Submitted by Sorin61 t3_z7qa8l in technology
Comments
Fando1234 t1_iy7pgyy wrote
Worth noting that we already have hate speech laws. So what is 'legal' to say in the UK is more narrow than the US, and social platforms still need to adhere to this.
mayasky76 t1_iy7v9cu wrote
If anyone's interested this is the Public Order legislation - it's pretty readable
Basically this is stuff you can't do "in person" so no reason you should be allowed to do it online
rushmc1 t1_iy9huv8 wrote
Or just boycott countries with authoritarian regulation.
Fando1234 t1_iy9i9my wrote
I wouldn't really call Great Britain authoritarian.
rushmc1 t1_iy9iji4 wrote
I didn't say the nation was authoritarian. I said the regulation was.
SenatorBagels t1_iy9jnwe wrote
Every country would end up boycotted, then.
[deleted] t1_iy9ybzo wrote
[removed]
tomistruth t1_iy86my4 wrote
UK already is THE spy hub to surveil all of European communications. UK is a member of ECHELON
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECHELON
And FIVE EYES https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Eyes
Those internet laws are solely to legalize illegal surveillance of all US and European communication.
They want to put the whole UK population under constant surveillance in the name of child sex prevention. It's all lies.
nova9001 t1_iy8jg31 wrote
Like it or not there's no way to prevent governments from spying on you.
They could literally swear not to do it and then get caught red handed with 0 consequences like what happen after the Snowden leaks.
tomistruth t1_iy8mlqw wrote
Yeah, but with those laws they can legally surveil you and exploit the evidence to be used against you in any way they see fit. It opens a whole new can of worms everytime they step over the privacy. People are coerced into believing that this is normal. It is not.
[deleted] t1_iy8lsfk wrote
[deleted]
Gramage t1_iy8ugrs wrote
And with a VPN you don't even get those emails!
Fando1234 t1_iy7pmbr wrote
Personally I think this is a really positive change to the bill. The issue with putting the onus on companies to police even legal speech, is you incentivise them to over police it.
Given the wide range of ideas, art, satire that have the capacity to offend people... Social platforms would rather take down everything than risk a lawsuit where they could be liable.
Mr_ToDo t1_iy8ma49 wrote
Well I haven't seen the proposal itself but going by the article I find the whole thing odd.
If the rules only apply if you make the type of speech part of your user agreement then I'm not entirely sure why it's as big a deal as people are making. Yes the cost is pretty high, but some level of enforcement of an agreement seems on point to me. And if you don't want the cost you don't need to include it in the EULA.
Unless my understanding is wrong.
Fando1234 t1_iy8msh3 wrote
That's correct now. But originally the bill went as far as to say platforms are legally responsible for any offensive content. Whether or not it is illegal or in their EULA.
The main issue being the ambiguity around what is/isn't offensive. Is satire offensive? Or artistic expression?
And under that framework, with the threat of near constant law suits you can see why social media sites would just take down anything that could be deemed offensive by anyone. And that would be an issue for free speech.
Mr_ToDo t1_iy8ozua wrote
Ah, I assumed it would be down the lines of "offensive as defined in the EULA". But considering how ill defined it is generally in EULA's it's probably just as bad to say that(which is probably it's own problem that needs addressing).
ToothlessGrandma t1_iy7wcls wrote
You're not accounting for the fact that the world hasn't caught up the digital age. Right now it's still the wild west on the internet, and there really does need to be heavy conversations about regulation and what the future looks like so we're headed in a good direction. There needs to be accountability for someone who goes online and starts telling random users on reddit they're going to kill them, higher punishments than a simple ban.
What Elon Musk is doing right now is a good reason why there should be laws in place for safe guard people. Letting things run unchecked is just as bad as regulation, possibly even worse. Look at the damage trump has caused. Long lasting damage that will be felt for decades. Or Alex Jones. None of that is a benefit to anyone.
Fando1234 t1_iy7wzqq wrote
>There needs to be accountability for someone who goes online and starts telling random users on reddit they're going to kill them, higher punishments than a simple ban.
But in your example here that is already illegal in the UK. And under existing legislation platforms are already required to take it down and report it.
Any incitement of violence, threats or hate speech is already illegal. Online and in real life.
[deleted] t1_iy833ny wrote
[removed]
ToothlessGrandma t1_iy7x3q1 wrote
Illegal and taking action are two entirely different things. I can guarantee you there are thousands of people from the UK who go online every morning and troll people with things like this and nothing is done.
BigEyeFiend t1_iy83h3i wrote
Oh no! Trolls! If only there was, I dunno…a block button or something?!?
ToothlessGrandma t1_iy845zz wrote
Don't you have a trump rally to attend?
BigEyeFiend t1_iy866al wrote
“A-A-Are you suggesting people t-take personal agency??? You m-must be a TRUMPER!”
Bruh. Grow up.
ToothlessGrandma t1_iy86glk wrote
But im probably right.
Even through the internet I can get a feeling on if someone voted for trump.
BigEyeFiend t1_iy896wz wrote
Shouldn’t that sadden you, then?
That the people you think voted for Trump are the people who advocate for personal agency? 😂
My view is this - give people a block and mute button. Remove people who are doing anything illegal. That’s it. That’s all you need to do.
If you want to be babysat that’s your issue.
ToothlessGrandma t1_iy89buh wrote
Nope. Regulation. Please.
BigEyeFiend t1_iy8b5mb wrote
Explain that logic to me.
ToothlessGrandma t1_iy9kr5m wrote
Why do you hate accountability so much?
BigEyeFiend t1_iy9zb2n wrote
Or don’t. OK.
ToothlessGrandma t1_iya0c6i wrote
When you can answer me why you're absolutely terrified of being held accountable for what you post, then we can have an honest talk.
KingOPork t1_iyaglnw wrote
I'm a lefty who is terrified that having 10 year old lefty free speech views makes you a Trumper. "We need to limit speech so the government can easily stop dissent and to make every place more corporate ad friendly." Great. Cool.
ToothlessGrandma t1_iyaihwe wrote
Do you think you deserve the right to harass people online? Because that's what you're saying
KingOPork t1_iyak54r wrote
I think people want to harass and keep their political opponents from being able to do the same. When I bully its justified and speaking truth to power. When they do the same? It's time to legislate.
The-sly-goat t1_iy8a2hs wrote
Let’s assign a FBI agent then to everybody then lol
Soylentee t1_iy8aeag wrote
There is a time and place for regulation, this isn't it.
4n0nym0u7h t1_iy7o7g5 wrote
It's only the start. Whether people like it or not there is no such thing as completely free speech and there never has been. The subject won't go away and it is a global phenomenon. There is similar outrage over a similar bill in the US Congress.
anonymousviewer112 t1_iy7tqx9 wrote
The sad thing is there shouldn't be any outrage over enabling free speech.
Only a small vocal, mis guided minority oppose it thank goodness.
TimidPanther t1_iy7ttee wrote
It’s not small, it seems most of Reddit is against it now.
anonymousviewer112 t1_iy7u4pb wrote
Reddit is a small % of the western world and is an extreme echo chamber. Even among Reddit users, it's again a very vocal group constantly on about this topic.
When you are a hammer (extreme liberal) everything is a nail (perceived racism or hate).
It's also been shown, like in the UK how detrimental it is to society and democracy to censor speech. It's sad really.
Erebeon t1_iy8e74z wrote
I was of a similar opinion late 90s but hasn't the internet proved this view to be rather naive? Free speech is currently destroying democracies the world over and worse, it's eroding social bonds and cohesion and could in fact lead to civil war. I am not just talking about the US here, the same is true for a lot of western countries.
Not to mention that "post truth free speech" is also eroding science and objective truth as well. Everyone can have their own "truth" and no matter how crazy, you ll manage to organise groups around said "truth" who are willing to go to extreme lengths to defend it.
​
The internet is indirectly responsible and has contributed to the deaths of thousands of people. From genocides to small scale suicide pushers. We've seen it all this past decade.
​
I remember in the late 90s how I thought the internet would bring the world together, erase borders and divisions between people, make everyone smarter and lift us up to new heights. It makes me sad to now see how the world is going in the exact opposite direction.
anonymousviewer112 t1_iy8li3s wrote
There are problems with allowing free speech to be sure. Democracy is a messy system but it's the best we have.
History has taught us over and over that free speech is a cornerstone of a legitimate democracy.
Free speech has issues but censoring speech has much worse issues.
Basically you are using the wrong tool (censoring people and removing freedom of speech) to stop hate speech.
Sniffy4 t1_iy9gx7p wrote
>History has taught us over and over that free speech is a cornerstone of a legitimate democracy.
History has also taught us that hate speech gets lots of people killed and can turn elections and put itself into power.
anonymousviewer112 t1_iy9hcgh wrote
You miss the point clearly.
There are pros & cons easy way here. However it's clear that free speech is the better of the 2 (vs censoring speech)
Sniffy4 t1_iy9hw3q wrote
> You miss the point clearly
No I completely got your point, it just happens to be wrong.
There have *always* been boundaries on public discourse for good reason (people die) and pretending like there never have been is not helpful.
anonymousviewer112 t1_iy9yfrr wrote
Never said there weren't boundaries in the past, not sure where you got that from...
What I am saying is that outside of basic boundaries which generally involve the matter being settled in the courts, there hasn't been been effective more wholesale censorship implemented in a way that doesn't severely undermine democracy.
You are just throwing your opinion out there "more censorship will equal less hate speech" without any specific details on how such a complicated and vast system would operate.
Try this...explain in detail what would and would not constitute hate speech as well as inaccurate information.
Cyathem t1_iy8e9x0 wrote
Reddit also praised China's handling of the pandemic, defend the Russian invasion, and regularly promote nonsense. This is completely on-brand for reddit.
TimidPanther t1_iy9gote wrote
Funnily enough they now seem to be supporting the anti Covid protests in China. But they were against the same protests in Canada.
It’s a weird world.
4n0nym0u7h t1_iy93dn1 wrote
That is a very naive and unsophisticated view on "freedom of speech". It has never been that easy. What you think should exist has never existed in history. You can't lose something you've never had in the first place. With freedom of speech comes responsibility, something that far too many people, our politicians included, seem to not even be prepared to pay lip service to. Freedom to lie, freedom to mislead, freedom to misdirect, freedom to act malevolently, freedom to act solely to in their personal interest. That's what unfettered freedom of speech has given us. It's not new but it's getting worse as all inhibitions are abandoned.
anonymousviewer112 t1_iy94906 wrote
Who determines what the "truth" is?
Who monitors the billions of social media posts per day?
Who fines the millions of people per day and who gets the money?
You can't take every potential inaccurate or mean spirited statement to court so there would be no due process in this and certainty would be corrupted.
How do you prove things that aren't really provable? How do you prove if someone is lying or just uninformed? Are people making what they think are truthful statements that are actually inaccurate going to be punished?
Here are some examples:
"It's going to rain tomorrow" and it does not actually rain tomorrow making this a false statement. Fined?
"Black people commit the most crime" which is statistically true but mean spirited and borderline racist.
"Bill gates is an asshole" this is a matter of opinion but mean.
"Hilary Clinton is a slut" this is mean but how do you prove one way or another?
"There was election fraud" said by someone who was told this by someone else at a bar they frequent. do people need to cite sources for what they believe to be true statement?
"I will smack the next guy who says pineapple on pizza is good". Threats of violence?
"I hate mexicans" mean spirited but are people allowed to dislike other groups or is that punishable?
"Donald Trump slapped me in 3rd grade" how do you disprove this?
Now who reads, researched and then hands out punishments to the millions or billions of infractions each day?
4n0nym0u7h t1_iy95vcp wrote
Your arguments are facile and unhelpful. Come back to me when you have practical solutions. The conclusion to be drawn from your monologue is "do nothing".
anonymousviewer112 t1_iy9bnvu wrote
Lmao you literally can't even answer basic questions about how this would all work.
Your position is one of "censor everyones speech in the hope (not reality) it will prevent lying and hate speech".
When in reality you can't even articulate at a high level what that system would look like or how much it would even limit hate speech.
It's scary you would promote such a drastic change impacting millions of lives without any sense to how it could feasibly work.
Oof!
4n0nym0u7h t1_iy9rtcd wrote
I'm not promoting it, it's going to happen. Just watch and learn. Some people are so clueless, willfully so.
MiaowaraShiro t1_iy9alv9 wrote
Your examples show a complete misunderstanding of what people actually want to do... none of them would fall under the type of censorship discussed... except for election fraud.
There's nothing wrong with deleting that comment that is factually wrong and the user shouldn't feel upset for being corrected, right? If it's an honest mistake?
Also, nobody is owed publishing online. You still have free speech. You've just been ejected from a private business. Do NOT give me that "public square" bullshit either. Size does not make it public. Full stop. It has literally nothing to do with public vs private.
anonymousviewer112 t1_iy9c2yy wrote
Please explain 3 key things if you want any sort of credibility here.
What logic, rules, framework you would use to decide exactly what is inaccurate or hateful vs OK.
How you would apply that to reviewing billions of messages a day.
Who gets to determine the set of rules?
MiaowaraShiro t1_iy9duqz wrote
> Please explain 3 key things if you want any sort of credibility here.
LOL nvm... too much condescension for my taste. Christ... "if you want any sort of credibility". Get out of your own asshole.
anonymousviewer112 t1_iy9e7yb wrote
You can't even explain your primary point (what would be censored).
It's really funny because small minds like you say "we need censorship to stop hate speech".
As soon as you ask basic questions like "ok what criteria would be used to deem what is and is not allowed?"
The response is basically the one you have of. "Your are stupid, I don't have to explain this fundamental part of my argument. My feelings!!!!"
MiaowaraShiro t1_iy9fc20 wrote
Dude, I literally told you it's because you're being condescending... and you're still being condescending.
What have I to gain here by talking to you? I'm not gonna change your mind and you're not gonna change mine. If you were open minded about things you wouldn't be condescending.
The fact that you're assuming I don't want to continue the conversation because I can't hang is just more proof you would rather "win" than have a discussion. So yeah, I'm trying to avoid that pointless back and forth. Apparently not doing so good though.
anonymousviewer112 t1_iy9fje9 wrote
Alright I genuinely apologize for being rude and condescending.
If you wouldn't mind. Please explain to me the criteria and method you would propose we use to decide which speech is acceptable and which is not.
MiaowaraShiro t1_iy9h8uu wrote
Thanks! I appreciate that you recognized that. Really.
So first of all "Hate" is probably the easier one to tackle. It can be defined kinda like "Dehumanizing or calling for violence on vulnerable people for shit that's inherent to their persons". Let people be who they are without fear is the goal there.
Second, "false" isn't a problem. "False" and "damaging" are a problem. Like for a non-political example, if you spread information that say tide pods cure gastric reflux or something.
It's not about "offense" it's about information that can be shown with data to be harmful.
As to the who and how specifics... I honestly would need to think more about that. One law that might be interesting is that social media companies would be required to implement their policies equally and can be sued if they're found to not be.
As to the general question of finding "truth" our court systems combined with good science I think are the best tools we can look to. Not perfect, by far, but it's the best we got. (Don't get me started on judicial reform)
anonymousviewer112 t1_iy9s2aq wrote
I think you describe it at a high level but where I think this breaks down is on literally the exact logic or criteria that would be used to deem something "hate" or "false and damaging". Basically where the rubber meets the road.
When you actually think about ok how do I describe this, it becomes very hard to do consistently and without casting too wide a net.
Leaving it up to companies to just "use there best judgement" based on high level goals from the government is not good for a variety of reasons. It's too subjective and would be coerced.
It's very hard to clearly define different types of speech to consistently and clearly dictate what is acceptable and what is not.
In anyone who I eve have talked to on this subject have ever been able to in detail describe "the rules" and instead it's very broad goals that would be way to subjective and overly prevent speech which is exatwhat happened in the UK when it was implemented...
MiaowaraShiro t1_iy9ujm0 wrote
> I think you describe it at a high level but where I think this breaks down is on literally the exact logic or criteria that would be used to deem something "hate" or "false and damaging". Basically where the rubber meets the road.
I would bet we could come up with something good enough. Could you give some examples of speech that you think would be difficult to classify?
> When you actually think about ok how do I describe this, it becomes very hard to do consistently and without casting too wide a net.
Why?
> Leaving it up to companies to just "use there best judgement" based on high level goals from the government is not good for a variety of reasons. It's too subjective and would be coerced.
Why? The government already advises on what it sees as disinformation. It's not binding nor coercive. (That would be a violation of constitutional free speech so it's not on the table.) There's no carrot or stick. It's just information.
> It's very hard to clearly define different types of speech to consistently and clearly dictate what is acceptable and what is not.
So we shouldn't try to do hard things? Or do you mean impossible?
> In anyone who I eve have talked to on this subject have ever been able to in detail describe "the rules" and instead it's very broad goals that would be way to subjective and overly prevent speech which is exatwhat happened in the UK when it was implemented...
That's an inherently flawed expectation though. We're just laypeople, we're not going to have detailed policy at the ready. We only have broad goals. We're not the ones responsible for the minutiae.
You seem to think that it's either too hard or not possible to write rules to police content. I disagree and can point to thousands of sites that do it everyday with varying levels of success. (Also, maybe, if your site is so big that you can't properly keep it safe you shouldn't have let it get so big without the proper expansion of infrastructure...)
anonymousviewer112 t1_iya13u9 wrote
I mean, look, what you are describing was tried in the UK per this post. Lots of people spent a lot of time and money on it and it failed (hurt freedom and backfired).
Speech censorship has been tried and is tried throughout history and it has always significantly negatively impacted democracy and freedom.
Just saying "we just haven't figured it out yet" isn't a valid response to then take away freedoms yet again.
Saying "we need to do something" is dangerous in that it ignores the fact that the government and laws are not able to solve every problem in existence. The question should be instead "what effective tools do we have to limit hate speech?"
"We need to do something " is an emotional argument to solve a logical problem. Wanting to solve it does not mean it's solvable.
I have lots of bugs in my yard, I can limit them a number of ways but I can't eradicate them unfortunately. By your logic I should "do something" like burn down my and my neighbors yards to try and permanently get rid of them. Or I can conversely understand that we live in a world with real constraints.
You can't legislate away complex problems. Think about it, if we could effectively legislate away problems we would have done it by now.
Throwing shit at the wall is bad for society especially when it's at the cost of our freedom.
I'm not willing to give up my freedom because you want to "do something", especially when it has never proven to be effective. In contrast "doing something" results in making things worse.
Check out the cobra effect. It gives examples of legislation that simply makes problems worse.
MiaowaraShiro t1_iya3ptj wrote
> I mean, look, what you are describing was tried in the UK per this post. Lots of people spent a lot of time and money on it and it failed (hurt freedom and backfired).
Um, that's emphatically not what the article says. It says the plan was never implemented due to public distaste. We never got to see if it worked.
> Speech censorship has been tried and is tried throughout history and it has always significantly negatively impacted democracy and freedom.
Bullshit. We censor all the damn time! It keeps children safe. It keeps forums civil. You just don't see it because it's working. Not to say it's perfect but to say that censorship always fails is... I'm sorry... just ridiculous.
> Just saying "we just haven't figured it out yet" isn't a valid response to then take away freedoms yet again.
I'm not saying that. Plenty of people and organizations use censorship for good purposes effectively. It's figured out. I'm just not an expert so I can't give you the details.
> Saying "we need to do something" is dangerous in that it ignores the fact that the government and laws are not able to solve every problem in existence. The question should be instead "what effective tools do we have to limit hate speech?"
>"We need to do something " is an emotional argument to solve a logical problem. Wanting to solve it does not mean it's solvable.
I'm really not sure what your point is here. You seem to take it as settled fact that "censorship cannot be done effectively or precisely" and I keep pointing out that we already do it... constantly.
> You can't legislate away complex problems. Think about it, if we could effectively legislate away problems we would have done it by now.
This simply doesn't follow. Failure doesn't imply no solution. It simply means THAT method was a failure. You're smarter than this, you've shown me.
> Throwing shit at the wall isn't bad for society especially when it's at the cost of our freedom.
I mean... shit causes disease? You sure that's the metaphor you want?
> I'm not willing to give up my freedom because you want to "do something", especially when it has never proven to be effective. In contrast "doing something" results in making things worse.
Curious... what views do you hold that you think would run afoul of these rules? I'm really only talking about bigotry and harmful disinformation. Do you spread those often?
What value do we preserve by allowing bigotry and harmful disinformation? Cuz I don't buy that we cannot reliably identify it. Since we do it already.
anonymousviewer112 t1_iya8c2c wrote
Go through my examples and tell me which you would deem illegal.
anonymousviewer112 t1_iya3216 wrote
Here are some examples:
"It's going to rain tomorrow" and it does not actually rain tomorrow making this a false statement.
"Black people commit the most crime" which is statistically true but mean spirited and borderline racist.
"Bill gates is an asshole" this is a matter of opinion but mean.
"Hilary Clinton is a slut" this is mean but how do you prove one way or another?
"There was election fraud" said by someone who was told this by someone else at a bar they frequent. do people need to site sources for what they believe to be true statement?
"I will smack the next guy who says pineapple on pizza is good". Threats of violence?
"I hate mexicans" mean spirited but are people allowed to dislike other groups or is that punishable?
"Donald Trump slapped me in 3rd grade" how do you disprove this?
No try sorting these types of things out for millions of messages a day everyday.
MiaowaraShiro t1_iyac77i wrote
You don't remember me saying that the statement has to be false and harmful? You don't remember me telling you that the only one of those that would run afoul is the "There was election fraud" one? The others aren't even close and would easily pass a "reasonable person" test in court of law.
In the case of the election fraud one that's a literal documented piece of disinformation. It's literally called "The Big Lie". We know it's an intentional lie with the intent to cause harm. If you're so credulous that you can't identify that one I'm not sure what to tell you?
I would imagine these deliberations would run very similar to defamation, slander or libel cases, but instead of a single person being libeled, it's a whole category. If I say "Kill Bob", that's incitement to violence. If I say "Kill all Bobs" how is that not worse?
Instances on private websites would of course be mediated by private websites.
Mirieste t1_iycfa6b wrote
>Who determines what the "truth" is?
A judge? You know, the very people we have collectively decided should be in charge of evaluating facts to understand the truth behind certain events and sanctioning those who broke the law as a consequence?
>You can't take every potential inaccurate or mean spirited statement to court
This is exactly what we do here in my country (Italy) as long as someone files a complaint, so your claim that this can't be done is false.
>How do you prove things that aren't really provable?
If guilt can't be proven beyond reasonable doubt, you're acquitted. It's a general principle.
>How do you prove if someone is lying or just uninformed?
It is part of a judge's job to analyze intent. It's also what, among many other things, allows a judge to discern between manslaughter or premeditated murder, for example.
>Now who reads, researched and then hands out punishments to the millions or billions of infractions each day?
As I briefly mentioned above, here in Italy you go to court only after a direct complaint (to the police) made by the person who feels like they have been offended by the statement in question (e.g. Hillary Clinton in your example). The police will only act on their own in case of speech that constitutes inciting discrimination or violence based on race, ethnic background, nationality or religion, of for spreading ideas related to racial superiority or to the negation of the historicity of the Shoah.
rushmc1 t1_iy9hrxh wrote
It's not "waters down internet rules," it's "scales back draconian internet restrictions."
Words reveal media bias yet again.
anonymousviewer112 t1_iy7tlxa wrote
Common sense and reason win, thank goodness.
SwallowYourDreams t1_iy7p2io wrote
When is the PM (Provisional Minister) going to step down this time?
[deleted] t1_iy83pjr wrote
[removed]
thatguyad t1_iy8i41z wrote
I think people are just sick of seeing hate pushed in their faces 24/7
The_Last_Green_leaf t1_iy8j7js wrote
bahahah talk about hypocrisy, I open your profile and the very first thing I see is "fuck the tories"
MiaowaraShiro t1_iy9bad2 wrote
Bahahah talk about stupidity. They're talking about bigotry, not criticism of ideologies. That you don't seem to know the difference is worrying...
It's perfectly fine to criticize and dislike ideologies you disagree with. What's bad is hating people for who they are. It's fine to dislike how people behave.
This seems to lost on most conservatives...
[deleted] t1_iyauxi0 wrote
[deleted]
The_Last_Green_leaf t1_iyccpom wrote
>Bahahah talk about stupidity. They're talking about bigotry, not criticism of ideologies. That you don't seem to know the difference is worrying...
that wasn't criticism... that was the definition of bigotry.
>It's perfectly fine to criticize and dislike ideologies you disagree with.
it is, but that's not what they did.
> What's bad is hating people for who they are.
like saying fuck Tories because they're Tories?
>It's fine to dislike how people behave.
you are, but again that's not what they did.
>This seems to lost on most conservatives...
and on you too clearly.
MiaowaraShiro t1_iycpz95 wrote
Torie is a group of ideas not an identity... Or shouldn't be. You can tell because you can switch away from it by simply changing you're mind. This is exactly what I mean by conservatives not getting it. You're treating your ideas as your identity so see criticism as bigotry.
Sorry bucko, that's not how it works. Attacks on political ideas are fine. It's called discourse.
Fuck the luddites. Fuck the willfully ignorant. Fuck conservatives. Fuck the bigots.
All good.
Fuck the leftists is ok too. Btw.
Having said that, it's not high quality discourse either.
Neat_Light t1_iyal9v1 wrote
Who is this woman? It looks like someone woke up a Victorian skivvy.
biggreencat t1_iy8jacf wrote
you got a license for that water tho?
downonthesecond t1_iy9bo0v wrote
Racist and sexist content is back on the menu!
autotldr t1_iy9sar1 wrote
This is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 81%. (I'm a bot)
> LONDON - The British government has abandoned a plan to force tech firms to remove internet content that is harmful but legal, after the proposal drew strong criticism from lawmakers and civil liberties groups.
> The U.K. on Tuesday defended its decision to water down the Online Safety Bill, an ambitious but controversial attempt to crack down on online racism, sexual abuse, bullying, fraud and other harmful material.
> Critics had expressed concern that a requirement for the biggest platforms to remove "Legal but harmful" content could lead to censorship and undermine free speech.
Extended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: content^#1 harmful^#2 Bill^#3 legal^#4 Online^#5
[deleted] t1_iy8mz4q wrote
[deleted]
midnightscientist42 t1_iy8dvd7 wrote
I respect free speech to say what’s on your mind. I don’t understand how we lost our way from hate being the reasonable exception. Felt at a naive part of my life, the world once agreed hate speech that fueled acts of violence (or had a proven potential to) were bad for society and held accountable.
Seems we no longer agree on what is hate-filled vs right to opinion. Seems to me thats been deliberate because oppressors globally are scared of losing power and are advocating for the type of hate that serves them - systemic patriarchal conservative dictatorships.
bildramer t1_iy8g4ss wrote
What are you talking about? The definition of "hate" is expanding, not shrinking, and it's definitely not conservatives doing that. Though, of course, you can still say "kill all men" or "kill all whites" and nobody cares. Even here on reddit, the admins say it's ok - even though neither men nor whites are a majority worldwide.
MiaowaraShiro t1_iy9cf8g wrote
How has it expanded in a way that you disagree with? Cuz as far as I can tell it's at it's most distilled "Fucking with people for shit that is inherent to their person".
The reason that your examples are allowed is because hate is viewed within context of our society and history. If you think that racism against white people or sexism against men has been significantly problematic ever you're pretty ignorant.
As soon as white men are under threat of subjugation or discrimination in any significant way I'll agree that those phrases should be banned. Until then they are only offensive and not harmful.
bildramer t1_iy9eqxr wrote
Compare what your reaction would be to someone saying e.g. "racism against Hispanics isn't real". Also, ever? What about the draft? What about Jews, or Italians?
andnom t1_iy7ojy0 wrote
Wait you guys fight back?!? And it works?!?