6 ms·

And who gets to decide what's 'hate speech'? Censorship is basically the same as propaganda - changing the narrative to influence opinions. One day obvious ha

And who gets to decide what's 'hate speech'? Censorship is basically the same as propaganda - changing the narrative to influence opinions. One day obvious hate speech is banned, the next day any dissenting opinions are 'hate speech'.

downerending 7y ago
Ideally, I do. The tools that are needed here would provide the ability for each of us to screen out whatever we don't care to see, whether it be racist speech or just people that won't shut up about crossfit. And since it's just me controlling my filter, I could easily adjust the level of filtering. Sometimes it's useful to know what people outside my Overton Window are talking about.
- umvi 7y ago
  Won't people just use this to build impenetrable bubbles around themselves? You say you'll use it to peek outside of your bubble, but I suspect most people would use it to reinforce their bubbles by filtering any speech that is inconvenient or uncomfortable.
  - DaiPlusPlus 7y ago
    It already exists on reddit. I don't think "T_D" has any kind of significant readership from well-grounded people with genuine curiosity of what the MAGA camp is currently discussing. Instead, we need to end isolationism and the siloing of audiences. We should be forced to interact with people we have ideological disagreements with so, at the very least, we don't dehumanize them (note that I'm not calling for tolerance of intolerance, and I believe voices of division should be deplatformed).
    - ratsmack 7y ago
      The difference with Reddit is that it's not the general audience that is isolating T_D, It's the Reddit admins. It should be left up to the individual readers as to what they want to see in their feed, not the admins.
      - weaksauce 7y ago
        and they certainly can. they just can't export their hate and vitriol to people not logged in and subscribed or just browsing all.
      - DaiPlusPlus 7y ago
        You can - Reddit's users can all subscribe to a other subreddits and can unsubscribe from the default subreddits.
        ratsmack 7y ago
        Then why do they utilize admins and mods to delete so many submissions and comments that fall outside some predetermined narrative?
  - ratsmack 7y ago
    People should be able to choose what they want to see, but they shouldn't determine what others wish to see in their feed.
    - big_chungus 7y ago
      Many platforms use the feedback of other users to rank and deliver content. Views and ratings on you tube influence recommendations, up mods on reddit influence what hits the front page of a sub reddit or the site over all, up mods on HN influence what hits the front page. Many sites on the internet are premised on users consciously allowing others to determine what they see.
  - scotty79 7y ago
    People don't change their mind when they are confronted with opposing views. They double down and get more entrenched when that happens. So letting people live in their bubbles might soften their conviction and keep them open to opposing ideas when they finally encounter them.
- DaiPlusPlus 7y ago
  That doesn't help the situation: people who already have extremist opinions would then simply filter-out the mainstream and/or opposition content and be content with their own echo-chamber, which would only further their extremism and end with nasty results. > Sometimes it's useful to know what people outside my Overton Window are talking about. People don't have a personal Overton window: The Overton window describe's society's range of acceptable opinions. And I guarantee that the vast majority of extremists - or even people already on the fringes - are not interested in reading or hearing about the opposition.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - ratsmack 7y ago
    >... extremist opinions ... Who determines what is an "extremist opinion"?
    - DaiPlusPlus 7y ago
      That's (tautologically, I admit) defined implicitly by my answer. I define it (for the purposes of this conversation) as an opinion that its holders buy into so much that they outright refuse to acknowledge anything in opposition. After-all, if you believe you've bought-in to "the truth" (and lack critical-thinking skills, and/or have been propagandized to this point anyway) then it has to be an extreme position (by whatever the standards of the contemporary Overton window apply) because otherwise it wouldn't be necessary to propagandize or rile similarly-minded people against your opposition.
  - downerending 7y ago
    If "the situation" means people thinking whatever they like, then no, this doesn't "help". Personally I'm against telling people what to think, and in any case, I'm convinced that this is a wholly ineffective approach to changing hearts and minds.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
- im3w1l 7y ago
  One thing I worry about with that solution is that it seems that the elite is more and more detached from the common man. They no longer know his concerns, fears or opinions. Let's say some leader decides to build a thousand new coal power plants, and the people want him lynched for destroying the climate. Filtering that hatred out is not a clear positive.
  - beardedetim 7y ago
    Let them eat cake!
  - kick 7y ago
    What's happened historically is that people will go up to the person, in person, and yell at them. Ideally, this chases them out of where they are. For example: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/ted-cruz-wife-chased-out-d-c-restaurant-anti-kavanaugh-n912821 https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/ted-cruz-wife... This is a much better approach than going online and screaming vulgarity, because this prevents them from enjoying their actual life. If your opponent is genuinely doing something wrong, you want to make them miserable. You don't want to Be Mad Online at them.
    - ratsmack 7y ago
      What you show there is what's referred to as harassment. It is generally against the law.
      - kick 7y ago
        Speech is speech, and in America, it's constitutionally-protected. If they touched him, sure, but they didn't.
        big_chungus 7y ago
        Enough people yelling persistently at someone could be perceived as threatening. Might you not feel threatened by people surrounding you, yelling at you, and refusing to leave? Getting that close crosses from protesting to intimidating. Notice that Sen. and Mrs. Cruz were having difficulty getting through the protesters to leave.
- bmarquez 7y ago
  100% agreed. Yes there are those who will say that they're creating their own thought bubble, but I'd argue it's already happening especially with regards to mainstream politics. Let me as the user decide for myself (and not for anyone else). Try posting one-sided political content on Facebook and watch your friends on the opposing side unfollow...they're not obliged to listen to your speech. Or on Reddit look at /r/politics vs /r/The_Donald (left vs right echo chambers).
  - um_ya 7y ago
    The difference between r/politics and r/the_donald, is that one is determined "acceptable" and propagated to everyone, while the other is quarantined and impossible to find. I never understood the culture of censoring your opponents, it just seems intellectually weak.
dwnvoted2hell 7y ago
I've noticed that anytime people generally say X is bad, it could basically qualify as hate speech with little detriment to society. However, if they can say what they don't like about X, then that is a quantifiable gripe and not specific to hate speech.
3fe9a03ccd14ca5 7y ago
We always must ask this question: WHO ARE THE DECIDERS? I refuse to believe the challenges we face now are unique to us. We made the decision as a country not to trade comfort for liberty and we must not go back on that.
- zionic 7y ago
  It's hard defending freedom, as despots will always point to the worst known abuses of said freedom as justification for removing it. I think a bigger/better question is: "How do we fix people, such that a majority of the population no longer falls for these kinds of tactics?" [Edit] Some examples: Support Free Speech? But you're giving a platform to hate! Support E2E Encryption? But you're helping pedos evade justice! Support body autonomy? But you're helping anti-vaxers! Etc etc...
- umvi 7y ago
  Here's the problem. Opponents won't frame it as "comfort" but rather as "death". People die because we have liberty. If we take some of that liberty away (but not all of it), less people would die. Less people dying is a good thing, right? - Take away some or all gun liberty. Less people will die in mass shootings, suicides, etc. - Take away some or all speech liberty. Less people will die by suicide (esp. LGBTQ youth targeted by hate speech) - Take away some or all liberty to purchase choking hazards such as Kinder Eggs and less children will die. Basically, for every cause of death or public health issue, you can almost always limit liberty (in the form of laws, regulations, etc.) to mitigate the issue. Until we as a people decide liberty is worth a few deaths, it'll be a (slow, because democracy is inefficient) race to the bottom.
  - leftyted 7y ago
    On some level I agree with you but you omit the fact that liberty must be limited. What we're arguing about is how much it should be limited.
  - big_chungus 7y ago
    We saw a shift in public perception of this trade-off post-9/11. Take airport security, for instance. It is a disgustingly-invasive policy which is security theater more than anything else, and we have sacrificed significant freedom to maintain this charade. Same with things like the "patriot" act. Every time I hear people demanding that politicians "do something", I am bothered by the sacrifice of freedom; people turn to the government for answers.
maire 7y ago
Part of the problem is that social media is both personal interaction and a form of publication. If you view social media as personal interaction then ask yourself how you would react to statements in real life. You would shut someone down if they threatened you or people you care about. I have seen people go so far as to threaten people's lives, but more veiled threats are also in the social space. Call it censorship if you will. The definition of censorship I will leave to pundits. The pundits have decided to define social media as publication only.
- ailideex 7y ago
  > You would shut someone down if they threatened you or people you care about. I guess there is some ambiguity in this but large classes of threats are illegal: https://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/crime-penalties/federal/Criminal-Threats.htm https://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/crime-penalties/federa... > A criminal threat involves one person threatening someone else with physical harm. The threat must be communicated in some way, though it doesn't necessarily have to be verbal. A person can make a threat through email, text message, or even through non-verbal body language such as gestures or movements. However, some states require written or verbal threats, and in those states gestures are not enough. I'm not aware of anybody asking that this should be legal either or of anybody defending this. So at least in this regard I can assure you people defending free speech for the most part (>99%) are not trying to change the law to make criminal threats non criminal.
- zentiggr 7y ago
  Perhaps compare this to snail mail: if you recognize the piece of mail as coming from a known source of offensive material, you can choose to open it, discard it, or respond, as you see fit. This sort of filter just puts an envelope on material online so that choice can be restored/ported from earlier media behavior.
throwaway_tech 7y ago
>And who gets to decide what's 'hate speech'? Typically the democratically elected legislature defines hate speech through legislation and the penalties, if any. The executive branch will generally seek enforcement of the legislatures laws through the courts. Then the last check/balance on power comes by way of the judiciary which may or may not include finders of fact consisting of a jury made up of the very members of the electorate coming full circle. >Censorship is basically the same as propaganda - changing the narrative to influence opinions. By that measure almost all communication is propaganda, for example, was you comment intended to control the narrative to influence opinions (i.e. censorship is the same as propaganda)? And are you suggesting the censors be censored?
- big_chungus 7y ago
  > Typically the democratically elected legislature defines hate speech through legislation and the penalties, if any. The executive branch will generally seek enforcement of the legislatures laws through the courts. Then the last check/balance on power comes by way of the judiciary which may or may not include finders of fact consisting of a jury made up of the very members of the electorate coming full circle. So tyranny of the majority is okay? There are many nations where the majority chooses governments which violate the rights of the minority. The obvious caveat to your proposal is that you must implicitly trust the government, not just today but in the future. This in spite of the fact that next election cycle the majority can pick someone bad.
  - throwaway_tech 7y ago
    >So tyranny of the majority is okay? 1) I never said a US-centric system of laws was "okay", I just answered the question of who defines hate speech; 2) it seems to be bad-faith to call such a system as a tyranny of the majority...especially when the laws is question specifically protect minority classes of people. Was the Obama administration a tyranny of the majority? How about Trump? Because Trump actually lost the popular vote, does that make him a tyranny of the minority? >The obvious caveat to your proposal is that you must implicitly trust the government, not just today but in the future. I must have missed where I said you must implicitly trust the government and their laws now and forever in the future...In fact, it seems the obvious caveat to the US system of government is that there are 3 branches all providing checks and balances on the others...and implicit in our government is the idea that if you don't like the government or their laws, you have the freedom to organize to elect new legislators who can repeal the laws. Not to mention the idea of the voters themselves (whether from the majority or minority) serve as jurors that make findings of fact over these matters. >This in spite of the fact that next election cycle the majority can pick someone bad. Do you have evidence of hate speech protecting the majority class, because again traditionally hate speech laws tends to protect the minority classes of people.
collsni 7y ago
Like classifying "hack tools" as malware to get users to stop using them.
DyslexicAtheist 7y ago
it's a terrible idea based on the belief that "AI" can solve anything. "all we need is better AI", as Zuck tried to convince Congress of. It's not a technical problem[1], and any technical solutions are bound to be riddled with trust issues. [1] imo it's a sociological problem. we should be connecting irl and not be online which just leads to isolated people ending up alienated and indoctrinated with hate. instead of only "hunting down" hate speech we need to address the fact that people join such groups in the first place. There are some really hard questions when it comes to dealing with white-power groups: https://twitter.com/EmilyGorcenski/status/1209985729025204224 https://twitter.com/EmilyGorcenski/status/120998572902520422... and unless we can find a solution to them people will continue getting clicks for snake-oil solutions such as "better AI" (AI really just stands as an excuse to continue the current revenue model of information extraction and surveillance capitalism)

downerending 7y ago

Ideally, I do. The tools that are needed here would provide the ability for each of us to screen out whatever we don't care to see, whether it be racist speech or just people that won't shut up about crossfit. And since it's just me controlling my filter, I could easily adjust the level of filtering. Sometimes it's useful to know what people outside my Overton Window are talking about.

umvi 7y ago
Won't people just use this to build impenetrable bubbles around themselves? You say you'll use it to peek outside of your bubble, but I suspect most people would use it to reinforce their bubbles by filtering any speech that is inconvenient or uncomfortable.
- DaiPlusPlus 7y ago
  It already exists on reddit. I don't think "T_D" has any kind of significant readership from well-grounded people with genuine curiosity of what the MAGA camp is currently discussing. Instead, we need to end isolationism and the siloing of audiences. We should be forced to interact with people we have ideological disagreements with so, at the very least, we don't dehumanize them (note that I'm not calling for tolerance of intolerance, and I believe voices of division should be deplatformed).
  - ratsmack 7y ago
    The difference with Reddit is that it's not the general audience that is isolating T_D, It's the Reddit admins. It should be left up to the individual readers as to what they want to see in their feed, not the admins.
    - weaksauce 7y ago
      and they certainly can. they just can't export their hate and vitriol to people not logged in and subscribed or just browsing all.
    - DaiPlusPlus 7y ago
      You can - Reddit's users can all subscribe to a other subreddits and can unsubscribe from the default subreddits.
      - ratsmack 7y ago
        Then why do they utilize admins and mods to delete so many submissions and comments that fall outside some predetermined narrative?
- ratsmack 7y ago
  People should be able to choose what they want to see, but they shouldn't determine what others wish to see in their feed.
  - big_chungus 7y ago
    Many platforms use the feedback of other users to rank and deliver content. Views and ratings on you tube influence recommendations, up mods on reddit influence what hits the front page of a sub reddit or the site over all, up mods on HN influence what hits the front page. Many sites on the internet are premised on users consciously allowing others to determine what they see.
- scotty79 7y ago
  People don't change their mind when they are confronted with opposing views. They double down and get more entrenched when that happens. So letting people live in their bubbles might soften their conviction and keep them open to opposing ideas when they finally encounter them.
DaiPlusPlus 7y ago
That doesn't help the situation: people who already have extremist opinions would then simply filter-out the mainstream and/or opposition content and be content with their own echo-chamber, which would only further their extremism and end with nasty results. > Sometimes it's useful to know what people outside my Overton Window are talking about. People don't have a personal Overton window: The Overton window describe's society's range of acceptable opinions. And I guarantee that the vast majority of extremists - or even people already on the fringes - are not interested in reading or hearing about the opposition.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- ratsmack 7y ago
  >... extremist opinions ... Who determines what is an "extremist opinion"?
  - DaiPlusPlus 7y ago
    That's (tautologically, I admit) defined implicitly by my answer. I define it (for the purposes of this conversation) as an opinion that its holders buy into so much that they outright refuse to acknowledge anything in opposition. After-all, if you believe you've bought-in to "the truth" (and lack critical-thinking skills, and/or have been propagandized to this point anyway) then it has to be an extreme position (by whatever the standards of the contemporary Overton window apply) because otherwise it wouldn't be necessary to propagandize or rile similarly-minded people against your opposition.
- downerending 7y ago
  If "the situation" means people thinking whatever they like, then no, this doesn't "help". Personally I'm against telling people what to think, and in any case, I'm convinced that this is a wholly ineffective approach to changing hearts and minds.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
im3w1l 7y ago
One thing I worry about with that solution is that it seems that the elite is more and more detached from the common man. They no longer know his concerns, fears or opinions. Let's say some leader decides to build a thousand new coal power plants, and the people want him lynched for destroying the climate. Filtering that hatred out is not a clear positive.
- beardedetim 7y ago
  Let them eat cake!
- kick 7y ago
  What's happened historically is that people will go up to the person, in person, and yell at them. Ideally, this chases them out of where they are. For example: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/ted-cruz-wife-chased-out-d-c-restaurant-anti-kavanaugh-n912821 https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/ted-cruz-wife... This is a much better approach than going online and screaming vulgarity, because this prevents them from enjoying their actual life. If your opponent is genuinely doing something wrong, you want to make them miserable. You don't want to Be Mad Online at them.
  - ratsmack 7y ago
    What you show there is what's referred to as harassment. It is generally against the law.
    - kick 7y ago
      Speech is speech, and in America, it's constitutionally-protected. If they touched him, sure, but they didn't.
      - big_chungus 7y ago
        Enough people yelling persistently at someone could be perceived as threatening. Might you not feel threatened by people surrounding you, yelling at you, and refusing to leave? Getting that close crosses from protesting to intimidating. Notice that Sen. and Mrs. Cruz were having difficulty getting through the protesters to leave.
bmarquez 7y ago
100% agreed. Yes there are those who will say that they're creating their own thought bubble, but I'd argue it's already happening especially with regards to mainstream politics. Let me as the user decide for myself (and not for anyone else). Try posting one-sided political content on Facebook and watch your friends on the opposing side unfollow...they're not obliged to listen to your speech. Or on Reddit look at /r/politics vs /r/The_Donald (left vs right echo chambers).
- um_ya 7y ago
  The difference between r/politics and r/the_donald, is that one is determined "acceptable" and propagated to everyone, while the other is quarantined and impossible to find. I never understood the culture of censoring your opponents, it just seems intellectually weak.

dwnvoted2hell 7y ago

I've noticed that anytime people generally say X is bad, it could basically qualify as hate speech with little detriment to society. However, if they can say what they don't like about X, then that is a quantifiable gripe and not specific to hate speech.

3fe9a03ccd14ca5 7y ago

We always must ask this question: WHO ARE THE DECIDERS? I refuse to believe the challenges we face now are unique to us. We made the decision as a country not to trade comfort for liberty and we must not go back on that.

zionic 7y ago
It's hard defending freedom, as despots will always point to the worst known abuses of said freedom as justification for removing it. I think a bigger/better question is: "How do we fix people, such that a majority of the population no longer falls for these kinds of tactics?" [Edit] Some examples: Support Free Speech? But you're giving a platform to hate! Support E2E Encryption? But you're helping pedos evade justice! Support body autonomy? But you're helping anti-vaxers! Etc etc...
umvi 7y ago
Here's the problem. Opponents won't frame it as "comfort" but rather as "death". People die because we have liberty. If we take some of that liberty away (but not all of it), less people would die. Less people dying is a good thing, right? - Take away some or all gun liberty. Less people will die in mass shootings, suicides, etc. - Take away some or all speech liberty. Less people will die by suicide (esp. LGBTQ youth targeted by hate speech) - Take away some or all liberty to purchase choking hazards such as Kinder Eggs and less children will die. Basically, for every cause of death or public health issue, you can almost always limit liberty (in the form of laws, regulations, etc.) to mitigate the issue. Until we as a people decide liberty is worth a few deaths, it'll be a (slow, because democracy is inefficient) race to the bottom.
- leftyted 7y ago
  On some level I agree with you but you omit the fact that liberty must be limited. What we're arguing about is how much it should be limited.
- big_chungus 7y ago
  We saw a shift in public perception of this trade-off post-9/11. Take airport security, for instance. It is a disgustingly-invasive policy which is security theater more than anything else, and we have sacrificed significant freedom to maintain this charade. Same with things like the "patriot" act. Every time I hear people demanding that politicians "do something", I am bothered by the sacrifice of freedom; people turn to the government for answers.

maire 7y ago

Part of the problem is that social media is both personal interaction and a form of publication. If you view social media as personal interaction then ask yourself how you would react to statements in real life. You would shut someone down if they threatened you or people you care about. I have seen people go so far as to threaten people's lives, but more veiled threats are also in the social space. Call it censorship if you will. The definition of censorship I will leave to pundits. The pundits have decided to define social media as publication only.

ailideex 7y ago
> You would shut someone down if they threatened you or people you care about. I guess there is some ambiguity in this but large classes of threats are illegal: https://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/crime-penalties/federal/Criminal-Threats.htm https://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/crime-penalties/federa... > A criminal threat involves one person threatening someone else with physical harm. The threat must be communicated in some way, though it doesn't necessarily have to be verbal. A person can make a threat through email, text message, or even through non-verbal body language such as gestures or movements. However, some states require written or verbal threats, and in those states gestures are not enough. I'm not aware of anybody asking that this should be legal either or of anybody defending this. So at least in this regard I can assure you people defending free speech for the most part (>99%) are not trying to change the law to make criminal threats non criminal.
zentiggr 7y ago
Perhaps compare this to snail mail: if you recognize the piece of mail as coming from a known source of offensive material, you can choose to open it, discard it, or respond, as you see fit. This sort of filter just puts an envelope on material online so that choice can be restored/ported from earlier media behavior.

throwaway_tech 7y ago

>And who gets to decide what's 'hate speech'? Typically the democratically elected legislature defines hate speech through legislation and the penalties, if any. The executive branch will generally seek enforcement of the legislatures laws through the courts. Then the last check/balance on power comes by way of the judiciary which may or may not include finders of fact consisting of a jury made up of the very members of the electorate coming full circle. >Censorship is basically the same as propaganda - changing the narrative to influence opinions. By that measure almost all communication is propaganda, for example, was you comment intended to control the narrative to influence opinions (i.e. censorship is the same as propaganda)? And are you suggesting the censors be censored?

big_chungus 7y ago
> Typically the democratically elected legislature defines hate speech through legislation and the penalties, if any. The executive branch will generally seek enforcement of the legislatures laws through the courts. Then the last check/balance on power comes by way of the judiciary which may or may not include finders of fact consisting of a jury made up of the very members of the electorate coming full circle. So tyranny of the majority is okay? There are many nations where the majority chooses governments which violate the rights of the minority. The obvious caveat to your proposal is that you must implicitly trust the government, not just today but in the future. This in spite of the fact that next election cycle the majority can pick someone bad.
- throwaway_tech 7y ago
  >So tyranny of the majority is okay? 1) I never said a US-centric system of laws was "okay", I just answered the question of who defines hate speech; 2) it seems to be bad-faith to call such a system as a tyranny of the majority...especially when the laws is question specifically protect minority classes of people. Was the Obama administration a tyranny of the majority? How about Trump? Because Trump actually lost the popular vote, does that make him a tyranny of the minority? >The obvious caveat to your proposal is that you must implicitly trust the government, not just today but in the future. I must have missed where I said you must implicitly trust the government and their laws now and forever in the future...In fact, it seems the obvious caveat to the US system of government is that there are 3 branches all providing checks and balances on the others...and implicit in our government is the idea that if you don't like the government or their laws, you have the freedom to organize to elect new legislators who can repeal the laws. Not to mention the idea of the voters themselves (whether from the majority or minority) serve as jurors that make findings of fact over these matters. >This in spite of the fact that next election cycle the majority can pick someone bad. Do you have evidence of hate speech protecting the majority class, because again traditionally hate speech laws tends to protect the minority classes of people.

collsni 7y ago

Like classifying "hack tools" as malware to get users to stop using them.

DyslexicAtheist 7y ago

it's a terrible idea based on the belief that "AI" can solve anything. "all we need is better AI", as Zuck tried to convince Congress of. It's not a technical problem[1], and any technical solutions are bound to be riddled with trust issues. [1] imo it's a sociological problem. we should be connecting irl and not be online which just leads to isolated people ending up alienated and indoctrinated with hate. instead of only "hunting down" hate speech we need to address the fact that people join such groups in the first place. There are some really hard questions when it comes to dealing with white-power groups: https://twitter.com/EmilyGorcenski/status/1209985729025204224 https://twitter.com/EmilyGorcenski/status/120998572902520422... and unless we can find a solution to them people will continue getting clicks for snake-oil solutions such as "better AI" (AI really just stands as an excuse to continue the current revenue model of information extraction and surveillance capitalism)