Alex Stamos: Asking tech companies to police hate speech is “a dangerous path” • Hacker News Board

Re: Alex Stamos: Asking tech companies to police hate speech is “a dangerous path”

#101

Post by halfnibble » Tue, Oct 23, 2018, 6:55 PM UTC

OmarIsmail wrote: post #28

mrkstu wrote: post #16

Cockroaches thrive in the dark corners. Sunlight is antiseptic. And forcing ideas/speech into those dark corners don't keep them from growing, it merely allows it to grow unobserved and un-countered. Ideas are the only counter to other ideas and how we communicate those idea is via speech. Suppression only invites martyrdom on the behalf of those suppressed, increasing their credibility.

There is evidence that deplatforming works ( https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/bjbp9d/do-social-... )

Deplatforming works until new "free speech" platforms like Gab arise to replace the old.

Re: Alex Stamos: Asking tech companies to police hate speech is “a dangerous path”

#102

Post by snackbugs » Tue, Oct 23, 2018, 6:55 PM UTC

macspoofing wrote: post #92

snackbugs wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What can be done to correct this definition? What should be adjusted?

For one thing, this definition eschews a common standard. Rather, violations are based on arbitrary criteria of "dominance" - which is popular with certain ideologues but has very little support in showing that this is actually a good metaphor for understanding our society. Anyway, in practice (and probably in your mind), this definition would entail grouping people by their skin color and labeling one group as extra…

>Rather, violations are based on arbitrary criteria of "dominance" - which is popular with certain ideologues but has very little support in showing that this is actually a good metaphor for understanding our society.

I'm fascinated with why people don't acknowledge power structures as having any influence in how one part of society views another; that there is currently no hierarchy in society.

You just haven't ever needed to interface with this idea and therefore believe it's not a defined concept.

Re: Alex Stamos: Asking tech companies to police hate speech is “a dangerous path”

#103

Post by mundo » Tue, Oct 23, 2018, 6:55 PM UTC

This strikes me as a timely and important sentiment.

When we demand that Twitter ban anti-semitic tweets, or that Cloudflare block white supremacist websites, or that Youtube deplatform Alex Jones, we are taking the power to limit speech (which the founders felt was too important to be wielded by the government) and handing it to middle managers at software companies. The de jure rule is "Freedom of Speech shall not be infringed" but the de facto rule is "Don't say anything that would upset the advertisers."

This seems like a Bad Idea (tm) but until/unless a decentralized Mastodon/Scuttlebutt style platform gets traction, I don't know what the solution is. It's a natural result of relying on private apps as a primary method of communication.

Re: Alex Stamos: Asking tech companies to police hate speech is “a dangerous path”

#104

Post by mrkstu » Tue, Oct 23, 2018, 6:56 PM UTC

criddell wrote: post #46

mrkstu wrote: post #16

Cockroaches thrive in the dark corners. Sunlight is antiseptic. And forcing ideas/speech into those dark corners don't keep them from growing, it merely allows it to grow unobserved and un-countered. Ideas are the only counter to other ideas and how we communicate those idea is via speech. Suppression only invites martyrdom on the behalf of those suppressed, increasing their credibility.

> Ideas are the only counter to other ideas and how we communicate those idea is via speech. A lot of holders of bad ideas have no interest in rational debate. For those people, sunlight is an energy source, not an antiseptic. When ISIS posts a video of a beheading, there isn't a lot of reasonable discussion going on in the comment section.

Those aren't just ideas- those are vicious actions. I don't think giving access to those we are actively at physical odds with is within bounds of debating ideas.

I doubt the founding fathers were inviting Quislings to their debating societies during the revolutionary war.

Re: Alex Stamos: Asking tech companies to police hate speech is “a dangerous path”

#105

Post by PKop » Tue, Oct 23, 2018, 6:56 PM UTC

jachee wrote: post #35

daenz wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>So, I see I've angered the privileged, white, tech-bro, capitalists. What? Why are you saying white people specifically are downvoting your opinion? And aren't you manifesting hate towards a group of people with a physical characteristic?

I'm not hating, only observing. The only ones who see fault in protecting the marginalized are the privileged. The only ones who advocate the right for hate speech are those who are functionally immune to it. And the demographics of HN are young, single, white, males. It's the only explanation I can find for someone downvoting "Hate is an absolute."

You are illustrating the hypocrisy of arbitrary definitions of hate.

You're literally expressing "hate" towards a group of people.

When called out you call it observing things. Do not those with opposing points of view observe things? So now it's about debating objective observations? Or is it about hate?

How can you not realize this is a perfect encapsulation for the defense of free speech and open debate? Can you not fathom that many people do not share your specific point of view on what is hate, or your specific observations and may have some of their own? Nah.. you just want to railroad your views over theirs with no opportunity for a rebuttal.

Re: Alex Stamos: Asking tech companies to police hate speech is “a dangerous path”

#106

Post by jachee » Tue, Oct 23, 2018, 6:56 PM UTC

PKop wrote: post #97

jachee wrote: post #4

Hate is an absolute. If you're not against it, you're supporting it. EDIT: So, I see I've angered the privileged, white, tech-bro, capitalists. Downvote away. Don't dare speak up about how hate is bad here. Got it.

Sounds like you hate white tech bros

Sounds like you've never heard actual hate speech.

Consider that a privilege.

Re: Alex Stamos: Asking tech companies to police hate speech is “a dangerous path”

#107

Post by School-Cotton » Tue, Oct 23, 2018, 6:58 PM UTC

snackbugs wrote: post #90

School-Cotton wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're defining it like that then it's just as vague and subjective as "hate speech" is, so we haven't made any progress with this definition.

You're being confronted with a truth about the clear definition of hate speech, and you're resisting moving forward because you intuitively sense the contradiction that your own belief might pose to that. This is where you need to be brave and get past that.

Huh? That's totally out of left field and not even related to the discussion we were having. How can you possibly have any idea what my motives are for this discussion or what my own beliefs are about anything else?

Re: Alex Stamos: Asking tech companies to police hate speech is “a dangerous path”

#108

Post by yourbandsucks » Tue, Oct 23, 2018, 7:04 PM UTC

jachee wrote: post #98

mitchty wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Let me simplify further, in the face of your ad hominem: Sorry? I attacked your phrasing and logic, not YOU. Its like you're wanting to get angry at nothing. I'm done here if you don't want to act civilized.

Okay, I clearly got a bit too passionate. Let me try and clarify, civilly: Hate speech is always an attack. Whether it's overt (Westboro, the N-word, Swastikas, homophobic slurs, etc.) or more subtle ("the 14 words", "88", etc). Supporting the "right" of someone to use hate speech is supporting their right to attack (and thus violate the rights of) others. Whereas, by preventing those attacks, nothing of value is los…

Absolutism is also dangerous. You're dividing the world into 'good' and 'bad' and giving no quarter to the bad.

That can go sideways. You think any of the monsters of history thought they were the bad guys?

Re: Alex Stamos: Asking tech companies to police hate speech is “a dangerous path”

#109

Post by tedunangst » Tue, Oct 23, 2018, 7:04 PM UTC

neves wrote: post #83

Well, these unnamed "tech companies" are responsible for the proliferation of absurd lies that will elect a far right authoritarian candidate in my country, Brazil. The spread of this lies happens with the support of a well financed organization. I always thought that the Internet would be a democratic platform that would improve the debate in society. Maybe we would go back to a democracy without intermediaries. I w…

Modest proposal: The government should appoint a Department of Truth to review and approve all social media posts in a country to eliminate election misinformation.

Re: Alex Stamos: Asking tech companies to police hate speech is “a dangerous path”

#110

Post by supernovae » Tue, Oct 23, 2018, 7:05 PM UTC

ilovecaching wrote: post #31

mrkstu wrote: post #16

Cockroaches thrive in the dark corners. Sunlight is antiseptic. And forcing ideas/speech into those dark corners don't keep them from growing, it merely allows it to grow unobserved and un-countered. Ideas are the only counter to other ideas and how we communicate those idea is via speech. Suppression only invites martyrdom on the behalf of those suppressed, increasing their credibility.

That's essentially John Stuart Mill's argument in On Liberty . Suppression of bad speech and thought only leads to a tyranny of the majority and can eventually lead to us forgetting what is bad versus good, just as we can't tell what darkness is if we only live in the sun.

Google/facebook/twitter et all should just remove algorithmic approach to timelines and stop allowing them to be gained/bought and go straight up user wall/order/ time-based.

The algorithm will always favor manipulation...

honestly, i just wish users would go back to small communities and indy publishers... It's easy for me to find a music forum or jeep forum with people i want to hangout with but on facebook those that can game/manipulate get the most views and its ALWAYS selling controversy...