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”

#131

Post by rashkov » Tue, Oct 23, 2018, 7:24 PM UTC

gbear605 wrote: post #58

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…

I’m not entirely up to date, but I believe there are calls for regulating WhatsApp communications

not one-on-one communications, as far as I've seen. However there are some calls to limit group chats:

"There are good ideas floating around for how Facebook could make life harder on WhatsApp propaganda artists. In an op-ed published in the Times this week, Brazilian researchers Cristina Tardáguila, Fabrício Benevenuto and Pablo Ortellado offered three ideas: restrict the number of times a message can be forwarded from 20 to five, which Facebook has already done in India; dramatically lower the number of people that a user can send a single message to, from its current limit of 256; and limit the size of new groups created in the weeks leading up to an election, in the hopes that it will stop new viral misinformation mobs from forming." https://www.theverge.com/2018/10/19/17997516/facebook-electi...

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

#132

Post by marknutter » Tue, Oct 23, 2018, 7:24 PM UTC

eganist wrote: post #20

chrisco255 wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Speech isn't "dangerous". You know what you do about people that say stupid things: you call them out on it. The answer to hate speech is more speech.

> Speech isn't "dangerous". You know what you do about people that say stupid things: you call them out on it. The answer to hate speech is more speech. This worked to marvelous effect when legitimate, unique net neutrality concerns were buried under an avalanche of duplicate anti-net-neutrality letters sent on behalf of people who were very much deceased. The solution to this challenge likely needs a much more nuanc…

Unless of course you're the side of the debate that was opposed to Net Neutrality. Then free speech worked out quite well, didn't it?

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

#133

Post by ThrowawayR2 » Tue, Oct 23, 2018, 7:25 PM UTC

snackbugs wrote: post #55

Izkata wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is "hate speech" changes both over time and with who identifies it; even if everyone is against it, they won't all agree on what specifically is included in the definition.

People keep saying that hate speech isn't defined clearly. It is, but these people have just never had to interface with it and have never cared to learn the boundaries. Why haven't they had to interface with it? Because they have privileged positions in society, so hate speech has never been directed at them. Their lives have never been made harder to live by someone else in an influential position saying they don't…

> Because they have privileged positions in society, so hate speech has never been directed at them.

Really? As a minority and member of other protected groups, I have had to endure what you characterize as "hate speech" many times and yet I remain in complete opposition to the goals of your movement. The restrictions on speech and thought championed by your movement are contrary to the ideals of classical liberalism and, in my opinion, are a hazard to the continuation of a free society.

Your movement does not speak for me and I wish nothing to do with them. I suspect that I am far from alone in this regard among minorities.

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

#134

Post by mrkstu » Tue, Oct 23, 2018, 7:27 PM UTC

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…

I think the onus is on those who would silence debate to prove the immediate harm they are advocating isn't the worse alternative. There is a reason why prior restraint on speech is almost impossible to compel in American courts.

I find it curious that those who apparently are in such a rush to suppress Bad (TM) ideas adopt the worst ideas of fascists in order to do so.

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

#135

Post by EdSharkey » Tue, Oct 23, 2018, 7:27 PM UTC

OmarIsmail wrote: post #18

This is already going down the path of "what is hate speech". Here is what I think is a pretty simple definition: Speech that explicitly or direct line implicitly dehumanizes anyone. Then the arguments become pretty simple: does a statement dehumanize someone? Does it indicate that they are any less human than another? That's a much easier discussion to have.

"hate speech" and "dehumanizing" are implicitly political terms. Will you will agree with me that one's politics are simply deeply cherished opinions and nothing more?

It appears to me that we are excluding voices from public discourse because, in the opinion of a powerful group, they have been rude.

One person's rude criticism can easily become another person's hate speech.

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

#136

Post by jshevek » Tue, Oct 23, 2018, 7:27 PM UTC

natestemen wrote: post #14

chrisco255 wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Speech isn't "dangerous". You know what you do about people that say stupid things: you call them out on it. The answer to hate speech is more speech.

speech is dangerous. hate speech promotes and incites violence.

We already have laws that deal with explicitly inciting people to violence.

So called "hate speech" generally is not an explicit endorsement of violence.

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

#137

Post by mrkstu » Tue, Oct 23, 2018, 7:29 PM UTC

criddell wrote: post #123

mrkstu wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Are we at war with white supremacists? ANTFIA? Venezuela?

Equating ISIS with supremacists is equating a nuclear bomb with an M80 firecracker.

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

#138

Post by snackbugs » Tue, Oct 23, 2018, 7:30 PM UTC

macspoofing wrote: post #118

snackbugs wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

>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. I didn't say anything of the sort. What I meant to communicate to you was that I don't see any evidence that the SPECIFIC (and arbitrary) power structures you choose to use, have any actual explanatory power. Typically, ideologues of your…

Every reply of yours so far has hinged on my definition of terms being arbitrary.

I'm strictly talking about well-defined terms.

Maybe you have never examined them because you never needed to interface with them in practice, or maybe you do understand them and are just arguing in bad faith to defend a more abstract belief. I won't make any assumptions about that.

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

#139

Post by mrweasel » Tue, Oct 23, 2018, 7:32 PM UTC

OmarIsmail wrote: post #33

ryanmonroe wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

How do you feel dehumanized? Let's have that discussion. (see the answer?)

I think the point was that any comment or remark that you'd try to police with that statement can be flipped around towards you.

First of all: who is to decide what's dehumanizing, or even hate speech?

It's also possible to make a comment that is read by one part as hate speech, but it was never intended as such. The quick attack made on the poster that made the: "I feel that this comment dehumanized me." makes it seem like someone is offended by that very comment. If I, by accident, make comment, that someone decides is hate speech and try to have it removed, I would certainly feel dehumanized. Having the meaning of my words ripped apart and banned by a system that decided that I must hate someone, that's hurtful.

Hate speech isn't what worries me though, it's the notion that me speech somehow needs policing. First we ban the obvious stuff, not attacking people on the basis of gender or race, we can all agree on that. Next it's a ban on hateful speech against religion... but we don't all agree on that one, because some religions need to be criticised. Anyway screw the anti-religion people, who next? Those who go against the government, how about those opposing certain parties. In the end I'm kicked of the Internet for saying something negative about Disney.

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

#140

Post by ethanwillis » Tue, Oct 23, 2018, 7:32 PM UTC

tedunangst wrote: post #109

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.

What's really depressing is that I can't tell if you're joking or not.