3 ms·

Either hate speech is a thing that causes real world harm and shouldn't be repeated, or the benefits allowing that speech outweigh the harm it does. People can

Either hate speech is a thing that causes real world harm and shouldn't be repeated, or the benefits allowing that speech outweigh the harm it does. People can belong to either school of thought. But if you agree with the first statement, then you should also agree that Reuters publishing hate speech is just as harmful as Facebook publishing it. If you agree with the second, you probably don't think Facebook should take the content down. If that's what you think go ahead, but it's not a tiny peeve - it's a major difference of opinion. I'm not taking a stance either way, just pointing out the options - either both block the speech or neither does. The only illogical thing would be agreeing with Facebook's decision to take the content down but disagreeing with Reuters' decision to not repeat the same content. I can't see how that would work.

_-___________-_ 6y ago
Before you can discuss any of that, you need to define "hate speech", and that's often where the problems begin.
- paulie_a 6y ago
  There are both sides to everything. Just ask the president of the United States of America. Just call the protesters losers and be done with it.
- nindalf 6y ago
  The thrust of my argument isn't the validity of the Brazil court's or Facebook's judgement, it's whether Reuters should follow suit. So any definition of hate speech is fine, as long as Facebook and Reuters take broadly similar ones. For argument's sake, let's take Facebook's definition > We define hate speech as a direct attack on people based on what we call protected characteristics – race, ethnicity, national origin, religious affiliation, sexual orientation, caste, sex, gender, gender identity and serious disease or disability. We protect against attacks on the basis of age when age is paired with another protected characteristic, and also provide certain protections for immigration status. We define "attack" as violent or dehumanising speech, statements of inferiority, or calls for exclusion or segregation. https://www.facebook.com/communitystandards/hate_speech https://www.facebook.com/communitystandards/hate_speech
baby-yoda 6y ago
what is hate speech?
- nindalf 6y ago
  In the context of this conversation, we could use Facebook's definition. > We define hate speech as a direct attack on people based on what we call protected characteristics – race, ethnicity, national origin, religious affiliation, sexual orientation, caste, sex, gender, gender identity and serious disease or disability. We protect against attacks on the basis of age when age is paired with another protected characteristic, and also provide certain protections for immigration status. We define "attack" as violent or dehumanising speech, statements of inferiority, or calls for exclusion or segregation. https://www.facebook.com/communitystandards/hate_speech https://www.facebook.com/communitystandards/hate_speech
  - baby-yoda 6y ago
    Didn’t realize they had a formal definition, thank you for linking that. Helps to formalize thoughts when we are working from the same definition.
0xy 6y ago
I totally disagree, and if we're talking about slurs then they can have word censorship applied (the same way media will report on the use of the N-word with * to obscure most of it). Sorry, but if you have the power to ruin people's lives over a standard you cannot clearly define and after the fact won't even provide their speech as context for your decision, then that's just straight political censorship. I also draw a huge distinction between publishers repeating the words of others and people actually saying those things. By your standards, the publisher of Mein Kampf reprints is just as guilty as Hitler himself -- even though they had nothing to do with writing it.

_-___________-_ 6y ago

Before you can discuss any of that, you need to define "hate speech", and that's often where the problems begin.

paulie_a 6y ago
There are both sides to everything. Just ask the president of the United States of America. Just call the protesters losers and be done with it.
nindalf 6y ago
The thrust of my argument isn't the validity of the Brazil court's or Facebook's judgement, it's whether Reuters should follow suit. So any definition of hate speech is fine, as long as Facebook and Reuters take broadly similar ones. For argument's sake, let's take Facebook's definition > We define hate speech as a direct attack on people based on what we call protected characteristics – race, ethnicity, national origin, religious affiliation, sexual orientation, caste, sex, gender, gender identity and serious disease or disability. We protect against attacks on the basis of age when age is paired with another protected characteristic, and also provide certain protections for immigration status. We define "attack" as violent or dehumanising speech, statements of inferiority, or calls for exclusion or segregation. https://www.facebook.com/communitystandards/hate_speech https://www.facebook.com/communitystandards/hate_speech

baby-yoda 6y ago

what is hate speech?

nindalf 6y ago
In the context of this conversation, we could use Facebook's definition. > We define hate speech as a direct attack on people based on what we call protected characteristics – race, ethnicity, national origin, religious affiliation, sexual orientation, caste, sex, gender, gender identity and serious disease or disability. We protect against attacks on the basis of age when age is paired with another protected characteristic, and also provide certain protections for immigration status. We define "attack" as violent or dehumanising speech, statements of inferiority, or calls for exclusion or segregation. https://www.facebook.com/communitystandards/hate_speech https://www.facebook.com/communitystandards/hate_speech
- baby-yoda 6y ago
  Didn’t realize they had a formal definition, thank you for linking that. Helps to formalize thoughts when we are working from the same definition.

0xy 6y ago

I totally disagree, and if we're talking about slurs then they can have word censorship applied (the same way media will report on the use of the N-word with * to obscure most of it). Sorry, but if you have the power to ruin people's lives over a standard you cannot clearly define and after the fact won't even provide their speech as context for your decision, then that's just straight political censorship. I also draw a huge distinction between publishers repeating the words of others and people actually saying those things. By your standards, the publisher of Mein Kampf reprints is just as guilty as Hitler himself -- even though they had nothing to do with writing it.