Anti-Semitic social posts 'not taken down' in 80% of cases • Hacker News Board

Re: Anti-Semitic social posts 'not taken down' in 80% of cases

#101

Post by fighterpilot » Mon, Aug 02, 2021, 5:01 PM UTC

raxxorrax wrote: post #100

fighterpilot wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What makes you think the Internet or unconstrained speech on the Web had anything to do with it? That is not what I think. Hate speech is the causal factor that I'm talking about, not the medium. People used the most effective tools that were available to them at the time. Before it was radio, print or film. Now it's social media. > Orwellian Dystopian nightmare I agree that speech restrictions can progress into an…

I believe strong language can escalate things, but there is no causal relationship to conflicts as it was believed for the longest time. Especially if you look at different online communities, vulgar language doesn't even seem to have an effect on conflicts. Sometime people even calm down after having had the ability to vent. Wars happen for different reason. I wouldn't know of any war started by strong language. One…

Are you saying that there is no causal link between hate speech and genocides/massacres? Because that's historically not accurate. Here's a recent example:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/15/technology/myanmar-facebo...

What conservatives ignore (and I consider myself pretty conservative-leaning) is that there's a grey area of speech that doesn't rise to direct incitement to violence but that nevertheless contributes to a climate that leads to genocide.

Other examples: The Der Sturmer publication in the 1920s Germany, and the hate speech being broadcast on public radio in Rwanda, among other examples. This speech galvanizes the general public against a group, which can lead to a not-so-great outcome for them.

Re: Anti-Semitic social posts 'not taken down' in 80% of cases

#102

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Aug 02, 2021, 5:13 PM UTC

nickthegreek wrote: post #62

afpx wrote: post #39

Unless people are inciting violence or organizing systematic discrimination, I think people should be free to say whatever they want. I understand why some people want to ban such speech, and there will always be those people, and there will always be ignorance and bigotry. It’s a slippery slope to give a subset of people control over what is allowed to be said. Maybe someone will point out my ignorance, too.

People are free to say what they want. People are not free to say whatever they want on another person's infrastructure. Those people are free to limit what they want to host.

[deleted]

Re: Anti-Semitic social posts 'not taken down' in 80% of cases

#103

Post by LightG » Mon, Aug 02, 2021, 5:18 PM UTC

billytetrud wrote: post #27

LightG wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Adding "offensive" to your sentence is a bit disingenuous.

? Why?

Without getting into the debate at all, the main focus of recent moderation attempts have been to target "abuse"/"hate speech", however you want to define that.

Adding "offensive" widens the scope enormously and unfairly and suddenly we're into the realms of restricting the freedom of speech for normal everyday situations.

Re: Anti-Semitic social posts 'not taken down' in 80% of cases

#104

Post by dang » Mon, Aug 02, 2021, 5:21 PM UTC

D9t7r5wLZD9dYc wrote: post #17

twiclo wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He's right

Comment was of course flagged. Because this website (like most of the internet), is controlled by the far left. Which seem to sympathize with censorship for whatever reason.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26148870

https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...

Re: Anti-Semitic social posts 'not taken down' in 80% of cases

#105

Post by bpodgursky » Mon, Aug 02, 2021, 5:30 PM UTC

LightG wrote: post #103

billytetrud wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

? Why?

Without getting into the debate at all, the main focus of recent moderation attempts have been to target "abuse"/"hate speech", however you want to define that. Adding "offensive" widens the scope enormously and unfairly and suddenly we're into the realms of restricting the freedom of speech for normal everyday situations.

This is extremely fuzzy line and pretty much nobody agrees where offense stops and hate starts. It's dishonest to try to distinguish a line between the two because it will inevitably move over time at the whims of the moderators.

Re: Anti-Semitic social posts 'not taken down' in 80% of cases

#106

Post by nailer » Mon, Aug 02, 2021, 6:02 PM UTC

FinanceAnon wrote: post #69

afpx wrote: post #39

Unless people are inciting violence or organizing systematic discrimination, I think people should be free to say whatever they want. I understand why some people want to ban such speech, and there will always be those people, and there will always be ignorance and bigotry. It’s a slippery slope to give a subset of people control over what is allowed to be said. Maybe someone will point out my ignorance, too.

I completely support freedom of speech. But what if there are people or companies who are making money from spreading complete lies which are very harmful to the society? I am happy for them to say what they want to small groups of people, but should they be allowed access to public platforms with millions of people?

It sounds like you don’t completely support freedom on speech.

Re: Anti-Semitic social posts 'not taken down' in 80% of cases

#107

Post by NaturalPhallacy » Mon, Aug 02, 2021, 7:24 PM UTC

afpx wrote: post #39

Unless people are inciting violence or organizing systematic discrimination, I think people should be free to say whatever they want. I understand why some people want to ban such speech, and there will always be those people, and there will always be ignorance and bigotry. It’s a slippery slope to give a subset of people control over what is allowed to be said. Maybe someone will point out my ignorance, too.

>Unless people are inciting violence or organizing systematic discrimination,

The whole purpose of the first and second amendments are so that - when, not if - our own government becomes tyrannical we can organize, and violently overthrow it.

Inciting violence (particularly against the government) is literally the whole point of the first two.

The US government is not supposed to rule, it's supposed to serve. A lot of people seem to have forgotten that. It's not only our right, specifically protected by the Bill of Rights, it's our duty and we can't even begin to do that if "inciting violence" is prohibited speech.

>It’s a slippery slope to give a subset of people control over what is allowed to be said.

The issue isn't even control, it's that there exists no person or organization that can be trusted with this power.

Re: Anti-Semitic social posts 'not taken down' in 80% of cases

#108

Post by FinanceAnon » Mon, Aug 02, 2021, 7:51 PM UTC

nailer wrote: post #106

FinanceAnon wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I completely support freedom of speech. But what if there are people or companies who are making money from spreading complete lies which are very harmful to the society? I am happy for them to say what they want to small groups of people, but should they be allowed access to public platforms with millions of people?

It sounds like you don’t completely support freedom on speech.

I think it depends on your definition of freedom of speech. I don't support providing a platform for harmful lies to spread e.g. QAnon

In my opinion, internet and social media changed the game. Freedom of speech now is not the same as freedom of speech 200 years ago. The spread of information now is massive and instanteneous, and people are up against ML models which are being trained to grab their attention. For example, Cambridge Analytica - were their actions an exercise of freedom of speech or exploitation of social media?

Re: Anti-Semitic social posts 'not taken down' in 80% of cases

#109

Post by ticviking » Mon, Aug 02, 2021, 9:49 PM UTC

FinanceAnon wrote: post #108

nailer wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It sounds like you don’t completely support freedom on speech.

I think it depends on your definition of freedom of speech. I don't support providing a platform for harmful lies to spread e.g. QAnon In my opinion, internet and social media changed the game. Freedom of speech now is not the same as freedom of speech 200 years ago. The spread of information now is massive and instanteneous, and people are up against ML models which are being trained to grab their attention. For exa…

They were both.

Re: Anti-Semitic social posts 'not taken down' in 80% of cases

#110

Post by ticviking » Mon, Aug 02, 2021, 9:53 PM UTC

afavour wrote: post #32

bpodgursky wrote: post #7

It's pretty... interesting, that the new expected norm is that all hateful / offensive posts are taken down on the internet. 10 years ago, this would be a very confusing headline to read.

I don’t know about ten years ago, twenty maybe. But the internet of today is not the internet of then. Back then someone could have created an offensive blog and it wouldn’t have been taken down. But people would have to link to it, seek it out. Now we have social media sites algorithmically pushing content in our faces, IMO it’s only fair that they’re asked to consider what they’re pushing when they do it.

It seems to me that suggests that maybe we should evaluate a model where we pull, and share content ourselves.

The issue I've seen is that tends to make it hard to sneak ads into the feed without it being really obvious to everyone what is being done.