theory a platform could ban such content impartially. Should they? Should such speech be universally suppressed? I'd have to say no; if it were, who could criticize Wahhabism or Scientology? Now I'd like to know what you think. Should "hate speech" directed at Scientology be suppressed?
- potatoz2 7y ago
  Criticism is not hate speech. Ignoring the unclear phrase "hate speech", banning calls to violence or verbal harassment is very different from banning opinions. Free speech as it is understood in the US applies to the government and the government can and does limit your rights when it comes to violence and time and place (e.g. you can't yell during a session of Congress). It's absolutely morally fine to do so and it does not infringe on freedom of speech in any way.
  - leereeves 7y ago
    Another distracting discussion of criminal behavior. As I said two posts up, we all agree such abuses should be banned. Opposition to censorship and defense of free speech is about censorship based on opinions; free speech advocates aren't fighting for an unlimited right to make threats or yell "Fire!" just for fun. By "ignoring the unclear phrase 'hate speech'" you've ignored the very issue under discussion.

leereeves 7y ago

I haven't seen a platform that actually banned hate speech; they all allow such speech, as long as it's directed at acceptable targets (often white people or Christians). These platform's actions aren't about problematic speech, but about identity politics. But in theory a platform could ban such content impartially. Should they? Should such speech be universally suppressed? I'd have to say no; if it were, who could criticize Wahhabism or Scientology? Now I'd like to know what you think. Should "hate speech" directed at Scientology be suppressed?

potatoz2 7y ago
Criticism is not hate speech. Ignoring the unclear phrase "hate speech", banning calls to violence or verbal harassment is very different from banning opinions. Free speech as it is understood in the US applies to the government and the government can and does limit your rights when it comes to violence and time and place (e.g. you can't yell during a session of Congress). It's absolutely morally fine to do so and it does not infringe on freedom of speech in any way.
- leereeves 7y ago
  Another distracting discussion of criminal behavior. As I said two posts up, we all agree such abuses should be banned. Opposition to censorship and defense of free speech is about censorship based on opinions; free speech advocates aren't fighting for an unlimited right to make threats or yell "Fire!" just for fun. By "ignoring the unclear phrase 'hate speech'" you've ignored the very issue under discussion.