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

161–170 of 276 posts

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

#161

Post by bilbo0s »

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.

I think you probably don't have kids.

I don't know many parents and children who would be sitting around watching tv with each other. Let alone watching a klan march?

Way too many screens. Way too much choice. Way too much personalization. The scenario itself would only arise in VERY conservative or traditional families. Most other families just don't work like this.

Blame Netflix I guess?

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

#163

Post by mrkstu »

kadendogthing wrote: post #142
marknutter wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I thought it'd at least be a few responses before someone went for the typical "got'em" style of response that inevitably relies on Missing the Point, but I guess not. I don't need to prove that to you. Even in your own odd request, you didn't even make the feeble attempt to pretend that you're running a popular media platform. We are talking about extremely popular platforms that inherently give credence to any view…

I don't in any way expect that Twitter has reviewed a tweet for content and approves of the content therein. Equally so for Facebook et al.

The platforms ubiquity makes them the Hydes Park / Public Square of the modern age- if anything they should be regulated to be content neutral rather than be encouraged to silence certain viewpoints.

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

#165

Post by gravy »

snackbugs wrote: post #144
gravy wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

There is. Many people use it. Have you ever gone out of your way to examine it? Or do you just infer it based on your internal beliefs and limited experiences?

There's no need to assume that anyone that questions it hasn't had experiences regarding it. Just the fact that there exists in your response any implication that a lack of experience may change someone's definition of "hate speech" makes it amorphous. There may be a definition, but it being "clear" is questionable. Obviously the answer is to leave it to the courts, but then you have to consider the definitions of "attack" or "intimidate" or "discomfort" and if any amount of these is "violence" and to what extent is it punishable.

So I still don't think it's "clear".

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

#166

Post by blueboo »

onewhonknocks wrote: post #3
blueboo wrote: post #2

The choice is: police hate speech or promote hate speech. Observation: promoting is cheaper (even profitable). But they can promote it with plausible deniability. Which is a more "dangerous" path? And to whom? Society? Shareholders?

Why are those the only two options available?

Yes, there's a third: that the balance they strike is infinitely perfect and the net benefit is zero in all dimensions.

It struck me as childishly pedantic to address, so

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

#167

Post by sctb »

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.

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18285698. Speaking up is fine, but if you don't make it substantive enough you start a flamewar like this one.

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

#168

Post by hnbroseph »

rhacker wrote: post #128
menacingly wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

i dig it. would be cool to see buddhist, hindu and islamic emplacements as well. personally i'd like to see something for atheists but i don't know how well that plays into government religious definitions.

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

#169

Post by blueboo »

archerface wrote: post #60
jachee wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're supporting an attacker's right to denigrate, abuse, or harass other people, you're supporting violating the victim's rights. One of these has a real social cost, and the other is just literal lip-service.

> If you're supporting an attacker's right to denigrate, abuse, or harass other people... Did that person's comment say that they support those things? Weird, I didn't read that... When it comes down to the fundamental rights of an individual you can't pick and choose when something is an unalienable right and when it is not. We can either have free speech (warts and all) or we can live in a world that dictates what…

But you can't yell fire in a crowded theater. And if stoking panic in the easily-panicked is something you ARE okay with forbidding, why is it then ok to stoke hatred in the easily-manipulable?

I guess that wart makes this a world you want nothing to do with, because of slope's slipperiness...

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

#170

Post by lukifer »

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.

To the extent that speech is dangerous, it's pretty easy to pivot to defending it on 2nd Amendment grounds, in addition to the 1st. (Relevant: https://xkcd.com/504/)
Post reply on HN