5 ms·

I wonder how much of it is Facebook being unwilling to be editorial and how much of it is then being unable to moderate a couple of billion users. Either way,

by moksly 6y ago

I wonder how much of it is Facebook being unwilling to be editorial and how much of it is then being unable to moderate a couple of billion users. Either way, they might not get a choice. The EU is going to regulate them more and more. My own country is passing a law to force platforms to remove child pornography within 24 hours of it being reported as an example of where it starts. Won’t be long before we make enabling nazi groups planning hate crimes illegal either.

HeroOfAges 6y ago
No one has a problem with anyone making nazi groups planning hate crimes illegal. My biggest concern is Facebook deciding who is a "nazi" and what constitutes a hate crime. My belief (backed by scientific fact) that biological sex is real and immutable is enough to have me branded as a "nazi". The statement "males are not females" is enough to be considered hate speech. Saying, "males are not females" could be a hate crime.
- sneak 6y ago
  As usual, context is everything in communication. "Males are not females" may be accurate when referring to biological sex, but in the context it is most commonly used (as harassment and as a neoconservative tribal signifier) it is referring to gender, and is roughly equivalent to saying "the gender you have now should match the gender you were assigned at birth, or your gender identity is illegitimate". It's similar to saying "all lives matter". Of course they do, but the context in which its said indicates that it's an opposition to the explicit statement about black lives mattering, a de-focusing and dismissal. "All lives matter" or "males are not females" are not incorrect statements, but in the vast majority of the times they are used on the internet, they are used to express hatred of a group and the active dismissal of that group's efforts to achieve equal human rights. The context in which they are used makes them hateful. Hiding behind the "but it's scientific fact!" is simply a deflection from the fact that it is an expression of hate in the context in which it is used. I shouldn't have to explain this, honestly. Please stop acting like a jerk to people online.
  - HeroOfAges 6y ago
    Since when does the truth need context? If I tweet "males are not females" on Twitter with no context, they will ban my account. Also, if I want to say "the gender you have now should match the gender you were assigned at birth, or your gender identity is illegitimate", that's precisely what I'll say, but I tend to speak directly. Have you considered you might be projecting if you can read the literal words "males are not females" and conclude a person intends to say, "the gender you have now should match the gender you were assigned at birth, or your gender identity is illegitimate"? That seems like quite a leap.
    - perl4ever 6y ago
      I'd say the truth value of any possible statement is entirely derived from context. Any possible statement could appear on a sign from nowhere in an infinite empty universe purely out of quantum fluctuations, but it would have no meaning without the context of a universe like ours. Every statement has a context in which it expresses the truth, and many others in which it is false. And people get into conflicts about the meta-issue of whose context is right. Mach's principle is kind of an analogy I'm thinking of.

by moksly 6y ago

HeroOfAges 6y ago

No one has a problem with anyone making nazi groups planning hate crimes illegal. My biggest concern is Facebook deciding who is a "nazi" and what constitutes a hate crime. My belief (backed by scientific fact) that biological sex is real and immutable is enough to have me branded as a "nazi". The statement "males are not females" is enough to be considered hate speech. Saying, "males are not females" could be a hate crime.

sneak 6y ago
As usual, context is everything in communication. "Males are not females" may be accurate when referring to biological sex, but in the context it is most commonly used (as harassment and as a neoconservative tribal signifier) it is referring to gender, and is roughly equivalent to saying "the gender you have now should match the gender you were assigned at birth, or your gender identity is illegitimate". It's similar to saying "all lives matter". Of course they do, but the context in which its said indicates that it's an opposition to the explicit statement about black lives mattering, a de-focusing and dismissal. "All lives matter" or "males are not females" are not incorrect statements, but in the vast majority of the times they are used on the internet, they are used to express hatred of a group and the active dismissal of that group's efforts to achieve equal human rights. The context in which they are used makes them hateful. Hiding behind the "but it's scientific fact!" is simply a deflection from the fact that it is an expression of hate in the context in which it is used. I shouldn't have to explain this, honestly. Please stop acting like a jerk to people online.
- HeroOfAges 6y ago
  Since when does the truth need context? If I tweet "males are not females" on Twitter with no context, they will ban my account. Also, if I want to say "the gender you have now should match the gender you were assigned at birth, or your gender identity is illegitimate", that's precisely what I'll say, but I tend to speak directly. Have you considered you might be projecting if you can read the literal words "males are not females" and conclude a person intends to say, "the gender you have now should match the gender you were assigned at birth, or your gender identity is illegitimate"? That seems like quite a leap.
  - perl4ever 6y ago
    I'd say the truth value of any possible statement is entirely derived from context. Any possible statement could appear on a sign from nowhere in an infinite empty universe purely out of quantum fluctuations, but it would have no meaning without the context of a universe like ours. Every statement has a context in which it expresses the truth, and many others in which it is false. And people get into conflicts about the meta-issue of whose context is right. Mach's principle is kind of an analogy I'm thinking of.