7 ms·

> some slightly bad opinion suddenly finds themselves shut out of the main platforms because of hate speech rules A "slightly bad opinion" has to be more than

> some slightly bad opinion suddenly finds themselves shut out of the main platforms because of hate speech rules A "slightly bad opinion" has to be more than "slightly bad" to break hate speech rules. If you feel a platform is overzealous in enforcing hate speech rules, don't use it. Or maybe ask yourself some questions before moving out. EDIT: the rain of downvotes is telling as usual.

rednerrus 6y ago
Who decides?
- tablespoon 6y ago
  > Who decides? Who decides if Nazis are allowed to put signs with Nazi slogans on your lawn?
  - a1369209993 6y ago
    > on your lawn? Twitter and Facebook are common carriers[0], not private residences. Edit: 0: By which I mean that are common carriers in practice, not that they are legally recognized as such.
    - tablespoon 6y ago
      > Twitter and Facebook are common carriers, not private residences. Except they aren't actually common carriers. Some people are of the opinion they should be, but having an opinion doesn't make it so.
      - a1369209993 6y ago
        > Some people are of the opinion they should be I think (based on this) that you mean they aren't legally recognized as common carriers (which isn't what I said, but fair enough; edited to clarify).
DC1350 6y ago
That’s not true. Not being attracted to transgender people is enough to get banned on Reddit. I was banned from r/asktransgender for telling a girl in a relationship with a pre-transition MtF person that it doesn’t make sense to call herself a lesbian (since sexual orientation is based on sex and not gender)
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- ilovethrowawysq 6y ago
  This view, that sex exists and matters at all, is called by trans rights activists "biological essentialism" and it'll probably get you banned here, too. I definitely wouldn't post comments with the opinion that sex is binary from an account that could be linked to my real identity. Belief in binary or bimodal sex expression in homo sapiens is grounds for removal from the technology industry entirely I like to eat so you'll never see me again on this site, at least not with this handle.
- kelnos 6y ago
  Why would you barge into someone else's community and police their use of terminology? Why would you think anyone cares about what you have to say on that topic? At best it's an annoying distraction; at worst it makes people feel like shit for needing to constantly justify their existence.
  - lliamander 6y ago
    In general I agree. This was the same problem when social justice advocates (particularly those who were not core contributors) were trying to force "codes of conduct" on open source communities that felt no need for them. But in this case, my understanding is that the distinction of sex and gender is essential to the concept of transgender in the first place. Is insisting (perhaps somewhat pedantically) on using those terms in a consistent fashion really an offense? Now, they are free to exclude people for whatever reason they want. Sub-reddits are not supposed to be all things to all people. But the statement does not strike me as obviously offensive to trans people (I've even seen them make the same distinction).
marpstar 6y ago
that all depends on who makes the rules and how they distinguish "bad and not tolerated" from "slightly bad but tolerated".
jimbokun 6y ago
Who is making the rules?
- Larrikin 6y ago
  The people who don't want hate speech on their website
closeparen 6y ago
Today Dr. Seuss is hate speech. Tomorrow Dr. Seuss apologia will be hate speech. Even from the perspective that this is progress, it’s very fast progress. Today’s white supremacists are last week’s liberals who didn’t update their opinions fast enough.
- jackson1442 6y ago
  When did Dr. Seuss become hate speech? Last I checked, my extended family still reads Dr. Seuss books with their small children. Yes, Seuss's family pulled a few books from production but I don't recall anyone decrying them.
  - Ajedi32 6y ago
    I'm guessing GP is referring to how eBay banned third parties from selling used copies of the Dr. Seuss books in question. See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26347654 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26347654
    - jackson1442 6y ago
      Hm. I think it would have been in better taste to just have a flag on the items stating that the family has discontinued distribution for xyz reason.
- Frondo 6y ago
  Dr Seuss isn't hate speech, there are a few racist caricatures in a few of his books, that the owners have stopped printing. A few private platforms have stopped selling those books -- not all of them, neither all platforms nor books. You can still find those books, you just won't be able to buy official reprints from the copyright holder. I am not sure where you'll draw the line if you insist that copyright holders continue to issue reprints or if you insist that private platforms continue to offer trade in things they don't want on their platforms. Would that rule apply to ebay, but not a physical retail store where space is at a premium and people have to make choices about what not to sell every day? And would that rule compel ebay to sell nazi memorabilia or pre-American civil war slave memorabilia (which, afaik, they do not sell)? The Seuss stuff is something I really can't wrap my head around, because what is it people really want? Just the estate to be compelled to keep printing and selling them, that ebay be compelled to keep allowing them to be sold? Or some broader rule where any copyright holder of some (contemporarily) objectionable material be compelled to keep offering it, and every store be compelled to keep trading in it? All of those put limits on people's freedoms to choose in ways that make me uncomfortable.
lliamander 6y ago
> EDIT: the rain of downvotes is telling as usual. You suggest that people subject to social stigma and censure should "maybe ask [themselves] some questions". Do you think the reaction you are receiving should cause you to question your own position?
- tablespoon 6y ago
  >> If you feel a platform is overzealous in enforcing hate speech rules, don't use it. Or maybe ask yourself some questions before moving out. >> EDIT: the rain of downvotes is telling as usual. > You suggest that people subject to social stigma and censure should "maybe ask [themselves] some questions". Do you think the reaction you are receiving should cause you to question your own position? That's twisting what he said. What he actually said is that people who are bothered by "hate speech rules" should "maybe ask [themselves] some questions." He didn't say anything about downvotes should lead to similar self-questioning.
  - lliamander 6y ago
    You are making a distinction without a difference. As the original article itself pointed out, "hate speech" is an amorphous term that can refer to any socially unacceptable speech. Actual "hate speech rules" and "downvotes" are merely different mechanisms for enforcing social stigma and censure. The real question is at what point should a person reevaluate their opinions in light of social pressure. The commenter I was responding to seems to think it should only happen when the opinions in question are ones he disagrees with. EDIT: additionally, complaining about downvotes is also against the rules of this site. For someone to do that while extending no charity to those who break other content moderation policies is...interesting.
    - tablespoon 6y ago
      > You are making a distinction without a difference. > As the original article itself pointed out, "hate speech" is an amorphous term that can refer to any socially unacceptable speech. Actual "hate speech rules" and "downvotes" are merely different mechanisms for enforcing social stigma and censure. No, you're blurring things to the point of meaninglessness. For instance, "first post" competitions would clearly be unacceptable speech here, yet I doubt anyone in good faith would actually call such posts hate speech. Also, downvotes are an opaque mechanism. Did your post get downvoted because you said something widely regarded as offensive, are this guy [1], or because you just had too many typos? You can speculate, but that's not very good basis for self reflection. However, if you're mad you can't post speech that (for instance) directly attacks some race as being inferior [2], you have a pretty clear thing to reflect on. [1] https://www.csmonitor.com/World/2015/0701/What-happened-to-the-man-who-refused-to-give-a-Nazi-salute https://www.csmonitor.com/World/2015/0701/What-happened-to-t... [2] https://www.facebook.com/communitystandards/objectionable_content https://www.facebook.com/communitystandards/objectionable_co...

rednerrus 6y ago

Who decides?

tablespoon 6y ago
> Who decides? Who decides if Nazis are allowed to put signs with Nazi slogans on your lawn?
- a1369209993 6y ago
  > on your lawn? Twitter and Facebook are common carriers[0], not private residences. Edit: 0: By which I mean that are common carriers in practice, not that they are legally recognized as such.
  - tablespoon 6y ago
    > Twitter and Facebook are common carriers, not private residences. Except they aren't actually common carriers. Some people are of the opinion they should be, but having an opinion doesn't make it so.
    - a1369209993 6y ago
      > Some people are of the opinion they should be I think (based on this) that you mean they aren't legally recognized as common carriers (which isn't what I said, but fair enough; edited to clarify).

DC1350 6y ago

That’s not true. Not being attracted to transgender people is enough to get banned on Reddit. I was banned from r/asktransgender for telling a girl in a relationship with a pre-transition MtF person that it doesn’t make sense to call herself a lesbian (since sexual orientation is based on sex and not gender)

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
ilovethrowawysq 6y ago
This view, that sex exists and matters at all, is called by trans rights activists "biological essentialism" and it'll probably get you banned here, too. I definitely wouldn't post comments with the opinion that sex is binary from an account that could be linked to my real identity. Belief in binary or bimodal sex expression in homo sapiens is grounds for removal from the technology industry entirely I like to eat so you'll never see me again on this site, at least not with this handle.
kelnos 6y ago
Why would you barge into someone else's community and police their use of terminology? Why would you think anyone cares about what you have to say on that topic? At best it's an annoying distraction; at worst it makes people feel like shit for needing to constantly justify their existence.
- lliamander 6y ago
  In general I agree. This was the same problem when social justice advocates (particularly those who were not core contributors) were trying to force "codes of conduct" on open source communities that felt no need for them. But in this case, my understanding is that the distinction of sex and gender is essential to the concept of transgender in the first place. Is insisting (perhaps somewhat pedantically) on using those terms in a consistent fashion really an offense? Now, they are free to exclude people for whatever reason they want. Sub-reddits are not supposed to be all things to all people. But the statement does not strike me as obviously offensive to trans people (I've even seen them make the same distinction).

marpstar 6y ago

that all depends on who makes the rules and how they distinguish "bad and not tolerated" from "slightly bad but tolerated".

jimbokun 6y ago

Who is making the rules?

Larrikin 6y ago
The people who don't want hate speech on their website

closeparen 6y ago

Today Dr. Seuss is hate speech. Tomorrow Dr. Seuss apologia will be hate speech. Even from the perspective that this is progress, it’s very fast progress. Today’s white supremacists are last week’s liberals who didn’t update their opinions fast enough.

jackson1442 6y ago
When did Dr. Seuss become hate speech? Last I checked, my extended family still reads Dr. Seuss books with their small children. Yes, Seuss's family pulled a few books from production but I don't recall anyone decrying them.
- Ajedi32 6y ago
  I'm guessing GP is referring to how eBay banned third parties from selling used copies of the Dr. Seuss books in question. See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26347654 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26347654
  - jackson1442 6y ago
    Hm. I think it would have been in better taste to just have a flag on the items stating that the family has discontinued distribution for xyz reason.
Frondo 6y ago
Dr Seuss isn't hate speech, there are a few racist caricatures in a few of his books, that the owners have stopped printing. A few private platforms have stopped selling those books -- not all of them, neither all platforms nor books. You can still find those books, you just won't be able to buy official reprints from the copyright holder. I am not sure where you'll draw the line if you insist that copyright holders continue to issue reprints or if you insist that private platforms continue to offer trade in things they don't want on their platforms. Would that rule apply to ebay, but not a physical retail store where space is at a premium and people have to make choices about what not to sell every day? And would that rule compel ebay to sell nazi memorabilia or pre-American civil war slave memorabilia (which, afaik, they do not sell)? The Seuss stuff is something I really can't wrap my head around, because what is it people really want? Just the estate to be compelled to keep printing and selling them, that ebay be compelled to keep allowing them to be sold? Or some broader rule where any copyright holder of some (contemporarily) objectionable material be compelled to keep offering it, and every store be compelled to keep trading in it? All of those put limits on people's freedoms to choose in ways that make me uncomfortable.

lliamander 6y ago

> EDIT: the rain of downvotes is telling as usual. You suggest that people subject to social stigma and censure should "maybe ask [themselves] some questions". Do you think the reaction you are receiving should cause you to question your own position?

tablespoon 6y ago
>> If you feel a platform is overzealous in enforcing hate speech rules, don't use it. Or maybe ask yourself some questions before moving out. >> EDIT: the rain of downvotes is telling as usual. > You suggest that people subject to social stigma and censure should "maybe ask [themselves] some questions". Do you think the reaction you are receiving should cause you to question your own position? That's twisting what he said. What he actually said is that people who are bothered by "hate speech rules" should "maybe ask [themselves] some questions." He didn't say anything about downvotes should lead to similar self-questioning.
- lliamander 6y ago
  You are making a distinction without a difference. As the original article itself pointed out, "hate speech" is an amorphous term that can refer to any socially unacceptable speech. Actual "hate speech rules" and "downvotes" are merely different mechanisms for enforcing social stigma and censure. The real question is at what point should a person reevaluate their opinions in light of social pressure. The commenter I was responding to seems to think it should only happen when the opinions in question are ones he disagrees with. EDIT: additionally, complaining about downvotes is also against the rules of this site. For someone to do that while extending no charity to those who break other content moderation policies is...interesting.
  - tablespoon 6y ago
    > You are making a distinction without a difference. > As the original article itself pointed out, "hate speech" is an amorphous term that can refer to any socially unacceptable speech. Actual "hate speech rules" and "downvotes" are merely different mechanisms for enforcing social stigma and censure. No, you're blurring things to the point of meaninglessness. For instance, "first post" competitions would clearly be unacceptable speech here, yet I doubt anyone in good faith would actually call such posts hate speech. Also, downvotes are an opaque mechanism. Did your post get downvoted because you said something widely regarded as offensive, are this guy [1], or because you just had too many typos? You can speculate, but that's not very good basis for self reflection. However, if you're mad you can't post speech that (for instance) directly attacks some race as being inferior [2], you have a pretty clear thing to reflect on. [1] https://www.csmonitor.com/World/2015/0701/What-happened-to-the-man-who-refused-to-give-a-Nazi-salute https://www.csmonitor.com/World/2015/0701/What-happened-to-t... [2] https://www.facebook.com/communitystandards/objectionable_content https://www.facebook.com/communitystandards/objectionable_co...