"Radio Télévision Libre des Mille Collines (RTLM) was a Rwandan radio station which broadcast from July 8, 1993 to July 31, 1994. It played a significant role in inciting the April–July 1994 Genocide against the Tutsi."
...
"it is widely regarded by many Rwandan citizens (a view also shared and expressed by the UN war crimes tribunal) as having played a crucial role in creating the atmosphere of charged racial hostility that allowed the genocide to occur."
Real, verifiable proof that any publisher of information or platform that hosts information has a responsibility to ensure that they are not making society worse. This radio station fanned the flames of hatred and is responsible in part for the murder of hundreds of thousands of people.
Regrettably it isn’t that clear cut. While hate is illegal—and rightfully so—racists, bigots and war mongers can and do find ways to spread their hate with legal means. This includes shorthands, dog whistles, framing and tones, etc.[1] I don’t think we will ever be able to conceive a legal framework that can catch all these as hate speech. So we need moderation along side criminalization of hate speech.
> I don’t think we will ever be able to conceive a legal framework that can catch all these as hate speech.
Then why would Facebook be able to conceive a moderation framework that can catch all these? The underlying problem to be solved is the same, it has just been removed from democratic scrutiny.
The radio station mentioned was the inciting element in a genocide. Surely it does not take a large amount of analysis to understand that the underlying mechanism, dissemminating lies or propoganda on a widely used, easily accessed medium, applies directly to OP...
The link is just an example of how some speech is bad.
The point of the original comment was that badness should be determined by laws, and not by the moderation policies of private companies. I don’t see how the linked article forms an argument for or against that position.
The link provides a clear example of where this policy fails: false statements about the Tutsi & other ethnic groups lead to a genocide. None of this was illegal within the definition of free speech in Rwanda - as far as I am aware - thus providing an example where only moderating content on its basis of legality fails.
As a cherry on top, the link also mentions that the radio station was actually endorsed by the government and provided equipment to them. Should the law be the best basis for moderation when the morality of those writing the laws cannot be spoken for?
