Facebook’s Secret Rulebook for Global Political Speech • Hacker News Board

Re: Facebook’s Secret Rulebook for Global Political Speech

#61

Post by gojomo » Fri, Dec 28, 2018, 2:32 AM UTC

bduerst wrote: post #24

gojomo wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you don't believe in censoring communications between a willing-speaker & willing-listener, anything they do has a 100% false-positive rate.

If only Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube were completely full of willing listeners for hate speech, then that might be applicable. Hate groups aren't sending private forum messages to each other, they're broadcasting Even John Stuart Mill, a founding philosopher of free speech, postulated that speech needs to be curtailed when the expression harms others.

I'd be interested in the cite and context of the John Stuart Mill writing you're alluding to.

And I wonder if his reasoning applies to the kinds of speech policing Facebook is doing, or only to the same sorts of things modern US free-speech law makes illegal: direct threats & incitements to imminent violent acts. (Notably not illegal: 'hate speech', blasphemy, insults, abstract advocacy of most crimes, etc.)

Re: Facebook’s Secret Rulebook for Global Political Speech

#62

Post by hndamien » Fri, Dec 28, 2018, 2:34 AM UTC

Godel_unicode wrote: post #40

monochromatic wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So-called hate speech doesn’t cause harm other than to feelings. It’s constitutionally protected in the US, and Facebook is going down the wrong path trying to eliminate it.

It's constitutionally protected from the government infringing upon it. As Facebook is not the government, they are perfectly free to limit speech in any way they choose.

Governments should answer to people primarily. Facebook primarily answers to advertisers. This distinction is often forgotten.

Re: Facebook’s Secret Rulebook for Global Political Speech

#63

Post by monochromatic » Fri, Dec 28, 2018, 2:36 AM UTC

bduerst wrote: post #43

monochromatic wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So-called hate speech doesn’t cause harm other than to feelings. It’s constitutionally protected in the US, and Facebook is going down the wrong path trying to eliminate it.

And hate speech is illegal in some societies, which is just as irrelevant as the US First Amendment because Facebook isn't a government organization.

Obviously it’s not directly relevant. Think of it as a citation to persuasive authority.

Re: Facebook’s Secret Rulebook for Global Political Speech

#64

Post by gojomo » Fri, Dec 28, 2018, 2:37 AM UTC

sonnyblarney wrote: post #55

assblaster wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Words can not be violent. If you think one person being offended means speakers must be silenced, then you're on a dangerous pathway to fascism.

The pen is mightier than the sword! FB is not taking down web sites - they are managing public discourse on their own channels. Constitutional freedoms don't quite apply here. When the Feds take down web sites, I think a much higher standard needs to apply.

What if FB is performing censorship under various kinds of implicit pressure from the "Feds" (and other governments)?

Then it's just state censorship, laundered to look like it's "only a private party's decision within their narrow domain".

Re: Facebook’s Secret Rulebook for Global Political Speech

#65

Post by monochromatic » Fri, Dec 28, 2018, 2:37 AM UTC

azinman2 wrote: post #48

monochromatic wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So-called hate speech doesn’t cause harm other than to feelings. It’s constitutionally protected in the US, and Facebook is going down the wrong path trying to eliminate it.

I can’t tell if you’re trolling or not. I hope so, otherwise I’m very worried for your lack of understanding history and how the world works.

How was I trolling? (Note that I didn’t say Facebook couldn’t regulate speech—just that it shouldn’t.)

Re: Facebook’s Secret Rulebook for Global Political Speech

#66

Post by monochromatic » Fri, Dec 28, 2018, 2:38 AM UTC

manicdee wrote: post #46

monochromatic wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So-called hate speech doesn’t cause harm other than to feelings. It’s constitutionally protected in the US, and Facebook is going down the wrong path trying to eliminate it.

I can choose who to serve in my pub. If you start mouthing off at the other patrons, you will be asked to leave. That is not censorship or silencing, it’s simply advising you that my place is not the place for that kind of behaviour.

I didn’t say that FB can’t do this. I said it shouldn’t.

Re: Facebook’s Secret Rulebook for Global Political Speech

#67

Post by fromthestart » Fri, Dec 28, 2018, 2:40 AM UTC

We can barely agree on what constitutes hate speech in the U.S.; fb is expecting to define and police hate speech globally?

Re: Facebook’s Secret Rulebook for Global Political Speech

#68

Post by AlexB138 » Fri, Dec 28, 2018, 2:41 AM UTC

azinman2 wrote: post #48

monochromatic wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So-called hate speech doesn’t cause harm other than to feelings. It’s constitutionally protected in the US, and Facebook is going down the wrong path trying to eliminate it.

I can’t tell if you’re trolling or not. I hope so, otherwise I’m very worried for your lack of understanding history and how the world works.

If you have an argument to make about why this line of thinking is worrisome or lacking in understanding you ought to make it. As it stands your comment is just patronizing.

Re: Facebook’s Secret Rulebook for Global Political Speech

#69

Post by bduerst » Fri, Dec 28, 2018, 2:46 AM UTC

AmericanChopper wrote: post #56

bduerst wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you want to get into a semantics argument on the definition of hate speech , then here's Wikipedia's definition: >Hate speech is speech that attacks a person or group on the basis of attributes such as race, religion, ethnic origin, national origin, sex, disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity.

Wikipedia’s definition is no better. Even if you accept this definition, now you’re faced with the impossible task of defining what constitutes an attack on those grounds. The issue of defining hate speech is at the core of the free speech concerns, because what constitutes hate speech, by necessity, comes down entirely to the whims and personal opinions of whoever is enforcing the censorship.

Ah, but Wikipedia covers that in the very next sentence:

>The laws of some countries describe hate speech as speech, gestures, conduct, writing, or displays that incite violence or prejudicial actions against a protected group or individuals on the basis of their membership in the group, or disparages or intimidates a protected group, or individuals on the basis of their membership in the group.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech

Re: Facebook’s Secret Rulebook for Global Political Speech

#70

Post by tomcam » Fri, Dec 28, 2018, 2:48 AM UTC

azinman2 wrote: post #48

monochromatic wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So-called hate speech doesn’t cause harm other than to feelings. It’s constitutionally protected in the US, and Facebook is going down the wrong path trying to eliminate it.

I can’t tell if you’re trolling or not. I hope so, otherwise I’m very worried for your lack of understanding history and how the world works.

I can't tell if you're trolling or not. I hope you understand how the U.S. Bill of Rights works?