4 ms·

> the execution is sometimes murky Is the "murky" part "criticism to politicians in power" or what exactly is unclear about combating hate speech? > the line

> the execution is sometimes murky Is the "murky" part "criticism to politicians in power" or what exactly is unclear about combating hate speech? > the line will be drawn by White House for the US companies, not the EU. I don't think there is "one line" drawn by a single person, there are multiple entities here drawing their own lines wherever they want. In some governments, the lines have already been drawn between what is hate speech or not.

9x39 10mo ago
> Is the "murky" part "criticism to politicians in power" or what exactly is unclear about combating hate speech? Chiefly, the subjective definition beyond "speech someone hates". Social media is trending towards establishing lockstep opinions and smushing disagreement. Using such labels is effective in cowing dissent. It's tempting to objectively label something as bad through a subjective process, as appeals to authority are powerful. Your point about diverging lines being drawn highlights the importance of skepticism of these appeals.
docdeek 10mo ago
> Is the "murky" part "criticism to politicians in power" or what exactly is unclear about combating hate speech? Not the commenter you are respoinding to, but the link they shared explained that some of the 'hate speech’ that gets flagged is not anything that would rise to the level of ‘hate speech’ in many other jurisdictions. One of the examples cited was a person prosecuted for calling a politician a “professional moron”. The politician in question had had 700 people investigated for insulting them online in such a fashion; another politician had made more than 500 similar complaints. Personally, I am uncomfortable with labeling some speech ‘hate speech’ and punishing the speaker even if it is indeed hateful because inevitably such laws will be used by people I don’t agree with to limit expression well beyond ‘hate speech’. Yet even if a case might be made for limiting some speech (denial of the Holocaust, for example) I don’t think that there is a strong case for limiting my ability to call a politician a moron, professional or otherwise.

9x39 10mo ago

> Is the "murky" part "criticism to politicians in power" or what exactly is unclear about combating hate speech? Chiefly, the subjective definition beyond "speech someone hates". Social media is trending towards establishing lockstep opinions and smushing disagreement. Using such labels is effective in cowing dissent. It's tempting to objectively label something as bad through a subjective process, as appeals to authority are powerful. Your point about diverging lines being drawn highlights the importance of skepticism of these appeals.

docdeek 10mo ago

> Is the "murky" part "criticism to politicians in power" or what exactly is unclear about combating hate speech? Not the commenter you are respoinding to, but the link they shared explained that some of the 'hate speech’ that gets flagged is not anything that would rise to the level of ‘hate speech’ in many other jurisdictions. One of the examples cited was a person prosecuted for calling a politician a “professional moron”. The politician in question had had 700 people investigated for insulting them online in such a fashion; another politician had made more than 500 similar complaints. Personally, I am uncomfortable with labeling some speech ‘hate speech’ and punishing the speaker even if it is indeed hateful because inevitably such laws will be used by people I don’t agree with to limit expression well beyond ‘hate speech’. Yet even if a case might be made for limiting some speech (denial of the Holocaust, for example) I don’t think that there is a strong case for limiting my ability to call a politician a moron, professional or otherwise.