so-called "hate speech"
I see that phrase used often, in may different ways and contexts. Rarely do I see it defined though.
People have some very different ideas of what it refers to.
If the article means offensive speech, I'd agree. But if we're talking about inciting violence, then I strongly disagree.
In Canada outlawed speech, "hate propaganda", has a set definition:
"any writing, sign or visible representation that advocates or promotes genocide or the communication of which by any person would constitute an offence under section 319."
Which is on par with but less restrictive than American inciting violence laws.
Blanket attacks on "hate speech" that seems to conflate the two, are not something I see as helpful.
As for Google manipulation.
I'm onboard with Google being evil. Of course they are. I'm only surprised that anybody ever expected that big corporations were looking out for them.
I don't have a lot of sympathy for anyone affected by youtube changes or google games. They made the monster and gave it the power, they can only blame themselves.
Greed and a lack of forethought got us here, greed and a lack of forthought will allow them to continue molesting people while making ungodly profits.
I agree.
I think it's understood here in the states that 'hate speech' is separate from the already-recognised, already-agreed upon forms of outlawed speech, such as the incitement of violence.
The problem seems to have a straightforward cause; some forms of speech which are normally protected are nonetheless prohibited in the workplace. A statement such as "Albanians are an inferior people" is perfectly legal almost everywhere here, but not allowed at work.
Colleges embrace these restrictions eagerly, and enforce them rigorously. This often leaves the students with the impression that these restrictions apply everywhere. Kids come out of college thinking that anything which insults someone else's race or gender or place of origin is not constitutionally protected, and they get a rude surprise when the finally figure out that it's not. This is the stuff they label hate speech, and many want it to be outlawed, and if not outlawed, then suppressed by whatever means available.
Currently, youtube pretty much bans anything to the right of the Wall Street Journal, and has wiped out most of the gun stuff, even the inoffensive hobby and competition channels. This is where the 'hate speech' battle is being fought here today.
I think the discussion that needs to happen pertains to the ability of institutions like Facebook and Twitter to restrict free speech. As quoted above:
Google/YouTube and Facebook do not, of course, make laws, but their algorithms have more real-world impact than most legislation
The spaces they've created are, at this point, akin to public spaces. They're more or less obstructing freedom of expression, a right that is guaranteed under the US constitution among others. Without clear definitions it's too easy to move the goalposts.
I agree with you on the importance of free speech, but I can't see why private companies would be responsible for providing it.
If it is going to be a basic protected right (which I think it should) then it needs to be funded publicly.
I don't see how we can demand the freedom of speech by taking their freedom of action.
We need alternatives. Government incentives or investment would help, but if more of the public took it seriously, the problem would solve itself.
That's the real problem, according to me. People don't care or understand. Convenience and cost is more important than ethics or ideals.
Best bit: