3 ms·

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.
        wmnj 3y ago
    - concordDance 3y ago
      Being banned is in and of itself only a signal of strong disagreement with those holding the banning power. Often those holding bumming power will ban for being an arsehole but they can also ban for many other things. For instance, I don't necessarily think not wanting to allow people with male levels of testosterone to compete in female sports is arseholishness, but reasonable people can disagree here and a moderator might ban for it.
      - iamacyborg 3y ago
        Oh for sure, a 1-off ban in a single community doesn't mean much, but if you find yourself being banned from multiple communities because of the things you're saying, it's probably worth taking a moment of introspection to really assess whether you're in the right or not. I also don't think that particular example is arseholeish but it sure is tedious to hear folks with no interest in sports who suddenly have an opinion on who can compete. If you want to engage in the subject matter go speak to folks at your local athletics or sports club.
        wmnj 3y ago
        > but it sure is tedious to hear folks with no interest in sports who suddenly have an opinion on who can compete Clearly they do have an interest in sports - on the topic of fairness for female athletes at the very least - if they have formed an opinion on this topic.
        iamacyborg 3y ago
        Most folks talking about the issue only care about it in as much as it provides them with an opportunity to bash trans athletes. It’s a complex topic and you’d do well to talk to folks who are actually affected by it. I competed in the Southern Athletics league last summer and train with my local athletics club, I’m yet to even see a single trans athlete take part, let alone compete.
        wmnj 3y ago
- 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.

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.
        wmnj 3y ago
  - concordDance 3y ago
    Being banned is in and of itself only a signal of strong disagreement with those holding the banning power. Often those holding bumming power will ban for being an arsehole but they can also ban for many other things. For instance, I don't necessarily think not wanting to allow people with male levels of testosterone to compete in female sports is arseholishness, but reasonable people can disagree here and a moderator might ban for it.
    - iamacyborg 3y ago
      Oh for sure, a 1-off ban in a single community doesn't mean much, but if you find yourself being banned from multiple communities because of the things you're saying, it's probably worth taking a moment of introspection to really assess whether you're in the right or not. I also don't think that particular example is arseholeish but it sure is tedious to hear folks with no interest in sports who suddenly have an opinion on who can compete. If you want to engage in the subject matter go speak to folks at your local athletics or sports club.
      - wmnj 3y ago
        > but it sure is tedious to hear folks with no interest in sports who suddenly have an opinion on who can compete Clearly they do have an interest in sports - on the topic of fairness for female athletes at the very least - if they have formed an opinion on this topic.
        iamacyborg 3y ago
        Most folks talking about the issue only care about it in as much as it provides them with an opportunity to bash trans athletes. It’s a complex topic and you’d do well to talk to folks who are actually affected by it. I competed in the Southern Athletics league last summer and train with my local athletics club, I’m yet to even see a single trans athlete take part, let alone compete.
        wmnj 3y ago
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.