101–110 of 207 posts
We can barely agree on what constitutes hate speech in the U.S.; fb is expecting to define and police hate speech globally?
From Facebook's perspective, what is the alternative? _Not_ trying to define censorship guidelines - and consequently (as we saw in Myanmar) enabling genocide?
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.
I'd be interested in the cite and context of the John Stuart Mill writing you're alluding to. And I wonder if his reasoning applies to the kinds of speech policing Facebook is doing, or only to the same sorts of things modern US free-speech law makes illegal: direct threats & incitements to imminent violent acts. (Notably not illegal: 'hate speech', blasphemy, insults, abstract advocacy of most crimes, etc.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
“...the hubris of facebook to think that they can even attempt to define and enforce speech codes?” What about this is hubris? Wouldnt you argue they have a responsibility to try? Wouldnt it be hubris to build such a powerful platform and not think to care about minimizing the amount of damage malicious actors could do with it?
Facebook thinks it can push its own moral standards for speech on users while at the same time repeatedly compromising the privacy and data of users. And Facebook does this without a hint of recognition that such imposition will be (and already is) being used as a political weapon against dissident voices. That's hubris.
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.
Words are used to spread ideas and tell stories, no? That much we can agree on? Do we agree that stories are a powerful medium for spreading good stories that make people happy? What about making people sad? What about educating people? If 'words' can do all of this, then surely 'words' can also incite harm?
Incitement is a specific class of speech that is generally prohibited. I see nobody here arguing against this.
However, much speech that is not incitement is also called hate speech, and that part of the Venn diagram is what we're talking about. These words are called harmful to justify the use of force to silence them, on much more abstract grounds than incitement.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Great. Except nobody is using that definition when talking about policing online speech. In fact those categories of speech have never been protected. It’s never been legal to solicit violence or to harass people. None of the big tech firms that have engaged in this type of censorship have done so solely on the basis of policing non-protected speech, so it’s entirely dishonest to say that hate speech starts and ends…
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.
I can choose who to serve in my pub. If you start mouthing off at the other patrons, you will be asked to leave. That is not censorship or silencing, it’s simply advising you that my place is not the place for that kind of behaviour.
What if it's just people discussing things you don't like amongst themselves, with willing speakers and willing listeners?
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.
First, if any opinion is compelled to silence, that opinion may, for aught we can certainly know, be true. To deny this is to assume our own infallibility.
Secondly, though the silenced opinion be an error, it may, and very commonly does, contain a portion of truth; and since the general or prevailing opinion on any subject is rarely or never the whole truth, it is only by the collision of adverse opinions that the remainder of the truth has any chance of being supplied.
Thirdly, even if the received opinion be not only true, but the whole truth; unless it is suffered to be, and actually is, vigorously and earnestly contested, it will, by most of those who receive it, be held in the manner of a prejudice, with little comprehension or feeling of its rational grounds. And not only this, but, fourthly, the meaning of the doctrine itself will be in danger of being lost, or enfeebled, and deprived of its vital effect on the character and conduct: the dogma becoming a mere formal profession, inefficacious for good, but cumbering the ground, and preventing the growth of any real and heartfelt conviction, from reason or personal experience."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How was I trolling? (Note that I didn’t say Facebook couldn’t regulate speech—just that it shouldn’t.)
It’s not constitutionally protected in basically any other western country for example, what is so bad about the way those countries work? Is the USA an improved society because of this?
To give just one example, in France, it is currently illegal to wear a t-shirt that says "boycott Israel".
https://forward.com/news/breaking-news/323207/france-court-u...
So yes, USA is an improved society in that regard because of its strong freedom of speech protections. Hopefully we can keep them.
The thing that troubles me the most is the hubris of Facebook to think that they can even attempt to define and enforce speech codes. It is their site, so they can do what they want, but I can also do what I want and not use it. Given Facebook's massive drop in stock price this year, it seems like their investors think Facebook is following the wrong path as well.
“...the hubris of facebook to think that they can even attempt to define and enforce speech codes?” What about this is hubris? Wouldnt you argue they have a responsibility to try? Wouldnt it be hubris to build such a powerful platform and not think to care about minimizing the amount of damage malicious actors could do with it?
They should work with legislatures and law enforcement in their respective countries of operation to figure out what those countries (and their people) actually want them to do. Some countries have strong hate speech laws; some have strong freedom of speech protections. Ideally, this should be reflected in their communication platforms. One size doesn't fit all.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Great. Except nobody is using that definition when talking about policing online speech. In fact those categories of speech have never been protected. It’s never been legal to solicit violence or to harass people. None of the big tech firms that have engaged in this type of censorship have done so solely on the basis of policing non-protected speech, so it’s entirely dishonest to say that hate speech starts and ends…
Guess what? Wikipedia also has an entire section in that same article regarding the internet and how tech companies interpet hate speech.