3 ms·
Before you can discuss any of that, you need to define "hate speech", and that's often where the problems begin.
by _-___________-_ 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 agoThere 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 agoThe 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