4 ms·

Thank you for this clarification. But if it has not been increasingly subjective, but harder to detect, then what you are implying, if I do not distord your po

Thank you for this clarification. But if it has not been increasingly subjective, but harder to detect, then what you are implying, if I do not distord your point of view, is that it is okay to be stricter in policing to catch stop these sophisticated bigots. But, doesn't being more strict mean that you'll also have more false negatives, that is people that always had "heretic" talk from the point of view of general society, without necessarily being a bigot, but are now being identified as such because the criteria are paint with a broader brush? And then, wouldn't you agree that this is a restriction of free speech, that people on the other side are arguing to be unacceptable?

josefresco 6y ago
> is that it is okay to be stricter in policing to catch stop these sophisticated bigots. Yes, although of course that depends on your definition of "policing" and by whom (state vs private) Are we still talking about Facebook? > But, doesn't being more strict mean that you'll also have more false negatives Yes (in either case above). What you're asking about is the margins, and of course we need oversight to prevent abuse both in the private and public sector. > And then, wouldn't you agree that this is a restriction of free speech, that people on the other side are arguing to be unacceptable? Again, not sure if we're still talking FB. I'm going to bow out now, thank you for the debate.