I am not smart enough to understand the algorithms our silicon valley overlords use to decide what communication is allowed. All I know is that when my mate came round the garden over the summer and posted hairy breasted selfies of us Arsebook was just fine with that.
Maybe nobody was in danger of being aroused by us. Or something.
People will see what they want see, on FB or elsewhere. They’ll download the files they want to download, they do the drugs they want to do (or find substitutes). You can inhibit that through censorship to a limited degree, but by doing so you also endanger your own free speech rights.
I’m not comparing the US and Germany, I’m pointing out that if you have to pass a law to suppress something, then clearly you still have a problem with that thing, and I would argue that force is the least effective way to deal with it. We all patted ourselves on the back for purging the Confederate flag, but here we are with Donald Trump within striking distance of the White House.
You don’t measure social progress by what you prohibit. You measure it by what you can afford to allow.
Your comment is exactly why I wouldn’t want to start an Internet-based company and have it be popular. Not only would I have to worry about the laws of fhe Federal government, all 50 states, all the various territories, and the literally thousands of municipal governing bodies, I have to worry about the roughly 200 nations of the world.
The notion that if I started just a blog and could run afoul of EU law if, God forbid, an EU resident visited the thing and received a cookie without prior notification…
I’m guessing the horde will argue with you about this…until the next time they remember that drug laws not only don’t work, they unfairly target minorities.
IMHO one of the big problems with hate speech laws is that there’s not a good way to exclude the minority. At least not where I am. If, for example, a professor at a state-run university started wearing “KILL WHITEY” shirts, even though it’s almost clearly done with a nod and a wink, they’d probably find themselves out of a job in a hurry. Why? Hate speech, man.
I basically refuse to accept that response from the large tech companies. They are perfectly happy to accept the giant bags of cash that come from scale, they can pick up the responsibility that comes with that cash.
I’m pointing out that if you have to pass a law to suppress something, then clearly, and I would argue that force is the least effective way to deal with it.
You’re talking out of your ass. You obviously don’t have the slightest clue about how Germany deals with this when you think the only thing that was done was censoring hate speech.
Heck it was the Holocaust - we should (and do!) make damn sure that we still have a problem with that thing! Perhaps you and your fellow countrymen should do that too … because you, as a nation, copy a lot from Hitlers How-To-manual lately with all the torture, mass surveillance, jack booted police thugs stuff going on. Make America great again!
At face value, that statement does seem true to me.
On matters of free speech I dont agree. The wonderful (IMNSHO) thing about the protections in the US is that even though hate groups are allowed to publish, so are my favorite rabbis. I’m a believer in sunshine as a cure here. “Bad” ideas are best exposed, not hidden. Once out in the sunlight they can be countered.
The above is part of why I find “hate speech” laws both laughable and sad at the same time. Generally the laws are toothless but it lets some people feel they have done something about the problem. The thing is, no law will change people’s thoughts.
The problem in the US is that they constantly rub one out over free speech and guns but forget that rights/liberties are connected and in isolation are of little use.
Free speech, right to privacy and freedom of press for example are deeply interconnected. While the US has arguably a very liberal implementation of free speech the other, equally important rights, are severely lacking. Mass surveillance and lack of privacy has a chilling effect on free speech and the USA isn’t exactly a shining example of freedom of press, a medium to disseminate speech.
I don’t know about the rest of the world, but FB is becoming a very, very ugly place in the german-speaking world. To be charitable, I assume a lot of that is due to too few “censors” fluent in German. So while it is easy to ban people for the use of swastikas etc, even if used ironically, identifying the actual hate speach is harder.
Again, I wasn’t comparing the US and Germany. I’ll be the first to acknowledge that the US is much higher on the Hitler scale right now. That having been said, you don’t censor something when you’ve made social progress, you censor something because you haven’t. Progress is when hateful ideas are so marginal that they’re no longer perceived as a threat.
Please don’t read me as arguing that our social system is better than yours. It’s just that I disagree with the concept of state censorship.