Big Tech, Censorship, and Hate speech in the US - Oh My! by speechduder in censorship

[–]speechduder[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

"Freedom to hate"... that's interesting concept for sure. I can honestly only imagine how that would be problematic to a respectful conversation with the "hated party", or used in any other way but to incite bad behavior, but I'd like to hear how it could be beneficial. As for freedom to feel as you wish, I completely agree with you.

Big Tech, Censorship, and Hate speech in the US - Oh My! by speechduder in censorship

[–]speechduder[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Uh huh. Denying the opposition an ability to rent a server or to work with money surely had nothing to do with that. Who's the opposition and who's controlling the ability to rent a server? Are you referring to the IPV4/DNS situation? Shared IP host providers with allegiances?

When the government refuses to do its job and doesn't discourage/punish all physical violence. Are you referring to the riots and lack of police response? If so I completely agree. Violence is not speech. Although it's hard to tell what's actually happening out there with the level of censorship unless you've been watching live streams. Essentially why I advocate for the 1st to be able to applied to online mediums.

What, you've never watched any documentary how the moderators on large platforms literally descend into madness? They do spend efforts, but it's never enough. I honestly didn't know any documentaries like that were out there, but now I'm really interested in checking them out. If you could link some that would be cool. If not, I'll be searching.

Private armies are already illegal. What other advantages do you want the state to have? The only advantages I want the state to have are those based in protecting the rights of the people. In other words, the enforcement of the Constitution against what I see as something thats grown just as, if not more powerful than the state itself regarding threatening what I see as the purpose of the 1st Amendment.

When hate is the only topic of a post/comment, its hate speech. Otherwise, it isn't. Unfortunately, I don't think it's that simple. Unlike defining threats of violence, the problem lies in what people, with all their varying perceptions and experiences see as what defines "hate". Some think it's anything that offends others, some think it's racial slurs or derogatory statements etc.

Free, yet controlled? Ha ha. Yeah good call. Probably not the best choice of words. However, my point is that people should have the control of what they see or don't see rather than an information "proctor"