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

[Fencers]

So do you mean that there's no in-between position to be had on the law then?

On this argument, no.

[Kraenen]

That's not an in-between rule. That's your personal feeling; which is definitely and not ambiguous.

A given corporation likewise has no obligation to value your beliefs equally or at all. Just as another person does not- by law and right.

Meh. If they purport to believe in American values like free speech they have an ethical obligation. If their shareholders believe in free speech now they have a financial obligation. If they don't, maybe Americans won't like this corporation because it doesn't support the philosophical values Americans believe in.

[Fencers]

Meh. If they purport to believe in American values like free speech they have an ethical obligation. If their shareholders believe in free speech now they have a financial obligation. If they don't, maybe Americans won't like this corporation because it doesn't support the philosophical values Americans believe in.

Only legal obligation matters in a concrete sense. People who disagree should use or create another platform- which is an "American value" as well.

[enragedgorilla]

Privately owned/held websites? Their rules, agree with them or don't post...or be ready to have your post deleted.

Now, if that private company claims they believe in the freedom of speech,will not infringe on it etc etc? Anything goes and should be left alone.
There is not a social media group that claims this though to my knowledge, they all pretty clearly state that ,"what we say,goes"

It is fairly simple to me.

[Kraenen]

Only legal obligation matters in a concrete sense. People who disagree should use or create another platform- which is an "American value" as well.

So you don't think common conventions or philosophical values really matter outside the law? Seems kind of like an empty and robotic life you live.

[PaladinBash]

Short answer: no.

Long answer: fuck no. It's the way that groups of failboats try to shut out all opposition like the leftists and progressives are doing now. Yes yes I'm sure the conservative nutters of my childhood would have done the same if they had power now but they don't. Hell even liberals and lefties that aren't retarded are feeling the pinch as the progressives start rounding them up for not being crazy enough. Social media has power and influence far greater than a lot of people give it credit and stifling discussion and criticism, which is what this so-called 'no racism or sexism or whateverism' bullshit is, will just let cultural marxists and cucks spread their gibberish even more than ever.

[unbound]

People keep mixing up the 2 entirely different concepts.

Freedom of speech is protected (in the US at least) and only means that the government can't punish you for speaking your mind (unless you lie under certain circumstances, incite riots, etc).

Social media platforms are owned by businesses. Those businesses are free to set whatever rules they like as long as they don't violate certain laws (e.g. discrimination). People are free to say what they want, but the businesses are not required to give you a platform from which to make your speeches.

Unless they are formed for charity purposes, businesses, regardless of market, operate based on one principle...making money. For most social media platforms, that means they want to maximize users. Hateful, racist and sexist comments that start getting out of hand tends to shrink the user base and, therefore, the money they make.

I'm not sure why some people don't seem to understand this very fundamental concept. It works the same way in non-virtual environments. Sure, you might have a few friends that enjoy when you say hateful, racist, and/or sexist things all the time, but the majority will keep away from you and your hateful friends. The only difference when you do it on certain media platforms is that, eventually, they will ban you because they care about the majority who is paying for their income...whereas, you can live your whole life talking smack with your friends and never understand what is happening outside of your bubble.

[Aggrophobic]

Unless this social media is run by the goverment the owners decide whats ok and whats not.

[Deleted]

Ofc, bullys should not be allowed to talk mean things.

[Themius]

I honestly don't think people have any idea what free speech actually means.

[Canpinter]

No, while companies have no legal requirement to not censor as the controllers of the modern means of communication they have a moral obligation to facilitate free and open discourse.

[Zogarth]

I believe you should be able to say anything as long as it does not directly incite violence or directly attacks a specific person or is a serious threat to a specific person. If someone wants to go and write "I hate niggers" and "all jews should die" all power to them. They are assholes and I don't wanna associate with them, but they should still have the right to express their opinion, no matter how stupid it may be.

[Canpinter]

Unless this social media is run by the goverment the owners decide whats ok and whats not.

legally yes they have that right, we are talking about what they should do morally not what they should be forced to do legally.

[Dominus89]

People that yell "FREEDOM OF SPEECH!!11" are usualy the ones that dont even know what freedom of speech means.

[Canpinter]

People that yell "FREEDOM OF SPEECH!!11" are usualy the ones that dont even know what freedom of speech means.

and people like you are the ones that don't value it as a concept outside of its legal wording.

[Fencers]

So you don't think common conventions or philosophical values really matter outside the law?

Yes.

I believe it is fine to have personal notions of value attribution and ethics, but that morality and "rightness" are nonsense.

[Aggrophobic]

legally yes they have that right, we are talking about what they should do morally not what they should be forced to do legally.

I'm getting confused here.
Are people triggered by rules that are there to so that people won't get triggered?
You guys are like the SJWs of the anit-SJWs. It's super wierd!

They should do whatever they feel like. It's their platform, not yours or anyone elses.

My house is blue. I'm not going to paint it in some other color just becuase you don't like the color blue.

[Raelbo]

Honestly, if you cannot find a way to communicate effectively without the need to resort to hate or bigotry, then you don't deserve the privelege of being allowed to speak on a public platform.

[Zogarth]

I'm getting confused here.
Are people triggered by rules that are there to so that people won't get triggered?
You guys are like the SJWs of the anit-SJWs. It's super wierd!

They should do whatever they feel like. It's their platform, not yours or anyone elses.

My house is blue. I'm not going to paint it in some other color just becuase you don't like the color blue.

We are again, talking about if they SHOULD or SHOULD NOT do it. Saying "up to them" is adding absolutely nothing to the discussion. Also, your house is your private property and not space open to the public, and public spaces have other rules than private homes.

Honestly, if you cannot find a way to communicate effectively without the need to resort to hate or bigotry, then you don't deserve the privelege of being allowed to speak on a public platform.

Who is to say what is hate and bigotry then? If I say that "X demographic is proportionally responsible for more crime than Y demographic" is it hate-speech? What if I say "X does more crime than Y" is it then?

[Kraenen]

Yes.

I believe it is fine to have personal notions of value attribution and ethics, but that morality and "rightness" are nonsense.

maybe think about it first before believing that...


all we're talking about is upholding values in a company. if said company wishes to be against free speech internally then so be it.