Problem with HateAid is that it doesn't focus on helping on hate crimes alone, but also combats hate speech, which is very widely interpreted. This sometimes have included criticism to politicians in power. Although its mission might be noble, the execution is sometimes murky. Of course if we get to the future where the government draws the line between the hate and the murky, the line will be drawn by White House for the US companies, not the EU.
US companies doing business in the EU are bound by EU law, not US law. The US set that precedent so it's only fair that this works both ways. You may disagree with the law but using sanctions like this to go after people whose opinions you disagree with is textbook censorship and to do so in the name of free speech is absolutely ridiculous.
As an example of this, I personally know several feminists who have been censored and even banned from major social media platforms for speaking up on women's rights. Their words were incorrectly flagged as "hate" and removed.
I'm sure that these organizations do some good work in removing actual threatening content but often it's also used to censor views that their operatives find objectionable simply because it doesn't concord with their own beliefs.
> I personally know several feminists who have been censored and even banned from major social media platforms for speaking up on women's rights. Their words were incorrectly flagged as "hate" and removed.
I mean, were they saying stuff against transwomen? If so, then it may not have been incorrectly flagged as hate.
Is the "murky" part "criticism to politicians in power" or what exactly is unclear about combating hate speech?
> the line will be drawn by White House for the US companies, not the EU.
I don't think there is "one line" drawn by a single person, there are multiple entities here drawing their own lines wherever they want. In some governments, the lines have already been drawn between what is hate speech or not.
We don't want a legal government apparatus in place for determining what can be said on the internet. The first thing that will happen is the categories of things you can't say will slowly start to expand to include everything that threatens the power of the government. What happened during covid is bad enough.
If your reaction to "hate speech" is to get the government to remove the speaker from the internet, what you're doing is more dangerous, in the long run, than the speech you don't like.
So what suggestion do you have for people who don't want to deal with hate speech on platforms if the platforms won't do anything because it cuts into their bottom line?
> If your reaction to "hate speech" is to get the government to remove the speaker from the internet, what you're doing is more dangerous, in the long run, than the speech you don't like.
My natural sympathies lie with this position, but is it evidence based? At least currently, more problems seem to be caused by disinformation and hate speech than are caused by government censorship (at least in the US and EU).
That’s not to say that the dangers associated with disinformation and hate speech necessarily justify censoring them (any more than the dangers associated with alcohol necessarily justified prohibition), but if the argument for an absolutist stance on free speech is going to be the consequentialist argument that it’s the less dangerous option, then this has to be evaluated empirically.
Well, the EU was quick to copy this. The Swiss Jaques Baud was slapped with the same measures. I saw only one youtube video of him and in my memory he was well outspoken and considerate - but definitely not mainstream but also not a conspiracy nut.
I simply think it is not right to basically destroy the life of someone without even a court judgement that he did something illegal. He definitely does not fall in the category of hate speech or trying to stir uproar. I think free speech is important for a living democracy. And that includes people with opposing views.
This is the guy who has whole heartededly swallowed the Russian propaganda to the extent that its coming back out the other end (Either because hes a dangerous idiot or for money, you choose)?
Thinks the British were responsible for the Bucha massacre?
An ex-colonel spouting propaganda from Europes current greatest threat to peace feels like it deserves to get treated on a different level:
I think too many people forget that for the Swiss neutrality doesn't mean the same thing as it does for say the Irish, Swiss Neutrality is about exploiting both sides, and I hope to god someone important remembers that this time round.
this is just ridiculous anti free speech. just because he assumes a point of view that is mostly disagreed with doesn't make it a target for censoring. it's not a slippery slope, it's the straight path to 1984. dangerous idiots should be allowed to speak. and regarding money there is not a single hint he received any, and he lives in a country that is pretty well policed and not corrupt.
As someone who considers the Ukrainians an ally, and therefore the Russians an enemy for starting a war of aggression, I'd say its safe to view someone using their position to espouse Russian propaganda an enemy agent, and Im begruded to think an ex-colonel with intelligence experience believes these easily debunkable theories because hes stupid.
Europe is currently at war, some people just haven't realised it yet apparently.
Im not even going to touch on the swiss further, for only the truly incorruptible would colloborate with Nazis.
Correction: Banned for censoring differences of opinion on important matters, like silencing feminists. So I consider this a win: The current US government is for free speech, while so much of the EU is against it.
> Rubio was promoting a conspiracy theory about what he has called the “censorship-industrial complex,” which alleges widespread collusion between the US government, tech companies, and civil society organizations to silence conservative voices
Is that a conspiracy theory in the sense of “some crazy low-status nonsense that no one should pay attention to”, or a conspiracy theory in the sense of “a theory about a private arrangement between multiple actors”?
"Kill Musk's Twitter" was literally a Centre for Countering Digital Hate agenda item on a meeting with Senators in the US. The CCDH was started by advisors of Kier Starmer (one who is now his Chief of Staff). It is 100% a left wing pressure group.
I don't see how anyone call it a conspiracy theory any more.
Just think its a geniunely important semantic note that only Americans and hard righters consider Labour + Kier left wing. If the CCDH is a pressure group, its a neo-liberal one.
Some investigative journalists leaked internal documents showing that their intention was shutdown speech of their political opponents and apply EU law onto american citizens.
I side with Matt Taibbi on this one.
They arent innocent researchers being prosecuted by the evil baddies. I'll take my downvotes for having wrongthink.
Honestly, I saw all of this coming in 2009 when 4chan was making racism/misogyny engaging by making it humorous. I remember talking to a friend about how we would eventually get concentration camps that started with illegal immigrants and then expanded to any dissidents in the US.
"I was just joking" is the excuse you tell yourself to say those hateful things and to escape consequences. Just look at Trump "joking" about canceling the election. It's a "joke" so there are no consequences, but where's the damn punch line?
Yes. I remember there was a whole phase of a meme of a black person in a suit with the tag “how I saw black people before 4chan” and some horribly racist after picture.
I’d say people fall somewhere in between 0% and 100% bigoted and what they will tolerate/laugh at can be incredibly nuanced. Nobody is actually 0% or 100% racist but I generally consider myself “not bigoted” in a broad sense. Everyone is of course carrying some bigoted opinion(s) though, it’s unavoidable.
But back to the point: I’d say I am by and large not particularly bigoted. Still, I’d be lying if I said I have never laughed at off-color jokes. No matter how progressive or anti-racist you are something is going to break through. That is what makes it such a powerful tool for less scrupulous actors. You find what a person or community is willing to tolerate, then you either peel off people in private or push boundaries out loud and slowly drive a wedge into the community.
Problem with HateAid is that it doesn't focus on helping on hate crimes alone, but also combats hate speech, which is very widely interpreted. This sometimes have included criticism to politicians in power. Although its mission might be noble, the execution is sometimes murky. Of course if we get to the future where the government draws the line between the hate and the murky, the line will be drawn by White House for the US companies, not the EU.
https://europeanconservative.com/articles/commentary/germany...
US companies doing business in the EU are bound by EU law, not US law. The US set that precedent so it's only fair that this works both ways. You may disagree with the law but using sanctions like this to go after people whose opinions you disagree with is textbook censorship and to do so in the name of free speech is absolutely ridiculous.
As an example of this, I personally know several feminists who have been censored and even banned from major social media platforms for speaking up on women's rights. Their words were incorrectly flagged as "hate" and removed.
I'm sure that these organizations do some good work in removing actual threatening content but often it's also used to censor views that their operatives find objectionable simply because it doesn't concord with their own beliefs.
Who are these feminists? I don't want to not believe you but the lack of detail here feels like you're just dogwhistling feminist for transphobic
> I personally know several feminists who have been censored and even banned from major social media platforms for speaking up on women's rights. Their words were incorrectly flagged as "hate" and removed.
I mean, were they saying stuff against transwomen? If so, then it may not have been incorrectly flagged as hate.
> the execution is sometimes murky
Is the "murky" part "criticism to politicians in power" or what exactly is unclear about combating hate speech?
> the line will be drawn by White House for the US companies, not the EU.
I don't think there is "one line" drawn by a single person, there are multiple entities here drawing their own lines wherever they want. In some governments, the lines have already been drawn between what is hate speech or not.
We don't want a legal government apparatus in place for determining what can be said on the internet. The first thing that will happen is the categories of things you can't say will slowly start to expand to include everything that threatens the power of the government. What happened during covid is bad enough.
If your reaction to "hate speech" is to get the government to remove the speaker from the internet, what you're doing is more dangerous, in the long run, than the speech you don't like.
So what suggestion do you have for people who don't want to deal with hate speech on platforms if the platforms won't do anything because it cuts into their bottom line?
My suggestion is you use some other platform. The existence of speech you find upsetting is literally the price of freedom.
I'd suggest they stop using the platforms. Probably the best decision I ever made, never looked back.
> If your reaction to "hate speech" is to get the government to remove the speaker from the internet, what you're doing is more dangerous, in the long run, than the speech you don't like.
My natural sympathies lie with this position, but is it evidence based? At least currently, more problems seem to be caused by disinformation and hate speech than are caused by government censorship (at least in the US and EU).
That’s not to say that the dangers associated with disinformation and hate speech necessarily justify censoring them (any more than the dangers associated with alcohol necessarily justified prohibition), but if the argument for an absolutist stance on free speech is going to be the consequentialist argument that it’s the less dangerous option, then this has to be evaluated empirically.
Well, the EU was quick to copy this. The Swiss Jaques Baud was slapped with the same measures. I saw only one youtube video of him and in my memory he was well outspoken and considerate - but definitely not mainstream but also not a conspiracy nut.
I simply think it is not right to basically destroy the life of someone without even a court judgement that he did something illegal. He definitely does not fall in the category of hate speech or trying to stir uproar. I think free speech is important for a living democracy. And that includes people with opposing views.
This is the guy who has whole heartededly swallowed the Russian propaganda to the extent that its coming back out the other end (Either because hes a dangerous idiot or for money, you choose)?
Thinks the British were responsible for the Bucha massacre?
An ex-colonel spouting propaganda from Europes current greatest threat to peace feels like it deserves to get treated on a different level:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Baud
Also worth follow up reading on the swiss intelligence agencies, start with the wiki:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_intelligence_agencies#St...
I think too many people forget that for the Swiss neutrality doesn't mean the same thing as it does for say the Irish, Swiss Neutrality is about exploiting both sides, and I hope to god someone important remembers that this time round.
this is just ridiculous anti free speech. just because he assumes a point of view that is mostly disagreed with doesn't make it a target for censoring. it's not a slippery slope, it's the straight path to 1984. dangerous idiots should be allowed to speak. and regarding money there is not a single hint he received any, and he lives in a country that is pretty well policed and not corrupt.
As someone who considers the Ukrainians an ally, and therefore the Russians an enemy for starting a war of aggression, I'd say its safe to view someone using their position to espouse Russian propaganda an enemy agent, and Im begruded to think an ex-colonel with intelligence experience believes these easily debunkable theories because hes stupid.
Europe is currently at war, some people just haven't realised it yet apparently.
Im not even going to touch on the swiss further, for only the truly incorruptible would colloborate with Nazis.
Correction: Banned for censoring differences of opinion on important matters, like silencing feminists. So I consider this a win: The current US government is for free speech, while so much of the EU is against it.
Banning individuals from entering your state for their opinions doesn't feel particularly pro-free speech.
> Rubio was promoting a conspiracy theory about what he has called the “censorship-industrial complex,” which alleges widespread collusion between the US government, tech companies, and civil society organizations to silence conservative voices
Is that a conspiracy theory in the sense of “some crazy low-status nonsense that no one should pay attention to”, or a conspiracy theory in the sense of “a theory about a private arrangement between multiple actors”?
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/zuckerberg-says-the-wh...
"Kill Musk's Twitter" was literally a Centre for Countering Digital Hate agenda item on a meeting with Senators in the US. The CCDH was started by advisors of Kier Starmer (one who is now his Chief of Staff). It is 100% a left wing pressure group.
I don't see how anyone call it a conspiracy theory any more.
https://disinformationchronicle.substack.com/p/election-excl...
Just think its a geniunely important semantic note that only Americans and hard righters consider Labour + Kier left wing. If the CCDH is a pressure group, its a neo-liberal one.
Some investigative journalists leaked internal documents showing that their intention was shutdown speech of their political opponents and apply EU law onto american citizens.
I side with Matt Taibbi on this one.
They arent innocent researchers being prosecuted by the evil baddies. I'll take my downvotes for having wrongthink.
Do you have any evidence to support those claims?
Probably related to these Congressional investigations from last year.
https://judiciary.house.gov/media/press-releases/foreign-cen...
[flagged]
Honestly, I saw all of this coming in 2009 when 4chan was making racism/misogyny engaging by making it humorous. I remember talking to a friend about how we would eventually get concentration camps that started with illegal immigrants and then expanded to any dissidents in the US.
Is it really humourous if you're not already racist/misogynist though?
There is a well known connection between humor and fear. One does not need to feel racist notions to feel fear about, and therefore laugh at racism.
"I was just joking" is the excuse you tell yourself to say those hateful things and to escape consequences. Just look at Trump "joking" about canceling the election. It's a "joke" so there are no consequences, but where's the damn punch line?
The punch line may well be that he wasn't joking after all.
He really needs better writers then - that punch line is lame enough to fail the bar for even late night shows.
He does not joke. I don't think that he knows how.
Yes. I remember there was a whole phase of a meme of a black person in a suit with the tag “how I saw black people before 4chan” and some horribly racist after picture.
I’d say people fall somewhere in between 0% and 100% bigoted and what they will tolerate/laugh at can be incredibly nuanced. Nobody is actually 0% or 100% racist but I generally consider myself “not bigoted” in a broad sense. Everyone is of course carrying some bigoted opinion(s) though, it’s unavoidable.
But back to the point: I’d say I am by and large not particularly bigoted. Still, I’d be lying if I said I have never laughed at off-color jokes. No matter how progressive or anti-racist you are something is going to break through. That is what makes it such a powerful tool for less scrupulous actors. You find what a person or community is willing to tolerate, then you either peel off people in private or push boundaries out loud and slowly drive a wedge into the community.
Once we decided nothing really mattered, nothing matters.