Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

technologyreview.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 276 posts

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

#121

Post by rhacker »

snowwrestler wrote: post #34

"Tech companies" is just way too broad a designation to use here. No one is seriously asking Apple to police hate speech in iMessage or Facetime, for instance, or Verizon to police hate speech in SMS. No one expects AT&T to police hate speech in a phone call. What people are concerned about are the newsfeeds and timelines, specifically. Companies like Facebook and Twitter and YouTube love to pretend that their newsfe…

Beyond that, they need to be paying people, micropayments of course, for the content. That way they truly are considered a publisher and they employ independent contractors to create content.

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

#122

Post by jshevek »

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-... )

I would not consider that "evidence that deplatforming works", in the context of the parent comment.

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

#123

Post by criddell »

mrkstu wrote: post #104
criddell wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Well, if you don't have a problem with ostracizing groups like ISIS or white supremacists, then maybe we don't disagree that much.

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

#124

Post by snackbugs »

School-Cotton wrote: post #107
snackbugs wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

We're discussing the clear and defined understanding of what hate speech is.

You lost the thread of the conversation the moment someone confronted your belief that it doesn't have a clear definition.

The reason you lost the thread is because you're struggling with the internal contradiction of your belief.

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

#125

Post by jshevek »

mistermann wrote: post #82
snowwrestler wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Deplatforming is about deciding which ideas are granted resources (pushed above the cultural baseline), not who is punished for speaking (pushed below the cultural baseline). People without platforms are still free to speak. If dang banned me from HN I could still go stand on the corner and read my posts aloud and no one would arrest me. Free speech does not mean I'm entitled to someone else's platform.

> Free speech does not mean I'm entitled to someone else's platform. You're thinking of the first amendment, there is a nuanced difference between that and the general principle of free speech. I'll assume you happened to not be aware of this, but there are lots of people online who refuse to acknowledge that difference and continue to spout the "entitled to someone else's platform" persuasion meme, which is kind of…

(Edit: I agree with everything else you're saying.)

Is the difference between the First Amendment and the moral principle of free speech really that nuanced?

It seems to me one has to be thinking strictly in terms of a single country, a single period of human history, a single document in order to conflate the First Amendment with the moral principle of freedom of speech. This is a very narrow view.

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

#126

Post by gravy »

snackbugs wrote: post #80
ryanmonroe wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel that this comment dehumanized me. Therefore, you must remove it. See the issue?

How is your life any harder to live because the parent comment was made? How has any positive human quality you innately have been refuted by the comment? There is a clear definition of hate speech. It's not as amorphous as you need it to be in order to protect your ego.

Is there a clear definition? Who gets to define it? Who gets to choose what definition we use?

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

#127

Post by Skrillex »

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.

The primary issue with this argument is the imbalance of the situation. There is an enormous difference in the amount of effort it takes to make a false claim (that sounds nice enough for people to believe without evidence) and the amount of effort it takes to refute said claim, especially if the refutation hinges upon mechanics that most people do not understand. In the unlikely scenario that most of the people who listened to both arguments happened to accept and understand the right one, there is still another huge hurdle. The fact is, the short, wrong claim is optimized for remembering and regurgitation. It is easier to remember that than to remember the complicated refutation, or even remembering that there was a refutation. Even in the ideal scenario where all other parties accept and remember the good argument, the person espousing the false claim can simply leave and continue to make the claim. When also taking into consideration the fact that most people do not have the knowledge and eloquence to make the good argument in the first place, it seems intuitive that the bad argument would still easily make its rounds.

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

#128

Post by rhacker »

menacingly wrote: post #91
wccrawford wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>This is problematic in ways that used to be obvious to people in free societies, but for some reason seems lost now. I don't think this is true. I think some people always got it, and some people still do. The difference is that the internet allows anyone to post their opinions, but it used to be a lot harder to reach other people. We still have people that we hold up on pedestals for saying the right things, and th…

This might be true. When I was a kid, I saw a full hooded KKK march on TV, and I said "why do we let them march?" and my mom said "because you have to hear from people you don't want to hear from to know free speech is working" I cannot fathom that this conversation would even be considered good parenting today.

Today's parents are creating this:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2018/08...

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

#129

Post by marknutter »

kadendogthing wrote: post #95
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.

Not only is this analogy bad (sunlight helps plenty of bad things grow, things even detrimental to our survival as a species), but it assumes that you're dealing with rational actors. Stop naively assuming this. It's a bad assumption. There are people out there who will argue in bad faith and have no interest in reasoning or truth. And there are people who will fall victim to those bad ideas. Religion, terrorist fact…

Prove to me that you argue in good faith and are a rational actor.

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

#130

Post by gaius »

snowwrestler wrote: post #65
tux1968 wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For some definition of "works" since the analysis doesn't consider unintended effects or potential adverse long-term consequences. This all seems joyful while the technique is being applied to those with whom we disagree, less so once the technique has been turned on you yourself. Defending free speech means defending those we disagree with, and maybe even hate.

Deplatforming is about deciding which ideas are granted resources (pushed above the cultural baseline), not who is punished for speaking (pushed below the cultural baseline). People without platforms are still free to speak. If dang banned me from HN I could still go stand on the corner and read my posts aloud and no one would arrest me. Free speech does not mean I'm entitled to someone else's platform.

Free speech does not mean I'm entitled to someone else's platform.

But if a platform wants to be a "common carrier" and not a publisher with all the responsibilities thereof, it doesn't get to make the distinction, so actually in a very real sense, you are entitled to use the platform of anyone who wants to be a common carrier, by definition.

If you send something controversial via USPS, they don't have any liability for it, and only in very exceptional circumstances would it be intercepted in transit. If they were responsible for everything they carried, the postal service would look very, very different. If it's illegal you can be busted at either end but the postal service itself doesn't care.

Post reply on HN