Should Hateful/Racist/Sexist Comments Be 'Banned' On Social Media?

[Orbitus]

So what social media do you use?

Probably both Facebook and Twitter, both of which censors people that use hateful, bigoted, sexist comments.

[Finith]

In short; no.
For example; If I post a tweet that says "I hate niggers" then that literally doesn't affect anyone in any way.
If I post a tweet that says "I hate niggers, if you too hate niggers, send me a DM so we can go on a urban human safari together" it's a different story because there is an actual possibility of people getting hurt.

Do you know what the difference between typing that first tweet and saying it out loud in a crowded room is? Nothing. I can't understand how this is still some complex notion for people to wrap their heads around, but words do in fact matter, there is no evidence to suggest that intent to harm is necessary to for harm to be caused.

Does that mean you censor speech? No, it means you teach people the value of choosing their words wisely, so they don't sound like neanderthals.

People need to stop playing the victim over this issue, someone telling you to think before you speak is not really the best cause to throw a hissy fit over.

[Fencers]

Most social media platforms are corporations. They have no obligation to allow speech of any kind.

Asking whether Facebook, for example, should allow Jimmy Bigot to say whatever he likes on their platform is absurd.

The long and short of it all is only your government has to tolerate your rights to expression within reason.

[Rennadrel]

No, grow some balls you babies.

Racism should really be the only thing off the table as far as free speech is concerned. If you don't like someone insulting you for whatever other reason, you need to grow some thicker skin.

[Ahovv]

without understanding it.


On topic: yes? no? depends on who owns it and what they allow. Social media is privately owned, they're free to do what they want in this regard.

- - - Updated - - -



A fair point, one that I share.
However, the sites are privately owned (or owned by shareholders) and able to moderate their site how they see fit.

I argue that it's more nuanced than that.

Consider the following: the "internet" as a concept is not a private entity, but your access to it is very much controlled by businesses. Much is being done to make this more transparent and free, but internet is certainly not a basic right at this time. Does that suddenly mean our speech isn't protected there? Should ATT or Comcast be able to decide on their own which websites I should be allowed to visit, or is that something best left handled by government?

To that extent, and how mainstream our social media has become, it makes me wonder how this argument may further apply. There *must* come a point where things are so popular that they are effectively the best and only means of not only expressing ourselves but participating in the "internet." Youtube censorship comes to mind, and there are plenty of examples to ponder.

To clarify, I don't personally think that websites should allow literal free expression in any form; at that point the identity of the website is lost. However, I do think website ToS can be overreaching compared to physical locations. They get away with this because people are probably less likely to sue if they didn't physically involve themselves with the company.

There's also another interesting scenario. Should free speech affect employees of a company? If an employee posts on Facebook that his boss is a cunt, should he be protected for this or eligible to be fired? In California this is protected, but I find that protection absurd.

[Kapadons]

Most social media platforms are corporations. They have no obligation to allow speech of any kind.

Asking whether Facebook, for example, should allow Jimmy Bigot to say whatever he likes on their platform is absurd.

The long and short of it all is only your government has to tolerate your rights to expression within reason.

Slippery slope though. Because jimmy bigot could soon include any person with democratic leanings. Or pro BLM views. Or pro gay views. Or pro choice views.

That is why silencing dissenting opinions (or name calling) through media, even social media, should be seen negatively. Because one day it will be your opinion that is shit on.

[WskyDK]

I argue that it's more nuanced than that.

Consider the following: the "internet" as a concept is not a private entity, but your access to it is very much controlled by businesses. Much is being done to make this more transparent and free, but internet is certainly not a basic right at this time. Does that suddenly mean our speech isn't protected there? Should ATT or Comcast be able to decide on their own which websites I should be allowed to visit, or is that something best left handled by government?

To that extent, and how mainstream our social media has become, it makes me wonder how this argument may further apply. There *must* come a point where things are so popular that they are effectively the best and only means of not only expressing ourselves but participating in the "internet." Youtube censorship comes to mind, and there are plenty of examples to ponder.

To clarify, I don't personally think that websites should allow literal free expression in any form; at that point the identity of the website is lost. However, I do think website ToS can be overreaching compared to physical locations. They get away with this because people are probably less likely to sue if they didn't physically involve themselves with the company.

There's also another interesting scenario. Should free speech affect employees of a company? If an employee posts on Facebook that his boss is a cunt, should he be protected for this or eligible to be fired? In California this is protected, but I find that protection absurd.

Good points let me try and offer a rebuttal;
The sites should be able to limit your access to concertina sites within the limits of the law. When broadband was reclassified as a utility, it was done so in order to prevent things exactly like what you're describing.\

Your argument that for some people Facebook and YouTube are the internet is also spot on. This is like how we use Q-tips (cotton tipped swabs) Band-Aids (adhesive bandage), and any number of other companies. However, these online services are opt-in.By using the resources, you're agreeing to play by their rules.

To your final point I'd argue that it has less to do with legal ramifications, and more along with what @Fencers was saying; companies have to worry about outward appearances, and by having overly-strict ToS they're covering their asses (from a social standpoint)

[Waynhim]

So agree with Johan Cleese on this one. Personally I find SJW scary, mostly due to the fact that they're ignorant on many issues they get "triggered" by.

[Deleted]

Do you know what the difference between typing that first tweet and saying it out loud in a crowded room is? I won't get punched in the face

Fixed that for ye

[Very Tired]

The people with hateful/racist/sexist comments don't ever have anything worthy while to say, why let them say it at all?

[Finith]

Fixed that for ye

I was speaking in regards for the potential harm caused to others, not to you. If anything that's only proof positive that the internet does in fact need a much stricter code of conduct, since it is considerably harder to feel the immediate threat of physical violence in the webosphere. Words matter, divorced from context or immersed in it, they matter, people should be forced to reckon with the potentialities of their speech before it leaves the confines of their minds.

[The One Percent]

So what social media do you use?

Private usage? None, unless you count private email and messaging.

I will clarify that I do have pages maintained on various social media outlets for my business. Although corporate Facebook/Twitter profiles are just facades for advertisement.

[Deleted]

I was speaking in regards for the potential harm caused to others, not to you.

Oh, in that case both are harmless.

[Breccia]

Social media is almost entirely owned by private companies, and their customers are expected to abide by their rules of service. Don't like them? Find an account elsewhere.

Freedom of speech includes accepting consequences, including being kicked off of private servers, who (as non-government agents) are not required to let just anyone say anything they want.

[Tackhisis]

In the capitalist society everything is privately owned. Obviously for free speech to be protected, those who provide mass communication services like social networks should be bound by license to not modify or hide user messages in any way.
On the other hand, the only sane way for Internet to go is censoring anything inappropriate and potentially harmful, but that sadly is impossible until the safe segment of it will be created with mandatory authentication and real names used.

[Katchii]

As others have said, private sites make their own rules, so it doesn't matter if anyone thinks it is or is not offensive except the site owners/ administrators.

There is a reason most forums have certain forbidden topics; because any and all discussions regarding them end up in nothing but flame wars with little or no actual discussion and are therefore pointless. If your random anonymous internet fucktard could actually have a semi-coherent intellectual discussion we wouldn't have forbidden topics on almost every forum site. Sadly, the world is full of idiots, assholes, trolls, SJW and bigots who don't even WANT to have a discussion and are permitted to peruse and post on almost any site. Until we can weed those fuckers out...yeah we kind of have to deal with the forbidden topics and bannable offenses that come from them.

[Finith]

Oh, in that case both are harmless.

Ya I'm not going to endlessly debate with you about whether words matter. If you don't think they do in whatever fantasy world your mind has constructed, all the power to you.

- - - Updated - - -

As others have said, private sites make their own rules, so it doesn't matter if anyone thinks it is or is not offensive except the site owners/ administrators.

There is a reason most forums have certain forbidden topics; because any and all discussions regarding them end up in nothing but flame wars with little or no actual discussion and are therefore pointless. If your random anonymous internet fucktard could actually have a semi-coherent intellectual discussion we wouldn't have forbidden topics on almost every forum site. Sadly, the world is full of idiots, assholes, trolls, SJW and bigots who don't even WANT to have a discussion and are permitted to peruse and post on almost any site. Until we can weed those fuckers out...yeah we kind of have to deal with the forbidden topics and bannable offenses that come from them.

People talk past each other, not to each other. Anonymity has made public discourse a truly enlightening experience. I mean people can't even agree on what constitutes a fact, I doubt this problem is going to disappear anytime soon

[Katchii]

Ya I'm not going to endlessly debate with you about whether words matter. If you don't think they do in whatever fantasy world your mind has constructed, all the power to you.

- - - Updated - - -



People talk past each other, not to each other. Anonymity has made public discourse a truly enlightening experience. I mean these types of people can't even agree on what constitutes a fact, I doubt this problem is going to disappear anytime soon

Fixed that for you, sort of.

You bring up a good point, it also solidifies the one I was making. The kinds of people that make discussion impossible online are incapable of having a discussion because they're either too stupid or too entrenched in their own view that they're incapable of accepting and/ or recognizing facts (usually more so when the information presented disagrees with their position on the subject) and making coherent arguments. It always boils down to two children just screaming "nuh uh!" and "yuh huh!" back and forth with a few bad words and name calling added in to make them feel better/ smarter than the other person. It's sad really.

[Tackhisis]

private sites make their own rules

To have a site in the Internet is a privilege, not a right, and every site owner can be held liable for what is going on on his site, and he cannot make any rules that are against the law, like a store owner cannot make his own. If the law does not protect basic rights just because it happens in the Internet, the law should be amended, not the entire situation tolerated.

[Deleted]