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

[IIamaKing]

What good will that do? Let them out themselves as hatemongers. Its not like you are stomping out an ideal, just forcing it into the shadows, which never makes sense.

Grow a thicker skin, OR better yet, get off the Cancer Media.

[Gmollster11]

Cant ban comments because half the folks aren't offended.

People need to get tougher skin, quit thinking the world is out to get them, quit being so concerned about everyone else.

[Phookah]

Who determines what is offensive

Society, as a whole generally. Then you get the less-intelligent people who don't realize this and think everyone is on a vendetta against their personal interpretations of how they think things should be.

[unfilteredJW]

Short answer: No.

Long Answer: They can do what they want. Just don't be inconsistent with your rules platform and not expect to be called out on it.

Nailed it.

[zenkai]

A friend of mine wrote the following. I thought I'd share it as I found it quite thoughtful and insightful.

No, according to the internet, everything is hateful, racist and sexist, might as well pull the plug.

[Bapestar]

No, I enjoy seeing just how ignorant people can be.

[oplawlz]

Society, as a whole generally. Then you get the less-intelligent people who don't realize this and think everyone is on a vendetta against their personal interpretations of how they think things should be.

Tumblr is not an accurate reflection of "society as a whole", yet their strange interpretations of what is offensive seem to be enforced.

[Enthusiastic Steward]

Toughen up, buttercups. Your feels are irrelevant.

Unless you're running a social media company that gains the revenue it requires to continue functioning from active users. Then those users feels are, in fact, relevant.

[BannedForViews]

Actually, I think that a private service is allowed to do whatever they want as long as they make you aware of the rules. WoW, Twitter, Facebook, they can do wahtever they please because it's their service that they provide and you use it by choice. They can make of it as they please.

Oh I'm not saying that isn't the way it actually happens, nor am I saying that I necessarily disagree. I am undecided probably. All I meant was there might be a case for civil rights violations based on what is protected and how.

But even in your response is a kernel of my point. By choice. Yes they choose to provide it, but are they legally allowed to choose whose protected rights to discriminate against by silencing them? I'm not so sure. For example, do you think twitter could get away with banning all blacks from their service? But they could get away with banning all republicans, even though speech is a protected right just like race?

[Vargulf the Happy Husky]

No, they shouldn't. People should learn to chalk the people that say those things up as morons, and move on. Thicken your skin, people...whatever color it may be.

[thilicen]

No. Even though racism, sexism and hatespeech is complete bullshit, people need to grow a fucking pair and realize that this is the reality we live in. Hiding behind censorships won't do fuck all.

[Deleted]

Oh I'm not saying that isn't the way it actually happens, nor am I saying that I necessarily disagree. I am undecided probably. All I meant was there might be a case for civil rights violations based on what is protected and how.

But even in your response is a kernel of my point. By choice. Yes they choose to provide it, but are they legally allowed to choose whose protected rights to discriminate against by silencing them? I'm not so sure. For example, do you think twitter could get away with banning all blacks from their service? But they could get away with banning all republicans, even though speech is a protected right just like race?

In this matter, I think it's a legal difference between a website and an actual, physical place. It's one thing to deny someone a fundamental service, and another to just deny them Facebook.

[ezgeze]

The only thing banning "hate/racist/sexist" comments will ensure is that the consistently offended millennial snowflakes will quickly take it over and rule that any opinion that is said outside of their narrow point of view gets shut down.

WORST IDEA EVER

[BannedForViews]

In this matter, I think it's a legal difference between a website and an actual, physical place. It's one thing to deny someone a fundamental service, and another to just deny them Facebook.

I think that might be the actual argument. I also think that argument is completely wrong. The semantic leaps required seriously stretch the limits of logic. Once again, I'm not saying this should be a thing, just that it is worth thinking about. People are too quick on here, and other places, to say "it's their service they can do what they want." This is only true to a limit, for civil rights are still protected here, and limiting a service because it has no physical location for the user doesn't mean you aren't still limiting the service.

[Sinyc]

A friend of mine wrote the following. I thought I'd share it as I found it quite thoughtful and insightful.

Please format that. Noone is going to read it or take it seriously in its present form.

To answer your question without losing to the Wall of Text boss.. Privately-owned websites can do whatever they want. It's their service and they establish the rules. Don't like it? Make your own site or find something else. Sorry.

[Vynny]

I don't think that hateful/racist/sexist comments should be banned, but I do think that social media platforms should provide a way for people to block comments or people at their own discretion. I mean, it's a lot like how if something on TV offends someone to the point where they won't tolerate seeing it, you tell them not to watch it, so if someone on social media is offending you to that same point then you should have the ability to "turn it of" so to speak. Now, most social media platforms have something like this with twitters newer mute function which is a drastic improvement upon their block function. I mean, who thought it was a good idea to tell trolls that they're blocked which just encourages them to make an egg account and keep harassing that person.

More importantly though, I think that as more and more discourse is held on online social media platforms, the need for enforcement of freedom of speech on them becomes more important. 8 years ago, it wouldn't have mattered if facebook was banning or blocking conservative views because major political discourse was not occurring on social media at that time, but as it's become more integrated into how we communicate with each other, the importance of keeping it an even playing field has grown as well, so I don't agree with the idea that major social media companies should be allowed to set any and all rules they want. I mean, think about it this way, imagine if phone companies denied service to call centers for either the Republican or Democratic party or registered members of either of those parties in America, that would hinder the effected party from reaching out to voters and donors which would create an uneven playing field thus it cannot be tolerated for phone companies to discriminate on that basis. The same applies to social media, we cannot tolerate companies with a large market share of the communication industry to discriminate against certain political ideologies because that necessarily results in a fall off of cultural relevance and an inability to get their message out there in order to affect change. How does this relate to hateful/racist/sexist comments you might ask? Well if you've been living under a rock for a bit then you missed that nowadays a conservative or non-progressive worldview is widely considered by default to be hateful/racist/sexist regardless of if it is or isn't. The point is that unless all speech is allowed then whatever type of speech someone with control over these platforms doesn't like can be branded with the label of some form of prohibited speech regardless of if it fits that description or not thus we have no choice but to enforce free speech on these platforms and rely on tools to block things users personally find offensive on their end rather than blocking certain messages from their origin.

[The One Percent]

Not to mention you are on here right now and this social media platform censors all kinds of shit...

I figured I didn't need to state the obvious that I use this. Adding that I'm primarily here for news about WoW and happen to watch the insanity of these forums as a bonus while maintaining my anonymity, I don't consider it on the same levels as a Facebook/Twitter/Instagram/the next big thing.

[PACOX]

The owners/creators of a site should be allowed to create whatever kind of environment that they please. They offer they site as a service, not a right or obligation. Unless you're okay with these sites taking tax money as their source of income then you should respect their right to censor and not censor as much as they please.

I find it interesting that people are adamant about protecting bigotry when the principles behind free speech have more to do with being able to speak against the government rather than demean others.

[Deleted]

A friend of mine wrote the following. I thought I'd share it as I found it quite thoughtful and insightful.

Perhaps you could teach your friend to write in fucking paragraphs.

[spinner981]

Since the post is asking me what I think, I'm not going to just give the silly "They can do whatever they want." answer since that answers nothing.

No, they shouldn't ban posts for simply being deemed offensive or hateful or racist or homophobic or whatever. Personally the only thing I think common social media sites like facebook and twitter should ban is various graphic images, such as images containing a lot of violence or nudity (mostly just because they didn't start out with such. If you want to have a social media site with that stuff, start it out as such. Allowing such posts suddenly while millions of children use FB wouldn't be right imo). Speech on these sites shouldn't be banned just because somebody doesn't like it or is offended by it. Yes, it is their site, but me saying that free speech on FB shouldn't be banned isn't really different from me thinking that free speech shouldn't be banned in China and North Korea, and I see no reason why such a view should be considered wrong simply on the grounds that it is 'their site their rules'. Ya, it is their site, just like how N. Korea is N. Korea's country, but that doesn't mean I'm not allowed to think they have immoral laws when limiting free speech in the way that they do.

I am pro-free speech, so of course I don't think FB should censor posts based on arbitrary qualifications.