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

31–40 of 276 posts

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

#31

Post by ilovecaching »

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.

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

#32

Post by avivo »

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.

I wish this were true. Sadly, evidence may not bear this out. If it did, then e.g. YouTube wouldn't be in a constant battle to take down ISIS recruiting content...

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

#33

Post by OmarIsmail »

ryanmonroe wrote: post #24
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.

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?)

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

#34

Post by snowwrestler »

"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 newsfeed/timeline products are just like chat apps or phone calls--neutral messaging platforms.

They're not. And the specific reason they are not, is the algorithmic timeline and content suggestions.

It's silly to worry about giving these products "the power to determine what people can—and can’t—say online." They've already seized it for themselves--by deciding for me which content will show up in my newsfeed/timeline/suggested list. They decide which content gets promoted to me.

Yes they use an algorithm to do so, instead of human decisions. But guess who built the algorithm?

Companies that run algorithmic newsfeeds and timelines need to own their role as a publisher and a gatekeeper of content.

Instead of pretending they don't make choices, they should be introspective and thoughtful about the criteria they are using to make those choices. "Engagement" is not neutral criteria because emotions are not symmetrical. Engagement is higher on topics of fear, anger, rage, violence. That's down to our evolution; that's down to the amygdala.

So if you build a publishing system designed solely to maximize engagement, it's going to become a system that preferentially serves content that feeds negative emotions. There are articles and case studies where a person starts with a fresh account and sees what kind of content gets pushed to them; inevitably they get horrible conspiracy theories and fear-oriented content.

Making decisions about what content your audience sees is an act of publishing, even if it's executed via complex algorithm. The companies doing this need to accept their responsibility for what they decide to serve and promote.

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

#35

Post by jachee »

daenz wrote: post #22
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.

>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."

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

#36

Post by gdix »

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-... )

> though it may have some unintended consequences that have not been fully understood yet.

I think no one disagrees that it "works" insofar as it stops the bad person from getting their bad ideas out there. Opponents of deplatforming generally argue that the long-term reaction to the deplatforming is worse than the problem the bad person's ideas were causing. Better to counter the bad ideas with good ideas to do long term good.

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

#37

Post by OmarIsmail »

School-Cotton wrote: post #23
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.

Your definition makes no sense. "We should kill people from country X" isn't hate speech by your definition - it doesn't imply anyone is any less human than anyone else.

"should kill people" = "those people aren't deserving to live" = 1) either all humans are not deserving to live or 2) those specific humans are not deserving to live = if 2) country X are being dehumanized.

if 1) do you consider yourself a human? A) yes, then why haven't you killed yourself? Since you haven't you think you're more deserving of life relative to everyone else and therefore are dehumanizing everyone but yourself, if 2) ok, you've publicly proclaimed that you don't think you're human which then let me add a second rule. Only humans have right to speech.

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

#38

Post by Izkata »

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.

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.

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

#39

Post by jachee »

mitchty wrote: post #25
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, you're supporting violating the victim's rights. Can you diagram how you arrived at this travesty of a logical leap? You're mixing in at least 5 suppositions completely outside of the stated parents post. Ignoring the other foundations coming alongside by implication.

Let me simplify further, in the face of your ad hominem:

If you're not actively trying to make the world a better place for everyone, you're passively making it worse for everyone.

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

#40

Post by tzakrajs »

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.

Cockroaches are also hardy and reproduce at an incredible rate. We've seen some cockroaches like white nationalism, that would've atrophied as demographics change, spread more rapidly. We now have a solution for a problem that we wouldn't need without the solution. Great.
Post reply on HN