4 ms·

What do you mean by not "actually working"? What is a "conflict-free environment"? What does hate speech have to do with minority populations? Do people within

What do you mean by not "actually working"? What is a "conflict-free environment"? What does hate speech have to do with minority populations? Do people within those populations never say hateful things, even to each other? How do you know they never participated in any forums? This sounds like an awful lot of assumptions.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
foldr 6y ago
>What does hate speech have to do with minority populations? Come on. There's a debate to be had about hate speech and free speech, but it can't even get started on a reasonable footing if some of the participants don't know enough history to be able to answer this question.
- manigandham 6y ago
  Instead of claiming that I lack the history, why don't you explain what the connection is? The definition of minority is just as subjective.
  - foldr 6y ago
    There are a number of well-known historical cases where hate speech targeted at certain minority groups has precipitated genocide (in the worst case) or other forms of violence.
  - umvi 6y ago
    In a nutshell: hate speech causes people to commit suicide. In many peoples' opinion, life is more valuable than pure freedom, therefore we should take away (some) freedom in order to save lives. To be clear, I am not in the camp that believes that, but I try to understand their point of view.
    - manigandham 6y ago
      What does this have to do with minority populations? Speech that incites violence is already a crime.
      - PeterCorless 6y ago
        Minorities are most often the targets of hate speech. Which is why LGTBQ youth are often bullied both IRL and online and they commit suicide. And yes, it is a crime. But this thread is talking about deleting comments; not about law enforcement.
        manigandham 6y ago
        This thread is about hate speech and the ambiguous subjective definitions that have lead to this unending censorship problem. If the core agreement is that it's about hate against a group, then saying "minority" is nothing more than just a shortcut for a certain group and doesn't really add anything to the discussion of what is hate speech.
    - manfredo 6y ago
      > In a nutshell: hate speech causes people to commit suicide. Can you elaborate on how we establish a causal relationship between hate speech and suicide? Let alone specifically hateful comments on YouTube? This doesn't seem corroborated by the suicide rates in the US over time. Rates were just as high (and in fact, higher in some years) in pre-internet days [1]. This claim is made even more questionable when taken in conjunction the previous comments' emphasis on its impact on minorities. Minorities in the US actually have substantially lower suicide rates than Whites [2]. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_in_the_United_States#/media/File:Crude_US_suicide_rate_by_age_1981-2016.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_in_the_United_States#/... 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_in_the_United_States#/media/File:Age_adjusted_US_suicide_rate_by_race_1981-2016.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_in_the_United_States#/...
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
- curiousgeorgio 6y ago
  > it can't even get started on a reasonable footing if some of the participants don't know enough history to be able to answer this question. Perhaps you're conflating hate speech with hateful (and harmful) actions. History is full of examples of the latter, but it's also full of examples of the former where no one was actually hurt, minority groups included. Speech can be a precursor to action, but that doesn't make it a crime in itself (unless you're living in "1984"). What's that old rhyme about "sticks and stones..."?
  - komali2 6y ago
    You acknowledge that speech can be a precursor to action. We have seen direct evidence of this. Following a speech by president trump where he uses coded hate speech, violence against minorities increases. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3102652 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3102652 I'm not arguing we make hate speech illegal, or have thought crime. In fact if it were up to me racists would be even more up front about their deplorable worldview. But I think it's very important that the employees of companies are allowed to exercise their own value systems by denying users of hate speech a platform. This isn't a defense of banning anti-PRC posters though. Calling xi jinping Winnie the Pooh isn't hate speech. Discussing what constitutes hate speech could be another valuable discussion perhaps held elsewhere - I don't agree that a definition is impossible, if that's where you're thinking of going. I don't agree that there's a slippery slope.
    - curiousgeorgio 6y ago
      > But I think it's very important that the employees of companies are allowed to exercise their own value systems by denying users of hate speech a platform. I completely agree. That doesn't mean I have to agree with their value systems or stay silent about my discontent (and I'm not implying that you claimed that either). I'm just tired of hearing the phrase "hate speech" used whenever these discussions happen, as if there were some fundamental human law that we have to protect people from ideas that might offend them - either via regulation or private company policy. Illegal or not, I don't think it helps to talk about "hate speech" in the context of censorship and free speech. It's like having a debate about which curse words are the worst, when really that's missing the point.
- type0 6y ago
  There's a debate to be had about undesirable and uncomfortable speech as well
- cwhiz 6y ago
  There are no laws in the United States against hate speech. It is a made up term that changes with the wind. It used to describe speech that was encouraging violence towards a person or group but then it just became "speech that expresses hate." Nowadays it is mostly used to describe speech from a majority group that a minority group found offensive. What is hate? What is offensive? It's whatever you want it to be! When in doubt, err on the side of freedom and liberty.
  - foldr 6y ago
    Yes, I know there aren't. My comment was just pointing out that there is indeed a connection between hate speech and minority groups.
  - hrktb 6y ago
    > There are no laws in the United States against hate speech An interesting part of this discussion is that Youtube is operating globally. There are a number of countries with the concept of “hate speech” in the law. Saying it doesn’t exist in US law is only a partial answer.
    - cwhiz 6y ago
      This is true. I sometimes forget that people from all over the world are on HN. Good point.
    - dgellow 6y ago
      That’s true. But as a consequence, content can be blocked/deleted per country, it doesn’t have to be global. Otherwise countries with most restrictive laws basically dictate what is allowed or not to the rest of the world (though in practice that’s already in part the case).
  - potatoz2 6y ago
    Every term is a made up term. Hate speech is generally understood as sexist/racist/homophobic speech (in general, discrimination against a minority group with no justification based in reality). It doesn't need to be encouraging violence in the immediate against such a group, that's a subset of hate speech. You may disagree with the definition, but that's what people are talking about. If you want to elevate the discussion, you should avoid pointless semantic arguments IMO.
- jshevek 6y ago
  The problem is that there is not a single, universal correct answer. Answering this question requires that we uncover built-in assumptions, and make them explicit.
derefr 6y ago
> How do you know they never participated in any forums? Large amounts of anecdata of people reporting (e.g. with the first post on a new blog) that they have finally found places where they can freely engage in Internet discourse; and explaining that they hadn’t been engaging in Internet discourse up until then, because any attempt previously was met with people reacting to the cultural “outgroup” signifiers in their message, rather than to the content of the message itself. > What does hate speech have to do with minority populations? Pretty much every country other than the US has an official legal definition of hate speech—but even the US has a definition of hate crime. Both terms are defined in terms of prejudice toward a group. Wikipedia’s definition of “hate crime”, for example: “A hate crime (also known as a bias-motivated crime or bias crime) is a prejudice-motivated crime which occurs when a perpetrator targets a victim because of their membership (or perceived membership) of a certain social group or race.” > Do people within those populations never say hateful things, even to each other? “Hate speech” doesn’t literally mean “hateful speech.” If just say something with hatred, you’re not engaging in hate speech. If you say something with prejudice, intending injury to the victim because of that prejudice, you’re engaging in hate speech. Keeping that in mind, you can certainly commit an act of hate speech (or a hate crime generally) against someone in the same intersection of groups as you. It probably implies that you hate yourself (or don’t consider yourself a part of such group/groups), though.
- manigandham 6y ago
  The discussion is about speech, and speech is not action. Harmful action is already a crime, and any crime can be upgraded to "hate crime" based on the motivation. Group membership doesn't have anything to do with minorities though. You can define groups however you want, so a "minority" is entirely dependent on the context of the situation and just as subjective as the hate speech. So who are you considering minorities and what is this anecdotal data that claims they did not participate in forums? Must every forum be welcoming to everyone? Did no other forum exist? Could they not have created their own forum? If they talked to each other, does that mean a forum exists? And if so, doesn't that mean they are free to engage in their own discourse after all?
  - 6y ago
BeetleB 6y ago
You made a claim here.[1] Then to virtually every response, you ask lots and lots of questions like "What does this mean?" "Why.." "What..." While your questions are fair, it is noteworthy that you haven't clarified or backed up your original claim. As someone reading this thread, I'm a bit surprised people are engaging with you. Personally, I would not engage with someone who makes an unsubstantiated claim, and instead of backing it up keeps trying to poke holes in others' responses. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23223793 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23223793
- manigandham 6y ago
  Which part of that statement are you referring to? The rules are the First Amendment, stated here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23224929 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23224929 The fact that hate speech is subjective is evidenced by my questions which examine just how loose and vague the definitions are. There still is no clear answer on what hate speech is, beyond the 1st Amendment which I think is good enough. If you mean something else, then please state what it is that's unsubstantiated.
  - BeetleB 6y ago
    The part where you say "The solution is..." and then don't substantiate it, but instead focus on knocking down other solutions. That other solutions have problems does not make your one any better. (At least in this comment you are providing a qualifier ("I think..."))
    - manigandham 6y ago
      My solution is a lack of implementing any of the solutions, therefore that's the only focus there is. Freedom (by the 1A) instead of vague, complicated and heavy-handed policies that are currently causing an American company to side with an authoritarian regime. I don't claim that the 1A has no problems, but it does have less problems and that's still an improvement, and it has worked for more than a century for this great nation. What other evidence would you like to see?

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

foldr 6y ago

>What does hate speech have to do with minority populations? Come on. There's a debate to be had about hate speech and free speech, but it can't even get started on a reasonable footing if some of the participants don't know enough history to be able to answer this question.

manigandham 6y ago
Instead of claiming that I lack the history, why don't you explain what the connection is? The definition of minority is just as subjective.
- foldr 6y ago
  There are a number of well-known historical cases where hate speech targeted at certain minority groups has precipitated genocide (in the worst case) or other forms of violence.
- umvi 6y ago
  In a nutshell: hate speech causes people to commit suicide. In many peoples' opinion, life is more valuable than pure freedom, therefore we should take away (some) freedom in order to save lives. To be clear, I am not in the camp that believes that, but I try to understand their point of view.
  - manigandham 6y ago
    What does this have to do with minority populations? Speech that incites violence is already a crime.
    - PeterCorless 6y ago
      Minorities are most often the targets of hate speech. Which is why LGTBQ youth are often bullied both IRL and online and they commit suicide. And yes, it is a crime. But this thread is talking about deleting comments; not about law enforcement.
      - manigandham 6y ago
        This thread is about hate speech and the ambiguous subjective definitions that have lead to this unending censorship problem. If the core agreement is that it's about hate against a group, then saying "minority" is nothing more than just a shortcut for a certain group and doesn't really add anything to the discussion of what is hate speech.
  - manfredo 6y ago
    > In a nutshell: hate speech causes people to commit suicide. Can you elaborate on how we establish a causal relationship between hate speech and suicide? Let alone specifically hateful comments on YouTube? This doesn't seem corroborated by the suicide rates in the US over time. Rates were just as high (and in fact, higher in some years) in pre-internet days [1]. This claim is made even more questionable when taken in conjunction the previous comments' emphasis on its impact on minorities. Minorities in the US actually have substantially lower suicide rates than Whites [2]. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_in_the_United_States#/media/File:Crude_US_suicide_rate_by_age_1981-2016.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_in_the_United_States#/... 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_in_the_United_States#/media/File:Age_adjusted_US_suicide_rate_by_race_1981-2016.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_in_the_United_States#/...
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
curiousgeorgio 6y ago
> it can't even get started on a reasonable footing if some of the participants don't know enough history to be able to answer this question. Perhaps you're conflating hate speech with hateful (and harmful) actions. History is full of examples of the latter, but it's also full of examples of the former where no one was actually hurt, minority groups included. Speech can be a precursor to action, but that doesn't make it a crime in itself (unless you're living in "1984"). What's that old rhyme about "sticks and stones..."?
- komali2 6y ago
  You acknowledge that speech can be a precursor to action. We have seen direct evidence of this. Following a speech by president trump where he uses coded hate speech, violence against minorities increases. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3102652 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3102652 I'm not arguing we make hate speech illegal, or have thought crime. In fact if it were up to me racists would be even more up front about their deplorable worldview. But I think it's very important that the employees of companies are allowed to exercise their own value systems by denying users of hate speech a platform. This isn't a defense of banning anti-PRC posters though. Calling xi jinping Winnie the Pooh isn't hate speech. Discussing what constitutes hate speech could be another valuable discussion perhaps held elsewhere - I don't agree that a definition is impossible, if that's where you're thinking of going. I don't agree that there's a slippery slope.
  - curiousgeorgio 6y ago
    > But I think it's very important that the employees of companies are allowed to exercise their own value systems by denying users of hate speech a platform. I completely agree. That doesn't mean I have to agree with their value systems or stay silent about my discontent (and I'm not implying that you claimed that either). I'm just tired of hearing the phrase "hate speech" used whenever these discussions happen, as if there were some fundamental human law that we have to protect people from ideas that might offend them - either via regulation or private company policy. Illegal or not, I don't think it helps to talk about "hate speech" in the context of censorship and free speech. It's like having a debate about which curse words are the worst, when really that's missing the point.
type0 6y ago
There's a debate to be had about undesirable and uncomfortable speech as well
cwhiz 6y ago
There are no laws in the United States against hate speech. It is a made up term that changes with the wind. It used to describe speech that was encouraging violence towards a person or group but then it just became "speech that expresses hate." Nowadays it is mostly used to describe speech from a majority group that a minority group found offensive. What is hate? What is offensive? It's whatever you want it to be! When in doubt, err on the side of freedom and liberty.
- foldr 6y ago
  Yes, I know there aren't. My comment was just pointing out that there is indeed a connection between hate speech and minority groups.
- hrktb 6y ago
  > There are no laws in the United States against hate speech An interesting part of this discussion is that Youtube is operating globally. There are a number of countries with the concept of “hate speech” in the law. Saying it doesn’t exist in US law is only a partial answer.
  - cwhiz 6y ago
    This is true. I sometimes forget that people from all over the world are on HN. Good point.
  - dgellow 6y ago
    That’s true. But as a consequence, content can be blocked/deleted per country, it doesn’t have to be global. Otherwise countries with most restrictive laws basically dictate what is allowed or not to the rest of the world (though in practice that’s already in part the case).
- potatoz2 6y ago
  Every term is a made up term. Hate speech is generally understood as sexist/racist/homophobic speech (in general, discrimination against a minority group with no justification based in reality). It doesn't need to be encouraging violence in the immediate against such a group, that's a subset of hate speech. You may disagree with the definition, but that's what people are talking about. If you want to elevate the discussion, you should avoid pointless semantic arguments IMO.
jshevek 6y ago
The problem is that there is not a single, universal correct answer. Answering this question requires that we uncover built-in assumptions, and make them explicit.

derefr 6y ago

> How do you know they never participated in any forums? Large amounts of anecdata of people reporting (e.g. with the first post on a new blog) that they have finally found places where they can freely engage in Internet discourse; and explaining that they hadn’t been engaging in Internet discourse up until then, because any attempt previously was met with people reacting to the cultural “outgroup” signifiers in their message, rather than to the content of the message itself. > What does hate speech have to do with minority populations? Pretty much every country other than the US has an official legal definition of hate speech—but even the US has a definition of hate crime. Both terms are defined in terms of prejudice toward a group. Wikipedia’s definition of “hate crime”, for example: “A hate crime (also known as a bias-motivated crime or bias crime) is a prejudice-motivated crime which occurs when a perpetrator targets a victim because of their membership (or perceived membership) of a certain social group or race.” > Do people within those populations never say hateful things, even to each other? “Hate speech” doesn’t literally mean “hateful speech.” If just say something with hatred, you’re not engaging in hate speech. If you say something with prejudice, intending injury to the victim because of that prejudice, you’re engaging in hate speech. Keeping that in mind, you can certainly commit an act of hate speech (or a hate crime generally) against someone in the same intersection of groups as you. It probably implies that you hate yourself (or don’t consider yourself a part of such group/groups), though.

manigandham 6y ago
The discussion is about speech, and speech is not action. Harmful action is already a crime, and any crime can be upgraded to "hate crime" based on the motivation. Group membership doesn't have anything to do with minorities though. You can define groups however you want, so a "minority" is entirely dependent on the context of the situation and just as subjective as the hate speech. So who are you considering minorities and what is this anecdotal data that claims they did not participate in forums? Must every forum be welcoming to everyone? Did no other forum exist? Could they not have created their own forum? If they talked to each other, does that mean a forum exists? And if so, doesn't that mean they are free to engage in their own discourse after all?
- 6y ago

BeetleB 6y ago

You made a claim here.[1] Then to virtually every response, you ask lots and lots of questions like "What does this mean?" "Why.." "What..." While your questions are fair, it is noteworthy that you haven't clarified or backed up your original claim. As someone reading this thread, I'm a bit surprised people are engaging with you. Personally, I would not engage with someone who makes an unsubstantiated claim, and instead of backing it up keeps trying to poke holes in others' responses. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23223793 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23223793

manigandham 6y ago
Which part of that statement are you referring to? The rules are the First Amendment, stated here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23224929 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23224929 The fact that hate speech is subjective is evidenced by my questions which examine just how loose and vague the definitions are. There still is no clear answer on what hate speech is, beyond the 1st Amendment which I think is good enough. If you mean something else, then please state what it is that's unsubstantiated.
- BeetleB 6y ago
  The part where you say "The solution is..." and then don't substantiate it, but instead focus on knocking down other solutions. That other solutions have problems does not make your one any better. (At least in this comment you are providing a qualifier ("I think..."))
  - manigandham 6y ago
    My solution is a lack of implementing any of the solutions, therefore that's the only focus there is. Freedom (by the 1A) instead of vague, complicated and heavy-handed policies that are currently causing an American company to side with an authoritarian regime. I don't claim that the 1A has no problems, but it does have less problems and that's still an improvement, and it has worked for more than a century for this great nation. What other evidence would you like to see?