71–80 of 207 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can’t tell if you’re trolling or not. I hope so, otherwise I’m very worried for your lack of understanding history and how the world works.
How was I trolling? (Note that I didn’t say Facebook couldn’t regulate speech—just that it shouldn’t.)
Is the USA an improved society because of this?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you don't believe in censoring communications between a willing-speaker & willing-listener, anything they do has a 100% false-positive rate.
If only Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube were completely full of willing listeners for hate speech, then that might be applicable. Hate groups aren't sending private forum messages to each other, they're broadcasting Even John Stuart Mill, a founding philosopher of free speech, postulated that speech needs to be curtailed when the expression harms others.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So-called hate speech doesn’t cause harm other than to feelings. It’s constitutionally protected in the US, and Facebook is going down the wrong path trying to eliminate it.
Yes. Here, Facebook is making a good-faith effort to censor, we can see how difficult a time they are having writing rules for it, and Facebook is being criticized for it. There is no good way to do prior restraint. Read Justice Brandeis' concurring decision in Whitney vs. California. [1] He wrote the classic decision on this subject, and I can't improve on that. "Those who won our independence believed that the fina…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Words can not be violent. If you think one person being offended means speakers must be silenced, then you're on a dangerous pathway to fascism.
If I were to post here linking your legal name and identifying information and residence to this post and issuing a call to have you disemployed and harassed at home; evicted if possible and subjected to a general boycott covering everything from sex to food. You would object strenuously. Yet I would only be engaging in "free speech".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If only Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube were completely full of willing listeners for hate speech, then that might be applicable. Hate groups aren't sending private forum messages to each other, they're broadcasting Even John Stuart Mill, a founding philosopher of free speech, postulated that speech needs to be curtailed when the expression harms others.
These platforms also censor private person-to-person messaging, between people who don't complain about the content. That's willing-speaker-to-willing-listener, and being censored. And, rather than trying to square-the-circle of global speech standards enforced by crude algorithms and rushed, underinformed low-wage moderators, they could make the remedy for unwanted speech simply unsubscribing/unfriending the source.…
FB and others could also do as you said - make quarantine zones for specific prejudicial groups and their ideologies.
Except time and again these groups have proven they're not wanting to stay in their own special self-moderated zones but are actively looking to broadcast. There are businesses built upon these prejudicial world views and deplatforming them just shows how they heavily they rely on broadcasting:
https://mashable.com/article/milo-yiannopoulos-deplatforming...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wikipedia’s definition is no better. Even if you accept this definition, now you’re faced with the impossible task of defining what constitutes an attack on those grounds. The issue of defining hate speech is at the core of the free speech concerns, because what constitutes hate speech, by necessity, comes down entirely to the whims and personal opinions of whoever is enforcing the censorship.
Ah, but Wikipedia covers that in the very next sentence : >The laws of some countries describe hate speech as speech, gestures, conduct, writing, or displays that incite violence or prejudicial actions against a protected group or individuals on the basis of their membership in the group, or disparages or intimidates a protected group, or individuals on the basis of their membership in the group. https://en.wikipedia…
I commend Facebook for allocating more resources to enforce its community standards, what's the point in outlining standards if there is no enforcement? I'm not surprised that the initial implementation has had some rough patches. For this effort to be successful Facebook and other platforms are going to have to heavily invest in building relationships with cultural experts and stakeholders in hundreds of different c…
The problem is that nothing that Facebook does will actually solve the problem. The solution that will actually solve the problem, having different social networks, with different community standards for each, is antithetical to Facebook's existence. Facebook will continue to make more PowerPoint presentations and hire more outsourced content moderators in a desperate attempt to make the unworkable work... or at leas…
We can barely agree on what constitutes hate speech in the U.S.; fb is expecting to define and police hate speech globally?