5 ms·

I don't understand why none pushes for a justice process for taking out hate speech and bad speech. Instead we are basically begging Facebook to be the one who

I don't understand why none pushes for a justice process for taking out hate speech and bad speech. Instead we are basically begging Facebook to be the one who makes this kind of judgement. Obviously, Facebook doesn't want to do that. Nobody wants to do that. I'm not talking about obviously blatant cases. I'm talking about a high profile one like Trump tweeting something bad. Even a senate/former lawyer like Elizabeth Warren doesn't ask for a due justice process. She is also screaming at Facebook to just take down Trump's posts. I imagine, if what Trump posts is extremely bad and illegal, it won't be hard to prosecute him or get a court order to ban or take down his posts. (Apology for inaccurate language usage. I'm not familiar with these legal terms. But I hope you get the main idea)

justapassenger 6y ago
Because it’s almost all politics and tribalism. Democrats complain that there’s not enough content take downs and republicans complain that there’s too much of it. No matter what internet companies do, they’ll face tons of criticism. And both sides think that they that support free speech. But free speech mean to them speech they agree with, and everything else is a hate speech.
- hevelvarik 6y ago
  How does your characterization - that Democrats want more take downs and Republicans less - support or even comport with your contention that both sides claim interest in free speech
quotemstr 6y ago
The problem is that the speech that these people want censored isn't illegal. We have a strong constitutional prohibition against censorship. Many activists would prefer that we didn't have this prohibition, but they don't have the political clout to get it repealed --- rightly so, because despite everything that's happened, explicit censorship is very unpopular. Because the activists can't get the state to censor the public, activists have used increasingly underhanded tactics to get tech companies to censor the public. They've been very successful so far, but there's a growing resistance to their antics.
- ergocoder 6y ago
  I can understand some random activists doing this. But Warren is a senate and former lawyer. Even she didn't want to go the legal route. It's pretty disappointing. Instead, she pulled a stunt with fake news facebook ads stuff. > The problem is that the speech that these people want censored isn't illegal. Please excuse my little legal knowledge. But I thought hate speech and fake news were illegal.
  - quotemstr 6y ago
    > But Warren is a senate and former lawyer. Even she didn't want to go the legal route. It's pretty disappointing. She doesn't want to go the legal route because she knows she'd lose. Free speech protections in the United States are ironclad. In other jurisdictions, e.g., Germany, they're not so strong and activists in those countries have succeeded in making the state compel tech companies to censor. This approach will not work in the United States. > Please excuse my little legal knowledge. But I thought hate speech and fake news were illegal. One of the most infuriating habits of the authoritarian activist types is their way of pretending that whatever they don't like is de jure illegal. That they've convinced people that there's some law against "hate speech" is sad. No, hate speech and fake news are not illegal, nor should they be: any prohibited category of ideas invariably expands to encompass whatever it is that the people defining the category dislike. The strict American prohibition of censorship is the product of centuries of experience in England with exactly this sort of creeping totalitarianism. Humanity has not changed since then. Power still corrupts. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/06/19/supreme-court-unanimously-reaffirms-there-is-no-hate-speech-exception-to-the-first-amendment/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/201...
    - ergocoder 6y ago
      Wait a min, hate speech isn't illegal?
      - thejynxed 6y ago
        Not in the USA. It's been firmly ruled protected by SCOTUS, with the same caveats tied to it as other speech. In other words, direct call to harm is not protected, saying you hate them or a subset of their characteristics is absolutely protected.
karaterobot 6y ago
It depends on what you mean by a justice process, but there is one already. In the U.S. the right to free speech is pretty securely enshrined in law (knocks wood). There are definitely limits to the first amendment, but speaking very broadly, private institutions can do more to limit speech on their platforms, whereas the justice system's role is to protect speech. Taking it out of the hands of Facebook (et al.) probably would not get you what you're after.
- davidw 6y ago
  It's a tough problem. Imagine going out to a bar and some nazi walks in and starts screaming about this or that group that they hate. At the top of his lungs. Most places would kick his ass right out. Those that didn't, the customers would probably leave. Social media is a bit more complex than all that, but in some cases, it really is like that bar where the guy stays, and invites his buddies, and no one normal wants to go there.
layoutIfNeeded 6y ago
>bad speech Lol. Yeah, we should totally ban “bad speech”.
- ergocoder 6y ago
  Come on, man. I'm not a native English speaker who is well-educated in laws and social study. By bad speech, I mean the ones that a lot of people (e.g. Warren) were yelling at Facebook to ban the accounts/posts. I would appreciate if you try to get the main point. Thank you
  - topspin 6y ago
    > I don't understand why none pushes for a justice process for taking out hate speech and bad speech. The term 'justice' implies government. The administering of justice is ostensibly function of government, not private entities like Facebook. The unspoken understanding that perhaps you are missing is that it is taken as given that any 'justice process' created to prevent and/or punish unpopular speech will ultimately be abused and extended to effectively all meaningful speech that the Powers That Be (kings, presidents, whomever) don't approve of. That understanding comes from the experience of history and was the basis for the 1st Amendment of the US constitution. It is certainly true that in many places on Earth 'wrong' speech is criminal and is prosecuted. In the US the attempt to outlaw speech or prosecute people for their speech is what is considered 'wrong' and 'bad.' Those points in history when these principles were violated are understood to be mistakes and aberrations. So you don't get very far in the US with ideas of making speech into a matter for law enforcement or courts. With a few narrow exceptions we don't entertain these ideas and we don't reward anyone that tries it, or even suggests it, as you can see from the moderation. > By bad speech, I mean the ones that a lot of people (e.g. Warren) were yelling at Facebook to ban the accounts/posts. Senator Warren's views do not have the force of law and no one in the US is required to honor them. Further, Senator Warren's opinions are not universal. Giving Senator Warren the ability to control what expressions Facebook does and does not permit would require something on the order of revolution, probably violent.

justapassenger 6y ago

Because it’s almost all politics and tribalism. Democrats complain that there’s not enough content take downs and republicans complain that there’s too much of it. No matter what internet companies do, they’ll face tons of criticism. And both sides think that they that support free speech. But free speech mean to them speech they agree with, and everything else is a hate speech.

hevelvarik 6y ago
How does your characterization - that Democrats want more take downs and Republicans less - support or even comport with your contention that both sides claim interest in free speech

quotemstr 6y ago

The problem is that the speech that these people want censored isn't illegal. We have a strong constitutional prohibition against censorship. Many activists would prefer that we didn't have this prohibition, but they don't have the political clout to get it repealed --- rightly so, because despite everything that's happened, explicit censorship is very unpopular. Because the activists can't get the state to censor the public, activists have used increasingly underhanded tactics to get tech companies to censor the public. They've been very successful so far, but there's a growing resistance to their antics.

ergocoder 6y ago
I can understand some random activists doing this. But Warren is a senate and former lawyer. Even she didn't want to go the legal route. It's pretty disappointing. Instead, she pulled a stunt with fake news facebook ads stuff. > The problem is that the speech that these people want censored isn't illegal. Please excuse my little legal knowledge. But I thought hate speech and fake news were illegal.
- quotemstr 6y ago
  > But Warren is a senate and former lawyer. Even she didn't want to go the legal route. It's pretty disappointing. She doesn't want to go the legal route because she knows she'd lose. Free speech protections in the United States are ironclad. In other jurisdictions, e.g., Germany, they're not so strong and activists in those countries have succeeded in making the state compel tech companies to censor. This approach will not work in the United States. > Please excuse my little legal knowledge. But I thought hate speech and fake news were illegal. One of the most infuriating habits of the authoritarian activist types is their way of pretending that whatever they don't like is de jure illegal. That they've convinced people that there's some law against "hate speech" is sad. No, hate speech and fake news are not illegal, nor should they be: any prohibited category of ideas invariably expands to encompass whatever it is that the people defining the category dislike. The strict American prohibition of censorship is the product of centuries of experience in England with exactly this sort of creeping totalitarianism. Humanity has not changed since then. Power still corrupts. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/06/19/supreme-court-unanimously-reaffirms-there-is-no-hate-speech-exception-to-the-first-amendment/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/201...
  - ergocoder 6y ago
    Wait a min, hate speech isn't illegal?
    - thejynxed 6y ago
      Not in the USA. It's been firmly ruled protected by SCOTUS, with the same caveats tied to it as other speech. In other words, direct call to harm is not protected, saying you hate them or a subset of their characteristics is absolutely protected.

karaterobot 6y ago

It depends on what you mean by a justice process, but there is one already. In the U.S. the right to free speech is pretty securely enshrined in law (knocks wood). There are definitely limits to the first amendment, but speaking very broadly, private institutions can do more to limit speech on their platforms, whereas the justice system's role is to protect speech. Taking it out of the hands of Facebook (et al.) probably would not get you what you're after.

davidw 6y ago
It's a tough problem. Imagine going out to a bar and some nazi walks in and starts screaming about this or that group that they hate. At the top of his lungs. Most places would kick his ass right out. Those that didn't, the customers would probably leave. Social media is a bit more complex than all that, but in some cases, it really is like that bar where the guy stays, and invites his buddies, and no one normal wants to go there.

layoutIfNeeded 6y ago

>bad speech Lol. Yeah, we should totally ban “bad speech”.

ergocoder 6y ago
Come on, man. I'm not a native English speaker who is well-educated in laws and social study. By bad speech, I mean the ones that a lot of people (e.g. Warren) were yelling at Facebook to ban the accounts/posts. I would appreciate if you try to get the main point. Thank you
- topspin 6y ago
  > I don't understand why none pushes for a justice process for taking out hate speech and bad speech. The term 'justice' implies government. The administering of justice is ostensibly function of government, not private entities like Facebook. The unspoken understanding that perhaps you are missing is that it is taken as given that any 'justice process' created to prevent and/or punish unpopular speech will ultimately be abused and extended to effectively all meaningful speech that the Powers That Be (kings, presidents, whomever) don't approve of. That understanding comes from the experience of history and was the basis for the 1st Amendment of the US constitution. It is certainly true that in many places on Earth 'wrong' speech is criminal and is prosecuted. In the US the attempt to outlaw speech or prosecute people for their speech is what is considered 'wrong' and 'bad.' Those points in history when these principles were violated are understood to be mistakes and aberrations. So you don't get very far in the US with ideas of making speech into a matter for law enforcement or courts. With a few narrow exceptions we don't entertain these ideas and we don't reward anyone that tries it, or even suggests it, as you can see from the moderation. > By bad speech, I mean the ones that a lot of people (e.g. Warren) were yelling at Facebook to ban the accounts/posts. Senator Warren's views do not have the force of law and no one in the US is required to honor them. Further, Senator Warren's opinions are not universal. Giving Senator Warren the ability to control what expressions Facebook does and does not permit would require something on the order of revolution, probably violent.