this post was submitted on 21 Oct 2024
871 points (98.8% liked)
Technology
59135 readers
3771 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Absolutely fuck spez.
But he's right here. Just because he's a fuckstick doesn't mean he's always wrong on every issue 100% of the time.
Various forms of censorship under the flag of 'online safety' have been pushed by governments since the internet began to exist. And before that with print media and television. Censorship is not the answer. Never was. First it was for porn, then it was for video games, then it was for hate speech, it's always something.
But in the words of Captain Jean-Luc Picard,
Censorship must be opposed.
I disagree since I think censorship can be desired when combatting hate speech. Maybe we just disagree how exactly we use the word 'censorship'.
No, the community needs to cyber bully them off the platform. They need to feel rejection for their words, not censorship. Censorship lets them frame themselves as the victim as they seek out a smaller echo chamber on the fringes. They need to learn their words will turn the community against them
We still have to live with them. We can't ignore them or silence them - we have to correct them
And what would happen when the community itself is built on hatred and welcomes hate wholeheartedly?
What do you mean? It works the same way, the opinion of the community will pull you closer to the group consensus. Too much exposure will have horrible things you don't really believe spilling out of your mouth
Don't go there, don't spread word about it, don't feed it in any way. It's like flood water - pull others out of it if you can, but minimize your exposure
As to shutting them down if you have the ability? Shutting down a cesspool is good - it fragments the echo chamber, and some members won't make the migration. The only question is if I trust the one making that decision to remain impartial
Yeah, trusting someone to make right decisions is hard because this trust usually ends up being betrayed sooner or later.
Regarding the first part, I meant that we as a community can't put enough pressure on a bully to make em leave, if that bully is part of the community that supports em.
Ah, but that's the beauty of it. Why are they here? If it's to troll, don't give them what they want. If it's for social interaction... Why are they venturing out of their echo chamber?
Every interaction with a community pulls you slightly closer to the group consensus. You can fight it to some extent, but we're wired to fit in with the tribe
Social rejection is wired similar to pain in our brains - it's far more salient, far more memorable and impactful, than normal interactions.
The highest form of this is rejection by the community - it hurts most when everyone's attention is on you and they all reject you. Even a single person quietly reaching out afterwards is like a lifeline - it stands out to you. It takes hundreds or thousands of "normal" interactions to counteract one extreme negative one
A supportive community back home doesn't counteract the impacts from an away game. Don't go to their turf, let them come to ours. Do not feed them - we have better content, they'll lose members to us, and if we do it right they'll shrink until their echo chambers can no longer sustain themselves
Maybe you're right and it could work. I'm afraid there's always a share of sociopaths this will not affect, but this may be seen as impossible to fix anyway. What I am also afraid of is that the speed of changes is glacial in this model, and sometimes people are bullied into suicide in the course of mere weeks
You are addressing the wrong problem. You're focusing on the symptom rather than the disease.
Fighting hate speech rather than hatred itself only strengthens the hatred. As soon as you say "you mustn't say that" you validate the hatred and give it power. Look at any counterculture, positive or negative. Trying to suppress it only validates it, gives it legitimacy as being important enough for the establishment to want to suppress, and if the people who might support the hatred already don't like the people who would suppress the hate speech, you've just poured fuel on the fire.
The problem to be fixed isn't hate speech, it's hatred. It's a tougher problem to solve, but a much more important one that you will actually get a productive effect by solving it.
You make a good point. Hate must be addressed at its root.
I see hate speech censorship as important for protecting the victims/vulnerable. How can we protect these people without this censorship?
Do you have any favourite examples of how a society can fight hatred?
We don't, nor should we try to.
Protecting people's feelings from offense is not a valid activity in a free society. The second you start down the road of 'we must regulate this guy's words and actions to protect that guy's feelings' we become a nanny state full of people with paper thin skins. We accept that one consequence of free speech is that sometimes people will say things that are hurtful. We do that because the alternative is getting rid of free speech.
I could not agree more. Fighting hatred with hatred only breeds more hatred. But that seems to be the standard strategy today, it's okay to not just refuse to tolerate intolerance, but to be actively intolerant of those who themselves seem intolerant. It is just fighting bad with bad and the result is more bad.
The way we fight the roots of hatred is with open discourse. The people who have hate in their hearts, we do not isolate them, we do not wall them off from society, we do not practice and encourage intolerance against them. We show them a better way. We make ourselves examples of doing better, not just against the people they don't like, but against the people we don't like.
We try to build bridges and encourage communication. For all the people who say immigrants are lazy lawbreakers, we show them immigrants who are the hardest working motherfuckers there are and pay their taxes. For the people who think black people are a problem, we introduce them to black people who break their stereotypes.
For the overwhelming majority of people who have hate in their hearts and intolerance and prejudice, those feelings are based on stereotypes.
People don't join the KKK because they start in a mixed culture and then conclude black people are a problem. They join the KKK because they have stereotypes they see reinforced in media and TV.
There was a famous Black dude whose name I don't remember, but he of his own volition managed to deprogram a whole bunch of KKK members. All he did was sit down and fucking talk to them. That's it. Like sit down at the bar next to them and start a conversation. Many of the KKK members had never encountered a respectable well-spoken black person before (let alone one willing to talk to them) and were completely blown away because it broke the stereotype of a black person that they joined the KKK to fight against.
A good number of them ended up leaving the KKK and giving this man their robes on the way out. So there's this friendly black dude who has a big box of KKK robes that were given to him by ex-members he deprogrammed.
That is how we fight hate. We fight hate with love, we fight intolerance with tolerance and open arms, we fight stereotypes with exposition, we fight ignorance with knowledge.
Otherwise it's like we are saying there's too much stupidity in society so we're going to prevent people with lower IQs from attempting school. It doesn't work.
His name is Daryl Davis. For anyone not familiar, he has some great videos about this on Youtube/proxies.
That's absolutely the one! Truly great American. We could all learn a thing or two from him.
Who would you have define hate speech in the US? SCOTUS?
Many citizens may agree on the definition, but I wouldn’t trust our government to draw those lines.
Many countries have working anti-hate speech laws. It’s not really a big problem for freedom of speech in those countries.
Those countries don’t have partisan polarization propaganda preschoolers writing their legislation.
While often better than in the US, you shouldn't overestimate the state of democracy in other countries.
A lot of the far right parties in Europe are successfully copying the polarization tactics from the US.
Yep it's great
Hate speech ✖️
Alliteration ✔️
Simple :)
Romania has a law against hate speech
Except for the countries that have anti-hate laws that are deliberately vague and specifically used to jail anyone who is disliked by the government. China and Russia come to mind as examples, but I'm sure they aren't the only ones.
Besides hate-speech, I'm not sure how much should be censored really. China does a lot of censoring to 'protect' their citizens from everything, I'm not sure this would be a good thing even if that really was a goal.
And protecting children from traumatising content looks like another good thing to do, but under that banner I usually see governments doing whatever they want without caring about children past using their image.
*Freedom of Expression
We don't have Freedom of Speech, but we do have Freedom of Expression. Important difference, even though it may freak out some Americans.
Yeh, fuck censorship. Let's all be shitbags and do that stuff instead!
To be fair, censorship on Reddit is already very very aggressive. I was banned for saying “yay” on a news thread about the death of the queen.
You don't have to be a porn star or even a porn consumer to oppose laws banning porn.
And you don't have to be a shitbag to recognize that, while well-intentioned, censorship is still censorship.
I have absolutely no love whatsoever for the people who would spread such crap. I would love to get rid of it. But banning the speech doesn't do that. It's like smashing the altimeter in the airplane and then declaring that you're not crashing anymore. But the reality is, smashing instruments in the airplane is never a great idea whether you are crashing or not. It just prevents you from seeing things you don't want to. And you get hurt in the process.
Censorship, historically, has never ended up anywhere good.
Porn is performed by consenting adults and consumed by consenting adults.
That's why porn made from human trafficking, revenge porn (ie leaking nudes of an ex) etc are illegal in most sane countries.
The idea being that porn doesn't hurt anyone.
Hate speech is harmful. It's purpose is to hurt people.
So yeh, it should be illegal.
I have no issues discussing hate speech. I do have issues with hate speech being used.
There's a big difference between hate speech and revenge porn.
A person has rights to their likeness and image. That's why anybody who goes in front of a camera, be it a porn star or a model or an actor, signs a 'model release' giving the photographer authorization to publicize and sell their images. Without that simple one page contract, nothing in the photo shoot can be published. Porn actors do that. And in fact, they usually do it on video, where the actor holds up their driver's license and says 'my name is blah blah I am a pornographic actor and I am consenting to have sex on camera today and authorize this production company to publicize and sell the resulting video' or something like that. Revenge porn victims have made no such agreement, and while the penalties are stronger because of the harm it causes them, the legal basis for having any penalty at all is simply that they did not consent to having their likeness and image publicized.
Hate speech has no such issue. It may be harmful to a person or group, but if you remove the very broad 'hatred' label, it becomes just an opinion that would otherwise be protected speech.
The other problem is that what considers hatred is very much subjective. For example, if I say wanting to own a gun is evidence of mental illness, a lot of people on Lemmy will agree with that and I will probably get upvotes. If I say wanting to use the bathroom of other than your biological genetic sex is evidence of mental illness, I will probably get banned. What is the difference between the two? Supporting LGBT rights is popular, supporting the second amendment is not. So you create the situation where the only difference between a valid opinion and an invalid one is whether or not it's accepted mainstream, and that's a bad way to go.
Also, in a free country, it is generally considered that expressing an opinion which may be detrimental to others is not in itself considered bad. If I say that people over 80 years old should require a yearly driving test, that's a valid position for me to have and nobody will call me ageist for saying it. If I say that Donald Trump should be arrested rather than elected, that is directly detrimental to a person but it would get me upvotes here. If I said that being Republican is evidence of mental illness, that is directly prejudicial against an entire group which has many different reasons for believing as they do, and it would probably get me upvotes also.
My point is, hate speech as a concept is difficult to define and when you try to ban it with censorship you are just starting down a slippery slope that will have the opposite of the desired effect. You legitimize the counterculture and do nothing to stop the real problem, the actual hatred.
It's not difficult to define.
It's about people's choices.
People can choose to own a gun, choose to want to own a gun, choose to own a whole armoury.
I think owning a gun is stupid. I live in a country that successfully regulates guns.
Saying "I think gun owners are stupid" isn't hate speech because they have chosen to own a gun.
If I said "gun owners should use their guns in themselves" that becomes hate speech because it's wishing harm on them.
People choose to be Republicans, trumps choices in life are why he is where he is.
Hate trump because of what he does, not because he has blonde hair.
People don't choose to be gay, or be trans, or be Jewish, or be black, or be short or whatever.
Which is another way opinions can become hate speech.
If I said "I think gun owners are stupid" that isn't hate speech.
If I said "I think black people are stupid" that becomes hate speech because it is grouping people by something they have no control over.
How about incitements to violence and outright explicit disinformation/misinformation, like:
For the record, I personally think everything you said is truly repugnant. Although I'd point out the first one I've seen applied to Trump voters, frequently, in mainstream discussions on 'civilized' platforms, with little or no moderator response. So apparently it's okay to be prejudiced and discriminatory as long as it's against someone others don't like.
That said, my problem is not the banning of these statements. Most platforms quite reasonably would ban such things, and I have no problem with that.
What I have a problem with is the government REQUIRING a platform ban certain speech. I don't care if it's the most vile horrible hate filled shit. It should be up to the platform, not the government, to decide what speech is acceptable or not.
Because if government gets to decide what private citizens are allowed to discuss on privately-owned forums, that's a very slippery slope.
And I still say it's counterproductive.
In that case, what is the line between "simply" hate speech and actual radicalization to terroristic acts and/or conspiracy to terroristic acts and/or incitement to terroristic acts? At what point does it stop being "someone should [violent act] the [slur]s" and become "I bought a gun and several mags and have been practicing for the [dogwhistle mass violence event], let's [violent act] the [slur]s"? At what point does it stop being 4chan trolling and become all but admitting intention to commit the Christchurch shooting? A Stormfront discussion forum becoming outright planning for and incitement to a Jan 6th riot?
A better question is where is the line between 'simply' a controversial opinion and actual hate speech?
Because if a platform is required by law to ban hate speech, that's going to sweep up a lot of controversial opinions along with it.
Is it 'hate speech' to express any negative opinion about an oppressed group? And if not, where do you draw THAT line?
(if you want an answer to your original question I wrote one out but it's somewhat long....)
(Sure, I don't mind long replies.)
Disclaimer- in this reply I may use some offensive statements as examples, none of which I agree with. To summarize my actual views- I consider myself liberal-libertarian-- I believe the married gay couple should have guns to protect their pot farm and legally adopted children from harm, knowing that single payer healthcare will prevent them from going bankrupt if one gets hurt. I don't care which bathroom you use as long as you wash your hands. And I think government should be out of the marriage game, there should be a one size fits all civil union for any couple/throuple/quadruple who want to legally entangle themselves (and it should not say 'marriage' anywhere on it). If you want to get married go to a church, if you want to be legally entangled with your partner go to the government.
There's two lines. The line I'm more concerned with (and you should be too), is where's the line between 'simply' a controversial opinion, and 'actual' hate speech. If platforms are required by law to ban 'hate speech' then where does that line get drawn and by whom? And how do you differentiate between a controversial but honest opinion, and a prejudiced and hateful statement, when the two share the same position?
For example, is 'gay people freak me out' an opinion or hate speech? What about 'I don't think gay people should be allowed to adopt children because it could harm the children'? What about 'I don't think gay people should be allowed to marry because marriage is supposed to be a man and a woman'? Are those opinions or hate speech? Is there a difference between 'I don't think gay people should be allowed to adopt children because it might harm the children' and 'I don't think gay people should be allowed to adopt children because fuck the gays'?
Depending on how you define 'hate speech', it might require platforms to themselves remove anything even vaguely anti-gay.
I have no problem with any private platform choosing to adopt whatever rules they want. I have a BIG problem with government-mandated censorship of controversial opinions (and I think you should also).
As for the two lines, let's do a spectrum--- again, this is presented as an example, I do not agree with any of the following statements.
Where do YOU draw the line in there?
For me I'd say the line between opinion and hatred is between 3 and 4, and the line between hate speech and criminal incitement is between 12 and 13.
The problem though is if 'ban hate speech' is codified into law, if platforms are REQUIRED to police it, then ALL of this becomes essentially illegal to say, essentially starting with #1. And while it's sad that anyone would say any of this, that basically makes it illegal to express ANY dislike of gay people because of the murkiness of the line between unfortunate opinion and hate speech.
I think reducing the visibility of some kinds of content can be good, especially for those under 18. E.g. when it comes to content around suicide, I think it is better if children/teenagers see "there is support for you, please speak to a charity for free on this phone number" instead of pro-suicide content.
That I would actually very much agree with. As Elon himself said in the early days of the Twitter takeover, "free speech does not mean free reach".
This is also why I think engagement algorithms are a cancer on our civilization. If it is in a platforms monetary interest to amplify the most vile anger inducing stuff, be that stuff that is actively bad like hate speech or simply divisive like a lot of political crap, that is bad for our society. It pushes us farther apart when we should be coming together to fix the problems that we can agree on.
I understood that to mean "I want to claim I'm a 'free speech absolutist' while actually only promoting things I agree with"
In concept I agree with him on that. I support your right to say awful shit, but I am not going to spread that message to others. Where Elon lost the plot was thinking of Twitter as a public square. It's a nice thought, but it requires the whole platform to be 100% neutral and unbiased. So it's all good to call Twitter the public square, but that's a lot harder to take seriously when the guy in charge of policing the square is heavily biased.
I agree. A public town square is good but like you say, it should be neutral, and Xitter is not that.
On the censorship thing, maybe it is okay if an online messaging website bans certain content, like pro-suicide content, or pro-terrorism content, etc. You could call that censorship but you could also call it safety. I don't think anybody really believes in 100% free speech anyway, because if a person shouts "FIRE!" in a crowded theatre, when there is actually no fire, and it causes a stampede which kills people, should we not punish their speech because they're free to say it?
Freedom of political speech is important, but maybe there should be some fundamental rules about certain types of speech.
I think that should go either way and I have no problem if a platform decides to ban that kind of stuff. I certainly have no desire to consume such material.
I have a BIG problem when the government decides that platforms are required to ban things. Even if they're things I don't myself want to read.
It's a slippery slope.
Maybe. I think it might be okay if the government bans those things though, because people would still have political freedom to voice whatever political view they like, as long as they're not promoting violence or harm to particular people in pursuit of political aims.
Perhaps it's not easy to decide where the line of legality should go though, which is why this topic is controversial.
It's not easy. Especially when you need to determine what's a controversial opinion and what's hate speech.
For example (and this is NOT anything I agree with)-- if one said 'I don't believe gay people should be allowed to adopt children, because science shows both male and female influences are more helpful when applied together for a child's development' what is that? Is that hate speech because it advocates taking rights away from gay people? Is it an opinion stated with the goal of protecting children?
Does it become illegal to express almost any position that isn't pro-gay?
It's a VERY slippery slope.
Certain speech is criminal like inciting violence. If someone said 'I'm going to buy a gun and kill gay people, and you all should kill gay people too' that is a specific statement of criminal intent and also inciting violence. That will get you cops knocking on your door (and rightly so).
You can apply a 'test' to that- does it show specific intent to commit a crime? Does it encourage others to commit crimes? Yes on both.
But how do you 'test' someone saying they don't think gay people should be allowed to adopt? How do you tell from a few words if they have a hate-filled heart, or if they legitimately think gay people can't provide a loving home? You can't.
For the record- I'm using LGBT as an example. I personally liberal-libertarian--- I believe married gay couples should have guns to defend their adopted children and pot farms from criminals, with single payer healthcare to keep them alive if they get hurt. I'm against almost any effort to take away anyone's rights.
So I'll fight for the asshat's right to say 'fuck the gays' just as hard as I'll fight for the LGBT person's right to marry, adopt, and use whatever bathroom they want (provided they wash their hands).
Therefore I would say that there is no such thing as completely free speech, even in the US which has the First Amendment. There are always some restrictions on speech.
With the example of pro-suicide content, you could argue "making pro-suicide speech illegal would start a slippery slope". But on the other hand, if you have people committing suicide because they were encouraged to do so, then maybe it makes sense to make pro-suicide speech illegal. And it doesn't necessarily need to be a slippery slope. Other forms of speech don't have to be banned.
There may be a few, but they should be as minimal as is humanly possible. Restrictions on any civil right should be seen as an absolute last resort, to be tried only when all other options have failed and there is an overwhelming need to fix some desperate problem.
No it doesn't.
You are focusing on the symptom rather than the disease. The problem isn't that there is pro suicide content, the problem is that people are listening to it. If your society is so gullible and fragile that they will kill themselves because some asshole online says to, you have a much much bigger problem than online speech. You have an education problem and that is what you should fix. You are not teaching your kids critical thinking skills and you need to start. Getting rid of the pro suicide content is just starting a game of whack-a-mole because the next guy will post something else equally damaging that gullible people will fall for.
Birds aren't real, climate change is a hoax, the Earth is flat, vaccines react with 5G cell phone towers to cause autism, and forward this message to 50 people or you'll die tomorrow. Even if you get rid of the more harmful ones, your society is still collectively prey to any intellectual abuse and/or memetic virus.
The solution to disinformation isn't to block disinformation, it's to harden your society against it. Do that and the problem will solve itself, because people simply won't listen to the crap so there will be a lot less reason to post it and even fewer people spreading it.
Train your people to employ critical thinking skills, and when they don't, blame them and not whatever moron they were listening to.
I get why you don't want to restrict free speech. Maybe we should just agree to disagree.
I think I would probably be okay with the encouragement of suicide being illegal. Imagine a child or young teenager committing suicide because people online encouraged them. Some young people might brush off any such encouragement, but some young people might not. I think the young person's right to life is more important than some online person's right to encourage somebody to commit suicide.
I think I might be okay with encouragement of homicide or murder or terrorism being at least somewhat illegal.
Question for you though, let's say you have a person with numerous documented mental health problems, who has been suicidal for quite some time, they post some awful shit on a forum one day when upset. One of the responses is to go take a long walk off a short pier. Only they go and do that, with a bunch of rocks in a backpack, and they drown.
What punishment would you prescribe for the person who told them to take a long walk off a short pier?
Making things illegal is easy, but all the law does at the end of the day is a list of if you do X your punishment will be Y.
So for the dude that told him to take a long walk off a short pier, what is the punishment?
If it was just one occurrence then maybe a large fine or some community service. If someone does it multiple times then maybe prison time. I'm just guessing really. People who are more knowledgeable about the justice system than I am could probably answer this better.
I mean full respect when I say this- but if you advocate for a law or policy, don't shy away from the hard questions about it. Think them through BEFORE you advocate for the policy, as part of your thought process of whether that's a good policy or not.
In this case, those hard questions are exactly why I'm NOT in favor of such a policy.
If you make it illegal to recommend suicide, you create a situation where anyone who says anything even vaguely pro-suicidal is open to both criminal prosecution and civil liability. So that guy who (without any desire to see the poster suicide) said take a long walk off a short pier now is facing criminal charges, will have a criminal record, may go to jail, and then he'll be sued by the family of the deceased and probably lose his life savings (or whatever he's not already spent on lawyers).
Or, what if it's not the disturbed guy from the scenario who suicides, but some other random person a month later and they see that the 'long walk off a short pier' post was in that person's browser history? Do we blame that person for every single person who suicides who might have read that thread?
That in turn has a chilling effect on any online discourse and you'll get a lot more people using proxies and VPNs and anonymizer systems just for basic online discussion lest something they say be taken badly and the same happen to them.
And then in the wake of some publicized suicide, some politician will say it's time to clean up the Internet to keep our kids safe, and they'll task an investigative agency with proactively seeking out such things. Suddenly online message boards are crawling with cops, and if you say anything even vaguely pro-suicidal your info gets subpoena'd from the platform and you get cops knocking on your door with a court summons.
Is this 'better'? I don't think it is.
To be clear-- I have great value for the sanctity of human life. I don't want to see anyone dead, including from suicide. I think encouraging anyone to suicide is abhorrent and inhuman and I would personally remove such posts and/or ban such users from any platform I moderate.
But that's my personal standards, and I don't think it right or practical to throw people in jail or ruin their lives because they don't agree.
I also think one part of free speech is if someone else wants to create a toxic cesspool community, I don't have the right to order them not to. I'm okay with requiring a warning label on such a space though.
I live in the UK and we already have hate speech laws making certain speech illegal, e.g. extreme racist speech. Maybe it wouldn't be so bad if the encouragement of suicide was also illegal under such laws. Do we really think that people should have the right to encourage suicide? Surely the right of others to live is more important.
I dunno, I'm just suggesting it, I'm not saying the law should definitely be changed in this way.
Obviously the right of people to live is very important. But if somebody encourages them to end their own life, their right is not being taken away, they are just being given bad advice. If they choose to suicide, their right to live is being surrendered by them, by their own bad choice. Taking away somebody's right to live is murder. Encouraging somebody to do something stupid is harmful, but it is not murder. No more is it theft if I encourage you to set your money on fire and you do it. You choose to follow my obviously bad recommendation, you choose to set your own money on fire. That is your choice and your responsibility.
Making any sort of speech illegal is a slippery slope. Most civilized people would agree they don't want to read racist rhetoric, encouragements of suicide, etc. but when 'I don't want to read that' becomes 'I don't want you to be allowed to say that' you start forcing the morality of the majority on everybody. And that rarely ends up in good places, historically speaking.