4 ms·

Which part of that is government censorship? Society deciding they don’t want to hear what you have to say isn’t censorship.

by tw04 2y ago

sunaookami 2y ago
First, it compells governments to censor speech. Look at the EU where "hate speech" laws and laws against "disinformation" were introduced and the ongoing battle with chat control. Second, you can't deny the impact being banned from using any monopolistic sites like Facebook, YouTube, Google. Banning everyone from there when you don't agree with them leads to massive echo chambers. And is it really "society" that "decides" and not just a vocal minority with the right connections to the press?
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > it compells governments to censor speech. Look at the EU where "hate speech" laws and laws against "disinformation" were introduced and the ongoing battle with chat control This is a weird point on which to fault the EU in respect of China.
  - lmz 2y ago
    It's not faulting it, just showing that it is no better in that regard.
    - tw04 2y ago
      Attempting to stop hate speech is no better than jailing citizens for speaking negatively about the current ruling government? I'm going to have to go with a hard disagree on that one. And no, "but it could be because XYZ" doesn't really fly. Any law "could be" unjust, unless you have specific examples of hate speech laws in Western Europe that are labeled as protecting against hate speech but are actually being used for nothing more than jailing political rivals, they're not the same.
- latexr 2y ago
  > First, it compells governments to censor speech. Look at the EU where "hate speech" laws and laws against "disinformation" were introduced and the ongoing battle with chat control. Countries both inside and outside the EU have been passing hate speech laws from since before the EU was even a thing. You call that censorship but we know that allowing hate to be spewed unconditionally is itself a form of silencing others. You can just look at the US, how’s the unfettered hate and disinformation working out over there? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance And chat control has nothing to do with hate speech. > Second, you can't deny the impact being banned from using any monopolistic sites like Facebook, YouTube, Google. Banning everyone from there when you don't agree with them leads to massive echo chambers. Who is banning those websites? You mean China, which has nothing to do with the EU? Or like banning Tik Tok, which the US is at the forefront of?
  - remarkEon 2y ago
    >...but we know that allowing hate to be spewed unconditionally is itself a form of silencing others. This is not clear to me. Furthermore, this statement assumes that there is a single and - more importantly - static definition of what is "hate speech", which is plainly not the case.
    - latexr 2y ago
      > This is not clear to me. It is not clear to you that when a group has such contempt for another they threaten and attack them verbally and physically, that the latter will be afraid to speak freely? Find a couple of gay or black adults in the US or Western Europe and ask them about events they’ve personally been through. > Furthermore, this statement assumes that there is a single and - more importantly - static definition of what is "hate speech" No, it does not. That was not part of the claim at all.
      - remarkEon 2y ago
        You are doing the exact thing that makes this discussion impossible. You are conflating speech (sounds that come out of my mouth) with physical violence (broadly illegal). The malleability of the definition of "hate speech" is the implied premise in every one of these debates, because without it your arguments make no sense. You even included a helpful hint in your original post. >You can just look at the US, how’s the unfettered hate and disinformation working out over there? You are drawing a comparison here that goes something like "the US doesn't have draconian hate speech laws like some countries in Europe, and as a result there are political outcomes I don't like". It's working out fine, by the way.
janalsncm 2y ago
It’s not government censorship. It’s a chilling effect on speech due to fear of retaliation from companies. It isn’t illegal to call for unionization, but it can be career suicide. There are many things like this. It isn’t so much “society” not wanting to hear what you have to say, but those in power wanting to actively suppress it. So you don’t need to threaten jail time to affect the same result as government censorship.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

Which part of that is government censorship? Society deciding they don’t want to hear what you have to say isn’t censorship.

by tw04 2y ago

Which part of that is government censorship? Society deciding they don’t want to hear what you have to say isn’t censorship.

sunaookami 2y ago

First, it compells governments to censor speech. Look at the EU where "hate speech" laws and laws against "disinformation" were introduced and the ongoing battle with chat control. Second, you can't deny the impact being banned from using any monopolistic sites like Facebook, YouTube, Google. Banning everyone from there when you don't agree with them leads to massive echo chambers. And is it really "society" that "decides" and not just a vocal minority with the right connections to the press?

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> it compells governments to censor speech. Look at the EU where "hate speech" laws and laws against "disinformation" were introduced and the ongoing battle with chat control This is a weird point on which to fault the EU in respect of China.
- lmz 2y ago
  It's not faulting it, just showing that it is no better in that regard.
  - tw04 2y ago
    Attempting to stop hate speech is no better than jailing citizens for speaking negatively about the current ruling government? I'm going to have to go with a hard disagree on that one. And no, "but it could be because XYZ" doesn't really fly. Any law "could be" unjust, unless you have specific examples of hate speech laws in Western Europe that are labeled as protecting against hate speech but are actually being used for nothing more than jailing political rivals, they're not the same.
latexr 2y ago
> First, it compells governments to censor speech. Look at the EU where "hate speech" laws and laws against "disinformation" were introduced and the ongoing battle with chat control. Countries both inside and outside the EU have been passing hate speech laws from since before the EU was even a thing. You call that censorship but we know that allowing hate to be spewed unconditionally is itself a form of silencing others. You can just look at the US, how’s the unfettered hate and disinformation working out over there? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance And chat control has nothing to do with hate speech. > Second, you can't deny the impact being banned from using any monopolistic sites like Facebook, YouTube, Google. Banning everyone from there when you don't agree with them leads to massive echo chambers. Who is banning those websites? You mean China, which has nothing to do with the EU? Or like banning Tik Tok, which the US is at the forefront of?
- remarkEon 2y ago
  >...but we know that allowing hate to be spewed unconditionally is itself a form of silencing others. This is not clear to me. Furthermore, this statement assumes that there is a single and - more importantly - static definition of what is "hate speech", which is plainly not the case.
  - latexr 2y ago
    > This is not clear to me. It is not clear to you that when a group has such contempt for another they threaten and attack them verbally and physically, that the latter will be afraid to speak freely? Find a couple of gay or black adults in the US or Western Europe and ask them about events they’ve personally been through. > Furthermore, this statement assumes that there is a single and - more importantly - static definition of what is "hate speech" No, it does not. That was not part of the claim at all.
    - remarkEon 2y ago
      You are doing the exact thing that makes this discussion impossible. You are conflating speech (sounds that come out of my mouth) with physical violence (broadly illegal). The malleability of the definition of "hate speech" is the implied premise in every one of these debates, because without it your arguments make no sense. You even included a helpful hint in your original post. >You can just look at the US, how’s the unfettered hate and disinformation working out over there? You are drawing a comparison here that goes something like "the US doesn't have draconian hate speech laws like some countries in Europe, and as a result there are political outcomes I don't like". It's working out fine, by the way.

janalsncm 2y ago

It’s not government censorship. It’s a chilling effect on speech due to fear of retaliation from companies. It isn’t illegal to call for unionization, but it can be career suicide. There are many things like this. It isn’t so much “society” not wanting to hear what you have to say, but those in power wanting to actively suppress it. So you don’t need to threaten jail time to affect the same result as government censorship.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]