4 ms·

> Today hate speech can piped into eyes and ears by our mobile phones, turbocharged by algorithms which are funded by billions in advertising dollars. > > Back

> Today hate speech can piped into eyes and ears by our mobile phones, turbocharged by algorithms which are funded by billions in advertising dollars. > > Back in John Stuart-Mill's day the most anyone could achieve would be to write a book or a newspaper article, which are quite easy to ignore. Turning off Twitter and Facebook are quite easy to do, apart from their addictive designs. (I permanently disconnected from Facebook two years ago, and today only occasionally check Twitter a few times a month.) There are a few things I miss out on not being on Facebook (mostly some groups that would be helpful for my actual, real-life networks); I miss absolutely nothing by being off of Twitter (and HN is like a quality filter for the tech industry Twitter crap). So, indeed, even if someone could define an objective criteria for "hate speech," everyone is still offended by their own consent.

jack_riminton 6y ago
"Apart from their addictive designs" is the key phrase here. Purdue only created OxyContin for legitimate pain management but they knew full well the level of abuse because of their profits I'd rather live in a society where the creators of these things take some responsibility for effects of whatever they've created, whether intentional or not
micouay 6y ago
I think your point has its limitations but is quite important. "Just turn off FB" sounds similar to "Just build your own social media", it may be seen as too limiting. On the other hand I think people against non-censored speech often frame the receivers of the message as somehow mindless. Now that I think about it, censoring people on social media (i.e. deplatforming Trump) implies that users have no free will (whatever that means) and can only act as an obedient crowd. From that perspective, everyone who might become a leader of the masses seems dangerous and requires intervention. Not only that, their followers are also potentially dangerous, just not powerful enough. To me such attitude is in contradiction with individual's freedom to express their views but also a denial of existence of freedom to act in accordance with one's views.

jack_riminton 6y ago

"Apart from their addictive designs" is the key phrase here. Purdue only created OxyContin for legitimate pain management but they knew full well the level of abuse because of their profits I'd rather live in a society where the creators of these things take some responsibility for effects of whatever they've created, whether intentional or not

micouay 6y ago

I think your point has its limitations but is quite important. "Just turn off FB" sounds similar to "Just build your own social media", it may be seen as too limiting. On the other hand I think people against non-censored speech often frame the receivers of the message as somehow mindless. Now that I think about it, censoring people on social media (i.e. deplatforming Trump) implies that users have no free will (whatever that means) and can only act as an obedient crowd. From that perspective, everyone who might become a leader of the masses seems dangerous and requires intervention. Not only that, their followers are also potentially dangerous, just not powerful enough. To me such attitude is in contradiction with individual's freedom to express their views but also a denial of existence of freedom to act in accordance with one's views.