7 ms·

The real issue with social media is actually already illegal: you cannot form harassment gangs which stalk and abuse people. I would support governments legisl

The real issue with social media is actually already illegal: you cannot form harassment gangs which stalk and abuse people. I would support governments legislating this issue, but so often, it's seen purely through a hate-speech lens -- which is madness. One has to wonder of the politics behind this: are harassment campaigns permissable against white men? It is fine to hate them? One has to imagine legislators believe so. The illegal behaviour here is fairly obvious, and not so hard to police: prevent social media platforms from "easy sharing" behaviour by default, and ban it for harassing accounts, etc. Give fines to people who instigate targeted campaigns against non-public figures. Enshire an absolute right to good-faith expression for any member of the public online, so any sincerely held belief can be expressed without fear of mobbing.. etc. It is very odd that this issue is seen through a 'minority rights' lens, rather than the more obvious social harassement lens.

paulryanrogers 3y ago
[flagged]
- trimethylpurine 3y ago
  As a group with forced membership.
- willcipriano 3y ago
  I thought racism and sexism wasn't permitted here.
  - paulryanrogers 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - fx1994 3y ago
      really?
    - woooooo 3y ago
      A small number of people hold lots of wealth and power. Most white people, male or female, are not Jeff Bezos. When you start generalizing based on skin color and gender, that's the actual dictionary definition of racism and sexism.
    - aent 3y ago
      > White males hold a lot of power in society, so -- as a group -- What about > Muslim men commit a lot of terrorist acts, so -- as a group -- this entire line of thinking is the definition of racism and sexism. You take some tiny minority (people in power, people committing terrorist acts, etc) and extrapolate the traits of that tiny group onto some giant group based solely on some immutable trait, where the people in that giant group have nothing to do with it except that they happen to have the same immutable trait.
    - Levitz 3y ago
      The implication that they hold that power because they are white men´, with the addition that there is nothing even tangible to the comment, it's impossible to disprove because there are no specifics to what "power" even means. One could make similar comments like "Most corporate issues are caused by white women" or "Asian women hold the most societal power" or "Black men are the most favoured by their families", there is nothing to these comments but prejudice.
      - paulryanrogers 3y ago
        Thanks for elaborating. In the future I'll try to be more specific.
        caeril 3y ago
        Thank you, sir. If I may also suggest, you could also try being actually factually correct in your initial assertions in the future. In the United States, White men are pretty middling in terms of per-capita power[1]. If you really intend to make the correct selections for the racial Revolution, it's those goddamned Taiwanese-Americans, Brahmin Indians, Jews[2], and Filipinos you need to line up against the wall first. I think you have a solid plan, dehumanizing the most successful groups. Pol Pot and Hitler were pretty effective at this, and I'm sure you have a good shot of doing it too. I'm just a little sad that authentic Thai food will go away before I get the bullet. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ethnic_groups_in_the_United_States_by_household_income https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ethnic_groups_in_the_U... [2] https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2021/05/11/economics-and-well-being-among-u-s-jews/ https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2021/05/11/economics-an... (Ethnicity and Religion being correlated by 89%, in this case)
- PM_me_your_math 3y ago
  [dead]
- justin66 3y ago
  Regardless of race or gender, you would be hard pressed to find a victim of online harassment who reports anything along the lines of "the law bent over backwards to help me."
- psychlops 3y ago
  Stereotyping and persecuting all white males due to the actions of a very small (but visible) minority is not a point of view with which many would agree.
  - paulryanrogers 3y ago
    Who is persecuting white males?
    - psychlops 3y ago
      Do hate crimes include white males?
- yosito 3y ago
  As a white man who has been harassed on Facebook and who got no help from Meta or the law, your comment doesn't seem to add anything helpful to the discussion.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
trimethylpurine 3y ago
The crime is violence and threats of violence which, as you're saying is easy to monitor. All we need is to let people use social media to incriminate themselves. The real issue is just that we don't have the resources to give them all due process. If we can fix that part we'll be ready for everyone to have global reach and social media. We didn't solve that problem before the technology came about which indicates that the we just weren't ready for social media. Sadly the whole world is suffering for it, and extremist anti Western and anti civil rights groups are exploiting that.
- psychlops 3y ago
  Are you suggesting that technology should be only be permitted after some group of people deems it ready for the masses?
  - blitzar 3y ago
    I think they are suggesting that people should have a brain and think before they post death threats on social media.
    - psychlops 3y ago
      Really? I reread his comment and didn't get that interpretation. In any event, I doubt the people posting death threats on social media are the type to reflect rationally on their actions.
      - dleink 3y ago
        You are painting the mentally ill with too broad a brush. There is a difference between 'ill' and 'dangerous'. We should not engender a society that encourages people to toe that line.
      - kelseyfrog 3y ago
        I'm not sure. There's two[1] types of errors at play, correct axioms but incorrect logic, and incorrect axioms and correct logic. Which of these errors do you tend to see death threat makers engaging in? 1. I'm oversimplifying. Ofc it's possible to combine the two as well. But we are talking about tendencies.
orwin 3y ago
I think it's because harassers are from the same 'club', and their victims are not. Their club will often be led by white men, but can be more diverse, because it's mostly about class. The 'Ligue du LOL' in France had a fair number of women, most of them integrated because they slept with Vincent Gad or the other leader I forgot the name of, and were especially nasty with other women who refused to do so (the primary target, despite what the media said, were not 'feminists' but women who refused to sleep with members). They also harassed white men, especially non-Parisian, and were nastier if that person was overweight or on the spectrum. The harassment could go very far, with fake death announcement, and I've heard, physical intrusion (Korben, French tech journalist has a lot more details, I only knew a bit because I'm from a rural area, and accointances tried to take a small part of sunlight before getting absolutely trashed by that Parisian harassment club). It really has nothing to do with minorities: it's just that it's easier to mock them, and harder for them to be in this kind of social class, because imho, it's more a class thing: you want to put down people before they can get opportunities to get to your level.
- giraffe_lady 3y ago
  Why is it easier to mock minorities? Why is it harder for them to be in this class? It kinda sounds like it does have something to do with them here.
stevenwoo 3y ago
In the USA, Counterman v Colorado upends your first point, a case where a man who by any rational definition was stalking and harassing a woman, made the legal standard harder for all future victims. Also Kiwi Farms regularly brigades people with zero consequences.
- colpabar 3y ago
  keffals lost.
- ranger_danger 3y ago
  How does this make it harder? https://www.uscourts.gov/educational-resources/educational-activities/facts-and-case-summary-counterman-v-colorado https://www.uscourts.gov/educational-resources/educational-a... This says "the defendant’s subjective intent to threaten the victim must be established based on a showing of (at least) recklessness". I think many could argue that speech which wasn't intentionally intended to harm should not be interpreted as such, and I don't see where this makes intentional harm less prosecutable. Everyone's opinion is different, including judges of course, and I'm not saying yours is wrong, but I'd like to hear more about why you think this makes "things" harder.
  - everforward 3y ago
    It adds another fact that must be proven. Some cases will be able to meet the other bars but unable to convince a jury of that recklessness. Doesn’t mean it’s inherently bad, but I think it’s disingenuous to act like this doesn’t add another hurdle for prosecutors
MiguelX413 3y ago
> One has to wonder of the politics behind this: are harassment campaigns permissable against white men? It is fine to hate them? One has to imagine legislators believe so. I don't see why because that'd also be hate speech.

paulryanrogers 3y ago

[flagged]

trimethylpurine 3y ago
As a group with forced membership.
willcipriano 3y ago
I thought racism and sexism wasn't permitted here.
- paulryanrogers 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - fx1994 3y ago
    really?
  - woooooo 3y ago
    A small number of people hold lots of wealth and power. Most white people, male or female, are not Jeff Bezos. When you start generalizing based on skin color and gender, that's the actual dictionary definition of racism and sexism.
  - aent 3y ago
    > White males hold a lot of power in society, so -- as a group -- What about > Muslim men commit a lot of terrorist acts, so -- as a group -- this entire line of thinking is the definition of racism and sexism. You take some tiny minority (people in power, people committing terrorist acts, etc) and extrapolate the traits of that tiny group onto some giant group based solely on some immutable trait, where the people in that giant group have nothing to do with it except that they happen to have the same immutable trait.
  - Levitz 3y ago
    The implication that they hold that power because they are white men´, with the addition that there is nothing even tangible to the comment, it's impossible to disprove because there are no specifics to what "power" even means. One could make similar comments like "Most corporate issues are caused by white women" or "Asian women hold the most societal power" or "Black men are the most favoured by their families", there is nothing to these comments but prejudice.
    - paulryanrogers 3y ago
      Thanks for elaborating. In the future I'll try to be more specific.
      - caeril 3y ago
        Thank you, sir. If I may also suggest, you could also try being actually factually correct in your initial assertions in the future. In the United States, White men are pretty middling in terms of per-capita power[1]. If you really intend to make the correct selections for the racial Revolution, it's those goddamned Taiwanese-Americans, Brahmin Indians, Jews[2], and Filipinos you need to line up against the wall first. I think you have a solid plan, dehumanizing the most successful groups. Pol Pot and Hitler were pretty effective at this, and I'm sure you have a good shot of doing it too. I'm just a little sad that authentic Thai food will go away before I get the bullet. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ethnic_groups_in_the_United_States_by_household_income https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ethnic_groups_in_the_U... [2] https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2021/05/11/economics-and-well-being-among-u-s-jews/ https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2021/05/11/economics-an... (Ethnicity and Religion being correlated by 89%, in this case)
PM_me_your_math 3y ago
[dead]
justin66 3y ago
Regardless of race or gender, you would be hard pressed to find a victim of online harassment who reports anything along the lines of "the law bent over backwards to help me."
psychlops 3y ago
Stereotyping and persecuting all white males due to the actions of a very small (but visible) minority is not a point of view with which many would agree.
- paulryanrogers 3y ago
  Who is persecuting white males?
  - psychlops 3y ago
    Do hate crimes include white males?
yosito 3y ago
As a white man who has been harassed on Facebook and who got no help from Meta or the law, your comment doesn't seem to add anything helpful to the discussion.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

trimethylpurine 3y ago

The crime is violence and threats of violence which, as you're saying is easy to monitor. All we need is to let people use social media to incriminate themselves. The real issue is just that we don't have the resources to give them all due process. If we can fix that part we'll be ready for everyone to have global reach and social media. We didn't solve that problem before the technology came about which indicates that the we just weren't ready for social media. Sadly the whole world is suffering for it, and extremist anti Western and anti civil rights groups are exploiting that.

psychlops 3y ago
Are you suggesting that technology should be only be permitted after some group of people deems it ready for the masses?
- blitzar 3y ago
  I think they are suggesting that people should have a brain and think before they post death threats on social media.
  - psychlops 3y ago
    Really? I reread his comment and didn't get that interpretation. In any event, I doubt the people posting death threats on social media are the type to reflect rationally on their actions.
    - dleink 3y ago
      You are painting the mentally ill with too broad a brush. There is a difference between 'ill' and 'dangerous'. We should not engender a society that encourages people to toe that line.
    - kelseyfrog 3y ago
      I'm not sure. There's two[1] types of errors at play, correct axioms but incorrect logic, and incorrect axioms and correct logic. Which of these errors do you tend to see death threat makers engaging in? 1. I'm oversimplifying. Ofc it's possible to combine the two as well. But we are talking about tendencies.

orwin 3y ago

I think it's because harassers are from the same 'club', and their victims are not. Their club will often be led by white men, but can be more diverse, because it's mostly about class. The 'Ligue du LOL' in France had a fair number of women, most of them integrated because they slept with Vincent Gad or the other leader I forgot the name of, and were especially nasty with other women who refused to do so (the primary target, despite what the media said, were not 'feminists' but women who refused to sleep with members). They also harassed white men, especially non-Parisian, and were nastier if that person was overweight or on the spectrum. The harassment could go very far, with fake death announcement, and I've heard, physical intrusion (Korben, French tech journalist has a lot more details, I only knew a bit because I'm from a rural area, and accointances tried to take a small part of sunlight before getting absolutely trashed by that Parisian harassment club). It really has nothing to do with minorities: it's just that it's easier to mock them, and harder for them to be in this kind of social class, because imho, it's more a class thing: you want to put down people before they can get opportunities to get to your level.

giraffe_lady 3y ago
Why is it easier to mock minorities? Why is it harder for them to be in this class? It kinda sounds like it does have something to do with them here.

stevenwoo 3y ago

In the USA, Counterman v Colorado upends your first point, a case where a man who by any rational definition was stalking and harassing a woman, made the legal standard harder for all future victims. Also Kiwi Farms regularly brigades people with zero consequences.

colpabar 3y ago
keffals lost.
ranger_danger 3y ago
How does this make it harder? https://www.uscourts.gov/educational-resources/educational-activities/facts-and-case-summary-counterman-v-colorado https://www.uscourts.gov/educational-resources/educational-a... This says "the defendant’s subjective intent to threaten the victim must be established based on a showing of (at least) recklessness". I think many could argue that speech which wasn't intentionally intended to harm should not be interpreted as such, and I don't see where this makes intentional harm less prosecutable. Everyone's opinion is different, including judges of course, and I'm not saying yours is wrong, but I'd like to hear more about why you think this makes "things" harder.
- everforward 3y ago
  It adds another fact that must be proven. Some cases will be able to meet the other bars but unable to convince a jury of that recklessness. Doesn’t mean it’s inherently bad, but I think it’s disingenuous to act like this doesn’t add another hurdle for prosecutors

MiguelX413 3y ago

> One has to wonder of the politics behind this: are harassment campaigns permissable against white men? It is fine to hate them? One has to imagine legislators believe so. I don't see why because that'd also be hate speech.