4 ms·

I think there's a genuine conversation to be had about whether there even is such a thing as "hate speech." There's certainly "offensive speech," but if that's

I think there's a genuine conversation to be had about whether there even is such a thing as "hate speech." There's certainly "offensive speech," but if that's what we're going to try to eliminate, then it seems we'll have a bad time as the offense is definitionally subjective.

yifanl 2y ago
Is the claim there some special property that makes it impossible to convey hate as opposed any other type of idea through text? That seems extremely wrong, especially in this context, given that LLMs make no attempt to formalize "ideas", they're only interested in syntax.
- mewpmewp2 2y ago
  Maybe the name for the "hate speech" is poorly chosen, since it's not necessarily about "hate".
  - yifanl 2y ago
    I mean, what's the claim then, there's no such thing as an illegal idea? You can't assign a semantic value to a legal system.
szundi 2y ago
There is hate speech, like when someone tells poeple how other people are not human and must be eliminated. Happened a lot, happening now in wars you read about.
- epicureanideal 2y ago
  But when "hate speech" becomes censorable and a crime, then people are incentivized to interpret as broadly as possible their opponents' statements and claim they should be interpreted as dehumanizing or encouraging violence. This can be done from both sides. Examples: Not sufficiently (for whoever) enforcing immigration laws? "Trying to eliminate the majority population, gradual ethnic cleansing". Talking about deporting illegal immigrants? "The first step on the road to murdering people they don't want in the country." And if the local judiciary or law enforcement is aligned with the interests of one side or the other, they can stretch the anti hate speech laws to use the legal system against their opponents.
  - skeeter2020 2y ago
    ?? This can be done from both sides. You are seeing this EXACT thing in the middle east right now.
o11c 2y ago
I'm not sure "offensive" is actually subjective. Rather, I dare say it's morally obligatory to be offensive at times, but different communities put the line in different places. Stating the position "torture is bad" is enough to get you banned from some places (because it's offensive to people who believe that it's okay as long as the victims are less-than-human).
mewpmewp2 2y ago
There is a definition for hate speech though.
- reginald78 2y ago
  Actually, I think the problem is there are many definitions of hate speech.
  - mewpmewp2 2y ago
    I think there's only 1 main definition. Which is clear in spirit, but it's of course possible that people may interpret the definition definitely.
    - jacobr1 2y ago
      That may be so, but the denigrate (and common case as this thread suggests) is to expand the notion to any offensive speech that is disliked by the offended person. That is much more subjective and hard to define. The fact that we have some (better) definitions doesn't really help. The desire to censure speech is widespread, for different reasons, many conflicting. And the fact that there might be a rough academic consensus on where to draw lines (at least theoretically if not practically) isn't good enough in practice to actually define clear rules.
      - mewpmewp2 2y ago
        The spirit needs to be understood clearly. The spirit of hate speech is to by forms of communication cause harm to a person or group of people for certain inherent characteristics that are not harmful for the society. Harm in such a way that manifests itself as violence or discrimination.
- baggy_trough 2y ago
  What do you think the definition is?
  - 2y ago
danans 2y ago
> I think there's a genuine conversation to be had about whether there even is such a thing as "hate speech." It may be fuzzy on the far edges, but any speech that calls for the elimination, marginalizes, dehumanizes or denies human or civil rights of a group of people is right in the heart of the meaning of hate speech. That definition still leaves huge amounts of space for satire, comedy, political and other forms of protected speech, even "offensive speech".
- samatman 2y ago
  > the elimination Yep, that's bad alright. > marginalizes, dehumanizes This is the part which means anything that authorities or other powerful groups need it to.
- skeeter2020 2y ago
  >> the elimination, marginalizes, dehumanizes or denies human or civil rights but you've already lumped together a huge range of behaviours and impacts. Elimination? OK, we can probably broadly define that, but I just heard news reports with quotes of Israelis calling for the elimination of Hamas, and Iran the elimination of Israel. How do we handle that? marginalized? as defined by who? What about marginalizing undesirable behaviours or speech? What does "dehumanize" mean? Who's definition of human or civil rights?
  - danans 2y ago
    > Elimination? OK, we can probably broadly define that, but I just heard news reports with quotes of Israelis calling for the elimination of Hamas, and Iran the elimination of Israel. How do we handle that? marginalized? as defined by who? I'd call both of them hate speech without qualification. But between countries, there's no legal system that would rule on speech (only actions, like the ICJ tries to adjudicate). > What about marginalizing undesirable behaviours or speech? What is the example of undesirable behavior being undertaken by a group that would warrant their marginalization as a group? I'm having a hard time finding an example of that. Calling out a group of racists or bigots (based on their words) for what they are isn't marginalization. > What does "dehumanize" mean? This has a very straightforward definition: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dehumanize https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dehumanize > Who's definition of human or civil rights? In the US context, this is also well defined: https://www.findlaw.com/civilrights/civil-rights-overview/what-are-civil-rights.html https://www.findlaw.com/civilrights/civil-rights-overview/wh...

yifanl 2y ago

Is the claim there some special property that makes it impossible to convey hate as opposed any other type of idea through text? That seems extremely wrong, especially in this context, given that LLMs make no attempt to formalize "ideas", they're only interested in syntax.

mewpmewp2 2y ago
Maybe the name for the "hate speech" is poorly chosen, since it's not necessarily about "hate".
- yifanl 2y ago
  I mean, what's the claim then, there's no such thing as an illegal idea? You can't assign a semantic value to a legal system.

szundi 2y ago

There is hate speech, like when someone tells poeple how other people are not human and must be eliminated. Happened a lot, happening now in wars you read about.

epicureanideal 2y ago
But when "hate speech" becomes censorable and a crime, then people are incentivized to interpret as broadly as possible their opponents' statements and claim they should be interpreted as dehumanizing or encouraging violence. This can be done from both sides. Examples: Not sufficiently (for whoever) enforcing immigration laws? "Trying to eliminate the majority population, gradual ethnic cleansing". Talking about deporting illegal immigrants? "The first step on the road to murdering people they don't want in the country." And if the local judiciary or law enforcement is aligned with the interests of one side or the other, they can stretch the anti hate speech laws to use the legal system against their opponents.
- skeeter2020 2y ago
  ?? This can be done from both sides. You are seeing this EXACT thing in the middle east right now.

o11c 2y ago

I'm not sure "offensive" is actually subjective. Rather, I dare say it's morally obligatory to be offensive at times, but different communities put the line in different places. Stating the position "torture is bad" is enough to get you banned from some places (because it's offensive to people who believe that it's okay as long as the victims are less-than-human).

mewpmewp2 2y ago

There is a definition for hate speech though.

reginald78 2y ago
Actually, I think the problem is there are many definitions of hate speech.
- mewpmewp2 2y ago
  I think there's only 1 main definition. Which is clear in spirit, but it's of course possible that people may interpret the definition definitely.
  - jacobr1 2y ago
    That may be so, but the denigrate (and common case as this thread suggests) is to expand the notion to any offensive speech that is disliked by the offended person. That is much more subjective and hard to define. The fact that we have some (better) definitions doesn't really help. The desire to censure speech is widespread, for different reasons, many conflicting. And the fact that there might be a rough academic consensus on where to draw lines (at least theoretically if not practically) isn't good enough in practice to actually define clear rules.
    - mewpmewp2 2y ago
      The spirit needs to be understood clearly. The spirit of hate speech is to by forms of communication cause harm to a person or group of people for certain inherent characteristics that are not harmful for the society. Harm in such a way that manifests itself as violence or discrimination.
baggy_trough 2y ago
What do you think the definition is?
- 2y ago

danans 2y ago

> I think there's a genuine conversation to be had about whether there even is such a thing as "hate speech." It may be fuzzy on the far edges, but any speech that calls for the elimination, marginalizes, dehumanizes or denies human or civil rights of a group of people is right in the heart of the meaning of hate speech. That definition still leaves huge amounts of space for satire, comedy, political and other forms of protected speech, even "offensive speech".

samatman 2y ago
> the elimination Yep, that's bad alright. > marginalizes, dehumanizes This is the part which means anything that authorities or other powerful groups need it to.
skeeter2020 2y ago
>> the elimination, marginalizes, dehumanizes or denies human or civil rights but you've already lumped together a huge range of behaviours and impacts. Elimination? OK, we can probably broadly define that, but I just heard news reports with quotes of Israelis calling for the elimination of Hamas, and Iran the elimination of Israel. How do we handle that? marginalized? as defined by who? What about marginalizing undesirable behaviours or speech? What does "dehumanize" mean? Who's definition of human or civil rights?
- danans 2y ago
  > Elimination? OK, we can probably broadly define that, but I just heard news reports with quotes of Israelis calling for the elimination of Hamas, and Iran the elimination of Israel. How do we handle that? marginalized? as defined by who? I'd call both of them hate speech without qualification. But between countries, there's no legal system that would rule on speech (only actions, like the ICJ tries to adjudicate). > What about marginalizing undesirable behaviours or speech? What is the example of undesirable behavior being undertaken by a group that would warrant their marginalization as a group? I'm having a hard time finding an example of that. Calling out a group of racists or bigots (based on their words) for what they are isn't marginalization. > What does "dehumanize" mean? This has a very straightforward definition: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dehumanize https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dehumanize > Who's definition of human or civil rights? In the US context, this is also well defined: https://www.findlaw.com/civilrights/civil-rights-overview/what-are-civil-rights.html https://www.findlaw.com/civilrights/civil-rights-overview/wh...