PHILOSOPHY - EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES 3: Should Online Platforms Censor Hate Speech?

[@whoised603]

Define hate speech first, then we can have a conversation.

[@lococomrade3488]

Hate Speech already has a definition, edge-lord. You were just too dumb to seek it. *"public speech that expresses hate or encourages violence towards a person or group based on something such as race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation."*

[@mikewood3203]

There are a lot of terms that need to be defined and understanding how and if they will be applied equally. The classic example, if a black man calls a white man a "cracker" is it equally hateful as the reverse happening.

[@whoised603]

​@@mikewood3203 Of course. This becomes increasingly difficult when there isn't an objective measure for "hate", especially when the recipient doesn't feel as offended. Is it "hate" if the recipient of the speech doesn't think it is?

[@mikewood3203]

@@whoised603 I see the issue as the use of the word "hate" as a descriptor. No it is not hate if the recipient of the speech. The problem is that people around the situation are making that decision.

[@antirealist]

I mean, can we really give questions containing the words "censor" and "speech" any sort of dignified answer besides "no?" We must allow words to be dangerous, otherwise people will be. This is to say that if people aren't allowed to express revolutionary or controversial ideas through language, they will be compelled to express them through violence. Freedom of speech is paramount for peace. The consideration of censoring speech is a dangerous path that must be considered with the utmost caution and care.

[@lococomrade3488]

This is insanely stupid. Being a bigot isn't revolutionary. You're confused in the issue. You need to look into Karl Poppler's *Paradox of Intolerance.*

[@krautbrain]

Who decides what hate speech is? Many people and organizations puts the label hate speech on speech they dont like. The problem is two fold. You cant ignore one side of the problem while working on the other side.

[@interferenzbrille_2542]

middle ground fallacy.

[@XD-ph2pr]

You have misattributed the 'tolerance of paradox' to Plato when this was in fact from Karl Popper, and like everyone else who mindlessly parrots this you have bastardized it by leaving out the full context. If you actually read the whole thing, it is clear Popper means that intolerance should not be tolerated in the sense that it should be countered by rational argument, and suppression is only appropriate when the 'intolerance' is incitement of violence (much like how free speech law works in the US today) "Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. - In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.”

[@papaspeleo]

No Censorship is always wrong. Who will have the ‘monopoly’ on speech? All the best

[@doughauck57]

Well, the first thing I think is that you are conflating “hate speech” with “harassment”. There is no question that harassment should be banned. Targeted harassment is what pushes people, especially teens, toward depression and suicide. No one kills themselves because they once heard some random yokel use a racial slur. Depression comes from one or more peers targeting them, or people like them, over a long period. And the speech used to target them - ugly, stupid, fat, clumsy, slutty (girls) or incel (boys) - may not fit neatly into typical “hate speech” categories. The second thing I thought was, why did you choose “White Men” as an example of a protected class, rather than, say, “Black Women”? Of all the combinations of protected categories you could have picked, I have trouble thinking you hit upon the one least-sympathetic (and hence least likely to receive protection from hateful online speech) by accident. It feels like you are using emotionally charged examples to drive listeners toward a particular answer, rather than logically and neutrally approaching the question. I suppose that’s neither here nor there, but I felt it deserved mentioning. Finally, I agree with what others here have already said: the problem with banning hate speech is the difficulty in defining “hate speech”. Is it forbidden to attack someone’s race, but not their religion? Is it forbidden to attack race and religion, but okay to target their obesity? If obesity is off the table, how about a birthmark? What about IQ? Membership in an organization? Political affiliation? Controversial beliefs? Which of these constitute ban-able “hate speech” and which merely run-of-the-mill “hateful speech”? I think the best any site can do is to generally enforce a policy of civility, and beyond that, just give users the ability to block specific people’s posts that offend them.

[@jamesquirke3637]

No one forces anyone to be on social media it is at the end of the day a choice of each person to participate or be a member of the platform and in a way each also has the choice not to be a member or leave and find another way of communicating or being part of a community in a means they are happy with. The saying if you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen comes to mind in terms of social media use.....you have no right to be protected from being exposed to views or opinions that you may find offensive, in fact if you go into the square of public opinion you should usually expect to be exposed to speech which you may disagree with. Some may even find the words of others hateful but that would be your opinion as hate is a feeling and feelings are subjective. In order to have rules above behaviour and censorship we need objective not subjective measures where possible. Even if you find someones words hateful you have no right to impose your standards of speech upon the free speech of others. Incitement to violence, harassment and liable are already illegal and social media companies should continue to enforce rules regarding them but we cannot and should not make illegal or attempt to censor the 'hurty words' or things other people say we disagree with or find offensive. Although that said a social media company or platform also has the right to impose it's own standards of behaviour and rules, if they chose to classify something as hate and say they will not allow people to post content that is hateful as they define it then in a similar manner to before it's up to the person to either accept the media platforms as it is with new conditions of use or if they're not happy they can find another platform or means to express themselves or communicate with others regarding the ideas or opinions they feel they are not allowed to express.

[@Rockafirelover]

Define What hate speech is.

[@mkhud50n]

No censorship. If words hurt you that’s your problem. Too many people raised without being told “sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never harm me”. Faking being victimized is also a trend.

[@jeremyh3170]

The Holocaust was built on words, man. What are you even saying?

[@cleberfiliu1640]

Absolute not. Free speech, remember? It doesn't matter how hard it can be... But when you start censoring one subject others will come. And here we are today where everything seems to be censored if it's not according to someone's mind

[@krautbrain]

How this guy let Facebook describe them self. Can you be this naive and still a professor?