3 ms·

There is nothing wrong with allowing unpleasant posts to be accompanied by a note. The issue is that too many people take hate speech masquerading as "truth" wi

There is nothing wrong with allowing unpleasant posts to be accompanied by a note. The issue is that too many people take hate speech masquerading as "truth" with zero context as reality, and act accordingly. That is what is not acceptable. If I tell your neighbor that you are molesting his daughter, and he kills you, will your family find that acceptable? If a politician tells your neighbor that you are molesting his daughter, and he kills you, will your family find that acceptable? If that word is flagged maybe you'd still be alive because the neighbor would have some doubt as to your guilt.

Avicebron 6y ago
That's a really extreme example, it doesn't seem to track with hate speech because in that scenario said poster is looking to not get flagged, in you scenario this operation would result in death and subsequent blow back on which is not what the poster would then want if they tried to post hate speech. By this logic the poster wants the flag because that limits any consequence on them not the other way around. How about this, two people post the same molesting accusation. One of them has a hat that you don't like so you flag his post. The other one doesn't have that hat so they get a pass on the flag. Following what I believe to be a more clear assessment of the situation, the non-flagged other flavor of hate speech survives to do damage, the hate speech of the hat guy doesn't. This bends the narrative away from the guy with the hat and warps it around to the guy you like. Why isn't this a problem?