Should AT&T and Verizon do more to combat hate speech?

[kail]

No and I hope the FCC keeps it that way.

[PC2]

They judge. It's their platform.

This about how they should make judgements. For example if atheists says "god doesn't exist" and religious people say this is hateful towards them, they shouldn't ban them just because they have a differing opinion.

[Lochton]

They judge. It's their platform.

Well, apparently they don't if you read the title. It points that they should assist in controlling it. What if the same companies says no phone calls outbound from prisons? Since you have a saying in the US system that everyone has a right for a phone call but suddenly one of these big companies goes, 'Naw, they are criminals anyways'.

- - - Updated - - -

This about how they should make judgements. For example if atheists says "god doesn't exist" and religious people say this is hateful towards them, they shouldn't ban them just because they have a differing opinion.

But tehcnically, that could be seen as hate speech too.

[Polyxo]

This about how they should make judgements. For example if atheists says "god doesn't exist" and religious people say this is hateful towards them, they shouldn't ban them just because they have a differing opinion.

They should ban whoever they don't want on their platform.

- - - Updated - - -

Well, apparently they don't if you read the title. It points that they should assist in controlling it. What if the same companies says no phone calls outbound from prisons? Since you have a saying in the US system that everyone has a right for a phone call but suddenly one of these big companies goes, 'Naw, they are criminals anyways'.

- - - Updated - - -



But tehcnically, that could be seen as hate speech too.

A right to a phone call doesn't exist. It's a myth invented by tv/film that makes a nice plot element.

[PC2]

They should ban whoever they don't want on their platform.

Nah they shouldn't ban whoever they want. For example should they ban gay people? I say no, it's not right to ban people because they have a different perspective.

[Tumble]

Rofl at all the fools who want to censor "hate speech" aka any right wing views. You are going to have a really nasty wake up call when this revolution you want does happen, and you find out the majority of the military, police, defense industry and gun owners are on the right. The left would be crushed. Once you are on the run or in a prison camp maybe you will have time to reflect on how insane you were.

Pretty much this. I've said it a few times. It's crazy for them to think that the military or any other force would be on their side, especially considering the majority of the US military is white males. If an actual civil war broke out the left would only exist in history books. I hope it never comes go that because there will be a lot of casualties.

[Polyxo]

Nah they shouldn't ban whoever they want. For example should they ban gay people? I say no, it's not right to ban people because they have a different perspective.

Sexual orientation is a protected class in several states, but not all.

[Malikath]

Pretty much this. I've said it a few times. It's crazy for them to think that the military or any other force would be on their side, especially considering the majority of the US military is white males. If an actual civil war broke out the left would only exist in history books. I hope it never comes go that because there will be a lot of casualties.

lets be honest, they're all little dogs all bark and no bite.
there won't be many casualties from fighting, there will likely be more deaths from military executions or starvation then deaths from warfare.

also, frankly i think the internet should be made a funded public utility managed by NASA as a means of coordinating distributed processing efforts.
companies shouldn't have the right to silence anyone, and soon they won't have any rights.

[Lochton]

A right to a phone call doesn't exist. It's a myth invented by tv/film that makes a nice plot element.

Okay, so you hold no rights for legal aid. Didn't know.

But this approach could enforce unwanted behavior in general, that is what I'm pointing at. Technically, the company could claim not to want to offer service to all left/right wing voters until they can prove they didn't vote for it.

[PC2]

Sexual orientation is a protected class in several states, but not all.

Okay so i'll give you an example of a non-protected class. Let's say AT&T is pro-life and they want to ban people if they say they are pro-choice, would it be correct to ban them for holding the different position?

[Polyxo]

Okay so i'll give you an example of a non-protected class. Let's say AT&T is pro-life and they want to ban people if they say they are pro-choice, would it be correct to ban them for holding the different position?

Yes, it would.

[PC2]

managed by NASA as a means of coordinating distributed processing efforts.

What do you mean?

- - - Updated - - -

Yes, it would.

Nah that's not okay to discriminate just because someone thinks that a woman or a baby has a higher priority at some point in time.

[Tumble]

lets be honest, they're all little dogs all bark and no bite.
there won't be many casualties from fighting, there will likely be more deaths from military executions or starvation then deaths from warfare.

also, frankly i think the internet should be made a funded public utility managed by NASA as a means of coordinating distributed processing efforts.
companies shouldn't have the right to silence anyone, and soon they won't have any rights.

I think if it comes to a civil war, there will be a lot up front, not a lot compared to the population, but still 10's of thousands. There would also be the few that are within the military that would be overthrown/executed. I agree about the internet. It's much like the road system or water, it is now required to do basically anything unless you want to live in a cabin off the grid. Private company's shouldn't control that sort of power and be able to ban whoever doesn't agree with their beliefs. It needs to be acquired under eminent domain and monitored properly.

[Polyxo]

Okay, so you hold no rights for legal aid. Didn't know.

But this approach could enforce unwanted behavior in general, that is what I'm pointing at. Technically, the company could claim not to want to offer service to all left/right wing voters until they can prove they didn't vote for it.

You only have a right to legal aid at or during judicial proceedings. Police are only required to involve lawyers during a custodial interrogation.

[Dreknar20]

So uh, I know it was a random thought that popped into your head, but could you elaborate on this? How would ISPs know who are "hateful bigots" and/or "white nationalists" (which I still say isn't a terrible thing at its core definition level, it's *acting* on things that I view as over-the-line) to, from what I gather(?) cut-off their access?

well its obvious, you have a national list of "undesirables"

And the next logical step is to cut off their electricity and evict them from their homes

[nymphetsss]

Yeah we should totally ban people who use certain speech over text/email etc from those devices/platforms, and then years down the road when the acceptable term today no longer becomes acceptable we go back through their history and get them on that too!

Maybe eventually we can develop some sort of precognition tech to police peoples thoughts to get them before they even type or think it!

Or suck it the fuck up and stop being bitches

[Drusin]

If you decide "no censorship then why are you not upset that they are not allowed on this site, or YouTube?

Beheadings likely because of advertisers.
Child porn because it's illegal

You are making my case for me, "censorship" is a bad word, even though it's done constantly with nobody giving a damn.

I most certainly give a damn but I can't bitch about everything I give a damn about all the time lol, you'll see my opinion in votes though

If you don't want censorship, then start your own website that doesn't censor at all.

Nah, not about that small business life

If you think that all sites don't have to show everything, then you are defending their freedom to sensor those things, and not have them on their sites.

OK then have sites show everything ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ I personally don't have any problem with ANY content at all I'll just ignore it and MMO-C is pretty well segregated into subforums so I doubt I'd see it anyways.

[shadowmouse]

What is really needed is social accountability. All digital activity needs to be traceable back to your SSN, since that amounts to our national ID number with a cross reference to your state ID or driver's license. Let people use handles for various websites but the services all need to have those links on file for law enforcement and social systems. After that, of course, your social standing should be awarded or deducted points to indicate how reliable you are.

[macphistofly]

I'd be happy if they did something more useful like start blocking the scam robocalls

[PC2]

What is really needed is social accountability. All digital activity needs to be traceable back to your SSN, since that amounts to our national ID number with a cross reference to your state ID or driver's license. Let people use handles for various websites but the services all need to have those links on file for law enforcement and social systems.

Digital activity already is trace-able by authorities as a matter of default.

But for people who want to be anonymous there is no way to track people using public wifi, proxy servers, VPNs, etc. Not unless you're like a high profile terrorist that the CIA is tracking.

After that, of course, your social standing should be awarded or deducted points to indicate how reliable you are.

Oh I just saw that you're Chinese, makes sense.