4 ms·

As per Wikipedia: "A majority of developed democracies have laws that restrict hate speech, including Australia, Denmark, France, Germany, India, South Africa,

As per Wikipedia: "A majority of developed democracies have laws that restrict hate speech, including Australia, Denmark, France, Germany, India, South Africa, Sweden, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom." The Unites States is not in that list. Hence it is more vulnerable to problems associated with allowing hate speech (i.e. incitement of violence by foreign-state actors, etc.). Companies that operate on the global markets tend to operate with the standards that are acceptable globally. In particular: "On 31 May 2016, Facebook, Google, Microsoft, and Twitter, jointly agreed to a European Union code of conduct obligating them to review "[the] majority of valid notifications for removal of illegal hate speech" posted on their services within 24 hours." So in that particular case, influence of these companies might be bringing United States closer to best practices adopted in the majority of developed democracies.

jbay808 6y ago
Personally, I want the government to set the rules on hate speech, and private companies to follow them.
umvi 6y ago
> So in that particular case, influence of these companies might be bringing United States closer to best practices adopted in the majority of developed democracies. Best practices for maintaining a democracy or best practices for maintaining social order? There's a difference. You might argue that restricting hate speech is actually a step away from democracy towards more government control.
- dchichkov 6y ago
  You can look at the following parameters that are critical for the health of democracies: electoral process and pluralism, civil liberties, the functioning of government, political participation, and political culture. And consider how moderation of hate speech affects these parameters. Evaluating these on an example of presidential debates of 2020 might be a good option. As there is a contrast between the first debate, that included no moderation and a second debate, that included some.

jbay808 6y ago

Personally, I want the government to set the rules on hate speech, and private companies to follow them.

umvi 6y ago

> So in that particular case, influence of these companies might be bringing United States closer to best practices adopted in the majority of developed democracies. Best practices for maintaining a democracy or best practices for maintaining social order? There's a difference. You might argue that restricting hate speech is actually a step away from democracy towards more government control.

dchichkov 6y ago
You can look at the following parameters that are critical for the health of democracies: electoral process and pluralism, civil liberties, the functioning of government, political participation, and political culture. And consider how moderation of hate speech affects these parameters. Evaluating these on an example of presidential debates of 2020 might be a good option. As there is a contrast between the first debate, that included no moderation and a second debate, that included some.