> 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.
Okay, I clearly got a bit too passionate. Let me try and clarify, civilly:
Hate speech is always an attack.
Whether it's overt (Westboro, the N-word, Swastikas, homophobic slurs, etc.) or more subtle ("the 14 words", "88", etc). Supporting the "right" of someone to use hate speech is supporting their right to attack (and thus violate the rights of) others.
Whereas, by preventing those attacks, nothing of value is lost, and real harm is prevented.
By these rules, you just committed an attack and violated the rights of others by saying "88". If you were banned to prevent this attack, nothing of value would be lost.
Oh, "but I wasn't SAYING it" you say? Who judges whether hate speech is excused by context? Facebook interns? AI algorithms? Sorry, the algorithm has pronounced you guilty, you are now banned.
Or maybe social media companies get rid of any kind of algorithmic selection. Feeds are completely ordered by date. You can follow/unfollow people who you like or dislike. If you don't want to be offended by jackasses, don't go on the public feeds.
That said, you've shot down a lot of people's arguments but I haven't seen you promote a sensible alternative. Given your personal belief framework and given the first amendment, what do you see as a solution to this problem?
I don't claim to know the answer, but I firmly believe that if all the energy being poured into protecting hate were instead put into eradicating it, the world could only become a better place.
> I firmly believe that if all the energy being poured into protecting hate were instead put into eradicating it, the world could only become a better place
HOW? How do you eradicate hate speech? What is hate speech? Anything that makes you feel bad? So do you single-handedly decide what speech is ok or not?
You're lambasting people's protection for free speech as "protecting hate speech" (which is a false dichotomy) and not offering any alternatives. I don't really get what the point of what you're saying is other than "This upsets me." And that's fine if hate speech upsets you, but understand that it upsets other people too, even if those people support free speech as defined by the US bill of rights and legal framework.
I guess what I'm saying is...stop complaining unless you start examining the problem critically (ok, you don't like hate speech... who enforces what hate speech is? how is it enforced? etc. right now you're attacking free speech but not offering ANY compelling or thought-out alternatives) and for the love of everything stop thinking in absolutes. You seem to have forced yourself into black and white thinking. That's not only counterproductive, it's dangerous. People who think in absolutes are targets to become tools of hate. If you don't start seeing nuance in things, you will be easily swayed and manipulated by anyone who has a Nice Shiny Solution to "end hate speech."
Asking "who defines hate speech?" is a cop-out. No one ever asks "who defines privacy?" in discussions about that. Hate speech is just as obvious to anyone with a modicum of empathy.
It's plenty easy for people in general (except HN, where no one seems to have any notion of what that could possibly be without a grand arbiter to define it down to the spin of each quark) to recognize hate speech.
Platforms already have frameworks for dealing with bad actors. Hate speech is just like any other abuse of a platform, and should be treated as such.
In short, I have come to realize that I'm never going to convince this highly-privileged audience to genuinely care about actual marginalized people over some imagined, theoretical bogeyman. So this will be my last wasted effort on the subject, here.
You're right, you haven't convinced me. Every opportunity everyone has given you to define hate speech, you asy "I don't need to!! It's obvious what hate speech is!!" That's not an acceptable definition. Apparently it's anything you highly disagree with. From talking with you, I'm convinced you would classify a discussion on freedom of speech as hate speech. That scares me. I get the sense you want complete control of all speech just so hate speech dies. In other words, a casual stroll toward tyranny.
I don't think you're examining the problem (and censorship IS a problem) critically. Forgive me, but you are the one copping out. And actually, people do ask "what is privacy." It is being redefined all the time and there are people actively fighting for their definition of it. They at least have a definition.
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.