4 ms·

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-65246394 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-65246394 But I guess the rules play differently when you are a billi

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-65246394 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-65246394 But I guess the rules play differently when you are a billionaire, so here we are.

chihwei 2y ago
So you think it's a crime to allow people speak things you don't like?
- Kamq 2y ago
  In a lot of places? Yeah. Like super illegal (felony level)
- gchamonlive 2y ago
  https://www.un.org/en/hate-speech/united-nations-and-hate-speech/international-human-rights-law https://www.un.org/en/hate-speech/united-nations-and-hate-sp... > While certain restrictions on freedom of expression may be motivated by principles of equality and non-discrimination, “direct and public incitement to genocide” and “advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence” are strictly prohibited under international law, and are considered the “severest forms of hate speech”.
  - blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
    There’s no legitimate definition of hate speech. It’s just an ever expansive label used to undermine political speech and justify censorship or criminal charges. Free speech is the most fundamental civil liberty. Also no one cares what the UN’s “international law” is. They just all support it or ignore it as convenient, because it means nothing.
    - gchamonlive 2y ago
      It's a dispute between Brazil supreme court and a US based company. I didn't want to refer to Brazilian law because it seemed circumstantial, nor could I refer to US law because the first amendment defeats it. Falling back to international law only seemed natural so I didn't think I should have explained my rationale. But that was only to say, responding to who asked me the original question, that it doesn't matter what I think. I'm not a legislator. What matters is what's enforceable.
      - nradov 2y ago
        There's no such thing as international law. It's an imaginary concept. The UN is not a legislative body or sovereign entity.
        bumby 2y ago
        Isn't all law* outside of natural laws essentially an agreed upon framework of convenience? Sovereignty itself only works in consensus (see the failures of the sovereign citizen movement in the US). *I'm deliberately side-stepping religious law because there's no way to reasonably debate it logically. So this is meant to read "all secular law"
        gchamonlive 2y ago
        It's all tangential to the point. > So you think it's a crime to allow people speak things you don't like? That was the original question which was clearly designed to trap me in an opinion pitfall. I was making sure I was referencing external sources when responding to that, but nobody seemed willing to take what I wrote in context.
        bumby 2y ago
        You’re right, I wasn’t making any comment on your point.
  - raxxorraxor 2y ago
    > However, to date there is no universal definition of hate speech under international human rights law. The concept is still under discussion, especially in relation to freedom of opinion and expression, non-discrimination and equality. Source: https://www.un.org/en/hate-speech/understanding-hate-speech/what-is-hate-speech https://www.un.org/en/hate-speech/understanding-hate-speech/...
- tbrownaw 2y ago
  In some parts of the world, the local governments have decreed that it is.
- dyauspitr 2y ago
  I don’t know ask Elon, he has been pretty consistently censoring the left. Just last week he blocked the “whitedudesforkamala” account. Is that not censorship?
  - ripjaygn 2y ago
    That account was automatically flagged for spam and then reinstated. Even if it wasn't, censorship by an individual or a company is not a crime, are you confused by the first amendment which is a restriction on the government? X or Musk are not the government.
    - jjulius 2y ago
      [flagged]
      - grugagag 2y ago
        [flagged]
        jjulius 2y ago
        [flagged]
      - ripjaygn 2y ago
        [flagged]
        jjulius 2y ago
        [flagged]
        ripjaygn 2y ago
        That's a strange way of saying you completely lost the argument so you had to resort to digging into comment history to try and find something, but I'll take it. Address the topic, not the commenter, stop violating HN guidelines.
- cassianoleal 2y ago
  It's not about liking or not - it's about breaking the law. Hate speech is qualified in Brazilian criminal law. Nazism and anti-democratic aggitation are crimes, for instance.
ripjaygn 2y ago
> "Do you see a rise of hate speech?" Mr Musk said. "I don't." > He asked our reporter James Clayton for specific examples of hateful content. > When he couldn't pinpoint individual messages, Mr Musk said: "You don't know what you're talking about… you just lied. That is hilarious, thanks for the article. And I don't see examples of crimes committed by X or Musk in there?
- gchamonlive 2y ago
  > But there are both in-depth studies and anecdotal evidence that suggest hate speech has been growing under Mr Musk's tenure. > Several fringe characters that were banned under the previous management have been reinstated. > They include Andrew Anglin, founder of the neo-Nazi Daily Stormer website, and Liz Crokin, one of the biggest propagators of the QAnon conspiracy theory. From that same hilarious article.
  - ripjaygn 2y ago
    Those people are not billionaires, so why haven't they been prosecuted if, as you allege, they have committed crimes.
    - verzali 2y ago
      Anglin is literally on the run from the law and has an arrest warrant issued for him.
  - MarcoZavala 2y ago
    [dead]
- GolfPopper 2y ago
  Ah, the ever popular "hey, can you re-create Einstein's theory of relativity for me right now? No? I guess physics must be fake, then" argument, popular with bad-faith conversationalists of all stripes. Links from the BBC article you appear to have missed: "Antisemitism on Twitter Before and After Elon Musk’s Acquisition"[1] "The Musk Bump: Quantifying the rise in hate speech under Elon Musk"[2] Additional studies: "Hate Speech Spikes on Twitter After Elon Musk Acquires the Platform" [3] "Auditing Elon Musk’s Impact on Hate Speech and Bots" [4] 1. https://beamdisinfo.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/Antisemitism-on-Twitter-Before-and-After-Elon-Musks-Acquisition.pdf https://beamdisinfo.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/Antisemit... 2. https://counterhate.com/blog/the-musk-bump-quantifying-the-rise-in-hate-speech-under-elon-musk/ https://counterhate.com/blog/the-musk-bump-quantifying-the-r... 3. https://www.montclair.edu/school-of-communication-and-media/wp-content/uploads/sites/20/2022/11/Montclair-State-SCM-Study-Increases-in-Twitter-Hate-Speech-After-Elon-Musks-Acquisition.pdf https://www.montclair.edu/school-of-communication-and-media/... 4. http://arxiv.org/pdf/2304.04129 http://arxiv.org/pdf/2304.04129

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-65246394 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-65246394 But I guess the rules play differently when you are a billionaire, so here we are.

chihwei 2y ago

So you think it's a crime to allow people speak things you don't like?

Kamq 2y ago
In a lot of places? Yeah. Like super illegal (felony level)
gchamonlive 2y ago
https://www.un.org/en/hate-speech/united-nations-and-hate-speech/international-human-rights-law https://www.un.org/en/hate-speech/united-nations-and-hate-sp... > While certain restrictions on freedom of expression may be motivated by principles of equality and non-discrimination, “direct and public incitement to genocide” and “advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence” are strictly prohibited under international law, and are considered the “severest forms of hate speech”.
- blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
  There’s no legitimate definition of hate speech. It’s just an ever expansive label used to undermine political speech and justify censorship or criminal charges. Free speech is the most fundamental civil liberty. Also no one cares what the UN’s “international law” is. They just all support it or ignore it as convenient, because it means nothing.
  - gchamonlive 2y ago
    It's a dispute between Brazil supreme court and a US based company. I didn't want to refer to Brazilian law because it seemed circumstantial, nor could I refer to US law because the first amendment defeats it. Falling back to international law only seemed natural so I didn't think I should have explained my rationale. But that was only to say, responding to who asked me the original question, that it doesn't matter what I think. I'm not a legislator. What matters is what's enforceable.
    - nradov 2y ago
      There's no such thing as international law. It's an imaginary concept. The UN is not a legislative body or sovereign entity.
      - bumby 2y ago
        Isn't all law* outside of natural laws essentially an agreed upon framework of convenience? Sovereignty itself only works in consensus (see the failures of the sovereign citizen movement in the US). *I'm deliberately side-stepping religious law because there's no way to reasonably debate it logically. So this is meant to read "all secular law"
        gchamonlive 2y ago
        It's all tangential to the point. > So you think it's a crime to allow people speak things you don't like? That was the original question which was clearly designed to trap me in an opinion pitfall. I was making sure I was referencing external sources when responding to that, but nobody seemed willing to take what I wrote in context.
        bumby 2y ago
        You’re right, I wasn’t making any comment on your point.
- raxxorraxor 2y ago
  > However, to date there is no universal definition of hate speech under international human rights law. The concept is still under discussion, especially in relation to freedom of opinion and expression, non-discrimination and equality. Source: https://www.un.org/en/hate-speech/understanding-hate-speech/what-is-hate-speech https://www.un.org/en/hate-speech/understanding-hate-speech/...
tbrownaw 2y ago
In some parts of the world, the local governments have decreed that it is.
dyauspitr 2y ago
I don’t know ask Elon, he has been pretty consistently censoring the left. Just last week he blocked the “whitedudesforkamala” account. Is that not censorship?
- ripjaygn 2y ago
  That account was automatically flagged for spam and then reinstated. Even if it wasn't, censorship by an individual or a company is not a crime, are you confused by the first amendment which is a restriction on the government? X or Musk are not the government.
  - jjulius 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - grugagag 2y ago
      [flagged]
      - jjulius 2y ago
        [flagged]
    - ripjaygn 2y ago
      [flagged]
      - jjulius 2y ago
        [flagged]
        ripjaygn 2y ago
        That's a strange way of saying you completely lost the argument so you had to resort to digging into comment history to try and find something, but I'll take it. Address the topic, not the commenter, stop violating HN guidelines.
cassianoleal 2y ago
It's not about liking or not - it's about breaking the law. Hate speech is qualified in Brazilian criminal law. Nazism and anti-democratic aggitation are crimes, for instance.

ripjaygn 2y ago

> "Do you see a rise of hate speech?" Mr Musk said. "I don't." > He asked our reporter James Clayton for specific examples of hateful content. > When he couldn't pinpoint individual messages, Mr Musk said: "You don't know what you're talking about… you just lied. That is hilarious, thanks for the article. And I don't see examples of crimes committed by X or Musk in there?

gchamonlive 2y ago
> But there are both in-depth studies and anecdotal evidence that suggest hate speech has been growing under Mr Musk's tenure. > Several fringe characters that were banned under the previous management have been reinstated. > They include Andrew Anglin, founder of the neo-Nazi Daily Stormer website, and Liz Crokin, one of the biggest propagators of the QAnon conspiracy theory. From that same hilarious article.
- ripjaygn 2y ago
  Those people are not billionaires, so why haven't they been prosecuted if, as you allege, they have committed crimes.
  - verzali 2y ago
    Anglin is literally on the run from the law and has an arrest warrant issued for him.
- MarcoZavala 2y ago
  [dead]
GolfPopper 2y ago
Ah, the ever popular "hey, can you re-create Einstein's theory of relativity for me right now? No? I guess physics must be fake, then" argument, popular with bad-faith conversationalists of all stripes. Links from the BBC article you appear to have missed: "Antisemitism on Twitter Before and After Elon Musk’s Acquisition"[1] "The Musk Bump: Quantifying the rise in hate speech under Elon Musk"[2] Additional studies: "Hate Speech Spikes on Twitter After Elon Musk Acquires the Platform" [3] "Auditing Elon Musk’s Impact on Hate Speech and Bots" [4] 1. https://beamdisinfo.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/Antisemitism-on-Twitter-Before-and-After-Elon-Musks-Acquisition.pdf https://beamdisinfo.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/Antisemit... 2. https://counterhate.com/blog/the-musk-bump-quantifying-the-rise-in-hate-speech-under-elon-musk/ https://counterhate.com/blog/the-musk-bump-quantifying-the-r... 3. https://www.montclair.edu/school-of-communication-and-media/wp-content/uploads/sites/20/2022/11/Montclair-State-SCM-Study-Increases-in-Twitter-Hate-Speech-After-Elon-Musks-Acquisition.pdf https://www.montclair.edu/school-of-communication-and-media/... 4. http://arxiv.org/pdf/2304.04129 http://arxiv.org/pdf/2304.04129