5 ms·

What if money gets sent to websites that host hate speech?

by nerdo 3y ago

stronglikedan 3y ago
Then they are saying something people want to hear, since it's all completely subjective anyway.
teitoklien 3y ago
Why do you think anyone reserves the right to block funding to what gov determines as “hate speech”. If someone wants to pay for hate speech they can anyways do it right now with donations. Ideas like this quickly devolves into gov marking any message that criticizes them as “Hate speech”. Democracies like Japan, to an extent Singapore do that already, officially by law. Nations like Canada, India, Israel, Hungary, do it indirectly in unofficial but rampant ways. Speech is not a crime, listening to hate speech and starting to be unjustly hateful towards people is a crime. Punish the people who discriminate and act on the advice of hate speech. Do not punish speech, or else soon, you’ll get confused when gov starts changing what “hate” means.
- pelorat 3y ago
  Unfettered speech can lead to a cult following which, as we here in Europe know very well, can be extremely fucking dangerous. Which is precisely why some speech will land you in prison.
  - mardifoufs 3y ago
    Germany had plenty of hate speech laws back when Hitler was elected. Still the question that remains here would be: which government gets to decide what's hate speech? Like even if we could have a payment webAPI that could "block" hate speech (not sure how that would be possible), do we go by the standards of the US? Europe? Russia? How would it work concretely? Trying to discuss the implications of hate speech for something that would be international is asinine imo, the term basically means everything and nothing (when used in a global context)
  - RamblingCTO 3y ago
    Yes, exactly. We wouldn't have had hitler if we'd had hate speech laws back in the days!11!1
- repelsteeltje 3y ago
  > Speech is not a crime, listening to hate speech and starting to be unjustly hateful towards people is a crime. I'm confused. You start off talking about merrits of blocking payment related to hate speech (or lack thereof). And then you point to the danger of government deciding what "hate" means. That is all good and well, but to get back to the original issue - I'm wondering if you feel paying money to people spreading hate speech amounts to a crime or not?
kerkeslager 3y ago
What happens now when money gets sent to websites that host hate speech? Twitter/X hosts plenty of hate speech and is the #6 site in the world according to Wikipedia currently.
- nerdo 3y ago
  In the US the receiver gets unbanked without warning or explanation and permanently loses the ability to accept money through any service via systems like MATCH.
  - kerkeslager 3y ago
    Right... so far this has happened to 3 sites in the top 10 of this list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most-visited_websites https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most-visited_websites 2 of the sites in the top 10 of that list have been criticized for hosting hate speech. The 3 sites which have had trouble receiving payments don't overlap with the 2 which have been criticized for hosting hate speech. And notably, many sites which are more hateful than those and have experienced deplatforming efforts, are still thriving, such as KiwiFarms and 4Chan. As it turns out, there are enough hateful people out there that they can manage technical/financial solutions to deplatforming efforts. Hate speech is becoming a go-to justification for policing the internet, but the reality is that those policies are more effective in harming user privacy and freedom than they are in curbing hate speech.
    - nerdo 3y ago
      Porn can be an understandable concern because of the amount of chargebacks it can create for processors, though the excessive chargebacks should be the rule not the porn. Hate speech they never tried to explain afaik. FWIW repealing fair banking[1] was immediate priority for Biden up there with fortifying elections[2]. 1: https://reason.com/2021/02/11/biden-administration-suspends-rule-protecting-businesses-from-banking-discrimination/ https://reason.com/2021/02/11/biden-administration-suspends-... 2: https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/1 https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/1
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
BlueTemplar 3y ago
Why do you care about the two degrees of separation ? The people posting hate speech already get in legal trouble. And the websites hosting that can eventually get in trouble too (if they can't show that they did due diligence / were sufficiently close to a "common carrier" status). And if it gets bad enough (typically if these fist two categories violate a bunch of other laws), their funding might get investigated too. Money flows for that kind of use typically fairly easy to track, as long as law enforcement actually bothers to.

What if money gets sent to websites that host hate speech?

by nerdo 3y ago

What if money gets sent to websites that host hate speech?

stronglikedan 3y ago

Then they are saying something people want to hear, since it's all completely subjective anyway.

teitoklien 3y ago

Why do you think anyone reserves the right to block funding to what gov determines as “hate speech”. If someone wants to pay for hate speech they can anyways do it right now with donations. Ideas like this quickly devolves into gov marking any message that criticizes them as “Hate speech”. Democracies like Japan, to an extent Singapore do that already, officially by law. Nations like Canada, India, Israel, Hungary, do it indirectly in unofficial but rampant ways. Speech is not a crime, listening to hate speech and starting to be unjustly hateful towards people is a crime. Punish the people who discriminate and act on the advice of hate speech. Do not punish speech, or else soon, you’ll get confused when gov starts changing what “hate” means.

pelorat 3y ago
Unfettered speech can lead to a cult following which, as we here in Europe know very well, can be extremely fucking dangerous. Which is precisely why some speech will land you in prison.
- mardifoufs 3y ago
  Germany had plenty of hate speech laws back when Hitler was elected. Still the question that remains here would be: which government gets to decide what's hate speech? Like even if we could have a payment webAPI that could "block" hate speech (not sure how that would be possible), do we go by the standards of the US? Europe? Russia? How would it work concretely? Trying to discuss the implications of hate speech for something that would be international is asinine imo, the term basically means everything and nothing (when used in a global context)
- RamblingCTO 3y ago
  Yes, exactly. We wouldn't have had hitler if we'd had hate speech laws back in the days!11!1
repelsteeltje 3y ago
> Speech is not a crime, listening to hate speech and starting to be unjustly hateful towards people is a crime. I'm confused. You start off talking about merrits of blocking payment related to hate speech (or lack thereof). And then you point to the danger of government deciding what "hate" means. That is all good and well, but to get back to the original issue - I'm wondering if you feel paying money to people spreading hate speech amounts to a crime or not?

kerkeslager 3y ago

What happens now when money gets sent to websites that host hate speech? Twitter/X hosts plenty of hate speech and is the #6 site in the world according to Wikipedia currently.

nerdo 3y ago
In the US the receiver gets unbanked without warning or explanation and permanently loses the ability to accept money through any service via systems like MATCH.
- kerkeslager 3y ago
  Right... so far this has happened to 3 sites in the top 10 of this list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most-visited_websites https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most-visited_websites 2 of the sites in the top 10 of that list have been criticized for hosting hate speech. The 3 sites which have had trouble receiving payments don't overlap with the 2 which have been criticized for hosting hate speech. And notably, many sites which are more hateful than those and have experienced deplatforming efforts, are still thriving, such as KiwiFarms and 4Chan. As it turns out, there are enough hateful people out there that they can manage technical/financial solutions to deplatforming efforts. Hate speech is becoming a go-to justification for policing the internet, but the reality is that those policies are more effective in harming user privacy and freedom than they are in curbing hate speech.
  - nerdo 3y ago
    Porn can be an understandable concern because of the amount of chargebacks it can create for processors, though the excessive chargebacks should be the rule not the porn. Hate speech they never tried to explain afaik. FWIW repealing fair banking[1] was immediate priority for Biden up there with fortifying elections[2]. 1: https://reason.com/2021/02/11/biden-administration-suspends-rule-protecting-businesses-from-banking-discrimination/ https://reason.com/2021/02/11/biden-administration-suspends-... 2: https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/1 https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/1

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

BlueTemplar 3y ago

Why do you care about the two degrees of separation ? The people posting hate speech already get in legal trouble. And the websites hosting that can eventually get in trouble too (if they can't show that they did due diligence / were sufficiently close to a "common carrier" status). And if it gets bad enough (typically if these fist two categories violate a bunch of other laws), their funding might get investigated too. Money flows for that kind of use typically fairly easy to track, as long as law enforcement actually bothers to.