Indeed. Also who defines what 'hate speech' is and isn't?

If recent history is any example it's an ever expanding and often arbitrary list depending on an individuals sensitivity level (particularly when it comes down to the individual level like mod's on subreddits or employees at Twitter).

It seems many very vocal people on the internet are essentially pushing an idea that the most sensitive people should be defining what those boundaries are for everyone and the list of things people can be outraged could change at any time, and ignorance of these boundaries is not sufficient excuse.

A Google presentation titled "The Good Censor" was recently leaked where they talk about how themselves, Twitter, and Facebook, should censor free speach. They say that they want to move to a "European model" where civility is valued over freedom.

https://www.theverge.com/2018/10/10/17961806/google-leaked-r...

I cannot speak for the whole of Europe, but the German model certainly isn't "civility over freedom", but practical concordance: you have several basic rights which unfortunately almost always collide in some form with each other, and you find a way to give maximum effect to all of them.

The difference between America and Germany — very broadly speaking — is that America goes for the local maximum (free speech trumps everything) and Germany goes for a global maximum.

Mod does. Don't like the mod, get out!

Social networks don't control the police and jails. They have always had the right - though they neglected it because they are lazy and delusional - to moderate content on their own servers.

It's so clear to me that "one size fits all" social networks will go away. They are inherently dysfunctional. Putting everyone from terrorists to toddlers on the same forums was never a good idea.

No, they neglected it because they originally wanted protections afforded to “common carriers”. Now they are trying to have their cake and eat it too.

The dead, at the very least.

Yes, there's a third: that the balance they strike is infinitely perfect and the net benefit is zero in all dimensions.

It struck me as childishly pedantic to address, so

Why doth [the suppression of uncomfortable opinions] never prosper, what's the reason? For if it prosper, none dare call it Treason.

Hate speech is made in full faith by a group that has dominance and power to influence others to harm groups who live under that dominance and power. How many gradations do you think there are between the two?

I don't agree with that definition at all. It is an atrocious and immoral definition of 'hate speech' (and dare I say probably racist in practice).

What can be done to correct this definition? What should be adjusted?

For one thing, this definition eschews a common standard. Rather, violations are based on arbitrary criteria of "dominance" - which is popular with certain ideologues but has very little support in showing that this is actually a good metaphor for understanding our society. Anyway, in practice (and probably in your mind), this definition would entail grouping people by their skin color and labeling one group as extra susceptible for violating YOUR hate speech code and another group being completely exempt.

>Rather, violations are based on arbitrary criteria of "dominance" - which is popular with certain ideologues but has very little support in showing that this is actually a good metaphor for understanding our society.

I'm fascinated with why people don't acknowledge power structures as having any influence in how one part of society views another; that there is currently no hierarchy in society.

You just haven't ever needed to interface with this idea and therefore believe it's not a defined concept.

>I'm fascinated with why people don't acknowledge power structures as having any influence in how one part of society views another; that there is currently no hierarchy in society.

I didn't say anything of the sort. What I meant to communicate to you was that I don't see any evidence that the SPECIFIC (and arbitrary) power structures you choose to use, have any actual explanatory power. Typically, ideologues of your persuasion will attempt to explain any disparity in society like this. Those claims are almost always unfalsifiable and can be twisted and contoured to fit any data point.

Do you understand my point? There are many power structures and many hierarchies in our society. If you were to explain the particular status of a specific individual here are some characteristics:

- race

- ethnicity

- gender

- sexual orientation

- height

- IQ

- Extrovertness vs introvertness

- Disability Physical

- Disability Mental

- two-parent vs single-parent household

- household income

- geographic location of upbringing

- geographic location of present residency

- education level

- sense of humour

- religion

- political alignment

- marital status

- number of dependents

- hair color

- attractiveness level

- language

- athleticism

- etc. etc.

Ideologues of your persusain tend to argue, with ZERO evidence, that immutable genetic characteristics dominate all others, even though most evidence suggests the opposite. So it isn't about denying the idea that power structures and hierarchies exists, but rather denying the idea that the SPECIFIC power structures and SPECIFIC hierarchies you choose have any value for explanation.

Every reply of yours so far has hinged on my definition of terms being arbitrary.

I'm strictly talking about well-defined terms.

Maybe you have never examined them because you never needed to interface with them in practice, or maybe you do understand them and are just arguing in bad faith to defend a more abstract belief. I won't make any assumptions about that.

If anyone's arguing in bad faith here, it's you. Power dynamics may lead to hate speech but they are not an intrinsic part of hate speech.

Hate speech specifically comes from a position and perspective of power. Stop making up your own terms.

>Hate speech specifically comes from a position and perspective of power.

That's not a universally accepted definition. You're simply asserting it to be true. It's very similar to the way the definition of 'racism' was contorted from a conceptually simple "somebody who hates someone based on their race" to "somebody who discriminates (usually in some abstract ill-defined, overbroad way) and who is part of some power dominance hierarchy (also arbitrarily defined) against a marginalized sub-group" or paraphrased: "If you're non-white, you cannot be racist". Sorry, you don't get a pass on that and you don't get to just assert this to be true. I also believe that this is a deeply immoral way of looking at the world.

This here is a perfect example of a bad faith argument; asserting that your definition of hate speech is the only acceptable definition is disingenuous.

>Every reply of yours so far has hinged on my definition of terms being arbitrary.

Not quite. I am fully aware that ideas like "privilege" or "dominance/power hierarchies" have well defined meanings. But thought they are well-defined, their applicability in explaining our society is controversial. Proponents of these concepts tend to be ideologically driven. I criticized these concepts because you used them to create a definition of 'hate speech'.

>Maybe you have never examined them because you never needed to interface with them in practice

I have no idea what you're talking about here.

>maybe you do understand them and are just arguing in bad faith to defend a more abstract belief

I disagree. I attempted to be very clear in why I disagree with your point of view and I tried to capture your position fairly. Where is this 'bad faith'?