| |
| ▲ | AshleyGrant 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | No. "They" cheered when it was used to deplatform hate speech. Deplatforming people organizing a peaceful protest is very different. If you cannot understand how that is different, then I worry about your critical thinking skills. | | |
| ▲ | vlyan 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | was peaceful dissent about certain policies of 2020-2022 also "hate speech"? because, if I recall correctly, it was being suppressed with unprecedented zeal on every single platform. again, with applause. https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que... https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que... https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que... | | |
| ▲ | estearum 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Medical disinformation during a pandemic? These conversations often end up in some weird motte and bailey where you argue that you care about free speech, but it turns out that you actually just thought COVID was not real/not significant/not dangerous/not an emergency. So your issue ends up not being that they made a decision on it (free speech concern), but that you feel it was the wrong decision (content-specific concern). So before we go back and forth on the intricacies of content moderation, can you briefly describe your beliefs on COVID? | | |
| ▲ | zeroonetwothree an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | I agree 100% with scientific consensus on covid but I also don’t support deplatforming based on viewpoint (vs content). | | | |
| ▲ | vlyan an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | and so the goalpost moves from "it's hate speech" to "it's whatever we unilaterally decide to be verbotten to speak about". | | |
| ▲ | estearum 36 minutes ago | parent [-] | | Well I wasn’t the one who said “it’s hate speech.” There are a number of things that get content-moderated. Hate speech, porn, bullying, doxxing, disinformation, Islamist propaganda, violent imagery, revenge porn, animal abuse imagery, incitements to violence, criminal planning, drug dealing, arms dealing, gambling, fraud, etc As a free speech maximalist, are you willing to defend all of those with the same vigor as the COVID case? Or do you too actually draw a content-based line somewhere (while pretending you don’t?) |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | adamrezich 19 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Both groups of people seem to harbor a lot of hatred, and they seem to want to express it a lot, so your distinction between what is and is not hate speech kind of seems to be based on whether you agree with it or not. If you find this interpretation to be uncharitable, would you care to clarify what truths this interpretation overlooks? | |
| ▲ | gadders 31 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Hunter Biden's laptop wasn't "hate speech". | | |
| ▲ | estearum 8 minutes ago | parent [-] | | I don’t know of any leftie people who were “cheering” about anything in any direction as it pertains to the laptop story. |
| |
| ▲ | Whoppertime 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Who decides if it is a peaceful protest? | | |
| ▲ | estearum 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Ultimately the platform, and yes there are huge grey areas. I don’t think this instance lands in one of them and that’s why Facebook isn’t even claiming it does. It seems like you’re trying to avoid dealing with the substance of the issue for some reason. | |
| ▲ | amanaplanacanal 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Usually local police if they are on the scene. If they start seeing violence, they start telling people to disperse, followed by tear gas and then rubber bullets. |
| |
| ▲ | krapp 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | They aren't trying to think critically, they're trying to ragebait and "own the libs." | |
| ▲ | marknutter an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Left wing speech is hate speech. Prove me wrong. | |
| ▲ | 49494959 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [dead] |
| |
| ▲ | estearum 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Do you have some specific examples that you find equivalently egregious to disrupting an organized protest? | | |
| ▲ | AcerbicZero 25 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | Do you think disrupting an organized protest is inherently egregious? | | |
| ▲ | estearum 12 minutes ago | parent [-] | | I think that limiting “vanilla” political speech in general is inherently egregious. The boundaries around vanilla are certainly blurry, but I don’t think No Kings comes even remotely close to any of those blurry boundaries. |
| |
| ▲ | howunfortunate 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Personally I find censoring all links to the New York Post Hunter Biden laptop story a couple weeks before a presidential election to be much, much more egregious. (To be perfectly clear disrupting protests is also very bad!) | | |
| ▲ | estearum 32 minutes ago | parent [-] | | The story that even the New York Post didn’t list an author on, for fear of it being a false story? I agree this would be even more egregious if it was thought to be a real story, but even the tabloid that published it didn’t think so. Pretty sure the link suppression was turned off within like a day, right? | | |
| ▲ | howunfortunate 22 minutes ago | parent [-] | | What exactly is your argument here? That social media sites should prevent individuals from sharing content without an attributed author? | | |
| ▲ | estearum 16 minutes ago | parent [-] | | My argument is that the principle of election non-interference applied to this specific situation can reasonably yield “we should suppress sharing while we figure out what’s going on.” It was absolutely reasonable to suspect (in the early hours) that a salacious, bombshell story involving stolen documents published on NYPost without a listed author could potentially have been an actual disinformation attack. Under that set of facts, the “we should try to limit interference in the election” can reasonably yield the behavior that it did yield. | | |
| ▲ | howunfortunate 6 minutes ago | parent [-] | | That's an absurd and frankly offensive standard, and I fear that you already know that. The same standard could be used to trivially censor literally any information from any outlet. Conservatives could censor all NYTimes articles because they have compelling evidence the NYTimes newsroom is taking money from foreign sources (they are), has a history of releasing false information (they do, all news outlets eventually do), and being biased against conservatives. In fact, your standard would censor precisely the MOST important stories, because these are the most likely to influence elections. |
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | yieldcrv 4 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | and nobody is arguing the reverse now that its not aligned with them they're saying to avoid the whole argument entirely by not using a platform that can deplatform at all | |
| ▲ | intended 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | This is bunk. Most people haven’t spent any time moderating online communities, so they don’t have to test their beliefs against reality. This is fine, frankly you saved yourself being stuck in a fractal hell scape. However holding to this idea that the “opposition” was deplatformed, is superstition. I’ve seen communities start with 0 moderation, and become wastelands filled with hate speech, misogyny and harassment. Which then forces moderation to be introduced. This happens so often, that this happened to the hate groups who were kicked off of Reddit. Communities have celebrated the introduction of moderation, and celebrated the imposition of rules that mean you can’t be harassed, attacked and targeted. |
|
