Pushing For Facebook, YouTube And Twitter To Ban Hate Speech Won't Stop It From Migrating Elsewhere
from the there's-a-larger-problem dept
Remember a year ago when lots of people were blaming WhatsApp for violence in India, and demanding that there needed to be new laws passed to deal with WhatsApp? Well, if the actual problem is societal, it’s not much going to matter how you target a particular platform. Wired now has an article talking about another, super popular platform, TikTok, and arguing that it is “fuelling India’s deadly hate speech epidemic.” This, of course, is the same language that was used to discuss WhatsApp over the past few years.
TikTok, as you may know, is the rapidly growing newish social media platform that is owned by the Chinese firm ByteDance. Of course, its rapid rise in popularity should already challenge the narrative that the big social media platforms — Facebook (along with Instagram and WhatsApp), YouTube, and Twitter — are so dominant that it’s impossible for new entrants to make a play. But, even more importantly, it shows that if the problem everyone is debating is a societal one, blaming the service providers in the middle for not magically stopping societal problems is not helpful. These problems will just keep appearing on each successive platform.
During June and July, WIREDidentified more than 500 examples of caste-based hate, threats, violence and ridicule attacking different communities within the Tamil language on TikiTok. Users extol the virtues of specific castes and verbally attack local caste-leaders, which can trigger hate crimes.
India?s caste structure is a feudal system of social division stratifying people into hierarchical groups based on their background and work. These include: priests, warriors, farmers/traders, labourers and outcasts. Dalits, formerly the ?untouchables,? fall outside the system and are widely persecuted.
Videos found on TikTok include casteist-hate speech posted by users identifying themselves from high castes while celebrating and singing the praises of their communities. These quickly spill into threats of physical violence with members of some communities claiming dominance over other castes.
This is, quite obviously, an issue, but it seems like it’s a much bigger issue regarding the “caste structure” of Indian society, rather than a platform like TikTok or WhatsApp. But, of course, it appears that people — including courts and lawmakers — find it much easier to just blame the messaging app, rather than the underlying societal issues it shines a light on:
Social divisions have run deep in India for centuries. But, the advent of easy-to-use video platforms, messaging apps and low mobile data limits, has seen hate speech targeting marginalised communities thrive. In April, police arrested a 21-year-old for uploading a caste-based video on TikTok that could have sparked communal unrest. And in another case, nine people were arrested for uploading a video inciting caste violence and potential public disorder.
The problems created by TikTok haven?t gone unnoticed by lawmakers either. In April, a court ruling in Tamil Nadu ? the region where Vijay died ? said the app was spreading ?pornographic? and other ?inappropriate? content. As a result, Google and Apple took the largely unprecedented step to remove TikTok from their app stores at the request of the Indian court system. TikTok was only reinstated after more than six million videos were purged from the app.
?TikTok is wreaking havoc on societies and villages in Tamil Nadu,? says lawyer K Neelamegam, who argued in favour of the TikTok ban in April. ?It is extremely dangerous and playing an active part in disrupting peaceful functioning of our lives?. One Indian state information technology minister has also said TikTok is ?degrading culture? and is ?inimical to law and order?. And, India?s IT Ministry has threatened TikTok with a further ban for how it handles data and ?anti-Indian? activity. It has demanded ByteDance answer a list of 24 questions about how it works.
Note that exactly none of this concern is focused on the Indian caste system itself, or the reasons for why such angry and inflammatory speech spreads so quickly. There are arguments to be made that these apps might increase the distribution power of such speech, and therefore have a larger impact, but no one seems to be discussing that. They really all seem to be blaming the apps for actually shining a light on the underlying issues, discrimination, and bigotry inherent in the caste system.
It is, of course, way easier to blame a new technology that a societal issue that dates back centuries, but it does little to fix any of the problems. Should TikTok be banned in India, such hatred will just move on to the next such platform, and the same people will clench their fists and whine about those as well, without ever bothering to explore why the hatred is happening in the first place.
Filed Under: bans, blame, caste system, hate speech, india, migrations, platforms
Companies: facebook, tiktok, twitter, whatsapp, youtube
Comments on “Pushing For Facebook, YouTube And Twitter To Ban Hate Speech Won't Stop It From Migrating Elsewhere”
Banning hate speech from major platforms won’t end hatred, but it will deny hatred the ability to reach widest possible audience and that will hinder those attempting to normalise such things. Normal people aren’t going to start using Gab en masse if Twitter starts making serious attempts to ban Nazis.
Will it stop it hate entirely? Of course not, but something not being a panacea doesn’t mean that it isn’t worth trying.
Re: Re:
"It didn’t work the last dozen times, but what the hell – let’s try it again!"
LMAO
Re: Re: Re:
‘We’ve done the absolute bare minimum to make it look like we’re doing something after a tragedy and nothing’s changed. Better keep on doing nothing as the problem festers, there’s no way inaction will make a bad situation get worse.’
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Who is this "we" you refer to? No one has ever done the maximum? Perhaps you are referring to government fatcats?
Do nothing was not my take away from this article, why is it yours?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Like many people you are ignoring the problems of scale, and the difficulty of identifying hate speech, especially when the poster is trying to work round the filters, and others are commenting against hate speech.
Re: Re:
Nobody is saying booting the assholes off Twitter, YouTube, etc. will magically cure hatred. But it prevents that hatred from being spread on widely-used platforms. That can allow more people to speak their minds without fear of harassment and hatred-fueled rhetoric plaguing their mentions and private messages. All things considered, I’d rather have the tech companies doing their best to keep hate off their platforms than letting it go unmoderated out of some perverse dedication to “free speech”, thanks.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
And I would rather avoid silencing anyone than punish people that say things I don’t like out of some perverse dedication to "stop hate speech".
Having to deal with other people saying things you hate is not new. We may need to improve the tools we can provide to individuals to filter what they personally don’t want to see but stopping someone from being able to speak at all on whatever x platform you choose is actively making the problem worse.
Re: Re: Re:2
Who is being “silenced” when they’re booted off Twitter? Because Alex Jones got booted off Twitter, and he’s still able to speak his mind on InfoWars.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Now you’re just being disingenuous.
Re: Re: Re:4
No, I’m not. Having an audience of millions is not the same thing as being able to say what you want.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
Yes you are. Denying willing participants (an audience) a platform is the same as duct taping someone’s (the speaker’s) mouth shut.
"Tell me Mr. Anderson, What good is a phone call if you are unable to speak?" – Mr. Smith The Matrix
Funny thing is, Mr. Smith could have just as easily given him the phone call and played a "We’re sorry this phone call cannot be completed as dialed" message for the same effect, and that’s exactly what you’re doing by denying others a platform to communicate. Whether you admit it or not.
"Go start your own website then" you say? Well 8chan got shutdown by their hosting providers. What good is attempting to start your own site if it can be shutdown under the idea that somehow what traverses the provider’s pipes or is housed on the provider’s servers is a direct representation of and fully endorsed by the provider?
By that notion, I guess Techdirt is both against hate speech and supportive of anti censorship by just your posts and mine. Ideologies that are brought in by public comment. Which ideology represents Techdirt to the public in this case? Is it the people clamoring for something to be done or is it those who support the freedom of expression? What ramifications are there for Techdirt based on the winner? Will they loose hosting? DNS providers? Will ISPs start blocking their packets? Google has already driven traffic away from Techdirt before, will they kick it up a notch or two? This is the can of worms you and others like you are attempting to open on the entire internet. Worms that are already creating hard decisions for service providers. Such as another tech news site’s recent decision to ban all AC commentary.
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
“Yes you are. Denying willing participants (an audience) a platform is the same as duct taping someone’s (the speaker’s) mouth shut.”
No it really isn’t. Despite your cutesy quote, there’s a massive difference between silencing someone and letting them use your bullhorn. As for the rest of your littlemanifesto I honestly have no idea what you are trying to say. Have you tried not sounding like a lunatic? That usually helps quite a bit bro.
Re: Re: Re:6
Having the right to speak your mind is not the same thing as having the right to an audience for your speech. You are not entitled to an audience, no matter how much you might think you are.
Twitter banning an asshole from its platform only bans that asshole from that specific platform. The asshole doesn’t have the right to use that platform if the platform’s administrators don’t want that asshole there. The asshole can find a different platform for their speech, of which many exist. And the asshole is not entitled to force Twitter, or any other platform, into giving them an audience.
If you can’t find a third party platform willing to host your speech, the only solution is to build your own. Side bonus of that approach? Major platforms like Twitter and Facebook can’t exploit your speech (and your data) for their own ends.
Nobody ever said owning your own platform would be easy.
That’s based more on the articles published on this site than on anything you, I, or anyone else in the comments say.
The expressed beliefs of Techdirt’s regular writers via their articles do a fine job of representing the Techdirt ideology.
If and when those things happen, we can have a proper discussion about censorship. But the owners of a platform preventing a third party from using that platform is not censorship. That is merely denying you the opportunity to use someone else’s platform when they don’t want to associate with you.
Re: Re: Re:7 Re:
Having the right to speak your mind is not the same thing as having the right to an audience for your speech. You are not entitled to an audience, no matter how much you might think you are.
Now now, let’s not be too quick to dismiss the idea that if a particular platform refuses to let you use it to speak that’s the same thing as not being able to speak at all.
I mean just as one example think of all the people who would jump at the chance to be able to use Fox’s platform to tell people what they think of Trump and how he screwed up yet again on national tv.
If a prohibition against using one platform is equivalent to a prohibition by all platforms then it seems to me they’d have no choice but to let all those people on, and that strikes me as having some serious potential for entertainment.
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
First Amendment protects twitter’s right to publish (or not) what they choose. The government cannot pass any law requiring them to publish speech that they do not agree with. If this isn’t actually what you’re proposing then please clarify.
I don’t use Twitter, I don’t use Facebook, I don’t use Google — they’re entirely blocked on my home network (including all subsidiaries such as ReCaptcha and YouTube). I send out my content from a server sitting in my living room. I see no problem with that method; the Internet is far better without those idiots anyway. Granted, my ISP could kick me off, and I’d have to find a new service provider, but I’ve got not right to demand the use of someone else’s property.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
No one is suggesting doing that.
I don’t like the Yankees. People cheering for the Yankees is "saying things I don’t like." I would prefer to never see anyone cheer for the Yankees.
And I am completely in favour of platforms of all shapes and sizes allowing people to cheer for the Yankees.
However, the speech in question goes way beyond "things I don’t like."
Let’s go back to the story.
…and…
Stochastic terrorism is not just "speech I don’t like." It’s speech intended to provoke physical violence upon a targeted group, and it should absolutely be banned from every platform, just like any speech intended to provoke physical violence should be.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
No one is suggesting doing that.
That is exactly what is being suggested.
Nobody is saying booting the assholes off Twitter, YouTube, etc. will magically cure hatred. But it prevents that hatred from being spread on widely-used platforms.
People saying hateful things is far from just someone advocating physical violence.
Re: Re: Re:4
Pray tell, how does someone getting booted from Twitter silence them when they have the rest of the Internet to use as a possible platform?
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
You can shout whatever crazy bullshit you want on the street corner, but you can’t do it in my house.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Facebook is not your house. Nothing I said had anything to do with pretending they should be forced to allow such speech. Only that it’s stupid for people to try to get Facebook/etc. to take such speech down.
Re: Re: Re:4
Ahem:
The implication is clear: You think people being booted from social media are being “silenced” and such punishment is unjust. You may not be outright saying “Facebook should be forced to host speech it doesn’t want to host”, but you are implying that you believe in such an idea, or one close to it.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
No, it’s Mark Zuckerberg’s house, and its shareholders’ house.
As Stephen already noted, you disingenuously described Facebook as "silencing" people.
Facebook can’t silence people. All it can do is tell them to go somewhere else.
The government can silence speakers. Private spaces can’t; all they can do is say "not in my house." When you use the word "silence", you are drawing a direct comparison between an entity that can use force, the government, and entities that can’t, Facebook, Twitter, et al.
Perhaps it’s stupid, but that’s how private markets work. Companies like Facebook are subject to market pressures, both from users and advertisers. Associating with nazis and virulent conspiracy theorists is bad for business.
You want a platform that doesn’t "silence" that sort of user? Try Gab. Try 8chan. If those aren’t places you feel like you want to be…well, no fucking shit.
Re: Re: Re: wise men doubt
Because the fact that “asshole” is usually as much thought as humans put into the subject of speech hateful or not is reason enough.
And that it’s subjective. “I remember people complaining about how Twitter was putting them Alongside groups that hated persecuted groups. These same people were the ones who who said that twitter should come out against hate. You know why? Because to them they were not biased.
To them what they were saying was innocent. They were THE MAIN CHARACTER. Everyone else is wrong. How could this happen. It’s a mistake.
no one ever thinks. Or doubts especially the ones who say they think.
Re: Re: Re:
Indeed.
And, if people want first amendment free speech they can host their own website or use 8chan type sites.
Re: Re: Re:
It "worked" insofar as there are a lot fewer people watching Infowars than there used to be.
You can’t completely eliminate hate speech (for whatever your personal definition of "hate speech" may be), but you can go after the biggest and most obvious targets. I think that’s what Mike’s alluding to when he says
and I’m inclined to think that pushing people like Jones back to the fringe is a desirable outcome. But Mike also quickly notes,
and that’s an excellent point as well. Online platforms may amplify social conditions, but they don’t create them.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Streissand effect.
The meme I’m seeing increased trend is ‘Alex Jones was right’.
After Mueller settled had series of memes juxtaposing wild claims from media with Jones statements with claim Alex was right.
Fine People hoax.
Russia collusion.
Turning frogs gay. There’s headlines showing atrazine turning the frogs gay.
Human animal hybrids. Japan announced work moving forward on human/monkey hybrids.
The wilder the claim, given a long enough timeline seems to wind up as ‘Holy shit, I used to make fun of that dude but he was right’.
Bizarre times.
Re: Re: Re:2
Do you believe him when he says both “Sandy Hook was a hoax” and “I was just saying that for shits ’n giggles”?
Re: Re:
It won’t stop hate at all, actually. Pretending no one is a Nazi doesn’t stop anyone from being a Nazi. Government and media claims about "radicalization" are not based on facts, there is no evidence that media "hate speech" causes people to hate, or to engage in violence they otherwise would not engage in.
That isn’t to say that those platforms can’t do that if they want, but the only thing it will do is make people like you feel better. That is fine and there is nothing wrong with you advocating for it, but the idea that it will in any way end racist violence has no support in fact.
If someone becomes racist out of nowhere from reading a message or seeing a video on an app, that points to a problem with schools not teaching critical thinking skills, and that is a much better area to focus on.
Re: Re: Re:
An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition. It isn’t just contradiction.
Never happen but
I’d love to see a company call out the government on issues like this. Send in a lawyer to tell them straight up what morons they are, and they can stick it. Then cut off service in Indian (or wherever).
Yet,
We’ll unironically blame 8chan for Elizabeth Warren radicalizing an Antifa member into becoming a mass shooter.
Re:
What the flying rat fuck are you even talking about?
Re: Re: Re:
Hahaha – the street juice must be strong this week.
Re: Yet,
If you’re referring to the Dayton shooter, I’m sure you’re referring to some sort of manifesto he released detailing why he committed the shooting, and not just to a tweet he liked.
As you clearly wouldn’t pull such an inference directly out of your ass (I mean, really, only a complete dipshit would do that), would you mind providing a link to said manifesto?
Re: Re:
To my knowledge, the only ones blaming 8chan for anything shooter related are politicians who don’t know jack about the internet. Cloudflare removed protections from it, not because they were blaming it for causing the shooting but because it’s a steaming pile of garbage that is offensive to most civilized folk and the CEO didn’t want to keep protecting them anymore.
Yet you want "literal Nazis" (in YOUR view) censored:
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20190618/18023542427/senator-hawley-proposes-law-to-force-internet-companies-to-beg-ftc-permission-to-host-content.shtml#c425
[New readers should also read the censored comments there to truly grasp how Masnick loves "free speech" in the abstract, not at all in the particular.]
And for double self-contradiction, you are — for this one piece when serves another purpose — stating that Facebook SHOULD be forced to host speech that it opposes!
Now, I’m SURE that you’ll try to claim is not just distinct but literally half the world away, so you’re "right" as always, but this is FLATLY self-contradictory to anyone actually for "free speech" — meaning so long as within SC Brandenburg and so on — and more so in light of what used to be quoted here, the old "may not agree but will defend" to which you now add "just not any major platform where can be seen because you’re a dangerous lunatic".
We now have you nailed down, Masnick: you’re for "free speech" when it pleases you and a censor when doesn’t, just like everyone else.
Re: Yet you want "literal Nazis" (in YOUR view) censor
By the way: I always try to add "just like everyone else" because that’s a huge insult to elitist, above-it-all Masnick, one of the Chosen Ivy League Technocrats who are sure that they know best and literally anointed by GOD to re-make society according to their wisdom.
Re: Re:
…when did dominionist Christians enter into this discussion?
Re: Re: Yet you want "literal Nazis" (in YOUR view) ce
You’ve been hitting the bottle extra hard this morning, haven’t you. Do the world a favor: Log off, take your meds and find a dark room to curl up in. You are quite literally insane.
Re: Re: Re: Yet you want "literal Nazis" (in YOUR view
On a related note, your name isn’t Dennis by any chance, is it?
Re: Re: Re:
And I think you’re a moron. Just like everyone else. (I add this because it’s a huge insult to village idiots who never passed kindergarten, and who can’t tell the sky from the ground)
See? I can do it too.
Re: Re: Re:
Technocrats don’t believe in god you numpty.
Re:
You have a right to speak your mind. You don’t have a right to force someone else into giving you a platform (or an audience) for your speech. That includes corporate-owned platforms such as Twitter and privately owned property such as, say, another person’s living room. Show me the law, statute, or “common law” court ruling that says otherwise.
Re: Re: Re:
Might not be law, but may be best way.
Video is just under 19 minutes
"Why I, as a black man, attend KKK rallies. | Daryl Davis | TEDxNaperville"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ORp3q1Oaezw
"A chance encounter with members of the Ku Klux Klan led black musician Daryl Davis on a quest to determine the source of the hate. His unorthodox, yet simple approach, has wielded surprising results and just might be the solution for all racial discourse…" And discrimination
Re: Re: Re:
…wut
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Stephen do you know why fox new turns off it’s cameras when it’s “guest” are getting the Better of them?
Speech. A better argument. Audience might be shit or not but better argument. That’s one thing I notice. You will reach a lot more people by making a guy look unreasonable with speech then just cutting a camera.
Re: Re: Re:3
Why do you think people like me keep dismantling Blue’s bullshit? ????
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
But you’d rather OOTB be elsewhere where they can maybe get people to agree with them, and more, and more
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
"…But you’d rather OOTB be elsewhere where they can maybe get people to agree with them"
No, seriously…Baghdad Bob/OOTB? Getting people to "agree"?
His "arguments" exclusively rely on intimidation, guilt-by-association, false premises, and marginalization. The only people who agree with him are his own sock puppets.
Unless he’s preaching to a copyright cultist choire who don’t listen to anything other than the keywords "Pirates bad" I don’t credit that idiot with the ability to string three words together without the majority of the other commenters reporting him.
I don’t think we want him to leave though. Every time he comments he ends up taking the pro-copyright argument for a ripe public shaming.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Ah, the "counter speech with more speech" chestnut. Getting tired of that getting dragged out every time discussions about hate speech like it’s the magical solution to everything. The people dishing out the bigotry and hate, or those on the side of the person/people dishing out that bigotry and hate, more often than not don’t care how good your argument is.
I’m just gonna say it right now: Wagging your finger and telling people that they should engage in good-faith debate with assholes who view one or some groups of people as less than human, as if there are some Marquess of Queensberry rules for speech that have to be followed no matter what your opponent’s argument is, is fucking dumb.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
You are so brilliant, you don’t even have to watch the video and see it prove you wrong, do you?
Re: Re: Re:5
You can’t cure the world’s ills by debating whether a certain group of people deserve to live or die based only on who they are (e.g., gay people). By even debating the point with a bigot, you concede that they could possibly convince you that, yes, gay people deserve to die for being gay.
Some ideas don’t deserve debate. In terms of speech, those ideas deserve a breakdown of why they’re awful ideas at best, mockery and derision at worst. And if someone translates their hateful ideology into violent action, trying to dismantle their shit with speech isn’t going to stop their violence.
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
You really should watch the video
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
""A chance encounter with members of the Ku Klux Klan led black musician Daryl Davis on a quest to determine the source of the hate. His unorthodox, yet simple approach, has wielded surprising results and just might be the solution for all racial discourse…" And discrimination"
He TALKED to the leader of the kkk.
A grand master(?) and a grand dragon(?) gave him their robes and denounced the kkk.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
"Today, Daryl owns numerous Klan robes and hoods, given to him by active members who became his friends and renounced the organization.
Since his journey began, Davis has joined an all-white country band, attended KKK rallies, and accepted a “certificate of friendship” from the Traditionalist American Knights of the KKK. He’s even the godfather of former Klan Imperial Wizard Roger Kelly’s granddaughter."
Same YouTube link
Re: Re: Re:4
And what does any of that have to do with the principle that the owners/operators of a platform can’t be forced by law to host speech they don’t want to host?
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
How does playing whack-a-mole with piracy sites work out?
You think it will work better with nazis or anyone else?
Did hiding it work with gays or trans-people? If we pretend trans-people don’t exist, the issues will go away, right?
Let them talk. Talk back. Might even find some people that need to be arrested. You won’t find them if you ignore them, until it is too late.
What are you afraid of? Being converted? If you aren’t afraid, do your best to convince others. Pro-tip: Calling people asshole or other names does not help your cause.
Re: Re: Re:6
Fine then. I’ll repeat what I said, and maybe you’ll get it this time.
You have a right to speak your mind. You don’t have a right to force someone else into giving you a platform (or an audience) for your speech. That includes corporate-owned platforms such as Twitter and privately owned property such as, say, another person’s living room.
Re: Re: Re:7 Re:
So if we pretend trans-people don’t exist, they will go away along with any issues?
Is that your solution? If so, you are part of the problem
Re: Re: Re:8
I won’t respond to otherwording.
Re: Re: Re:9 Re:
That’s one out
Re: Re: Re:9 Re:
So you don’t like the way I talk? So you aren’t going to converse with me because of that?
So why don’t you just admit you are a bigot?
"If we pretend trans-people don’t exist, the issues will go away, right?"
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20190812/16255242761/pushing-facebook-youtube-twitter-to-ban-hate-speech-wont-stop-it-migrating-elsewhere.shtml#c590
So check the link. No so there
Re: Re: Re:10 Re:
Since "the way you talk" has been to repeatedly strawman him, ot doesn’t make him the bigot for not loking that.
Re: Re: Re:10
Discuss the point I made, and not the strawman argument you either think I was making or wish I were making, and I’ll return the favor. Until then: No, you’re not going to get a proper conversation out of me.
Re: Re: Re:11 Daryl Davis
You aren’t interested in facts that go against your narrative
You desire to shut people down. You do not believe in free speech
"So" was added after you didn’t answer question the first time, so, I asked it again. This time it had "so" included and you call it otherwording, and refuse to respond.
There was no "otherwording" as anyone who can read can see
Re: Re: Re:12 Daryl Davis
[Asserts facts not in evidence]
Re: Re: Re:12
I’m going to say this one more time, then add a little something to maybe help you get the point.
You have a right to speak your mind. You don’t have a right to force someone else into giving you a platform (or an audience) for your speech. That includes corporate-owned platforms such as Twitter and privately owned property such as, say, another person’s living room.
This point doesn’t mean I believe disappearing speech will make it go away. This also doesn’t mean I believe abhorrent speech should be silenced permanently, no matter how I might feel otherwise. It means that a platform can’t be forced to host speech by the government, since that would be compelled speech/association and a violation of the First Amendment.
If you can’t (or won’t) respond directly to what I just said (again), that is your personal problem and I can’t (and won’t) help you solve it.
Re: Re: Re:13 Re:
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20190812/16255242761/pushing-facebook-youtube-twitter-to-ban-hate-speech-wont-stop-it-migrating-elsewhere.shtml#c392
Loop completed
Re: Re: Re:14
You are unable to address my point, and you seem unable to understand anything I’ve said besides. I award you no points, and may God have mercy upon your soul.
Re: Re: Re:15 Re:
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20190816/17304742801/beto-orourke-joins-silly-parade-confused-politicians-looking-to-destroy-section-230.shtml#c25
Re: Re: Re:16 Re:
And linking to a comment where he calls out FOSTA/SESTA for NOT doing what it purports to do is related to your point how?
Re: Re: Re:7 Re:
You have the right to say it ONCE in someone else’s living room.. after that the owner of the living room has the right to kick you out.
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
The internet is a crazy place, but not as crazy as the world. I have seen some of the most beautiful woman on the planet from the waste up, but wastedown.. WHAT THE FUCK???!!
.
That is only a sample of the craziness out there.
Re: Yet you want "literal Nazis" (in YOUR view) censor
Do you have the quote where MM says that "Facebook SHOULD be forced to host speech that it opposes!"?
Re: Yet you want "literal Nazis" (in YOUR view) censored:
Do you really not comprehend that what I’m saying is entirely consistent. Here, let me spell it out for you:
(1) Internet platforms should be able to determine what content they wish to host (and wish not to host).
(2) Gov’t’s threatening platforms over the content they host is counterproductive.
My position is consistent. Unlike yours, in which you pretend to be against corporations and censorship but LOVE it when corporations use copyright to censor people.
Re: Re:
First you out-pedant me, now you’re stealing my schtick! Are you spying on me, Mike (IF THAT IS YOUR REAL NAME)?!
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Has anyone seen me and Stephen T. Stone in the same place at the same time? No? Well then…
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Yeah I saw you both at a whoopee convention in Cleveland. You were both wearing the same plastic nose and glasses with the black mustaches. I couldn’t tell you apart.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
"Has anyone seen me and Stephen T. Stone in the same place at the same time? No? Well then…"
But…that argument can be made for MOST of the posters here. Including Baghdad Bob.
o_O
Cleaning the blood while ignoring the stab wound
During June and July, WIREDidentified more than 500 examples of caste-based hate, threats, violence and ridicule attacking different communities within the Tamil language on TikiTok. Users extol the virtues of specific castes and verbally attack local caste-leaders, which can trigger hate crimes.
India’s caste structure is a feudal system of social division stratifying people into hierarchical groups based on their background and work. These include: priests, warriors, farmers/traders, labourers and outcasts. Dalits, formerly the ‘untouchables,’ fall outside the system and are widely persecuted.
Videos found on TikTok include casteist-hate speech posted by users identifying themselves from high castes while celebrating and singing the praises of their communities. These quickly spill into threats of physical violence with members of some communities claiming dominance over other castes.
While removing the worst of the lot from the platform would probably work as a short-term solution, if the government actually wanted to reduce that problem in the future they’re going to need to grow a spine and admit that the caste-system itself is problematic and needs to go. When people are raised in a culture that holds certain groups inferior or superior to others it’s hardly surprising that their attitude and behavior will reflect that, all the social platform is doing is giving them a highly visible avenue to express that.
Huh, I would have assumed more ranting from "Hamilton" here already, seeing as how Shiva regularly made sputious casteist and racist accusations.
Does anyone..
Ever think that Burying something gets Rid of it.
What things happened BEFORE the internet?
Has it gone away? with all the changes? Nope.
Its Dug up all the stuff we had hidden from before.
It dont solve anything.
Just cause you make something illegal, does NOT make it stop.
Ask every Murderer, every corp, Every Dump site, Every KKK member.
What is has done is made things easier to SEE. The internet has Dug most of this up and is Shinning a Large Light on all of it.
For all the things that were Exchanged in the Mail..(It was protected by the idea of MASS amounts of data being swapped to the Internet and the SAME happening. Faster, more direct, more transparent.
For a Society, that had Prided itself on solving Tons of stuff, we are now seeing that it was hidden behind trees(Quarries are like that), Noise pollution, super fund sites, restricted areas, privacy and secrets.. From Churches to schools to Corps being stupid. We get to see Much more that the Gov. Corps and secret groups DIDNT want us to see. Insted of Solving problems, and Fixing things, and the world, we have opened all the boxes and found our surprise.. and its not always a good one.
Until we Figure out that Humans ARE, what they are..we cant fix things.
There is a time for everything under the sun. There is a time to love and a time to hate. Sweeping it under the rug won’t make it go away. Maybe it would be better to let people vent sometimes than to tie them up under the hippocracy of political correctness.
Yeah,yeah....another whiny plea "for the children".
If these people only knew the loathsome attitude most had for their insufferable smugness.
Call a lynch mob for censors and do-gooders and how many would apply? Completely forgetting any professional victims.
The worst of it is their pea brains cannot conceive of any group so devoted to free speech that they’ll stop at absolutely nothing to get it.
So go on and keeping poking that alligator you fool. Free speech will outlive you and piss on your grave.
Re: Yeah,yeah....another whiny plea "for the children".
What the fuck are you jabbering about?
Re: Re: Yeah,yeah....another whiny plea "for the children".
He fails to notice the trend that places tend to do much better without frozen peach Nazism.
No class...
So what you’re saying is that we need social media to have less class? I don’t think that’s possible…. 😉
This is quite fair in my opinion.
Why cant people just be nice
https://medicatiapharmacy.com/