Alex Stamos: Asking tech companies to police hate speech is “a dangerous path”
technologyreview.com
Alex Stamos: Asking tech companies to police hate speech is “a dangerous path”
1–10 of 276 posts
Re: Alex Stamos: Asking tech companies to police hate speech is “a dangerous path”
#2The 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?
Re: Alex Stamos: Asking tech companies to police hate speech is “a dangerous path”
#3The 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?
Re: Alex Stamos: Asking tech companies to police hate speech is “a dangerous path”
#4Hate 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.
Re: Alex Stamos: Asking tech companies to police hate speech is “a dangerous path”
#5The 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?
Indeed. Also who defines what 'hate speech' is and isn't?
Re: Alex Stamos: Asking tech companies to police hate speech is “a dangerous path”
#6The 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?
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.
Re: Alex Stamos: Asking tech companies to police hate speech is “a dangerous path”
#7Hate 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.
>If you're not against it, you're supporting it.
I can be 'against' hate speech, but still support someone's right to utter it. Also, whose definition of 'hate speech' are we using?
Re: Alex Stamos: Asking tech companies to police hate speech is “a dangerous path”
#8Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why are those the only two options available?
Indeed. Also who defines what 'hate speech' is and isn't?
If recent history is any example it's an ever expanding and often arbitrary list depending on an individuals sensitivity level (particularly when it comes down to the individual level like mod's on subreddits or employees at Twitter).
It seems many very vocal people on the internet are essentially pushing an idea that the most sensitive people should be defining what those boundaries are for everyone and the list of things people can be outraged could change at any time, and ignorance of these boundaries is not sufficient excuse.
Re: Alex Stamos: Asking tech companies to police hate speech is “a dangerous path”
#9The 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?
Why doth [the suppression of uncomfortable opinions] never prosper, what's the reason? For if it prosper, none dare call it Treason.
Re: Alex Stamos: Asking tech companies to police hate speech is “a dangerous path”
#10There's still too many unsolved philosophical questions here. What is hate speech? What should the limits of free speech be? How do we contended with the multitude of religious, legal, and cultural differences and anomalies when policing news and thought across the world? How do we react to people weaponizing the policing of hate speech to remove free speech?
I have yet to hear compelling answers to this problem, and I am not that optimistic that it can be solved in the next few decades. I do agree that trust busting is the wrong approach. At least the problem is currently centralized.