@awethon

whether it is part of free speech or not the truth is, it will kill any such network. Either due to services boycotting it, or due to the atmosphere being so toxic no one wants to be on it.

ensuring your network has a vast majority of people that do not engage in hate speech but rather constructive or enjoyable discussions is necessary for any network to thrive.

@xkore

@freemo @xkore

If a person writes hateful posts on a personal page without mentioning anyone is it considered to be bad too? Can't find any argumentation against it.

But it seems like hate tolerant federations with local posting by default is a better solution anyway.

@awethon

If the majority of your network is engaging in hatespeech than the scenario you describe of someone privately posting hate speech to their own page is not at all what you have.

If the majority of people behave that way then you will find the majority of new followers you get will behave that way, the majority of the comments left on your post will be hateful, and the majority of comments you see on posts of your friend's will also be hateful.

It will not be isolated, everyone will be exposed to it when it is the majority, and no one will (other than those who enjoy such hate) will enjoy themselves. Therein lies the problem.

@xkore

@freemo the hate speech doesn't even have to come from a toxic community or real people. this can be an attack any moderated network has over an unmoderated one.

@awethon

@xkore

regardless the point is when a majority of a network engages in hate speech it virtually garuntees the death of that network,.

@awethon

@freemo @awethon @xkore The risk of blocking “hate speech” is that you’ll fall into delusional extremist groupthink, and then you are the ones spouting hate speech. We should discourage hatred if we can, but… it exists. It’s supposed to exist. And that’s reality. What we need is to make it less effective, less convincing, and help people learn to protect themselves from being drawn in by its propaganda. That doesn’t mean blocking the propaganda, it means defusing it, debunking it, and showing that there’s a better way.

I know I won’t have any part in a network where hatred is never allowed, and I don’t think I’m the only one. Even disagreement gets painted as hatred then, and once you block people for disagreeing or criticizing, the first person who suggests something truly toxic, you’ll have to defend them and attack anyone criticizing their words. Trolls love a network where people aren’t allowed to fight them.

@amerika the general populations revulsion to 'hate speech' is power that someone can take and use against you. i dont agree with it, but that's reality

@xkore

My take on it, having fought this out in a number of forums, is:

1. Avoid viewpoint discrimination
2. Appoint quality censorship

That is, someone can express any opinion, but in the right form.

That means that you can post critique of $ethnic_group $religious_group $sex $sexual_preference etc but it has to fit the right form for reasoned, useful, relevant, insightful, informative, and topical discourse.

@amerika how would you ensure rigorous speech that is open to all? wouldn't you be more restrictive than twitter who allows trivial, irrelevent and uninformative speech as long as it's not 'hateful'?

'hate speech' is replaced by 'lazy speech'

i would agree that this would be useful for a debating platform, but a social network im not so sure.

@xkore

Relevant:

https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1028/viewpoint-discrimination

@amerika @xkore Hate crimes shouldn't exist. Guy got murdered but he was really hated by the guy that accidentally hit him with a car so he gets additional sentencing. He even called him a nigger!

This other guy cut him up into pieces and dumped him in the river while singing a lullaby so it was not a hate crime.

Ridiculous.