4 ms·

Harassment and hate speech is illegal in many country in the world.

by maeln 4y ago

mhuffman 4y ago
But not in the United States. Hate speech at least, and harassment is a bit murky these days anyway. Swatting is certainly harassment, but is making fun of someone for being odd? Imagine for a moment that Cloudflare leans in and starts doing this. Then, let's image a DeSantis Presidency, with a full hard-right Senate, House, and majority SC soon. Now, imagine what those people feel like is harassing them. 90% of Twitter posts would likely qualify. Half of the post on this very site. Most of Reddit. Then they start passing laws that you can't pick and choose. If you are a piece of infrastructure that is gatekeeping what someone felt was hate-speech or harassement yesterday, well then you have to do it today.
- DangitBobby 4y ago
  > but is making fun of someone for being odd It becomes much less murky after repeated and individually targeted "making fun". If it's made clear that you want them to leave you alone and they choose to persist, it becomes crystal clear.
  - mhuffman 4y ago
    >If it's made clear that you want them to leave you alone and they choose to persist, it becomes crystal clear. Let's say I buy your premise (I don't completely) but where does it stop? Does it include Trump? What about non-public figures only, but ones you probably don't like, for example White supremacists or neo-Nazis? Does it count against corporations? And who gets to decide if you are making fun of someone? Just someone is offended or feeling hurt? If that is the metric then I defy you to write an English sentence that I can't turn into an oppressive, smart-ass remark about someone. I am being a little hyperbolic here, but surely you see how any move to limit speech outside of literal threats or similar can just be used the opposite way round.
    - DangitBobby 4y ago
      Ah sorry, I didn't mean just speaking "out loud" generally making fun of a group of people, I mean directly addressing someone, calling them a name, and them asking you repeatedly to stop.
      - mhuffman 4y ago
        Directly harassing someone is already a crime in most places. Here is an example definition: ---- (1)Fear for the person's safety or the safety of the person's immediate family or close personal associates. (2) Suffer substantial emotional distress by placing that person in fear of death, bodily injury, or continued harassment. ---- The second part of that is a little circular, but the point I am trying to get across to you is that in the US, I can call you a "fool" every time I see you and it is mostly perfectly legal even if you don't like it and tell me to stop. It generally has to be very escalated to involve the police. And this is how it should be, and it should be a police matter. Not the "roadways" of the Internet making those decisions. Today it might be some asshole calling someone the n-word or misgendering someone that gets their site shut down for all intents and purposes, but if we go down this road, tomorrow it could be because you misspoke about some "Dear Leader" in charge politically and now you can not participate in society in any real respect.
  - dmatech 4y ago
    At most, that's bullying. People can get restraining orders for those cases. Trying to mandate decency won't work. It will only empower people who control the definition of "harmful" to get rid of anything they don't like.
    - DangitBobby 4y ago
      I don't think I buy that. I think we're doing pretty good at identifying, for example, what constitutes sexual harassment in the work place. I'm really not sure what the hesitation is, to be honest. Seems like a given that you don't have the right to just keep fucking with someone who has asked you to stop.
      - dmatech 4y ago
        I am extremely grateful that the world is not one big workplace and there's no HR to report everything to. Sexual harassment is actually legal outside the workplace, and it's generally protected speech up until you start violating a restraining order. Simply talking about other people behind their back isn't harassment, but it's typically unacceptable in a workplace. Outside the workplace, it's just a natural tendency of humans.
        mhuffman 4y ago
        >I am extremely grateful that the world is not one big workplace and there's no HR to report everything to. This is how I imagine living in parts of Europe are and also how I imagine people fantasize about the US becoming. They just seem to not have the foresight that their current cultural thoughts might not be the dominant one and once the other side takes power they will call it fascism ... regardless of the side!
j16sdiz 4y ago
I would expect due process. Something like court order or equivalent.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
hwntw 4y ago
In which case those countries can get a court order and have Cloudflare remove their services from that company. They're not endorsing a forum by providing them the same services they do anyone else, and it sets a very scary precedence for a private company to shut down speech (however deplorable one may find it). Another way of looking at it - should there be a concerted (and successful!) effort from the Christian Right in America to start taking positions of power in major tech firms, would you be happy for them to stop serving people/companies who held social views at odds with their own?

Harassment and hate speech is illegal in many country in the world.

by maeln 4y ago

Harassment and hate speech is illegal in many country in the world.

But not in the United States. Hate speech at least, and harassment is a bit murky these days anyway. Swatting is certainly harassment, but is making fun of someone for being odd? Imagine for a moment that Cloudflare leans in and starts doing this. Then, let's image a DeSantis Presidency, with a full hard-right Senate, House, and majority SC soon. Now, imagine what those people feel like is harassing them. 90% of Twitter posts would likely qualify. Half of the post on this very site. Most of Reddit. Then they start passing laws that you can't pick and choose. If you are a piece of infrastructure that is gatekeeping what someone felt was hate-speech or harassement yesterday, well then you have to do it today.

DangitBobby 4y ago
> but is making fun of someone for being odd It becomes much less murky after repeated and individually targeted "making fun". If it's made clear that you want them to leave you alone and they choose to persist, it becomes crystal clear.
- mhuffman 4y ago
  >If it's made clear that you want them to leave you alone and they choose to persist, it becomes crystal clear. Let's say I buy your premise (I don't completely) but where does it stop? Does it include Trump? What about non-public figures only, but ones you probably don't like, for example White supremacists or neo-Nazis? Does it count against corporations? And who gets to decide if you are making fun of someone? Just someone is offended or feeling hurt? If that is the metric then I defy you to write an English sentence that I can't turn into an oppressive, smart-ass remark about someone. I am being a little hyperbolic here, but surely you see how any move to limit speech outside of literal threats or similar can just be used the opposite way round.
  - DangitBobby 4y ago
    Ah sorry, I didn't mean just speaking "out loud" generally making fun of a group of people, I mean directly addressing someone, calling them a name, and them asking you repeatedly to stop.
    - mhuffman 4y ago
      Directly harassing someone is already a crime in most places. Here is an example definition: ---- (1)Fear for the person's safety or the safety of the person's immediate family or close personal associates. (2) Suffer substantial emotional distress by placing that person in fear of death, bodily injury, or continued harassment. ---- The second part of that is a little circular, but the point I am trying to get across to you is that in the US, I can call you a "fool" every time I see you and it is mostly perfectly legal even if you don't like it and tell me to stop. It generally has to be very escalated to involve the police. And this is how it should be, and it should be a police matter. Not the "roadways" of the Internet making those decisions. Today it might be some asshole calling someone the n-word or misgendering someone that gets their site shut down for all intents and purposes, but if we go down this road, tomorrow it could be because you misspoke about some "Dear Leader" in charge politically and now you can not participate in society in any real respect.
- dmatech 4y ago
  At most, that's bullying. People can get restraining orders for those cases. Trying to mandate decency won't work. It will only empower people who control the definition of "harmful" to get rid of anything they don't like.
  - DangitBobby 4y ago
    I don't think I buy that. I think we're doing pretty good at identifying, for example, what constitutes sexual harassment in the work place. I'm really not sure what the hesitation is, to be honest. Seems like a given that you don't have the right to just keep fucking with someone who has asked you to stop.
    - dmatech 4y ago
      I am extremely grateful that the world is not one big workplace and there's no HR to report everything to. Sexual harassment is actually legal outside the workplace, and it's generally protected speech up until you start violating a restraining order. Simply talking about other people behind their back isn't harassment, but it's typically unacceptable in a workplace. Outside the workplace, it's just a natural tendency of humans.
      - mhuffman 4y ago
        >I am extremely grateful that the world is not one big workplace and there's no HR to report everything to. This is how I imagine living in parts of Europe are and also how I imagine people fantasize about the US becoming. They just seem to not have the foresight that their current cultural thoughts might not be the dominant one and once the other side takes power they will call it fascism ... regardless of the side!

j16sdiz 4y ago

I would expect due process. Something like court order or equivalent.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

hwntw 4y ago

In which case those countries can get a court order and have Cloudflare remove their services from that company. They're not endorsing a forum by providing them the same services they do anyone else, and it sets a very scary precedence for a private company to shut down speech (however deplorable one may find it). Another way of looking at it - should there be a concerted (and successful!) effort from the Christian Right in America to start taking positions of power in major tech firms, would you be happy for them to stop serving people/companies who held social views at odds with their own?