Should social media platforms censor hate speech? | Nadine Strossen | Big Think
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 9 июн 2024
- Should social media platforms censor hate speech?
Watch the newest video from Big Think: bigth.ink/NewVideo
Join Big Think Edge for exclusive videos: bigth.ink/Edge
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Should social media companies censor hate speech on their platforms? Nadine Strossen, law professor and former president of the ACLU, says that while tech giants have no legal obligation to respect First Amendment rights, she urges them to allow as much free speech as is feasible.
Those who advocate censorship on social media worry about the harm caused by hate or disinformation, but they never examine whether censorship is going to be effective in actually addressing the root issue, says Strossen.
Online or offline, censorship doesn't work to make the world better. "Every hate speech law around the world to this day is disproportionately enforced consistently against the very minority groups who are hoped to be protected," says Strossen.
This video was made possible thanks to Big Think's partnership with the Institute for Humane Studies. theihs.org/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NADINE STORSSEN:
Nadine Strossen is the John Marshall Harlan II Professor of Law at New York Law School. From 1991 through 2008, she served as President of the American Civil Liberties Union, the first woman to head the nation’s largest and oldest civil liberties organization. Her most recent book is HATE: Why We Should Resist It With Free Speech, Not Censorship. You check it at amzn.to/2PyhqnQ
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TRANSCRIPT:
NADINE STROSSEN: Social media platforms present the same issues that we have been grappling with with respect to older media. But throughout human history every time a new medium of communication comes along many people, including many government officials, become very exercised about the new power and the allegedly new harms that are posed. So, we went through this when radio was invented, when the telephone was invented, when television was invented, when the World Wide Web came to people's attention. And, in fact, I have read that when the printing press was invented and when papyrus was invented there were similar eruptions of fear about this great new power to distribute information and the harm that could be done through information and disinformation. So, I think it's really important for us to have historic humility and not see what we're going through now as inherently different and more dangerous than the past. And I think that the same fundamental principles that have applied to other media should apply to social media as well.
First of all, as private sector entities, social media companies have absolutely no legal obligation to respect First Amendment rights, free speech rights, for anybody else. So, just as I have no right to participate in your wonderful film and I have no right to have an op-ed in The New York Times, I have no right to have my post displayed on Facebook or Twitter and so forth. Moreover, those companies have their own First Amendment rights to make their own editorial decisions about what expression they are going to allow on their platform and what they're not going to allow. I, as somebody who defends free speech rights for media companies, along with other companies, would oppose government restriction on the ability of these companies to decide what they will air and what they will not air. However, I will raise my voice to urge these companies to adhere, as closely as feasible, to the same basic standards that are reflected in the First Amendment. Because I think that for all of the potential damage that can be done by various kinds of online communications, including disinformation and so-called fake news and political ads and so forth, that far more harm is done when we empower these largely unaccountable private sector really powerful entities to pick and choose what expression is going to be aired and what will not be aired. And that danger is especially great when we are talking about political speech. The supreme court has consistently said, throughout history, of all expression that is important in our system of government by far the most important is speech about public affairs, speech about politics. ""We, the people,"" to quote the opening words of our constitution, we wield sovereign power but how can we do that responsibly or effectively if we do not have access, full access, to information about those who are running for office? Those who are seeking our votes? Those who are making...
Read the full transcript at bigthink.com/videos/social-me...
![PIECE BY PIECE - Official Trailer [HD] - Only In Theaters October 11](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/7Bc6trBc1kc/mqdefault.jpg)
The problem with censorship of "hate speech" is twofold.
1. The subjective nature of the definition. I tell you the Facts you don't want to hear but need to hear. You scream hate speech. I get censored. This is the most common problem.
2. In order for true grassroots rejection of a given ideology that will have an effect, the speech needs to be out in the open. Failing this, it becomes a counterculture. People like thinking they are learning something forbidden. And counterculture becomes the culture in time.
CHIPMUNK RAPIDS MADMAN ☝️☝️This should have way more likes by now....
"Truth" is often subjective, especially in cases when we all do not know answers.
@@Mlu007M you're right, it should read FACTS.
There is no "problem" here since there is no such thing as "hate speech" by its definition. Lift the veil and hate speech turns into speech that some take offense to. Not more and not less.
At that point i should not have to explain what happens to a society as a whole when it starts to go after speech "SOME" people are offended by.
There was a time where we could openly discuss ideas. Even the most horrendous ones. Today, they are cancelled, censored, removed, and its doing nobody a favor on either sides.
Also this censorship is done by a select few, which is a health bill on just how diseased our society is. Any such society is at the verge of collapse and/or upheaval. Cutting off communication is always followed by violence. Always. Without fail. When there is no recourse, no understanding, no help and no vent, the pressure can go only one way.
And after the fact the same people who censored you, will be touting speeches of democracy, freedom and hallelujah. And you will accept them just like you do now because you are all sheep.
The correct answer to censorship of any kind is a lit torch, tossed into the company building of whoever perpetuates it. Thats all.
Racial slurs aren't "facts"
The phone company doesn't have the ability to limit what people talk to one another on their networks, they can't decide to not let customers that are of one political party or another not use their products.
That's not necessarily true anymore though; that's what net neutrality used to protect.
The blogosphere is *not* a phoneline buddy... Hate is seen by many for a long time ☝🕐
Not yet
Censorship is never the answer as it gives people validlity and also division,it causes people to seperate further into their groups,TALKING is the answer
That's wishful thinking the Republic is dying . It used to depressed me But now I understand I live in such an important time to see the death of the Republic and see the birth of the Empire . That's a given but who will lead ???
There is a difference between publishers and platforms. If social media "platforms" will decide what to filter out, they should be treated as publishers, accountable for ALL things posted.
@@ivangohome Generally, it should be allowed by a platform; albeit, there are limits to free speech. The conundrum facing censorship is that where to draw the line between acceptable and unacceptable speech is arbitrary. A publisher, on the other hand, has the right and obligation to filter out what they allow to spread.
The best defense of big tech companies is that they are private businesses but given the influence they have in the intellectual and political discourse, it may be prudent for the legislative branch to review regulations concerning their policies. I'm normally more libertarian but these are competing values - liberty of the private company on one hand and liberty of expression of individual actors on the other. This form of media is relatively new, thus we should tread carefully.
Though it would be best if the companies themselves try to adhere to existing laws of the countries they operate in; hence some information visible in one country may not be visible in another.
@@MysterEarl It is *very* easy to remove a poster who frequently calls one's mother, sister, brother a wногe on a publisher's and media platform. I created simple spam filtering scripts in my coding days. Modern algorithms are quite impressive. The reasoning behind not removing is that hate is important for profit.
If that were the case, social media platforms would not ban certain accounts and censor others. On the flip side, letting people express themselves will expose their ideology and can serve as a warning to others not to associate with him/her. If such was censored, the person with hateful speech will get the benefit of being protected from the truth; the judgment of others people about him/her will be misinformed.
@@MysterEarl Youve got a point about exposure of subhuman users but the problem for me is that 99% of them are anonymous and mostly depressed/psychotic/sociopathic so we cant draw any conclusions from their "ideology". We wont lose anything from filtering hate just like spam🚮
@@MysterEarl Account censorship is a sociopolitical measure in advanced democracies to remove socially threatening ideologies. In totalitarian countries - to quell dissent from the ideology of the ruling party.
No. Nobody should control discourse
Calling your mother a wногe repeatedly is not discourse.☝ Make blogoshere a better place.
@Grendel _ Should we ignore road hate (road rage)? There is no place for hate anywhere☝
No doubt that Charles Manson would agree.
@@ivangohome Where did Charles do that?
@Venturing into the Brine buddy books are helpful for the highly evolved. The majority don't see the diff between real-life hate control and the internet...
Correct answer = no.
@riikerman
Then give me some horns and call me Satan, ‘cause absolute freedom of speech is fucking beautiful.
She talked about how dangerous disinformation and political ads are. Sounds to me like the root problem is people not being able to think for themselves. Maybe we should look at fixing that instead.
Individual solutions can't replace collective solutions.
Good thought !
Guys... For those who don't know, bitchute and gab are excellent mainstream alternatives
Not anymore !!!
@@danielhao5790 why not?
@@danielhao5790 did they get banned ?
Bitclout
Thats Cope and Cringe gab is the Definition of Gay I want guaranteed Freedom of speech in the Public Square which is now Twitter , Facebook and instagram I don't want to go onto some gay little cringe site
There either platforms or publishers. If they touch the speech they are publisher and need to pay their taxes.
Censorship is the only hate speech their is.
When someone calls ur mother, sister, brother a wногe repeatedly would u be more comfortable on a taxable or non taxable medium?😅
No. The problem is that there will never be a consensus, which isn't politically or ideologically motivated, as to what is hate speech.
Calling someone's mother a wногe repeatedly under religious videos for starters. Ban the user after 3 strikes. Make blogoshere a better place☝
@@ivangohome you cant ban negativity in real life man
@@ivangohome you just gotta get over it
@@jacevance10 don't ban negativity! Ban the repeat online hateful user. In real life its easier. Online is impossible.☝😌
@Venturing into the Brine Says who? Suffice for what? 😅
Hate speech is now defined as any speech that we don't like.. So, what is the point of protecting only the speech that we like - aside from creating an echo chamber?!
*
I do think that people who try to start violence should be stopped. But the real question is: do we really want commercial organizations to decide what we should or shouldn't like and say?
Why not? It's a free market brother.☝
@Roy Thomas Bauer yeah but when you talk, for example, about Al-Qaïda, their social media accounts should be deleted, right?
And should they be fought against by the army? Probably as well. But that's not a matter of social media anymore.
@Roy Thomas Bauer yes sr. You can say ir louder, but no clearer. Bravo.
@Roy Thomas Bauer Most comments that contain symbols and excessive (emotional) symbols are pattern (spam) scanned. Yours are good candidates from what I can see.
@Roy Thomas Bauer No.
Do you think social media platforms censor hate speech?
WTF is this so-called "hate speech"?
rictus grin
It’s a criminal offence in the UK as of 2010. Keep you’re 1A or they’ll do the same to you Americans
@@MichaelJ44 I was being facetious - I live in Canada - we have the same nonsense going on here . . .
anything someone else disagrees with these days - ...oh, I'm offended!
You need to get out more.
@@gorioecho9789 sure but hypersensitivity is a slightly dif prob from the ability to ignore pure hate isn't it 😎☝
No. Next question.
So victims of abuse are just par for the course then on these billionaire manipulated profitable platforms?
@@truetech4158 welcome to the internet.
Knee-jerk reaction to allow free-speech ends quickly when someone starts calling your mother a wногe repeatedly under religeous videos. 😎☝
@@truetech4158 What are you defining as abuse?
@@DoomRulz Welcome to enabling?
If these providers want to censor “hate speech” then they should NOT get the protections of a forum! If they can censor speech then they should be treated as a news organization not getting the protections of a forum!
You could apply the same slippery slope fallacy to that though: when does censorship become simple non-coverage? If I own a platform and we just so happen to not cover issues of the alt right for example, is that censorship? What if we _choose_ not to cover those issues? What if we cover it in a biased way that falls into disinformation? What if we tell our employees to frame that issue in a certain way?
@@lodgin no fallacy in what you are responding to.
Are they a platform or a publisher in your example?
If the company is a publisher then they can publish what they want, but they are liable for it.
If they are a platform then the can't compel speech but they are not responsible for what's posted
John Smith what? Like CNN? 🐑🤦♂️
Your feelings don’t dictate what I can say.
Your feeling don't dictate what a company should do.
BLT4LIFE unless they are virtually the only game in town. It’s not my feelings dictating what a company should do, but my rights. One day they claim they are a platform (which means they’re not liable for what others say) and on every other day they act like publishers (making them liable) deciding arbitrarily what can stay and what gets censored.
Think again. One man's words can absolutely lead to the destruction of unity, homocide or suicide. Feelings quickly become as tangible as a criminal motive☝
Andrew Ch who decides? You? Me? Government? Who decides? Who would you allow to decide what you can and can’t say? No, if you don’t like what is said then don’t listen but you don’t get to decide for me. Best censorship is self censorship.
@@one1charlie643 its not that hard. Calling someone's mother, brother, sister a wногe repeatedly especially under religious vids has no place anywhere.☝ Agreed?.
Private companies should have editorial discretion. However, they should also not be monopolistic. If there's no platforms similar to Twitter, in format and size, then Twitter needs to be broken up into a minimum of three competing entities. If that's unrealistic, then Twitter must have 1st Amendment obligations imposed on them. The same goes for other social media. Currently, all the large social media companies are distinctly different from each other, and not interchangeable in utility. Smaller companies are so much smaller, that they hardly provide any utility at all. The large companies can then choose: Split up, or honor free speech principles.
Personally, I favor splitting them up.
I favour splitting them up and prohibiting their board of directors and upper management from working in IT ever again.
Um... no? Social media is nothing more than a platform. It cannot be monopolized. Twitter owns their share within it's niche because it's easy to use live updates. Facebook owns their part of the market because they revolutionized how people stay connected. These are privately owned companies competing within the construct of social media. There is no monopoly of social media, as there are many, many of them world over. Facebook, Reddit, Instagram, Vlive, Twitter, and so on. Saying we should break up these platforms due to monopolies is ignorant at best since there is no single monopoly over social media. Each company sets out to do it's own spin on social media and they are directly competing with each other for users.
Many people, myself included, use multiple platforms of social media to achieve different things I want to do, and who I wish to share with. Facebook is more family friendly and I use it to stay connected with relatives and coworkers. I use Instagram for close friends and more personal communication, sharing photos, videos, memes, etc. Twitter is basically for communicating with or starting dialogue with anyone in the world. You don't have to be friends with someone to tweet at them. An average person can tweet something clever (or dumb) at a celebrity and receive a reply in seconds. If it was one company and only one platform doing everything, I'd say sure, that is a monopoly, but social media is far from ever being that because it's such a broad term. There will always be hot, new takes on social media; new platforms that revolutionize some aspect of software or communication. So no, the argument of monopolies will never apply here unless Facebook buys all the others.
But because they are privately owned entities with their own terms of service, it's their right to free speech to say what is and isn't allowed on their platform. Twitter recently updated their terms of use to deny political ads on their platform, so that no one politician could buy up tons of ad space to flood that platform. That is a direct form of censorship, but it also levels the playing field so that a wealthy politician cannot use their money for ad time over another with less resources.
In contrast, RUclips allows political ads, and Mike Bloomberg used hundreds of millions to pay Google to run his ads all over RUclips. Before he was roasted by the other candidates on live tv and dropped out of the running, 1/5 ads on RUclips were for Bloomberg's campaign. If not for Twitter's censorship of political ads, he'd have surely dominated that space as well and gained a much larger following.
Likewise, censorship of hate speech benefits the public at large and protects those private companies from any backlash for allowing it. Hate speech is harmful because it can lead to acts of terrorism.
"I don't like n*****s. They are lazy and inferior to me. I miss the old days of segregation and lynchings."
Say something like that on Facebook and chances are it'll be flagged and removed in minutes because that statement incites anger and fear, and it goes against their terms of use.
For example, let's say a famous white supremacist posted that message, and their following interprets that as a call to arms for lynching people of color. Could Facebook be liable for allowing that if a lynching did occur? Legally? Probably not, but socially would they get pegged for allowing white supremacists on their platform? Most definitely it would hurt their image to be associated with that sort of thing, and regardless of how liable they are, many will blame Facebook equally. In that situation censorship is simply used as a tool to protect a private company from bad press.
Most businesses censor what you can and cannot say to clients. Obviously, if you curse and swear at a customer, you'll get fired. There's no argument of free speech there either. So I think people get worked up over the First Amendment and believe it should apply to every aspect of their life, but that simply isn't reasonable. You must censor yourself under many circumstances if you wish to be a decent human being, and societies with free speech tend to forget that.
Censorship isn't always a bad thing. It can be used for the greater good, but it's a very thin and delicate line. Too many restrictions and we become a fascist state, too little and you lean towards anarchy. People should be able to say what they want so long as it doesn't incite panic or violence, and social media platforms have mostly adopted that standard. To live in a civilized world everyone has to play nice, and that means there are going to be instances where censorship is required for stability.
@@bigredcrazyk - I heard of a recent purge of "conservative" pundits (though I don't remember any names) from all the major platforms (and some like The Jolly Heretic barely holding on - a personal favourite). And I've seen the figures for how much the workers on these platforms donated to their favourite "liberal" politicians. Is this sort of censorship crossing the line?
I also believe these platforms are not liable for what's said on their platform precisely because it's an open forum. However, publishers _are_ held accountable for what they publish. So I think we're on intermediate ground here with the platforms having all the advantages of being a publisher with none of the liability. They allow ANTIFA content, even though that's been declared a terrorist organisation by the US Government.
@@OmnipresentCow you raised good points, but I don't foresee us agreeing when it's boiled down to the base argument. By nature, we are a petty, greedy species. Left unchecked we can be extremely selfish and cruel to not only other life on the planet but to each other as well, like what we're seeing in the news with people fighting over toilet paper because everyone has lost their minds.
Society operates smoothly when certain restrictions are put in place to protect us from ourselves. That may be a bleak outlook, but it's reality. I do not believe in political parties and the only agenda being pushed should be how to better society and the world we live in through science and discovery, then how to better the individual's livelihood. The individual doesn't come before the whole. If that means limiting certain freedoms to protect the majority, I cannot in good consciousness dispute that.
It's your freedom to decline vaccines, but society would be better off if vaccination was mandatory. In that example, I feel your individual rights should be trumped, for lack of a better word, if your choices put others at risk of illness. Americans think they have a god given right to certain freedoms, but I've never believed in nonsense like that. Many freedoms are simply luxuries taken for granted that directly put others at risk of harm. A good example of that is the Second Amendment, which needs a major rework, as much of the Constitution does in general.
The world is what we make it, and the "greater good" is far more important than a personal right to hate speech, something I've dealt with personally my entire life as a gay man. It's not fun to bullied relentlessly for something beyond your control. It can cause permanent psychological damage if you don't have thick skin, not to mention suicide. I don't want to hear it. I don't want to see it. And I'm 100% okay criminalizing it if even one less person considers the end of a rope as a solution. It shouldn't just be taboo to say hate speech. It needs to be entirely stamped out of existence. That will not happen if it falls under free speech protections.
There is no such thing as hate speech, only speech you dont agree with. Anything can be labeled as "hate speech" if someone is offended by it. Giving anyone the power to determine what can or can not be said will be used against everyone, not just those you dont agree with.
NO CENSORSHIP OF ANY SPEACH. How boring its going to be when "everyone " thinks the same way.
The problem is so many algorithms fuck up and think that a satirical video making fun of homophobic individuals is actually homophobic when it's entirely the opposite. There is way too much content to have robots going in and saying what is acceptable and what isn't. Free discourse allows people to change their minds, where as censorship just get rid of free thought. Even if it is genuinely hate speech, they should have the right to say what they want.
Great woman representing the values of the American Constitution. I admire your insight on each individual rights on freedom of expression.
Hate speech should not be dismissed as it provides a clear description of what each individual stands for and why they do so.
Thus, giving others the chance to understand why and what others agree with or don't agree. These are the common pedestals for identifying the best solution possible. Great one!
People dislike because they didn't listen till the end, she had amazing points that I totally agree with. The first half makes it seem like she is for censorship, but she isn't really.
One, as someone argued, think for yourself; two, I do not get my news, science, or political information from social media.
No it shouldn’t... why? Because it allows us to see the people that harbor those beliefs and the knowledge to not associate ourselves with.
Sticks & stones hurt, hateful comments & words defines the people that spew it, not the listener.
Incitement of hate is a problem
@@SawChaser what the hell is “Incitement of Hate”??
@@NvTwist notice how he couldn’t answer the question
Who gets to decide what hate speech consists of? The government? No, thank you.
Claudia star yes, the government. Who else would do it?
Kay Kay that’s the point. Nobody can decide this and if it is up to the government, then we have a problem. Government shouldn’t have this much power over our speech.
In modern Russia - yes the ruling party. But in advanced democracy there are laws.
The problem is social media companies are having their cakes and eating them, too. Section 230 of CDA needs to be changed to allow social media companies to choose from one of the following:
1. Either they choose to moderate user content, by which they should then be liable for the user content they leave behind.
2. Or they allow all content without moderation (with the exception of clear violations of the law, ie. defamation, threats, etc, only after they're reported to the company and then reported to law enforcement before being the company removes them) and receive a free pass from liability for the user-posted content.
Under 1, the company has "approved" the messages they leave behind and should thus be liable for the messages. Under 2, civil suits would have to be directed to the poster of messages instead of the company. In effect, the company becomes a "common carrier".
people should always speak up no matter what the implications might be.
Social Media companies don’t have the resources to remove every instance of hate speech from their platforms. Facebook could have a dictionary, which would not allow people to post text that includes specific words.
I have the same question as 'rictus grin'... WHAT EXACTLY, IS "HATE SPEECH"?? From what I can tell, it's anything that doesn't agree with the mainstream media, including Google, Facebook, and You Tube.
ACLU has also defended the man-boy love association, neo-nazis, but not KKK or religious rights. They are very selective in whom they think there are protecting.
_"They are very selective in whom they think there are protecting."_
That's a lie. Those may be the most famous cases, for obvious reasons. But they have a laundry list of cases from every spectrum, that was what made the old ACLU so great.
Today the ACLU is the opposite of what you suggest. Recently they updated their guidelines to say that they would only take first amendment cases that align with their ideology. So the ACLU is just another partisan advocacy group.
@@toobnoobify Yes how terrible it is to celebrate or imply to celebrate and religion on public grounds.
@Roy Thomas Bauer can you even think?
i believe you should be allowed to say almost ANYTHING online.. like on youtube or reddit, you should be able to say the most disgusting, racist, homophobic, worst things you could possibly conjure up to one another and not be banned or muted or censored imo. even threats mostly, especially on something like reddit or youtube where it's meaningless threats. think about the worst thing you could write in a sentence, you should be able to say it online for sure, and in person- but you gotta remember, it's a fking free for all out there, so people may attack you physically for it or snap back at you, even though they shouldn't. i tell people it's a free for all all the time you gotta watch your back, some people don't follow the rules or respect and will kill over words, or even less- looking at you the wrong way
Hate Speech is too nebulous a term to be given any legal weight.
No we need to learn by our mistakes, not by suppressing or covering up mistakes! Misinformation will happen, but that’s human nature, that’s how we learn and evolve spiritually!
There is no way 3rd party interests of any kind would seek to exploit social media as a tool to control the kinds of ideas people have access to.
Does the private phone company have the right to listen to all my calls and tell me what I can and can't say? Editoral right? Isn't a post representing 'my' opinion? How many times do I see in media "following opinion does not represent our corps view"? This is why they should be a 'public utility'.
Absolutely not. At that point you can label anything you don't like as hate speech and have it banned.
I'm for free speech, but there should be restrictions. Sure, people aren't always going to change their minds about being racist or sexist, but arguments about equality between races and sexes has existed in varying degrees for hundreds if not thousands of years. Even with all that discussion we still have racism and sexism. Maybe I'm a pessimist, but I don't think that's going to go away; however, it is safer for people to participate in social media platforms and other public spaces if they aren't being harassed. Not to mention that ostracization *can* be a powerful tool for *some* people. The proponents of unfettered free speech usually believe in "the marketplace of ideas" which is not an accurate theory. It describes what we currently have, but it doesn't work. For those who aren't aware, the theory is that, if all ideas are present, society will eventually choose the good ideas, and that theory places way too much faith in people's ability to think for themselves and examine sources instead of aligning with groups and practicing group think. People deny they do this to the nth degree, but we all do it to some extent because it's uncomfortable to admit even to ourselves when we were wrong about something. We as humans are often horrible judges of what's true. I do agree it's harmful for the government to be the arbiter of what's true because it would be too easy for them to hide truth that makes them look bad, and it would also be easy for them to spread lies about their political opponents; however, truth is immensely important. I know this is another hot button topic, but look at what happens with covid. Regions, countries, or states that lift restrictions experience a surge in cases. This has been documented. In each case, people believed articles or politicians that told them the restrictions weren't necessary, and there were record numbers of deaths and infections as a result. There needs to be somebody, some organization that calls out false news for what it is because lies can be *incredibly* dangerous.
*No, there shouldn’t be restrictions.*
I don't trust them to be able to discriminate because everyone suffers a different bias. Let the herd decide.
So many comments from people claiming to be so smart, yet none of them can google the definition of "hate speech"
-abusive or threatening speech or writing that expresses prejudice against a particular group, especially on the basis of race, religion, or sexual orientation.
Hey, that's pretty simple! People should be able to say _almost_ whatever they want, wherever they want - but since 1968, when Congress passed, and President Lyndon Johnson signed into law, the first federal hate crimes statute, the Department of Justice has been enforcing federal hate crimes laws. The 1968 statute made it a crime to use, OR THREATEN TO USE, force to willfully interfere with any person because of race, color, religion, or national origin.
Criticizing an idea is completely different from threatening to use force against someone holding an idea. The first is the locus of public discourse. The second is not discourse, but tumultuous discord. Ideas are criticized on their own merits or faults, while a personal threat does the opposite of elevating the discourse. For example, social media companies should have the right to protect children from being told they are going to be lynched for the color of their skin.
This is also why cyberstalking is illegal in some jurisdictions.
The problem is so many algorithms fuck up and think that a satirical video making fun of homophobic individuals is actually homophobic when it's entirely the opposite. There is way too much content to have robots going in and saying what is acceptable and what isn't. Free discourse allows people to change their minds, where as censorship just get rid of free thought. Even if it is genuinely hate speech, they should have the right to say what they want.
i worked in a federal government office. Common sense was not allowed.
Thought Police
Free speech is just that. Even the term hate speech is a violation of free speech.
Hate speech is now defined as any speech you don't like.. So, what is the point of only protecting speech that we like? - aside from creating an echo chamber?!
*
Can a private business platform restrict speech? If yes, can they restrict it based on race? Can a restaurant restrict people from speaking in their restaurant based on race? Where do we draw that line? Seems far fetched, but if you allow the restriction of speech based on what the private business owner defines as hate then you create a loophole for hate itself.
My LinkedIn account has been restricted and they asked me affirm that I wouldn’t post the offensive comments again. But I refuged to apologize to LinkedIn, instead I put them on fire for allowing politically and religiously sensitive posts and associated propaganda, misinformation and hatred to be freely circulated.
Its actually terrifying that people are actually cheering censorship. I dont care what your views are. You have the right to express them.
This would be a fine argument if Facebook and Twitter and RUclips had competitors. If we could choose to move to competitors who respected free speech. But the nature of the business model results in singular platforms in their particular area of social connection.
And pretty much all social discourse occurs on these platforms. By allowing these platforms to censor speech, we are letting the space wherein free speech is possible shrink tremendously. Free speech in a local town hall isn't good for much anymore, if 90% of the population has shifted their discourse to Facebook groups.
It's not the "nature of the business model."
Companies like google and twitter spend hundreds of millions of dollars to acquire and/or shutdown competition, even when they're not purchasing lobbyists to help add regulations to shut down startups.
Google for example did borderline illegal bullshit to shutdown some of the early youtube alternatives. And that's ignoring that payment processors like banks can be influenced by google into shutting down the accounts of startup businesses.
They're Rockafeller 3.0.
Completely agree, though I do take some issue with the premise stated at the start of the video that the internet is within the same category as the printing press. I'm not suggesting it's wholly different, but the internet allows for instant two way communication with anyone and everyone as anonymously as you choose, all with standard, wide spread, and cheap technology that most people have access to. This has never been the case before: you needed expensive equipment and a lot of time to press print books, same goes with tv, and then you need to convince a channel to buy your product and broadcast it. The truly closest comparison is the phone, but even then you couldn't mass call people and have several ongoing conversations at the same time.
At some point, with all things considered, it moves into a different category. Some random anonymous user from Russia with a bot farm (which by the way is easy to do, I would know because I make bots) shouldn't have the same access and influence over an election as someone who actually lives there. Shouldn't that be obvious? If we're basing free speech off the ideals of a local town hall, then we need to regulate the ways in which local-town-hallness is infringed.
Pretty sure there are plenty of alternatives already like gab or bitchute
@@tedmitten8832 sure there are alternatives, but how can Gab in any way compete with Facebook?
Facebook's main selling point as a social network is that it's big. Nearly everbody is on Facebook. If someone new to social networks wanted to create an account, and they were given the choice between; a platform like Gab that promotes free speech and has a million users, and Facebook which doesn't promote free speech and has several billion users, which one are they going to pick?
Provided the primary reason for this person to create an account is to stay connected with people they know (which is why most people are on Facebook), they'd be crazy to choose Gab. Facebook is the logical choice because they're already big.
@@nicobruin8618 well that is how social platforms get big; you join. Fb wasn't always the behemoth we know today.
fine, lol - if they can dictate what you can and can't say, then they're not a platform, they're a media source - that comes with actionable liabilities
Make believe world,make believe rules, make believe Censorship! Live in reality!
The answer is hell no. They should not!
1:09 They made the same arguments in favour of scensorship.
Of course, you should be able to block or report any disrespectful speech, if you couldn't say it in front of your family you shouldn't be able to say it on social media, the worse thing is to just allow all comments like in the wild west days of the early internet
That's why I quit FB and Twitter. Really sucks.
Yahh me too and I'm glad that uproarable launching as new social media platform that is really safe to use.
@@juliaporter4179 uproarable?? Haven't heard that yet.
Hell no. If you can't stand it then gtfo social media.
NO P.C MUST BE CENSORED!
No. Hate speech is free speech
Calling someone's mother, brother, sister a wногe repeatedly is *not* free speech.☝ Ban the user after 3 strikes.
@Y O J I M B O Sorry accepted.
no business can censor what law allows.
yevod42 This isn’t true.
@@mactastic144 yes, it is true. no one can deny you your rights provided by Constitution and Law. thus, it would be illegal.
Why all the dislikes?
How can you censor that does not exist
I think everyone agrees that hate speech exists, the problem is that there's no consistent legal definition for it.
when someone calls ur mother, sister, brother a wногe repeatedly online... Ban the user after 3 strikes. Make the world a better place...
@@ivangohome Would you stop copy-pasting the same insipid reply over and over to every comment on this video?
You got me so annoyed that I just told your mother to leave, and I'm not going to pay her.
@@toobnoobify if u get annoyed so easily what happens when someone actually calls ur mother, sister, brother a wногe repeatedly would u be more comfortable on a taxable or non taxable medium?😅
Andrew Ch You’re a grown adult. Block or ignore the user. You can leave the platform or log off whenever you want.
I used to agree with this, but then I watched PragerU’s video about censorship. There’s actually laws in place that prevent platforms from censoring their content.
And they are violating them. Dude, just because there are some rules it doesnt mean they are doing any good. That is the same problem with paris agreement. It gives a false sense of doing something.
Easy. NO.
They have they right to, but they shouldn't.
That's exactly what she said.
@Will Wheeler Yes they do... They own the platform and can say what is or isn't allowed on it, just like your house, just like a store, just like any other website, just like a theater or music venue, just like a church, etc etc etc. It DOES matter if it's privately owned. That's _exactly_ why they can.
Hate speech has been censored for many years in broadcasters, and the general public never complained much about it. Social media gives the ordinary person the power of a broadcaster. We not talking about a person talking to someone else in their private space. We talking about one person influencing millions. A big RUclipsr or influencer nowadays has more viewership than most small media publications and broadcasters. Should they not be regulated as broadcasters have been?
technically legally there is no suck thing as hate speech there is just free speech PERIOD GOD gives us all emotion bar non
She just confused platform with publisher...
There is a small step between innocent censorship and tyranny
@Roy Thomas Bauer Agree
Censorship to conservative ideology is happening. Whether you people want to think it is or not.
Calling someone's mother, sister, brother a wногe repeatedly under various videos is not conservative ideology. Ban the user after 3 strikes.
Domestic terrorism group$ of much bronze age knuckle dragging remain more profitable than before these sketchy social media platforms went billionaire status. Most people are unaware of the fact that the president was allowed to use piles of enabling hushmoney in the courtroom to evade jail for a 1989 rape caused by a delusional narcissist who's choice of VP claims that murdered rape victims have a happy afterlife as a backup plan..
hellz no censorship. free information is still more important than disinformation
Calling your mother a wногe repeatedly is not free speech. Ban the user after 3 strikes. Make blogoshere a better place☝
If I can't drop the N-word as a white person, a black person shouldn't be allowed either.
Both should be able to either way, the victims of the internet should get off the internet, the victims in real life should say stop, and then go lay a case of harassment if the negativity does not stop, or a case of verbal abuse.
Most definitely...its uncivilized
No. Because hate-speech has no definition. And is what someone wants it to be.
That’s the point. There is just as likely to be someone who sees that as insulting behaviour, but not, hateful behaviour. It’s subjective. There is no clear and obvious line. Why the very notion of hate speech scares me. In Nazi Germany hate speech was anything against the state. In Soviet Russia, it was anything against Stalin. There both forms of hate speech. Which one will be applied? Will it be illegal to criticise Nazis? Or communists? Or illegal to criticise a different group? See why hate speech is such a scary term. Hell, the communists shot a mime for criticising the new regime. He did not even speak. He just mimed and it was enough to get executed.
@@Erakius323 U see. talking against putin in Russia will eventually get u in jail and has nothing to do with calling someone's mother, brother, sister a wногe repeatedly by a noname online. Do u c the difference?
Andrew Ch But you’re showing hate against Putin. Surely that’s a hate crime? You can’t define it precisely. To say hate crime is to be vague. Who is covered by hate crime laws? Only one group? Or all groups? And against just insults or against threats? And how do you define either? See why it’s a scary idea? Where the lines are drawn is subjective.
@@Erakius323 pls prove me that I hate putin😅
Andrew Ch Thats the point. It’s hate speech. It’s so vague and unclear I can just say that what you just said is hate speech and leave it at that. It has no clear legal definition. Threatening people, is in most countries, already illegal. Harassing someone with insults, is in most countries already illegal. So what is a hate speech law for then? To silence anything people don’t like. And since it is subjective, it does not need to be defined. It’s up to you, to prove that you don’t hate Putin. See the danger now?
Question to those who support censorship: So,, you believe these companies should be allowed to discriminate at will ? That's like saying a restaurant should be able to ban blacks because it's a privately owned restaurant. I completely disagree that social media has the right to discriminate. If they don't like speech,, they should open a different kind of business.
How about no
No, they shouldn't. Because "freedom of speech".
No
Contradictions abound.
Social media platforms today are getting worse. And these founders are not doing anything. Hope there would be another platform that can make a difference from others.
true! and while are they allowing these to happen??for the sake of money?
@@jessicarodes4634 of course! with money you can have everything!
@@angelicamartinez1309 have you heard this uproarable? some kind of all in one socmed.
@@jessicarodes4634 have not heard yet. you have link?
@@angelicamartinez1309 just google uproarable...
I think people disliked before watching the full video lol
The woman talks in paragraphs
Votes of this video reflects the reactionary nature and low attention span of the average person
Nope
THE AWNSER IS NO!
You know that you're in a bad place when the truth is censored.
Should we censor hate speech? Absolutely not. Do privately owned media platforms have the right to censor speech on their platform they don't like? Absolutely.
GODLESS101 i need a platform that don’t give a fuck...Facebook is made for ultra sensitive people, I need a free way
Let's allow murder then because it s a private action lol..
You don't make sense
Privately owned... They could do whatever the hell they want. Next question
They can do whatever they want, except have monopolies in their respective niches. Unfortunately, they have monopolies. There are no other micro-blog services with a sufficient reach to serve the same purpose as Twitter. The same goes for other social media companies. They need to be broken up into smaller companies that are in direct competition with each other. Barring that, they need to have free speech obligations imposed on them.
I say split them up!
What they do is enable alot of sociopathic abuse, while getting disgustingly rich and going on vacations and buying mansions with the loot.
Some of their client base are completely ok with that though.
@Will Wheeler I was 13 years old, 10 days after leaving sick kids hospital in toronto for a leg surgery and couldnt run if i tried, when i heard a running sound getting louder behind me, then i saw stars.
A sociopathic bent badge version of a cop clubbed me over the head, then the leg about a inch above my surgery stitches, then again over the back, and i went down hard. I asked why? He said that i was trying to run. Then he grabbed me by my bleeding hair and dragged me backwards on my heels, then tossed me like a small rag doll under a metal staircase on some concrete.
I curled up in the act of self preservation in shock, and felt 4 other bent badge versions of cops kicking at me. I can't prove it, though my family and neighbors saw the wounds, and knew i was in shock.
They showed up with me at a large youth court building to show moral support.
That sociopathic bent badge version of a cop showed up, and asked me to speak with him, so i limped across the terrazo flooring to another area just out of earshot of my family and friends. He read to me a fabricated statement from his little black book, then looked at me with his sociopathic stare, as he lifted his hand to hand me a pen, and i said no.
Minutes later the courtroom opened, we all went in, sat down, and observed the judge racing through many cases, and the sociopathic bent badge stood up and said that they wanted to drop all charges.
The judge slammed his gavel down, and no actual justice was served that day.
I wish i could forget that, though seem to remember it on a almost daily basis..
Do you believe me?
Violent acts never do produce afterlives.
In SCIENCE we trust INSTEAD of mythology.
Please be safe, be logical, be healthy, and please stay home during these most humbling of pandemic times.
Pandemics don't produce afterlives either.
Do you really care like i do?
So much noise and distraction going around on social media... I hope there is a new channel that is safe and not so manipulating..
Yahh me too. Hope there's someone exist
@@juliaporter4179 yes something more approachable and engaging and give good impact..
@@marilyndavidson7508 yah. Social media nowadays controlled by the rich aliens. Lol
@@juliaporter4179 yah your right and and its already exhausting....
But ladies have you heard of uproarable? some kind of platform that supplement all other social media in one...
You cannot LEGALLY DEFINE hate speech.
Freedom of speech for all
@@woodbury8642 yes.
Easy question to answer: NO. Partly because we have no definition of "hate speech".
Calling someone's mother, sister, brother a wногe repeatedly under various videos is hate speech. Ban the user after 3 strikes.
@@ivangohome - If it's true, why be offended? If it's false, why let it bother you? Go study _Meditations_ (The Conversation of the Emperor Marcus Antoninus: A Discourse with Himself) by Marcus Aurelius Antoninus - well worth the read.
You're discussing "edge cases" or "case studies" (limits of the Gaussian distribution not necessarily representative of the whole), and you may be able to convince many with such deceptions, but this will be used to make certain that you only support the view that's held by those in charge. When you give up "free speech", you might as well give up every other "right", as they will silently fall, and there'll be nothing you can legally say about that.
@@rchuso I wud agree with u, but "edge cases define our legal system" -- Roland Freisler. The mean in the distribution will not let us predict reality. History tells us that *fringe cases* shape our future and should be dealt with before they become norm❗
@@ivangohome - If society is going a certain direction, best to let it go that way. However, to make it illegal to express contrary ideas is assuming you know the direction it will take. Nobody has that prescience. And it's unfortunate that you're right about the legal system - it's resulted in protections for the criminal at the expense of the innocent, together with a massively expensive recreational facility for the "convicted".
@@rchuso u r alright 👍
Make more of the same
The answer she gave is exclusive to USA politics. Breaking news: The world is bigger than the USA. Cool that you people have a constitution and enjoy to speak about it everytime but have you people actually considered YOU ARE NOT THE OWNERS OF THE WORLD???
This video is very incomplete and doesn't answer a very important question. There are literally BILLIONS of people in this world with internet connection and most of them are NOT IN THE USA, so this matter MUST be approached in a INTERNATIONAL level.
Shoving USA's legislation down to the world's throats is very disrespectful.
Internet is the most powerful tool we have nowadays, to be controlled by one single country with a legislation written decades before cellphones is pure ignorance.
The right to Free Speech is not universal. What is hated is being told what your rights are by someone who has different rights, morals, ethics and agendas.
No one has different rights.
@@VenomTheCat lol
@@importantname great argument
@@VenomTheCat look around the world - the freedom to say what you want is not a right in most countries.
To claim that we all have equal rights is well LOL!!!!!
@@importantname I agree. But my point is that they have the right. But tyrannical government take them away. The government doesn't give you rights, they only take them away.
👍👍 Tough times never last, but tough people do. The best young entrepreneur ever @evenkingsfall (his insta) says you have to THINK BIG to WIN BIG! Always keep that vision! Don't stop the hard work 🔥
define hate speech... I'll give you 50 years.. you still not have an answer..
Untrue speech = fear-based speech, negative judging or putting labels on people/groups of people; We should all be using non-violent communication. Marshal Rosenberg had the answer.
Very good video. Corporations have de facto more power than governments. It's the same fight between the boyars and statesmen that happened in Europe for millenias
Not really...
It highly depends on the people that are government...
Well I suffered a stroke, I will be the first to tell anyone, censor social, its not good for people with disabilities, where its meant to help, it actually harms....i think the gov should look into all aspects case and point
DATA IS A DANGEROUS DRUG IF NOT ADMINISTERED CORRECTLY....I WISH I COULD EXPLAIN MY EXPERIENCE WITH SOMEONE THAT IS INTERESTED.
Now that Elon Musk owns Twitter I wonder how she feels today...😂😂😂
Is this a repost? I swear I saw this like 2 months ago...I'll just give the same answer: No. Hate speech doesn't exist anyway.
The point made in the written summary was not what she actually said. Her points were all over the place.
Keke
No such thing