6 ms·

Are hate speech censorship apologists really the worst? I consider myself someone who believes hate speech should be censored. I’m pretty sure there are much wo

Are hate speech censorship apologists really the worst? I consider myself someone who believes hate speech should be censored. I’m pretty sure there are much worse things.

the_doctah 3y ago
Why do you think hate speech should be censored? Who decides what constitutes hate speech? Oh look I already discovered the slippery slope.
- ulrikrasmussen 3y ago
  You can apply that argument to any kind of moderation. The core problem is not that hate speech is censored, the problem is about who is responsible for applying the rules and how these people are selected. Hacker News is also censored and moderated, but it is my impression that the mods are quite carefully selected. On Reddit, the mods are anonymous and external, and are elected in an opaque process which I don't have a good understanding of. I fear that you end up with the catch 22 also seen in homeowner's associations: The people who have the time and dedication to rise to the top in these kinds of organizations are exactly the people you don't want to be in charge.
- threeseed 3y ago
  > Who decides what constitutes hate speech Governments do. And Reddit being a global site needs to abide by the laws of places like Germany which have specific rules around what content is tolerated.
  - the_doctah 3y ago
    Being held liable for hosting child porn is a little different than banning people for criticizing gender politics.
    - iamacyborg 3y ago
      Maybe being banned is a good signal that you should stop being an arsehole?
      - wmnj 3y ago
        Would you have said the same about the suffragettes fighting for their rights?
        iamacyborg 3y ago
        No but I suspect that’s unlikely to be an apples to apples comparison.
        wmnj 3y ago
        It usually is. Reddit in particular banned a whole swathe of women-focused communities, and users who commented in them, where women were advocating for their rights regarding female-only spaces. Outside of social media, there is a significant amount of institutional censorship on this topic, favoring male privilege over women's rights.
        iamacyborg 3y ago
        Which banned communities are you referring to? I can't recall any ban wave targeting anything other than content most would consider to be hateful or bullying.
        wmnj 3y ago
        r/gendercritical, r/menwinningwomenssport, r/truelesbians, r/actualwomen, r/terfisaslur, etc.
        iamacyborg 3y ago
        Ah so when you say "women-focused" community what you meant to say was "anti-trans" communities. Those aren't communities I ever looked into but I can imagine the sort of content that got posted there, see my comment above about hateful or bullying content.
  - chatmasta 3y ago
    Why do they need to comply globally with the hate speech laws of Germany but not the LGBT laws of Saudi Arabia and Iran?
    - sirl1on 3y ago
      Why do I have to be DMCA compliant when reaching a US audience? Because they want to ensure to be available and reach users there. There is no inherent need, but not playing by the rules may result in being banned from participating in countries. Sometimes that's accepted (your Saudi Arabia example), sometimes ensured via separate services or other tricks (e.g. Chinese markets).
  - dabluecaboose 3y ago
    It's a bit absurd to promote the government of Germany when claiming that the government should be the arbiter of what is and isn't acceptable speech. I know, Godwin's law, but the point is governments are fallible.
  - nate_meurer 3y ago
    > Governments do. Making it a very powerful tool that is available exclusively to the people who already have the most power.
- iamacyborg 3y ago
  You realise you’re making these comments on a platform that bans hate speech, right?
  - account42 3y ago
    There are vast differences as to what constitutes "hate speech". But even if the moderation here was the same as on Reddit it wouldn't necessarily mean that you can't criticise such moderation here.
- _19qg 3y ago
  > Who decides what constitutes hate speech? Government (in my country we use a parliamentary system where laws get proposed/changed/...), courts. For example in my country it is not legal to agitate to overthrow the political system, to form a new Nazi party, to use Nazi symbols as a political party, to organize a storm of the parliament, etc. There are also strict laws to protect the privacy of people, incl. persons who are suspects of crimes. It's for example not allowed, without court order, to openly publish personal data (fotos, fullnames) of suspects and to search for those. Even the police can't do that without permission.
  - account42 3y ago
    Yet so-called "hate speech" moderation on sites like Reddit tends to be a lot stricter than the law, often going as far as removing facts that might offend some group.
- owisd 3y ago
  Nobody complains about spam getting removed yet you could make the same argument against that.
  - iamacyborg 3y ago
    Republicans did try to get Google to stop putting their unsolicited campaign emails into people's spam folders. https://www.reuters.com/world/us/republican-national-committee-sues-google-over-email-spam-filters-2022-10-22/ https://www.reuters.com/world/us/republican-national-committ...
    - owisd 3y ago
      I meant it more in the sense that (in this case) the RNC weren't proposing that the solution for this is for google to do zero filtering. They're still accepting that spam filtering is important, they just want the rules changed in their favour.
- MattRix 3y ago
  I think it should be censored because A. I think it’s important to protect victims of hate. and B. I believe allowing hate speech leads to hateful groups recruiting more members and gradually gaining power. Who decides what hate speech is? The goverment… the same way they decide every other law. Complaining about slippery slopes is fairly absurd. If we used similar logic we wouldn’t prosecute murder because of the slippery slope that would lead to locking everybody up. I live in Canada… where unlike the US (but like many other countries), there are strong rules against hate speech, yet we haven’t descended into fascism nearly as much as the US has. Hatred towards specific groups of people based on race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, disability and gender should not be allowed in a civilized society. The value and and very existence of those groups of people is not up for debate.
johngladtj 3y ago
They are just as bad as any other censors.
concordDance 3y ago
I suspect the term "hate speech" is doing a lot more work than it should be and you two have different understandings of the term. For instance, for some people talking about embryo selection is hate speech against the disabled, while for others only explicitly calling for the deaths of all <insert ethnic group> would meet the hate speech bar. What would be your standard for "hate speech"?
- account42 3y ago
  That's entirely the problem though: Hate isn't a property of the speech but a possible motivation behind it. But banning speech based on motivation is eerily close to making certain thoughts illegal. There are also a lot of speech motivated by hate that those pushing for hate speech regulation almost never want to see controlled. What is "ACAB" if not an expression for hate. What of "The only good Nazi is a dead Nazi". Even "calling for the deaths of all <insert ethnic group>" is entirely tolerated depending on the ethinc group in question. You see the motivation behind trying to ban the speech was never that its based on hate but wether it is "good" or "bad" speech - wether those in power agree with it or not. So no, I do not have a standard for "hate speech". I reject the concept of "hate speech" entirely. There is no standard. And there can't be one - surely you have heard the expression "one man's terrorist is anther man's freedom fighter". That abiguity is exactly what makes hate speech such an attractive moderation excuse. It is blank cheque that can and will be used to suppress whatever you want to suppress. The question should be what kind of speech directly and provably causes actual harm. That is the only valid baseline for what should be outright banned everywhere. Not speech that could motivate others do do harm. Not speech that offends someone. Not speech goes against the current narrative. Of course you can have communities that have further restrictions. And you probably should. But you're not banning "hate speech", your're banning speech YOU don't like.
  - mftrhu 3y ago
    > What of "The only good Nazi is a dead Nazi". That's not motivated by hate, don't be absurd. People just want their local Nazis to improve themselves - why would they care about what constitutes a "good Nazi" otherwise?

Are hate speech censorship apologists really the worst? I consider myself someone who believes hate speech should be censored. I’m pretty sure there are much worse things.

the_doctah 3y ago

Why do you think hate speech should be censored? Who decides what constitutes hate speech? Oh look I already discovered the slippery slope.

ulrikrasmussen 3y ago
You can apply that argument to any kind of moderation. The core problem is not that hate speech is censored, the problem is about who is responsible for applying the rules and how these people are selected. Hacker News is also censored and moderated, but it is my impression that the mods are quite carefully selected. On Reddit, the mods are anonymous and external, and are elected in an opaque process which I don't have a good understanding of. I fear that you end up with the catch 22 also seen in homeowner's associations: The people who have the time and dedication to rise to the top in these kinds of organizations are exactly the people you don't want to be in charge.
threeseed 3y ago
> Who decides what constitutes hate speech Governments do. And Reddit being a global site needs to abide by the laws of places like Germany which have specific rules around what content is tolerated.
- the_doctah 3y ago
  Being held liable for hosting child porn is a little different than banning people for criticizing gender politics.
  - iamacyborg 3y ago
    Maybe being banned is a good signal that you should stop being an arsehole?
    - wmnj 3y ago
      Would you have said the same about the suffragettes fighting for their rights?
      - iamacyborg 3y ago
        No but I suspect that’s unlikely to be an apples to apples comparison.
        wmnj 3y ago
        It usually is. Reddit in particular banned a whole swathe of women-focused communities, and users who commented in them, where women were advocating for their rights regarding female-only spaces. Outside of social media, there is a significant amount of institutional censorship on this topic, favoring male privilege over women's rights.
        iamacyborg 3y ago
        Which banned communities are you referring to? I can't recall any ban wave targeting anything other than content most would consider to be hateful or bullying.
        wmnj 3y ago
        r/gendercritical, r/menwinningwomenssport, r/truelesbians, r/actualwomen, r/terfisaslur, etc.
        iamacyborg 3y ago
        Ah so when you say "women-focused" community what you meant to say was "anti-trans" communities. Those aren't communities I ever looked into but I can imagine the sort of content that got posted there, see my comment above about hateful or bullying content.
- chatmasta 3y ago
  Why do they need to comply globally with the hate speech laws of Germany but not the LGBT laws of Saudi Arabia and Iran?
  - sirl1on 3y ago
    Why do I have to be DMCA compliant when reaching a US audience? Because they want to ensure to be available and reach users there. There is no inherent need, but not playing by the rules may result in being banned from participating in countries. Sometimes that's accepted (your Saudi Arabia example), sometimes ensured via separate services or other tricks (e.g. Chinese markets).
- dabluecaboose 3y ago
  It's a bit absurd to promote the government of Germany when claiming that the government should be the arbiter of what is and isn't acceptable speech. I know, Godwin's law, but the point is governments are fallible.
- nate_meurer 3y ago
  > Governments do. Making it a very powerful tool that is available exclusively to the people who already have the most power.
iamacyborg 3y ago
You realise you’re making these comments on a platform that bans hate speech, right?
- account42 3y ago
  There are vast differences as to what constitutes "hate speech". But even if the moderation here was the same as on Reddit it wouldn't necessarily mean that you can't criticise such moderation here.
_19qg 3y ago
> Who decides what constitutes hate speech? Government (in my country we use a parliamentary system where laws get proposed/changed/...), courts. For example in my country it is not legal to agitate to overthrow the political system, to form a new Nazi party, to use Nazi symbols as a political party, to organize a storm of the parliament, etc. There are also strict laws to protect the privacy of people, incl. persons who are suspects of crimes. It's for example not allowed, without court order, to openly publish personal data (fotos, fullnames) of suspects and to search for those. Even the police can't do that without permission.
- account42 3y ago
  Yet so-called "hate speech" moderation on sites like Reddit tends to be a lot stricter than the law, often going as far as removing facts that might offend some group.
owisd 3y ago
Nobody complains about spam getting removed yet you could make the same argument against that.
- iamacyborg 3y ago
  Republicans did try to get Google to stop putting their unsolicited campaign emails into people's spam folders. https://www.reuters.com/world/us/republican-national-committee-sues-google-over-email-spam-filters-2022-10-22/ https://www.reuters.com/world/us/republican-national-committ...
  - owisd 3y ago
    I meant it more in the sense that (in this case) the RNC weren't proposing that the solution for this is for google to do zero filtering. They're still accepting that spam filtering is important, they just want the rules changed in their favour.
MattRix 3y ago
I think it should be censored because A. I think it’s important to protect victims of hate. and B. I believe allowing hate speech leads to hateful groups recruiting more members and gradually gaining power. Who decides what hate speech is? The goverment… the same way they decide every other law. Complaining about slippery slopes is fairly absurd. If we used similar logic we wouldn’t prosecute murder because of the slippery slope that would lead to locking everybody up. I live in Canada… where unlike the US (but like many other countries), there are strong rules against hate speech, yet we haven’t descended into fascism nearly as much as the US has. Hatred towards specific groups of people based on race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, disability and gender should not be allowed in a civilized society. The value and and very existence of those groups of people is not up for debate.

johngladtj 3y ago

They are just as bad as any other censors.

concordDance 3y ago

I suspect the term "hate speech" is doing a lot more work than it should be and you two have different understandings of the term. For instance, for some people talking about embryo selection is hate speech against the disabled, while for others only explicitly calling for the deaths of all <insert ethnic group> would meet the hate speech bar. What would be your standard for "hate speech"?

account42 3y ago
That's entirely the problem though: Hate isn't a property of the speech but a possible motivation behind it. But banning speech based on motivation is eerily close to making certain thoughts illegal. There are also a lot of speech motivated by hate that those pushing for hate speech regulation almost never want to see controlled. What is "ACAB" if not an expression for hate. What of "The only good Nazi is a dead Nazi". Even "calling for the deaths of all <insert ethnic group>" is entirely tolerated depending on the ethinc group in question. You see the motivation behind trying to ban the speech was never that its based on hate but wether it is "good" or "bad" speech - wether those in power agree with it or not. So no, I do not have a standard for "hate speech". I reject the concept of "hate speech" entirely. There is no standard. And there can't be one - surely you have heard the expression "one man's terrorist is anther man's freedom fighter". That abiguity is exactly what makes hate speech such an attractive moderation excuse. It is blank cheque that can and will be used to suppress whatever you want to suppress. The question should be what kind of speech directly and provably causes actual harm. That is the only valid baseline for what should be outright banned everywhere. Not speech that could motivate others do do harm. Not speech that offends someone. Not speech goes against the current narrative. Of course you can have communities that have further restrictions. And you probably should. But you're not banning "hate speech", your're banning speech YOU don't like.
- mftrhu 3y ago
  > What of "The only good Nazi is a dead Nazi". That's not motivated by hate, don't be absurd. People just want their local Nazis to improve themselves - why would they care about what constitutes a "good Nazi" otherwise?