2 ms·
Thanks, you make some good points. You've won me over somewhat. I agree that there's always at least some politics in choice/policy/enforcement because for an
by freedomben 2y ago
Thanks, you make some good points. You've won me over somewhat.
I agree that there's always at least some politics in choice/policy/enforcement because for any given value there are going to be people that oppose that value, but I don't think that means we should just embrace the political nature of it all and not try to be as "neutral" as possible. (To be clear I'm not suggesting that you are advocating for this, but I think it is the logical conclusion of accepting that everything is equally political). Some people's politics include free speech absolutism, and others include significant speech limitations, so a largely "we allow all legal speech" is a political stance when viewed that way, though it also strikes me as also the most "neutral" a platform can be, and I think that is mostly coincidental. There are plenty of political parties that disagree on many things for example, yet mostly agree that free speech and ability to express oneself is a good thing.
To be clear, I despise hate speech and I hate when people say offensive things. But trying to define hate speech is a recipe for sadness. The Israel/Palestine conflict has really shown that recently where some people consider it "hate speech" to criticize the government of either side. When it's a company or a newspaper or something, the cost of getting it wrong (either too tight or too loose) is much lower than when it's a platform that controls vast swathes of the public square.
Also, at what level does/should this matter? For example, should ISPs be pulling the plug if the customer has or shares content that they deem to be hate speech? Should power companies cut off electricity to those people?
I fully agree btw that Daily Stormer really messed up by claiming that CF supported them, but CF could have left their website in place and C&D'ed or sued for libel. I don't know what I would have done in their position though. There's a pretty good chance I would have done the same thing they did. It's hard to really know when you aren't in the soup.
- eli 2y agoAppreciate your comments. "We allow all legal free speech*" has the benefit of being very succinct. But when someone says, "hey one of your customers is encouraging violence and hostility against my family" and you keep it up anyway because it's legal, that is 100% as much a political choice as taking it down. "Well sorry, we're free speech absolutists" doesn't absolve you of the decision to host that site. (* Though of course that's not really the policy anyway. You probably mean more like, "speech that, in our opinion, is likely to be ruled illegal" right? You're not waiting for someone to bring charges and a court to issue a final ruling. Making that determination isn't so easy. Whose laws are we following on a global internet anyway? Content moderation has no easy answers)