Hate speech or not, there is nothing pleasant about it.
The irony is that the 'holier-than-thou' crowd, who are against hate and for love all over the world, overwhelmingly post negative political comments and are rooting for X/Twitter to collapse.
This ^ is a good problem to solve in social networks.
> This ^ is a good problem to solve in social networks.
What, that people are mean about a very special website sometimes? Seems a rather niche problem, tbh.
There is nothing inherently wrong with people being negative. If you had a social network where people could only be positive about things… now, that would be unhealthy.
It was about "hate speech" though, not "unpleasant speech", then you'd be right.
Stop thinking in us/them, everybody hates someone or something and that's fine. That's not what hate speech is I think. Take one example from the Canadian govmnt:
> The bill defines “hate speech” as the content of a communication that expresses detestation or vilification of an individual or group of individuals on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination.
> These grounds of discrimination are race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, marital status, family status, genetic characteristics, disability, or conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted or in respect of which a record suspension has been ordered.
Sure, there are clear differences between hate speech and unpleasant speech. I can't disagree on the definition. But I’m seeing a lot of hateful anti-Trump posts on BlueSky, and on X/Twitter, there’s plenty of pro-Trump content. These two groups have polarized views, so they naturally clash.
What I find ironic is that BlueSky has many openly anti-Trump posts, while X/Twitter tends to have a significant amount of pro-Trump content. Because many minority and marginalized groups lean anti-Trump, again, these opposing viewpoints naturally clash, often leading to Twitter being labeled as a "hate speech platform". Yet on BlueSky, there’s no problem with people openly criticizing or spreading negativity about pro-Trump people. Since Trump supporters don’t typically fall into minority categories, it seems BlueSky users have the "privilege" to freely bash the Twitter crowd without facing the same scrutiny. Essentially, BlueSky is shielded from the hate speech label despite fostering a different kind of polarized environment.
Good news is you can create your own labeling service that people can subscribe and report posts to and you can have a feed completely devoid of hate speech against the government.
Also, if you're in a group of people that trumps policies target (immigrants with undocumented family members, women and trans people who want bodily autonomy, Arabs with family in Palestine) then all that pro-trump positivity starts to feel pretty hateful too, just in case you haven't looked at it from that angle.
It isn’t ironic to dislike intolerant people or to voice it. It is an individual’s prerogative to imagine that tolerance must be completely uniform, but that doesn’t reflect the reality of groups or systems made up of actual humans.
Social networks require drama in order to stay relevant, this is baked in and by design. Capitalist love this feature. Also you'll never get 100's of millions of people to agree on anything.
Is it really fare to compare a political cartoon to the garbage twitter is allowing? I might still visit twitter if it wasn't so out of control.
… So, wait, two political cartoons (the first one’s been on the go for years; it’s pretty much a classic at this point) and a cat? Like, unless you’re going to claim that ol’ minihands is a marginalised group of one, very hard to read any of these as hate speech. Actually, even if one _was_ to accept that obviously silly premise, still probably not. Maybe the cat, at a serious push.
