Free speech to be blocked under guise of stopping hate speech.

[zorkuus]

Personally I'm for Facebook blocking ALL political and religious content. That'd probably solve a lot that falls under the "hate speech' category.

If they were to do that they would have to also block all content promoting religion or political views instead of just the ones offering an opposing view.

[Dug]

Personally I would rather allow all political and religious content and allow people to discuss, agree/disagree, present opposing arguments, etc.

Some people are threatening and being down right vile to each other over the death of some random gorilla. I don't expect any discussions anywhere to stay civil forever. In the perfect world perhaps

[babyback]

You honestly think that those killings would go down if you stop discussion?

No but it's obvious that people can't discuss it.

[PC2]

Some people are threatening and being down right vile to each other over the death of some random gorilla. I don't expect any discussions anywhere to stay civil forever. In the perfect world perhaps

Physical threatening? That is its own category, separate from feelings and emotions.

[Dug]

Physical threatening? That is its own category, separate from feelings and emotions.

Of course but even insulting one another over petty shit like... again.. a random gorilla is over the line imo. Even the most trivial topics can spark ugly debates between people. There is no such thing as "civil" debates online. What's the equivalent of godwins that a discussion will eventually turn into an argument?

[babyback]

To be fair here, banning it or trying to get rid of it, never was successful. And even then, we still killed each other.

I am not asking for people not to kill each other. Or well I'd hope we could.

We're discussing monitoring hate speech on social media and it's obviously an issue since we're discussing it here, and to be fair Facebook is a pretty shitty forum to discuss religion and politics.

[Machismo]

If you feel Facebook is limiting your speech, or silencing certain political viewpoints, you have limitless viable alternatives. If you want to demand they change, then get enough people together to make them question the financial consequences of their decision. However, arguing in favor of hate speech brings along a great deal of baggage. I don't give a damn if a company chooses to censor me in a disagreeable manner, I will simply choose to not give them my money. I stopped playing WoW, because the game was no longer fun for me. If they change in the future, they may get my money back. If they don't, they will not. What's really odd, is that people feel Facebook (and Blizzard) have some moral obligation to us, they do not. They should certainly have no legal obligation to us.

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

That might work in the perfect world.

But we live in a world were people kill each other due to political and religious beliefs. Good luck getting people to discuss it in a civil matter.

People kill each other for shoes. Block shoes from Facebook?

[PC2]

If you feel Facebook is limiting your speech, or silencing certain political viewpoints, you have limitless viable alternatives. If you want to demand they change, then get enough people together to make them question the financial consequences of their decision. However, arguing in favor of hate speech brings along a great deal of baggage. I don't give a damn if a company chooses to censor me in a disagreeable manner, I will simply choose to not give them my money. I stopped playing WoW, because the game was no longer fun for me. If they change in the future, they may get my money back. If they don't, they will not. What's really odd, is that people feel Facebook (and Blizzard) have some moral obligation to us, they do not. They should certainly have no legal obligation to us.

Actually they do have a moral and legal obligation to act in accordance of their stated policy.

[babyback]

People kill each other for shoes. Block shoes from Facebook?

I'd love to se Facebook disappear forever.

But other than that, your analogy is pretty damn stupid.

[Machismo]

Actually they do have a moral and legal obligation to act in accordance of their stated policy.

So, you do want to use the government to force your demands on them. By forcing legal obligations, you are supporting authoritarianism.

There is no moral obligation, there is a financial agreement. One person agrees to the terms and uses agreement in order to be able to use the site. Facebook can change whenever it likes, and the person can either comply, or leave. Freedom is awesome.

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

I get your point and fair enough but I don't take that as "bullying". It's not like Facebook was... anti-fat or something they just did what every company typically does and hires attractive people for their ads. Fat Acceptance movement brought up concerns and Facebook said sure why not. But maybe I'm misinformed I haven't heard much of this deal with their 'policy' on fat women in their ads.

My point was that a group saw something they didn't like and tried to push for social change.

[Machismo]

My point was that a group saw something they didn't like and tried to push for social change.

Does that make you a social justice warrior?

[PC2]

So, you do want to use the government to force your demands on them. By forcing legal obligations, you are supporting authoritarianism.

There is no moral obligation, there is a financial agreement. One person agrees to the terms and uses agreement in order to be able to use the site. Facebook can change whenever it likes, and the person can either comply, or leave. Freedom is awesome.

I never demanded government intervention.

Yes they do have both a moral and legal obligation to carry out their policy as they have stated.

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

I'd love to se Facebook disappear forever.

But other than that, your analogy is pretty damn stupid.

Not really. You want to ban religion and politics because it leads to death... but so do many things. Money, cars, drugs.....

[babyback]

Actually they do have a moral and legal obligation to act in accordance of their stated policy.

Companies being moral, good one.

Company policies are only legally binding towards you as an employee if they're in your signed contract. Which mostly contain that you as an employee have a good time at work. Facebook have no obligation to fulfill their policies to you as a user and memeber on the site.

[Narwal]

This isn't really a free speech issue. Everyone would agree that ISIS videos and accounts should be shut down that are promoting that cause. The people understand that a business should be allowed to take down highly inappropriate stuff.

The concern is what is going to be deemed as "hate speech". This is being raised as a part of what some are claiming to be a "political correctness" war. Let's be honest, college and university campuses are stifling a lot of speech by deeming it offensive and hateful (remember the kid who called in to complain about Trump chalked on the sidewalk). Some people in this country do not want to allow acceptable conversation to be labeled as "hate speech" even by a private company. Deeming things "hate speech" that are not, can overtime give that argument validity. We do not want to move down a slope of an ever growing number of topics to become automatically labeled as "hate speech". Don't think a person with a male reproductive organ should be in a bathroom with your daughter? HATE SPEECH!

Free speech allows people to give their dissent over a company instituting a rule like this in their product.

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

Does that make you a social justice warrior?

Haha, sure, I guess? I'm not sure what your strange boner for me is today.

[Machismo]

I never demanded government intervention.

Yes they do have both a moral and legal obligation to carry out their policy as they have stated.

If you are demanding they have a legal obligation, then you are demanding government intervention. That's what legal obligations are.

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

This isn't really a free speech issue. Everyone would agree that ISIS videos and accounts should be shut down that are promoting that cause. The people understand that a business should be allowed to take down highly inappropriate stuff.

The concern is what is going to be deemed as "hate speech". This is being raised as a part of what some are claiming to be a "political correctness" war. Let's be honest, college and university campuses are stifling a lot of speech by deeming it offensive and hateful (remember the kid who called in to complain about Trump chalked on the sidewalk). Some people in this country do not want to allow acceptable conversation to be labeled as "hate speech" even by a private company. Deeming things "hate speech" that are not, can overtime give that argument validity. We do not want to move down a slope of an ever growing number of topics to become automatically labeled as "hate speech". Don't think a person with a male reproductive organ should be in a bathroom with your daughter? HATE SPEECH!

Free speech allows people to give their dissent over a company instituting a rule like this in their product.

Thank you! Thats exactly my point. People view hate speech and different things.. if 'Trump" being written in chalk is "problematic" ... then sure advocating for Trump as president would be the same thing?