5 ms·

Hate Speech’s Rise on Twitter Is Unprecedented, Researchers Find

11 points by arunbahl 4y ago

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
newaccount2021 4y ago
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
- hello_friendos 4y ago
  [dead]
krapp 4y ago
Is this the part where all the Nazis, cranks, bigots, pedophiles and transphobes burst into flames under the scouring light of exposure, public ridicule and vigorous debate because "sunlight is the best disinfectant?" I'm still waiting for that. To actually work. At all.
- MrMan 4y ago
  the people who advocate for the "sunlight" idea are in actual fact advocating for the hate speech, and just trying to normalize it and help it spread.
- ThrowawayR2 4y ago
  Those people didn't wink into existence when Musk bought Twitter; they were there but temporarily hidden like filth under swept under a rug. So it sounds like what you're really objecting to is having to face their existence and doing the hard work of cleaning up the mess now that the rug has been pulled away. Analogies to the tech bourgeoise looking away from SV's homeless come to mind. Well, people who are upset can just continue doing what they were doing before; pretending they weren't there. They'll just have to work a little harder at it now. Or they can, now that we can see the horrifying extent of the problem, work to start cleaning it up. None of the civil rights movements succeeded because their members sat around pretending their opposition didn't exist.
  - krapp 4y ago
    >So it sounds like what you're really objecting to is having to face their existence and doing the hard work of cleaning up the mess now that the rug has been pulled away. The weakest form of criticism by far is to restate someone's argument in bad faith then proceed to beat the strawman into submission, because no, that's not what I or anyone is objecting to.
    - ThrowawayR2 4y ago
      The weakest form of rebuttal is using thought terminating clichés like "bad faith" and "straw man" instead of pointing out the weaknesses in their opponent's argument. I am saying that the "sunlight is the best disinfectant" (which is the straw man you were taking a swipe at, if we are going to that level of debate) has more nuance to it than magically making the deplorables disappear. Many of us are programmers here; among the first things we do to respond to an issue is to expose and assess the full extent of the problem before working toward a solution.
      - krapp 4y ago
        "bad faith" and "straw man" are not thought-terminating cliches, they're accurate descriptions of your attempt to reframe my comment. No one is attempting to ignore the existence of "the deplorables" or magically make them disappear. That's not an argument anyone has actually ever been making. You're right that there's work to be done, but you fail to consider that moderation and deplatforming is a legitimate and effective part of that work. You claim to want to expose and assess the full extent of the problem while giving those who engage in hate speech access to the largest possible platforms for engagement, recruitment and radicalization in existence, ignoring the degree to which their access to those platforms is a literal measure of the extent of the problem. You also likely assume the balance of power between truth and lies, reason and radicalism are equal, when history (as well as the incentives of social media platforms) demonstrate that it tilts very much in favor of lies and radicalism. Which is why attempts to "clean up the mess" with engagement and debate didn't work before, which is why they don't work on any "free speech" platform now, and why they won't work in the future. Deradicalization can't succeed unless the rate at which hate speech spreads and its capacity to normalize violence and radicalize people can be contained, and that can't be done without moderating and banning it from the large platforms which do exactly that on a global scale. The problem with the "sunlight is the best disinfectant" line of reasoning is that the top priority of free speech absolutism isn't the safety of marginalized and oppressed groups, or the elimination of hate speech and misinformation, but vigorously defending the freedom of the oppressors to continue their work unabated. Fundamentally, free speech absolutists aren't really looking for a solution, because any effective solution by definition would undermine freedom of speech.
more_corn 4y ago
But not unexpected
postultimate 4y ago
These findings — from [..], the Anti-Defamation League An organization that was created to help a Jewish rapist/murderer escape justice said so ? Well that's an unimpeachable source !

11 points by arunbahl 4y ago

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

newaccount2021 4y ago

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

hello_friendos 4y ago
[dead]

krapp 4y ago

Is this the part where all the Nazis, cranks, bigots, pedophiles and transphobes burst into flames under the scouring light of exposure, public ridicule and vigorous debate because "sunlight is the best disinfectant?" I'm still waiting for that. To actually work. At all.

MrMan 4y ago
the people who advocate for the "sunlight" idea are in actual fact advocating for the hate speech, and just trying to normalize it and help it spread.
ThrowawayR2 4y ago
Those people didn't wink into existence when Musk bought Twitter; they were there but temporarily hidden like filth under swept under a rug. So it sounds like what you're really objecting to is having to face their existence and doing the hard work of cleaning up the mess now that the rug has been pulled away. Analogies to the tech bourgeoise looking away from SV's homeless come to mind. Well, people who are upset can just continue doing what they were doing before; pretending they weren't there. They'll just have to work a little harder at it now. Or they can, now that we can see the horrifying extent of the problem, work to start cleaning it up. None of the civil rights movements succeeded because their members sat around pretending their opposition didn't exist.
- krapp 4y ago
  >So it sounds like what you're really objecting to is having to face their existence and doing the hard work of cleaning up the mess now that the rug has been pulled away. The weakest form of criticism by far is to restate someone's argument in bad faith then proceed to beat the strawman into submission, because no, that's not what I or anyone is objecting to.
  - ThrowawayR2 4y ago
    The weakest form of rebuttal is using thought terminating clichés like "bad faith" and "straw man" instead of pointing out the weaknesses in their opponent's argument. I am saying that the "sunlight is the best disinfectant" (which is the straw man you were taking a swipe at, if we are going to that level of debate) has more nuance to it than magically making the deplorables disappear. Many of us are programmers here; among the first things we do to respond to an issue is to expose and assess the full extent of the problem before working toward a solution.
    - krapp 4y ago
      "bad faith" and "straw man" are not thought-terminating cliches, they're accurate descriptions of your attempt to reframe my comment. No one is attempting to ignore the existence of "the deplorables" or magically make them disappear. That's not an argument anyone has actually ever been making. You're right that there's work to be done, but you fail to consider that moderation and deplatforming is a legitimate and effective part of that work. You claim to want to expose and assess the full extent of the problem while giving those who engage in hate speech access to the largest possible platforms for engagement, recruitment and radicalization in existence, ignoring the degree to which their access to those platforms is a literal measure of the extent of the problem. You also likely assume the balance of power between truth and lies, reason and radicalism are equal, when history (as well as the incentives of social media platforms) demonstrate that it tilts very much in favor of lies and radicalism. Which is why attempts to "clean up the mess" with engagement and debate didn't work before, which is why they don't work on any "free speech" platform now, and why they won't work in the future. Deradicalization can't succeed unless the rate at which hate speech spreads and its capacity to normalize violence and radicalize people can be contained, and that can't be done without moderating and banning it from the large platforms which do exactly that on a global scale. The problem with the "sunlight is the best disinfectant" line of reasoning is that the top priority of free speech absolutism isn't the safety of marginalized and oppressed groups, or the elimination of hate speech and misinformation, but vigorously defending the freedom of the oppressors to continue their work unabated. Fundamentally, free speech absolutists aren't really looking for a solution, because any effective solution by definition would undermine freedom of speech.

more_corn 4y ago

But not unexpected

postultimate 4y ago

These findings — from [..], the Anti-Defamation League An organization that was created to help a Jewish rapist/murderer escape justice said so ? Well that's an unimpeachable source !