France and Facebook announce partnership against online hate speech – POLITICO
The French president announced on Monday a six-month partnership with Facebook aimed at figuring out how the European country should police hate speech on the social network.
Emmanuel Macron has teamed up with Mark Zuckerberg to review the country’s regulatory response to the issue.
Here is an interesting article... How do you deal with Hate Speech, in my opinion you teach people to consider the source of such speech and discount their view as being ignorant and unworthy of accepting.
However, in today's society, people have decided it is better to attempt to silence hateful people. I am confused by this, but it seems I am out numbered.
This could be good marketing material for Steem, but on the other hand, I don't think we want to be the platform of hate speech, just Free Speech.
What are your thoughts?
Source of shared Link
@whatsup,
We got flags and we got report abuse! So this is better and FB should adopt by watching us! Nah it's better we improve our capacity to pass FB! I think that's what we need to do!
Cheers~
I don't know that we want to or should try to compete with facebook.
@whatsup,
Yeah we should do, a huge amount of money is floating out there!
Cheers~
Hate speech has no reason to be anywhere, free speech is only really used by this crowd as a scapegoat to be a racist or transphobe or whatever, anyone who says free speech unironically and often is most likely a bad person. Convince me otherwise.
Real free speech issues are all around us. Look at LGBT rights for example, where is the free speech outrage there? Look at the BDS movements in regards to Israel, pro Palestine positions get govt funding revoked. Look at gerrymandering in electoral politics and how popular vote in the US means nothing. But nah, lets ignore all that and cry about black folk not wanting to be called evil names on a minutely basis. Or about how trans people just want to exist without scorn and hatred. How dare they! Free speech!!!!
None of us should tolerate hate speech on steem and should flag it all on sight as to prevent this from being the next gab-like nazi den of garbage.
Posted using Partiko Android
Do you talk against all hate speech or only against hate speech which you don't like?
Or then we have the typical option: it's only hate speech if I don't like it.
For example some claim "Muslims should all blow up themselves" is hate speech but "Kill white cis men" is not.
How do you feel about this?
Hate speech is contextual, white cishets don't have a history of oppression. We dont live in a meritocracy.
Posted using Partiko Android
So a history of oppression is required for to be hate speech?
So what is "Kill all white cis males" if not hate speech?
People like this, making imaginary rules what's hate speech and what's not based on what you want are one of the reasons why the "hate speech" doesn't mean much. A very good example of a big issue with socialists and other free speech haters, as you accept attacking on the groups you just dislike and come up with explanations on why it's ok.
People like you, who are valuating people differently on their gender and skin color are a big issue in the world.
"Imaginary". So hundreds of years of pain and suffering is imaginary to you?
WE. DO. NOT. LIVE. IN. A. MERITOCRACY.
Please think before you say things. Nobody "values" white people less than minorities, that's just some cringe fanfiction, the real imaginary rules are the ones you're making up.
Posted using Partiko Android
"So hundreds of years of pain and suffering is imaginary to you?"
I didn't say that. No, it's not imaginary, but that doesn't define hate speech.
"WE. DO. NOT. LIVE. IN. A. MERITOCRACY."
No we don't. But that doesn't define hate speech.
And yes, plenty of people value white people less than minorities. Depending on where you live, white people can be a minority.
But also, please take note:
Hate speech against white people is still hate speech.
Unless you want to define hate speech as something related to minorities. But then imagine a white person flying to Ghana and then he couldn't commit hate speech against blacks, because they're a majority there.
If you want to use the history of oppression instead of being a minority as a defining factor in hate speech, then I can tell you this:
It's impossible for me to be accused of hate speech.
I'm from Finland, which has been independant since 1917. Until that, we were under strong oppression of Russia and Sweden. Finns were sold as slaves, it's estimated that at worst 30 000 Finns (of the population of 400 000) were sold and sent as slaves. Finland has suffered from slavery more than any single African nation has.
But were white, so I'm assuming you'll just pretend we have had no oppression, pain or suffering. Instead I'm assuming you see us as someone with a history of priviledge because we're white.
However I'm lucky enough to have a history of oppression, so I use any language I want without it being hate speech. Or how does it work, if someone talks shit about me, it's hate speech, but can I talk shit about others who have not been as badly oppressed?
I prefer to discuss issues than to silence those who feel that way...
What do you define as hate speech?
I like black people, I also like trans people, I also like 50 year old white men. Most don't hate.. The few that do, still will even if they are silenced. I would prefer to know who they are.
Its cool that talking to nazis and bigots is an academic pursuit and a game to solve, but for actual minorities talking to these people can get us killed. Please understand why we need this policy in place, to mitigate damage.
You do not at all understand the violence and trauma that being subjected to heinous garbage can give when it happens to you on a daily or even minutely basis like a lot of us experience
Hate speech are slurs, conspiracies, and other shit that targets innocent people. Hate is violence. Just because you're lucky/privileged doesn't mean it doesnt have material damage.
Posted using Partiko Android
I strongly disagree with nearly everything you said. Conspiracies are not hate speech, they are just ideas. Slurs/names, I don't respect them, I don't use them. I am capable of hearing it and making a calm argument against them.
Do you ever wonder if calling people nazis and bigots is hate speech?
You cant disagree with lived experience and material effect. To you it's an academic pursuit, to people like me its life or death. You literally cannot disagree with fact.
Calling someone out for being terrible isn't hate speech. Actions and expressions speak louder than your skin color or gender identity. Anyone who disagrees is wrong, factually.
Posted using Partiko Android
People like you? You look white, so I've have to guess you are trans. Well, that doesn't matter to me in the least.
I can argue with that. Rarely a person is killed for being a color or different. But it is rare although horrific.
I absolutely agree that actions are more important than color or gender or sexual preferences.
I also think it is utter dumb and nonsensical to hate someone for having dinner with their father, to assume someone is rich because their father is rich and to throw around nasty names while being upset that others throw around nasty names. Grow up and hold yourself to your own standards.
Again, you dont understand the material effects of hate speech. The trans attempted suicide rate is 46%. Nearly half of all trans people want to kill themselves. Why is that? Because of the garbage you defend with your fake moral purity of "all ideas are equal and harmless" routine. Defending hate speech is a sacrificial policy stance that doesnt affect you so you don't care about the damage and just pretend it's a game to win, rather than a real world issue.
I dont get it.
Posted using Partiko Android
https://steemit.com/politics/@cyberdemon531/so-much-for-the-tolerant-left-fmwzbt4d
Would calling someone a cunt for who her father is, be hate speech? lol
Calling a racist a mean name is justified, sorry your feefees got hurt. Be a better person. Racism is bad, selfish rich people are bad.
Posted using Partiko Android
hahaha... you are hysterical.. both as in funny and as in hysterical. I've now glanced over your blog...
Nice job on recently giving up slurs. hahahha
So you have no argument left and resort to character attacks? Sounds like hate speech to me. Have fun being a privileged yokel, I'm sure you deserve it.
Posted using Partiko Android
Thank you. I'm glad you gave up slurs. Good move.
Wrong move. No 'democratic' country can do that to it's citizens and remain 'democratic' if you ask me. That's using force already. Something I wouldn't want to see here as I am already experiencing it mildly back home.
In my country, you can't post anything 'negative' on social media about the current government without attracting trouble from adminstrative goons yet it's among the most corrupt in the world. I hate what's going on but because I want to keep my life, I won't post shit about it especially on twitter or Facebook.
Posted using Partiko Android
Agreed. Some battles are worth fighting others are really just fodder for the normal folks to talk about.
And most of common men in my country understand this better than anyone. Me included.
Posted using Partiko Android
As free speech gets tighter and tighter, places where it remains free will become the collection site for the "deplorable" opinions. This is something that we're going to need to come to grips with.
Consider video sharing sites that are open, censorship free, and distributed. In my opinion, BitChute seems the best of these, but it's full of less than mainstream views, some of which boarder on what would qualify as hate speech on YouTube and elsewhere.
Although I'm not thrilled with sharing a platform with many of these video, I recognize that in the world today wanting to live free sometimes means sharing a resource with those I disagree with.
Tangentially, since HF20 now makes the Steem blockchain editable, do you think it will it stay censorship free forever? When the censors own the physical network, as they do in China and Europe, will Steemit someday be forced to bend to their requests?
I thought only users could delete their own content. Can the witnesses now censor people?
No, not yet, or possibly ever.
You bring up an excellent point and one that I've thought about with Steem before. Those who want/expect it to go mainstream seem to have no concept of how most of mainstream cannot handle Free Speech, unpopular views, unfair flagging and many other things that are inherently part of a free population.
Is the blockchain editable? I'd say you can edit comments and posts in the blockchain BUT the original post is still in the blockchain. Only the edited version is shown to users of Steemit, Steempeak etc.
My understanding is that part of the HF-20 was to allow for it to become editable,although not by the general users. I might be wrong.
Well I think anyone can edit their own old posts. Not sure who other would be able to do that, as there are no moderators or such.
I see this is true. I'm pretty certain that until just now I had never found this possible. I know that I could edit within the 7-day window, but the older posts were locked.
For me this is actually pretty good news. I want to create a structured blog using Steemit and this will allow me to link together multiple posts.
Unfortunately, this does open the door to potential censorship from the administration. Lets see how firm the owners of this community are when the push comes to shove.
Growing up in the 1970s and '80s I had always taken for granted that freedom of expression was the bedrock our civilization was founded upon, but in recent years I've become increasingly concerned that these freedoms are not as solid as I had once believed.
Well I'll just repeat this, there is no administration who could edit your post unless you've given your keys or password to them.
If the post editing from "administrators" would be possible, I'm assuming they could have done it in the past during the 7 day edit window.
When I see someone being a dick, I usally take that as a sign that they aren't worth taking seriously.
Using force to get people to be "moral" never has the desired effect. If it did, the drug war would have been a success but we all know how that is working out.
Yes, what happened to that idea? If an asshole says something dumb, as an intelligent being, I can choose to "write it off" as the opinion of an idiot.
I hate speech. Why can't everyone just write letters.
lol
I think there's going to be an argument from someone on this but oh well.
People want to silence hate speech because majority doesn't agree and thinks it's wrong, I get it. But rather than silencing them which will ultimately change nothing..why no offer an open dialogue about it. No one said you have to agree with the things they say, but they don't have to agree with you either. It may not be right for them to say the things they say, but to have the authority to just bang down the hammer and silence someone? What's that solving? It's the same as sticking your fingers in your ears and not listening ... But they're still there. You don't have to associate yourself with them nor engage with them..I just don't think you should have the right to silence anyone. If they're ignorant enough they won't have many people listening anyways.
I agree that engagement goes a long way. Simply asking someone espousing hatred "Why do you believe this?" goes a long way. It is likely that they haven't thought about it in a long time. It probably won't reverse their beliefs, but having even a moment of thought is important.
Neo Yogi-ism:
Go fakebook!
creepy as can be.
The more your censor anything, the more curious people become of the message unfortunately. It is a tricking situation for sure... Centralized platforms have their work cut out for them trying to remain balanced in a continued polarized society.
I tend to agree with this also, and it seems to be playing out to a large degree.