6 ms·

I agree that government-level banning of hate speech is problematic for the reasons you describe. However, as a member of a minority group who grew up being th

I agree that government-level banning of hate speech is problematic for the reasons you describe. However, as a member of a minority group who grew up being the butt of many racist jokes, I would like to have the freedom to participate in an online community where hate speech is moderated. It’s fine to me if other people want to participate on platforms where hate speech isn’t banned, but I will stick to ones that are less unpleasant for me personally. I don’t think I’m alone in this point of view.

colpabar 4y ago
No one who advocates against hate speech laws doesn't want you to have that freedom. What we do want is for the government to stop trying to make it illegal (as in throw-your-ass-in-jail illegal) to make those jokes online.
- dontreact 4y ago
  I also disagree with government level censorship. At least in the American right, there is some political pressure and discourse around pushing free speech as a principle from the government level (where I agree with it) down into the platform level (where I do not agree with it). It seems like you are not one of those people advocating for that, but this is why I would push back on the statement “No one who advocates against hate speech laws doesn’t want you to have that freedom”
  - robertlagrant 4y ago
    I think this is a bit tricky when computers are involved. "Facebook" is not a community; it's a technological encapsulation of millions of communities. So if Facebook bans something globally, that's not the same as keeping your individual community the way you'd like it. If some on the American right is saying "Facebook is too big to moderate all communication, and it should allow everyone to speak", that doesn't disallow you from having one or more communities that are moderated more locally in whatever way is allowed there. It's just that Facebook the corporation won't be able to reach into any community and have veto power over speech.
    - theptip 4y ago
      Their moderation policies are already highly country-specific though? Why does FB need to ban anything globally?
      - robertlagrant 4y ago
        Sure. I may have misphrased my previous explanation, but "country" is still far bigger than "community".
        theptip 4y ago
        I see what you mean. Yes, I agree, it’s in some sense suboptimal for a community to outsource moderation to a larger entity. However I think moderation is difficult (and this fact is under-appreciated) and so the limit of “perfect moderation per community” is probably not practical. (Indeed I’m not even sure that’s a possible thing, since each community member might disagree, even though there are emergent norms at any given time within a community.)
        robertlagrant 4y ago
        Absolutely, and those norms are best enforced by that community. I feel like I'm describing a social network I should be building. Or has already been built.
    - dontreact 4y ago
      It’s certainly not true that Facebook has a monopoly on communication (here we are communicating without Facebook involved) I do have some agreement that when a platform gets very large, it makes sense to have some regulation around the censorship decisions they take. Specifically, rules around transparency make the most sense to me. On the other hand, a blunt regulation such as saying that large tech platforms are not allowed to do any platform or country-wide moderation doesn’t make as much sense to me. My experience with all unmoderated online communities is that they devolve into something extremely unpleasant, and forcing Facebook to push ALL of the moderation work down to specific groups or users themselves is not a workable approach to this problem.
- sangnoir 4y ago
  > No one who advocates against hate speech laws doesn't want you to have that freedom I've recently heard a number of "free speech" advocates try to expand that to be a right to be heard, i.e. a right to a captured audience & other people's attention. These same advocates also additionally argued that their rights were being trampled upon when certain communities rejected them due to disagreements on the contents of their speech.
  - WalterBright 4y ago
    What some other people say doesn't invalidate his argument.
    - CJefferson 4y ago
      His argument was "No one who advocates against hate speech laws doesn't want you to have that freedom" -- while saying "No one.." is always dangerous (as there is always someone, somewhere), I'd say it is fairly common in my experience for people in favour of laws against free speech to also think companies like Twitter should be forced to also allow free speech.
      - WalterBright 4y ago
        People who say "no one" or "everyone" do not mean 100%. That isn't how English works. It's why English provides qualifiers like "absolutely no one", or "100% of people". Just like if I say "everybody likes ice cream", you and I both know that there's somebody, somewhere who loathes ice cream.
  - xdennis 4y ago
    > I've recently heard a number of "free speech" advocates try to expand that to be a right to be heard, i.e. a right to a captured audience & other people's attention. You're confusing two different aspects: free speech as a guaranteed right and free speech as a principle. As a right, it means the state shouldn't prevent you from communicating something. An example is the US's First Amendment. As a principle, it means you support speech, even when you disagree with it. An example of this is "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." As a publisher, you have the free speech right to NOT publish something you disagree with, but you can't then say you support free speech as a concept. It's quite an imposition to force someone to say something he doesn't desire to say. But the free speech advocates you speech of (like me) only want the law to be changed for quasi-public-square entities such as Facebook and Twitter.
causi 4y ago
* I would like to have the freedom to participate in an online community where hate speech is moderated. It’s fine to me if other people want to participate on platforms where hate speech isn’t banned, but I will stick to ones that are less unpleasant for me personally.* That's great, but it doesn't have anything to do with government-mandated censorship. I too wouldn't exclusively use unmoderated online communities.
- dontreact 4y ago
  I was responding to the parent comment and tried to make clear that I too am against government mandated censorship. I’m talking about platform level censorship because I thought it would be interesting to the discussion to clarify these two different levels. At least in American discourse about tech platforms I often feel these two levels are conflated.

colpabar 4y ago

No one who advocates against hate speech laws doesn't want you to have that freedom. What we do want is for the government to stop trying to make it illegal (as in throw-your-ass-in-jail illegal) to make those jokes online.

dontreact 4y ago
I also disagree with government level censorship. At least in the American right, there is some political pressure and discourse around pushing free speech as a principle from the government level (where I agree with it) down into the platform level (where I do not agree with it). It seems like you are not one of those people advocating for that, but this is why I would push back on the statement “No one who advocates against hate speech laws doesn’t want you to have that freedom”
- robertlagrant 4y ago
  I think this is a bit tricky when computers are involved. "Facebook" is not a community; it's a technological encapsulation of millions of communities. So if Facebook bans something globally, that's not the same as keeping your individual community the way you'd like it. If some on the American right is saying "Facebook is too big to moderate all communication, and it should allow everyone to speak", that doesn't disallow you from having one or more communities that are moderated more locally in whatever way is allowed there. It's just that Facebook the corporation won't be able to reach into any community and have veto power over speech.
  - theptip 4y ago
    Their moderation policies are already highly country-specific though? Why does FB need to ban anything globally?
    - robertlagrant 4y ago
      Sure. I may have misphrased my previous explanation, but "country" is still far bigger than "community".
      - theptip 4y ago
        I see what you mean. Yes, I agree, it’s in some sense suboptimal for a community to outsource moderation to a larger entity. However I think moderation is difficult (and this fact is under-appreciated) and so the limit of “perfect moderation per community” is probably not practical. (Indeed I’m not even sure that’s a possible thing, since each community member might disagree, even though there are emergent norms at any given time within a community.)
        robertlagrant 4y ago
        Absolutely, and those norms are best enforced by that community. I feel like I'm describing a social network I should be building. Or has already been built.
  - dontreact 4y ago
    It’s certainly not true that Facebook has a monopoly on communication (here we are communicating without Facebook involved) I do have some agreement that when a platform gets very large, it makes sense to have some regulation around the censorship decisions they take. Specifically, rules around transparency make the most sense to me. On the other hand, a blunt regulation such as saying that large tech platforms are not allowed to do any platform or country-wide moderation doesn’t make as much sense to me. My experience with all unmoderated online communities is that they devolve into something extremely unpleasant, and forcing Facebook to push ALL of the moderation work down to specific groups or users themselves is not a workable approach to this problem.
sangnoir 4y ago
> No one who advocates against hate speech laws doesn't want you to have that freedom I've recently heard a number of "free speech" advocates try to expand that to be a right to be heard, i.e. a right to a captured audience & other people's attention. These same advocates also additionally argued that their rights were being trampled upon when certain communities rejected them due to disagreements on the contents of their speech.
- WalterBright 4y ago
  What some other people say doesn't invalidate his argument.
  - CJefferson 4y ago
    His argument was "No one who advocates against hate speech laws doesn't want you to have that freedom" -- while saying "No one.." is always dangerous (as there is always someone, somewhere), I'd say it is fairly common in my experience for people in favour of laws against free speech to also think companies like Twitter should be forced to also allow free speech.
    - WalterBright 4y ago
      People who say "no one" or "everyone" do not mean 100%. That isn't how English works. It's why English provides qualifiers like "absolutely no one", or "100% of people". Just like if I say "everybody likes ice cream", you and I both know that there's somebody, somewhere who loathes ice cream.
- xdennis 4y ago
  > I've recently heard a number of "free speech" advocates try to expand that to be a right to be heard, i.e. a right to a captured audience & other people's attention. You're confusing two different aspects: free speech as a guaranteed right and free speech as a principle. As a right, it means the state shouldn't prevent you from communicating something. An example is the US's First Amendment. As a principle, it means you support speech, even when you disagree with it. An example of this is "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." As a publisher, you have the free speech right to NOT publish something you disagree with, but you can't then say you support free speech as a concept. It's quite an imposition to force someone to say something he doesn't desire to say. But the free speech advocates you speech of (like me) only want the law to be changed for quasi-public-square entities such as Facebook and Twitter.

causi 4y ago

* I would like to have the freedom to participate in an online community where hate speech is moderated. It’s fine to me if other people want to participate on platforms where hate speech isn’t banned, but I will stick to ones that are less unpleasant for me personally.* That's great, but it doesn't have anything to do with government-mandated censorship. I too wouldn't exclusively use unmoderated online communities.

dontreact 4y ago
I was responding to the parent comment and tried to make clear that I too am against government mandated censorship. I’m talking about platform level censorship because I thought it would be interesting to the discussion to clarify these two different levels. At least in American discourse about tech platforms I often feel these two levels are conflated.