Putting aside obvious questions such as "what is hate?", "who defines hate?", "what if something is falsely labelled as hate?", and "is preventing free speech ever ethical?", this study looks like a textbook example of the McNamara Fallacy in action.
It's easy to ban a bunch of people and come up with an estimate of a large amount of hate reduced. "These hate-mongers posted X times per day to an audience of Y people, therefore we stopped Z hatred-incidents per month. Big progress in stopping hate.". That's the stupid man's interpretation of the available data.
It's a lot harder to measure things like the feeling that people who already feel disenfranchised about life feel when they can't even vent about stuff on the Internet and what that leads to. The people with the ban-hammers are doing nothing but creating further and further resentment and confirming whatever biases and conspiracy theories that many people already feel.
>It's easy to ban a bunch of people and come up with an estimate of a large amount of hate reduced. "These hate-mongers posted X times per day to an audience of Y people, therefore we stopped Z hatred-incidents per month. Big progress in stopping hate.". That's the stupid man's interpretation of the available data.
Starting with H1, it's quite clear these are not their definitions, but they're your misinterpretations of their definitions. Is there a reason you're misrepresenting the conclusions of the study, and doing so as uncharitably as possible? Is it possible it's "the stupid man's interpretation" because it's not at all their interpretation of their results?
> It's a lot harder to measure things like the feeling that people who already feel disenfranchised about life feel when they can't even vent about stuff on the Internet and what that leads to. The people with the ban-hammers are doing nothing but creating further and further resentment and confirming whatever biases and conspiracy theories that many people already feel.
It seems weird to note that it's hard to measure while simultaneously expressing complete confidence in the data-less conclusion you seem to want to be true.
If people on Twitter say incorrect facts about a group of people, or even start egging people towards violence, there's a lot of pushback against that there.
But if that random person is removed from Twitter and starts seeking out like-minded people, they're going to form some underground community with no pushback against the worst ideas.
1) IMHO, using a phrase like "Nazi propaganda" knowingly poisons the well in these discussions because basically anything just a bit out of the current political zeitgeist can be and has been labeled as Nazi propaganda in CURRENT_YEAR.
2) Since you seem to hate Nazis so much, why are you adopting the digital equivalent of their tactics? The Nazis famously burned lots of very Jewish books, right? Society used to say that this was one of the examples of why they weren't so great, and I grew up hating the idea of burning books because of this. I can't understand how using their playbook suddenly became doubleplusgood.
Feel free to interpret this as "people who have actual swastika flags in their rooms and think that the way to create the best society is to mass murder jewish people."
That's a real population of extremists. Having them hang out on HN does not make their numbers dwindle.
And no, I do not think that banning Nazis from forums is "the same playbook" used by the Nazi Party.
I can't take any claims about "the Nazis" seriously in CURRENT_YEAR because the label is thrown out so casually. I've seen some of the most commonplace and benign beliefs unironically labeled as Nazi to try and get a minor bit of political advantage.
I'm having a hard time understanding what your point is.
I'm always open to at least talking to anybody, whether or not they're ISIS members, Nazis, Communists, or (may Allah forgive me for even uttering this word) Canadian.
Talking is the road to peace. When words stop, there's only one thing that can possibly come next.
I hate to keep repeating this in this thread because I don't want to sound like a broken record, but it feels like you're engaging in a textbook example of the McNamara fallacy. It seems like the only thing you're able to measure is "number of bad guys", so that's the only metric for success/failure you have.
What if the more important metric for a good society was something else?
What if removing "the bad guys" from society makes them feel like they're not part of society and have nothing else left to lose so it actually pushes them to violence?
I'm not saying I have all of the answers here, but I do strongly think that your general approach here is ignoring the human side and focusing on the wrong metric for progress.
>The people with the ban-hammers are doing nothing but creating further and further resentment and confirming whatever biases and conspiracy theories that many people already feel.
You had just got done critiquing the article in a clear and cogent way, then you go off and assert something for which you have no evidence.
The existence of these online groups, they get people, they turn good people into bad people. We have friends and family we have seen it happen to. So perhaps they are not ONLY causing resentment among those already converted, but perhaps also preventing further conversion.
> You had just got done critiquing the article in a clear and cogent way, then you go off and assert something for which you have no evidence.
You don't necessarily need, nor does one necessarily exist, a scientific study or formal citation for something fairly subjective/opinionated that you can give a justifiable explanation for.
If somebody is blaming some group, say the French, for controlling everything from the media, taxis, the money supply, politics, pharmaceuticals, real-estate, Hollywood, the Fast Food Industry, and Silicon Valley and suddenly get removed from all of polite society, it doesn't take a peer-reviewed scientific study to suspect that they're likely going to be having even darker thoughts about the French and feeling that this confirms their theories that the Frenchies are out to get them.
> The existence of these online groups, they get people, they turn good people into bad people. We have friends and family we have seen it happen to. So perhaps they are not ONLY causing resentment among those already converted, but perhaps also preventing further conversion.
1) You just got done critiquing me for trying to assert something with no evidence, but then did quite a bit of that here. Should I demand a citation and scientific study for every opinion here?
2) You use the phrase "bad people", and maybe many of them are, but there's a wide range of views out there that are labelled hate that might not be so.
Your theory hinges on the idea that by remaining on the platform, they will not dive into these darker thoughts. Which is quite absurd, don't you think? This idea that one banning is going to be the catalyst, rather than they already feel a certain way and are regularly encouraged by the platform to feel that sort of way.
> people who already feel disenfranchised about life feel when they can't even vent about stuff on the Internet and what that leads to.
Wow there. I think the who point of hate is you're taking it out on people? Hatred leads to violence and interestingly, much like violence you shouldn't use it as way to vent your frustrations. Much like how drunken husbands shouldn't go home and take out their frustrations by beating their family.
> creating further and further resentment and confirming whatever biases and conspiracy theories that many people already feel
I say that's a good thing, let the hate fester and consume the hateful without infecting others. It's like a disease that spreads from host to host. If you choose to be hateful the enjoy your misery or be violent and enjoy the consequences.
Name me one issue that requires you to hate people in order to resolve it.
I think “anger” can be a helpful motivating emotional response to an offense. I imagine it is a precursor to hate, but I’m not really sure.
Anger has been beneficial. Workers had anger to get us the 40 hour work week. Women had anger to get them the right to vote. Black people had anger to get the right to vote.
I agree there is a problem with the hateful festering and spreading. I think the solution is societal safety nets: universal basic income, universal healthcare, free college or trade school.
Anger is fine. Hatred is desiring harm towards others. If your parents are angry at you for example, it doesn't mean they hate you.
Hate in this context also means hatred against others based on factors about themselves they cannot change and based on things they didn't cause, because they are a member of some group
I'm struggling to find specifics in the paper and its appendices about which hate organizations and individuals were deplatformed. I understand that there are privacy concerns, but it's hard to take this entirely seriously without knowing the underlying incidents. I'm sure the researchers are sincere, but, given the recent history of the social sciences, I find myself skeptical.
A specific flavor of censorship, where you identify and ban the most important members, leaving the community to slowly die. A well known technique, probably adapted from methods used in intelligence circles, that's much more successful than banning the community outright.
As an example, this idea that being awful when you use the favoured epithets instead of the disfavoured ones is somehow acceptable in public is the deeper problem.
That's insane, I had no idea that Reddit had gone that far. It's pretty crazy that just registering agreement with an idea is enough to be censored. It's like wrongthink from 1984.
Given the first few comments were disingenuous questions about what the definition of "hate" is, there was no doubt that this one would be flagged to oblivion. My kid knew the meaning of the word "hate" at 4 years old. HN users don't?
It's weird how any mention of "hate" or "hate speech" or "hate groups" in an article immediately causes Hacker News to segfault and the first comment is always asking for a definition of the word.
And yet, in every argument defending hate speech under the principle of absolute free speech, or denouncing "the left" or "the wokes" or whatever the bugbear of the moment is, they seem to know exactly what hate means and how to apply it.
Anyway, since no one is going to bother reading TFA and this thread is probably going to be thoroughly derailed and flagged, the effect seems to be that deplatforming works:
We study the effects of six network disruptions of designated and banned hate-based organizations on Facebook, in which known members of the organizations were removed from the platform, by examining the online engagements of the audience of the organization. We show that on average, the network disruptions reduced the consumption and production of hateful content, along with engagement within the network among audience members. The results suggest that strategies of targeted removals, such as leadership removal and network degradation efforts, can reduce the ability of hate organizations to successfully operate online.
"Censoring people reduces their ability to communicate" is a "water is wet" finding, though. Of course the discussion turns to "when is this actually ok" because we've seen it abused over and over and over again (and only questionably ever used legitimately).
And, furthermore, the finding is akin to a form of survivorship bias. 'We found they stopped talking to each other and promoting hate online.' Okay, and what did they do next? Did they just stop hating people? Did they figure out a way to start meeting in person without Facebook to mediate the conversation? Did some of them become increasingly isolated that they decided to act out? Did some people who weren't members of the hate group happen to see this form of censorship and start to change their own minds? I'm not saying any of these outcomes are what happened or are inevitable, I'm wondering how they can call this real science when they don't even bother looking at the other effects outside of their water-is-wet conclusion.
>Okay, and what did they do next? Did they just stop hating people? Did they figure out a way to start meeting in person without Facebook to mediate the conversation? Did some of them become increasingly isolated that they decided to act out? Did some people who weren't members of the hate group happen to see this form of censorship and start to change their own minds?
Given that the target audience they were studying were users of the platforms, and the effect was the consumption and spread of hate speech within that population and on those platforms, I don't think that including n+ order effects across every other facet of society would have been necessary, or even possible.
Hate groups are the problem, not how they express themselves online.
I find it odd that it's perfectly legal to be a group with illegal intent. That's the only loophole that needs to be closed.
If a group is deemed to have "intent to harm and endanger others" then anyone who affiliates themselves with them should be deemed likewise, and attended to.
So the issue is of pre-crime. A crime has to happen and speech isn't a crime (although censorship should be, we censor them instead).
But if members of a group have already committed crimes and crimes of hate, then that should be enough to legally impose restrictions on the group and its members, including those that haven't. Maybe not arrest them immediately, but monitoring etc should be perfectly legal (and maybe done already).
All any member has to do is unaffiliate themselves to free themselves from being high risk and attended to by law enforcers.
Organizations that call for violence. Harming people or the destruction of property. Specific organization would include KKK and ISIS. I would also include organizations that use terrorism to further theier ends of environmentalism and animal rights.
What is your goal with this line of argument. This looks a lot like devils advocacy. Like, what good comes from someone saying: "There's actually no such thing as hate-organizations." (Something you never said).
I think a lot of the negative reactions to this paper are because people don't trust corporations and academics to determine what is hateful and what is not. And why should they? It's not that anyone thinks there are no hate groups or that the tactics outlined in the paper don't work, but that such tactics are likely to be abused by people in power to silence ideological opponents.
Would you accept a definition that includes the KKK and ISIS? If the majority of an organizations public rhetoric is hate for other groups would you agree that makes them a hate organization?
What is the purpose of this line of argumentation? Would you take the position that there are no such things as hate-organizations or hate-speech?
The world is plainly better off with fewer organizations like the KKK and ISIS. Do you agree? That seems like as milquetoast as one can get.
Are there organizations that you feel are labeled as hate-groups but are not? What hairs are we trying to split?
Obviously not. Definition "any organization" includes KKK and ISIS, but not acceptable. Same for definition "any organization which includes men". Now, if you defined as "only KKK and ISIS"... still not clear. Which KKK? There were many of them. What if some organization is named KKK but isn't related to US racist one? What about racists that aren't holding a formal membership of KKK - are they fine (if they steer clear of ISIS too)? Giving two examples which seem obvious to you (even those aren't as simple as yoh think) is not the same as giving workable definition.
Obviously also there are plenty of organizations that are labeled as hate by some people and other people disagree with it. Look up this week's controversy about SPLC for some examples, but they are in no way unique. You think of it as splitting hairs because you can't imagine how people can disagree with what you imagine to be obvious. But it's not as obvious as you think.
If a person or organization calls for violence or the destruction of property, they are a terrorist organization. If the reasons they give for this are based on identity they are additionally a hate-group.
Seems pretty clear to me. A world with less moral clarity here is one with more (necessarily?) violence and destruction. Why do you think this line of argumentation is either morally permissable, or even virtuous? What argument convinced you?
> If a person or organization calls for violence or the destruction of property, they are a terrorist organization
US Army has left the chat. All the militaries in the world joined them. The police and the FBI are not far behind.
> Why do you think this line of argumentation is either morally permissable,
Which "this" line? Questioning your definitions? I don't think I need anybody's permission for that.
But wait. Let's say the KKK 3.5, freshly reorganized, does not call for violence and destruction of property of Jews and black people. Make no mistake, they still hate them and think they are sub-human and should be oppressed and ultimately eliminated, but they are now vowed to act through strictly non-violent means - education, propaganda, investment, protest, boycotts, electioneering, lawmaking if they could make it - but no freelance violence. And, also, they are called LLL now, just because. By your definitions, they are not a hate group anymore? If yes, then what criteria did you use and why didn't you initially include them?
Here's an example: The LGB Alliance in U.K. are routinely smeared as a 'hate' group for taking a dim view of male rapists in female prisons, males competing in female sports, and so on. Resisting that trend and arguing for sex-based rights is considered 'hate' by some.
It's a lazy, imprecise term that is only ever used in political spats, never to address actual intergroup violence. Personally I suspect the demand for hate groups to exist - thereby justifying the many orgs and careers built on countering it - far exceeds the genuine supply.
I kinda want to know the lines we are drawing here. Is a group advocating straight marriage a hate group? Is a group espousing all white people are racist a hate group?
Also, I don't this paper is talking about the KKK or ISIS since I don't think they have a had presence on a social platform for quite a while.
Obviously, an organization violating our policy against hate organizations, which policy we will never fully define or spell out, because it would allow hate organizations to adapt and evade our policy. Do not worry though, we know what it is and you can always ask us if you're in doubt. If we banned it, then it's a hate organization, and if we didn't, then it's not. Unless we made a mistake, in which case we apologize for any inconvenience.
Group X is a hate organization if it explicity or implicity advocates, promotes, supports, or works toward the destruction of another group Y, with one or more of the following being true:
- the reasons for the destruction are based on criteria that Y was born with and cannot change,
- the reasons for the destruction are based on unproven, unprovable, or false claims, by X, targeting Y, that Y will destroy X. X may claim Y will destroy X through Y's very existence, through specific or vague planned action, or through attempts to rally, proselytize, or persuade. Claims may be but not limited to being scientific, economic or religious in nature.
- group X believes it is receiving a mandate to commit the same to Y, due to an unproven, unprovable, or false claim that it has received a mandate, or one or more risen ringleaders in X have issued such a mandate based on a similar unproven, unprovable, or false claim.
and often:
- Ringleaders of X may be leveraging/exploiting/extorting one, some, or all of the following aspects of group members: emotions, faith, economic status, state of happiness, or threshold of accepting something as true without personally witnessing. The purpose of the manipulation is to align members of X towards action. Propaganda-like techniques may be employed.
Group that hates immigrants because they take our jobs fails your criteria. So does anti-muslim group that does not allege Muslims are about to destroy them via planned action. The police enforcing, say, marijuana prohibition, seeking to destroy marijuana use culture, fits several.
One really good way to derail a discussion you're ideologically opposed to us to get in early and deflect it into a discussion about definitions. Someone's bound to fall for it.
(Posted in the expectation that someone will be along soon with a bucket and mop).
> Hate-based, terrorist, and criminal organizations attempt to use online platforms to spread their ideology, recruit new members, and coordinate existing members
That can't possibly be a definition since many, if not all types of organizations "use online platforms to spread their ideology, recruit new members, and coordinate existing members". For example political parties. So that doesn't really answer the question "What is a hate organization?".
Please don't comment on whether someone read an article. "Did you even read the article? It mentions that" can be shortened to "The article mentions that".
Jehovah's Witnesses do, are they a hate group? Environmentalists? Libertarians? Socialist organizations?
There are environmentalists who seriously hate people who drive cars. Like call them murderers and want them to suffer.
But also, what is a group? Are feminists a group? If there exist self-described feminists who expressly advocate the killing of men, do we then take some action against anyone else who calls themselves a feminist or argues in favor of other feminist positions?
The issue is that "hate group" is a motte and bailey. If you ask people what it is, they say it's the KKK. But the KKK has like four living members who were all born before the discovery of penicillin.
And then no one can give you any definition they're actually willing to see consistently applied. You can come up with things like "the group advocates violence" but you can find a member of any sufficiently large group who does that, so a consistent application would have you classifying environmentalists and feminists and so on as hate groups.
What people really want is to ban any group where they can find any member advocating violence and that group has a disfavored ideology. But it's the latter which is doing all the work, and nobody is willing to admit that because "we want an excuse to ban anyone who disagrees with our ideology" is saying the quiet part out loud.
"Hate Group" is a group that has a significant portion designed to explicitly hate a protected class.
Where "protected class" is the ambiguous part in my experience. But "protected class" includes the disabled, black people, asians, women, etc. etc.
Democrats hating Republicans and Republicans hating Democrats doesn't count, because neither group is a protected class. Nazis count, because Nazis hated Jews, and Jews are a religion and religion is a protected class.
---------------
The point of debate is "protected class" in my experience. IE: White people asking to have the same protections as Black people. Or Mens right activists asking for men to be a protected class like Women are.
I don't think "protected class" really gets you out of it.
Suppose you have a group dedicated to enforcing immigration laws. There are plenty of non-racist reasons to want to do this, but there are also racist reasons to want to do it, so racists may join that organization and support their goals. And then they'll turn around and be racists and say racist things and cause opponents to point at them as representatives of the organization.
But that kind of organization isn't a religion or a military with a chain of command that can excommunicate anyone or threaten them with a court martial if they don't stop being a racist. It's just a bunch of people who share the same goal for what may be very different reasons. So what is someone supposed to do to prevent their group from being labeled a "hate group" if all they want is to e.g. keep cheap labor from suppressing local wages?
Because it's the same problem the other way. If you're #MeToo and some of the "members" of your really not very centralized "organization" are man-hating extremists, you have no great way to expel them. So are you still in favor of collective punishment?
BLM had to actively fight against Black Bloc and prevent them from joining up with BLM protesters.
Welcome to group dynamics. Yeah, it sucks. Hateful people try to join righteous causes. You have to absolutely censor them and cut them out of the group.
--------
Why do you think Martin Luther King Jr. is so revered? Because there were Black Panthers marching with AK rifles using bombs to blow up their political rivals.
They had to march in a way that proved that they were pro-peace and anti-violence, even if it meant forming an political rivalry (possibly political enemy) with the Black Panthers.
Now you're talking about in-person meetups where the groups have numerical superiority over some troublemakers and can exercise control over a physical space. That doesn't work on some social media platform where anyone can claim to be a member of your group while acting a fool, and everything happens live.
If some idiots show up with explosives to your peaceful protest you can boot them out before anyone sees them. If some idiots start threatening people while claiming they're with you on the internet, you don't control what they say on their own accounts and you only see them at the same time as the opponents who want to use it as an excuse to ban your group.
> If some idiots start threatening people while claiming they're with you on the internet
Exercise your moderation powers and ban and/or shadowban them. Online groups have moderation tools, even 4chan has moderators who step in when Doxxers show up.
Go on, try to advocate for violence here on Hacker News. You'll get [flagged] pretty quickly. That's why moderators exist.
I get that its against your philosophy to use moderation tools on the internet. But its a necessary evil. You must enforce the cultural identity of the groups you lead, lest they turn into online hate groups rather quickly.
It happens even to the best of us. Civil Rights era protesters had to deal with it. BLM had to deal with it today. Etc. etc. Its well known.
> Jehovah's Witnesses do, are they a hate group? Environmentalists? Libertarians? Socialist organizations?
Affirming the Consequent fallacy.
I'm saying "If A then B", at no point have I claimed "If B therefore A".
Hate Groups spread themselves across the internet and real life. (IE: If Hategroup, then spread). At no point I (or the article) claimed "If spreading therefore Hategroup".
----------------
If some group of KKK members meet up in some basement secretly and don't plan on spreading themselves, then I'm basically cool with them. I don't like their views but whatever, I know I can't convince them or otherwise change their viewpoints.
But if they're an advocacy group and try to grow, then yes I'm much more concerned about it.
> Hate-based, terrorist, and criminal organizations attempt to use online platforms to spread their ideology, recruit new members, and coordinate existing members (1).*
The point is that "attempt[ing] to use online platforms to spread their ideology, recruit new members, and coordinate existing members" is in no way exclusive to "hate organizations" so that can't be how you identify them.
Then you quoted a definition of hate speech from Facebook. But even putting aside the problems with "direct attack against people... on the basis of protected characteristics", that doesn't get you a definition of hate organizations.
Under this definition a feminist who advocates the killing of men is engaged in hate speech since sex is a protected characteristic. Does it satisfy you that once that has happened, feminists would be classified as a hate organization? I don't like that outcome, but if you don't like it either then you need a better definition.
Yes. When you omnislash posts and read them line-by-line, they don't make sense. That's your problem, not mine.
-------------
But whatever, I'll try to focus on your more legitimate posts and push this (already flagged /banned) discussion towards something that resembles a worthy discussion.
> Dose it satisfy you that once that has happened, feminists would be classified as a hate organization?
You've confused ideology with groups and organizations.
The Nazis can be identified as a Hate Group. They followed the Fascist ideology (among many other ideologies).
Planned Parenthood can be identified as a group. They don't seem to be a "hate group" however. They follow the feminist ideology (among many other ideologies). If hypothetically, Planned Parenthood as a group (or if their leaders) decided that killing men was part of their explicit group focus, then yes I'd be cool with calling them a hate group.
-----------
EDIT: Lets cut to the chase. Do you want to call #BLM or #MeToo a hate group?
> The Nazis can be identified as a Hate Group. They followed the Fascist ideology (among many other ideologies).
But the Nazis, as an organization, no longer exist. They used to control a country and have a government. Nazi ideology may still exist but the Furher is dead.
> Planned Parenthood can be identified as a group. They don't seem to be a "hate group" however.
So this is the other problem. If you want to claim they're a hate group you point to age as a protected class, and then you end up with everyone shouting at each other because whether that's true or not turns on the very point of contention. In particular, you now have to make a censorship decision where the "accused hate group" only doesn't get censored if the decisionmaker agrees with their ideology. That's... bad.
> Lets cut to the chase. Do you want to call #BLM or #MeToo a hate group?
I want not to have censorship, and I find a good way of doing this is to insist that censorship decisions be made on principled basis. Because when people realize that the rules they're proposing would also be applied to people they like, they stop liking those rules.
> If you want to claim they're a hate group you point to age as a protected class, and then you end up with everyone shouting at each other because whether that's true or not turns on the very point of contention.
Yes, people make bullshit troll arguments all the time. So cut through the trolling and reach the meat of the discussion. Don't fall for the bait.
If you really want to call Planned Parenthood a hate group, go on ahead. I don't think you'll get very far. But you're using it as a hypothetical false argument trying to prove a point, rather than relying upon a real life argument or real life example.
As I said before, I know you're trying to talk about a real situation. So try me. Who are you actually trying to talk about? This topic is [flagged] at this point so I don't think too many people are visiting here anyway.
> If you really want to call Planned Parenthood a hate group, go on ahead. I don't think you'll get very far.
That depends on who you're trying to get very far with. If it's pro-choice coastal elites, obviously not. But suppose the person making the decision is pro-life.
> Who are you actually trying to talk about?
It's not about any group in particular. It's about what happens when you open this can of worms.
Actual formal hierarchical "hate organizations" are basically dead. But there are a lot of unstructured collections of people with shared goals and in each of those groups there are extremists and people with mental illness and teenagers who think it makes them big to threaten someone else. It's no difficulty to find instances of bad behavior. But group-level enforcement is just playing into tribalism. There is a reason collective punishment is a violation of the Geneva Conventions.
And there is no reason to think censorship will ever end any differently than it always does, with whatever group is in charge of censorship decisions imputing them with whatever ideological biases they may hold.
I'm a pro-life coastal elite. Try me. Private Catholic school, cause I'm Catholic. About as elite as you can get (well, I went to Public High school I guess).
I can talk about other groups without falling into the fallacy of just calling them a "Hate Group" just because I disagree with them. Even on important issues like Abortion.
In any case, the anti-abortionists who go towards bombs and explosives are hate groups, and I have to work at making sure my Catholic (and Catholics, a group I'm part of) are not associated with such assholes. That's just life. Assholes exist, on my side of the political spectrum, on your side, on opponents side, etc. etc.
I'm not going to align myself with those violent assholes to score political points. I'm more than confident in my ability to argue about the life of the fetus on my own grounds without having to bring in strawman arguments or whatever.
----------
If anything at all, its become more important to distinguish myself from other assholes as these hate groups come up. I can be pro-life without being a hate group, but it does mean acknowledging that the hate-groups need to be moderated (both in my own groups, but also in the public spaces).
> I'm not going to align myself with those violent assholes to score political points.
It's not you who makes the choice. They align themselves with you. The first time you learn they even exist can be when opponents use their words to malign you.
BLM and its relationship with Black Bloc is an example I brought up for good reason.
----------
So we have the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys on the Right. Have Republicans clearly censored these more-violent groups out of their spaces? (Leadership of these groups have literally been prosecuted and sentenced for their involvement in January 6th conspiracy).
Or has the right coalesced support of them and promised to pardon them?
----------
Everyone knows that assholes exist in all forms. Not necessarily rising to the level of hate groups (Proud Boys are becoming more-and-more like a hategroup, but I don't think Black Bloc or Oath Keepers have risen quite to that level yet). But in all cases, these three groups are extremely problematic to the left, and the right.
Censoring those violent viewpoints, calling them out, and diminishing them is the least I expect of reasonable people. However, some politicians are calling on their supporters and offering public promises for them.
The extreme flanks try to out-extreme each other. Its up to the centrists and the reasonable people to pull them back and/or call them out and say "Those guys over there: they went too far and are not to be associated with us anymore". You can't just accept allies all the time, some of these allies are not worth their trouble.
-------------
Look, its my overall opinion that Republicans are bad at this because this is the first time they've decided to perform activism. Be it online or in person. I get that these assholes don't represent all the Republicans, but there's good decisions and bad decisions here.
When people online are asking to censor some of the more problematic elements (ie: Oath Keepers or Proud Boys, and some of the stuff they proclaim), it applies just as strongly to the Black Bloc or other violent leftists (or historically, Black Mafia, Nation of Islam, etc. etc. in the Civil Rights era).
People going "I'm against censorship so I wanna support even these problematic members" always strikes me as naiive. You absolutely cannot let these groups take over the persona of your organization. These groups are too dangerous to gain power.
So advocacy is a constant fight. Not only against your political enemies, but even with your political allies (Ex: BLM having to explicitly fight back against left-aligned Black Bloc to minimize the violent acts in their name).
--------------
In any case, "Hate Group" isn't the issue you seem to have. It seems to be with "censorship", as that's what we keep coming back to. I've listed three problematic groups (Black Bloc, Proud Boys, and Oath Keepers), which are by large, not considered "hate groups". But I think they're closer to the issues you're trying to talk about.
>I want not to have censorship, and I find a good way of doing this is to insist that censorship decisions be made on principled basis.
That's a non-answer. You can apply any principles here - why should we apply the principles that you agree with???
also, are you actually trying to argue that planned parenthood is a hate group because they abort babies and therefore that is ageist? First off, it's old age that is a protected class. And second, how could anyone take this argument in good faith?
> You can apply any principles here - why should we apply the principles that you agree with???
The principles that I agree with are that no one should be censored. Most people can agree to that because most people can see that good speech being censored is much worse than bad speech not being censored.
If you want some other principles then I'm going to insist that you're very clear about what they are, so I can make sure they're applied consistently to you as you would have them applied to anyone else.
> First off, it's old age that is a protected class.
There are many different laws that specify what a protected class is and it's not uncommon for the text to say no more than "on the basis of age". For example, people under 40 aren't protected for the purposes of federal employment discrimination but it's illegal in New York City to discriminate against younger people for housing:
> how could anyone take this argument in good faith?
There are people who literally believe that life begins and conception and abortion is murder. Planned Parenthood's position is that a fetus isn't a person until it gets older. Which position you agree with is the very point of contention in the debate. The people who take the other side are not acting in bad faith. They honestly disagree with you.
>The principles that I agree with are that no one should be censored. Most people can agree to that because most people can see that good speech being censored is much worse than bad speech not being censored.
You immediately within the same sentence just said "when principles are being applied".
>There are people who literally believe that life begins and conception and abortion is murder. Planned Parenthood's position is that a fetus isn't a person until it gets older. Which position you agree with is the very point of contention in the debate. The people who take the other side are not acting in bad faith. They honestly disagree with you.
This isn't a good faith debate as to whether or not that is discrimination. You are one of the most unreasonable and bad faith posters I've engaged with here.
Seems like the post you responded to mentioned that: "Organizations that proclaim a violent mission, engage in violence, and represent ideologies that promote hate"
a casual observer might note that the definition of "violence" has been expanded somewhat in recent years, possibly to the point of creating a circular dependency on the also-expanding definition of "hate".
Sure, feel free to read anything you want into anything at all. It doesn't seem like a good faith effort in taking them at face value, when you are willing to impart other's thoughts into their statement, without any regard for the author's perspective. No less here when there is a perfectly workable definition provided by the dictionary. In fact, it seems like you are making an effort to insist that this is vague, when really it isn't.
in the past few weeks alone I have seen multiple people—including people I used to be close friends with—express the idea that burning one's country's flag, or any kind of religious text or symbolism, is Free Speech and should be Protected, yet burning or otherwise desecrating a Pride Flag or any other associated symbolism is simultaneously Violence and Hate, toward all groups portrayed in/"represented by" said flag/symbolism (which is to say, everyone but straight white males), and therefore is not Free Speech, should not be Protected, and in fact should be Prosecuted.
I have done my best to try and see things from this perspective—yet, try as I might, my own logical faculties remain steadfastly incompatible with this openly asymmetric worldview.
I think it would have sufficed to say that not everyone agrees. I don't think that's news.
>I have done my best to try and see things from this perspective—yet, try as I might, my own logical faculties remain steadfastly incompatible with this openly asymmetric worldview.
Not sure what that has to do with this? Yes, some people disagree with you.
> I think it would have sufficed to say that not everyone agrees. I don't think that's news.
this is my point: "hate" and "violence" used to be pretty universally agreed-upon terms, yet, as of late, their definitions have been expanded, and only a subset of people agree with said newly-expanded definitions.
> Not sure what that has to do with this? Yes, some people disagree with you.
the point of this was to demonstrate my honest attempt at internalizing these redefinitions, only to discover that they are incompatible with my worldview (yet the old definitions still fit just fine).
if we can't agree on (new) (re)definitions of terms like "violence" and "hate", then what practical use do they have in contexts such as this?
>this is my point: "hate" and "violence" used to be pretty universally agreed-upon terms, yet, as of late, their definitions have been expanded, and only a subset of people agree with said newly-expanded definitions.
Okay? I don't think the article asserted that there was universal agreement on the term...
>if we can't agree on (new) (re)definitions of terms like "violence" and "hate", then what practical use do they have in contexts such as this?
I don't think the fact that some people disagree with you supports the proposition that people cannot generally agree on the term hate, and frankly, the only person here doing effort towards that is you, as you keep trying to do back flips to point out that some people don't agree about what hate means.
if I'm understanding correctly, the general thrust of your position (between the unnecessary ad-hominem fluff such as "you keep trying to do back flips", and abject non sequiturs like "sure, feel free to read anything you want into anything at all" (thanks?)) is:
- yes, "hate" (and "violence") have been recently redefined
- but, most everyone agrees with the new redefinitions
- therefore, my inability to logically integrate said new redefinitions into my worldview makes me an outlier
- therefore, it is not unexpected that the linked paper does not elaborate on its definitions of the terms "hate" and "hate group", as, again, nearly everyone—excepting outliers like myself—is fully on board with the redefinitions of these terms, having already fully integrated them into their worldview
No, my original point stands. Rather than taking the article at its word, or those organizations, you repeatedly read into it a third party's beliefs (the people you mention about burning the flag) and now you are saying that I'm saying everyone agrees with them (the people that you made up?) I'm not sure how you got that from my post. Where did I say anything like that?
My point is I don't care that you found some randos that disagree about what violence or hate is, that doesn't actually amount to a crisis in the definitions of these words.
If anyone, it's you insisting that there is such widespread disagreement on the meaning of hate and violence, and that such a disagreement is untenable. But I don't see that to be the case at all, and if you had responded in good faith, and didn't impart a third party's beliefs into the article, then we'd have never gotten to this point in conversation. There are people that think the world is flat, there might be even more of them than the flag burners you talk about, nevertheless we recognize that the world isn't flat.
it would be very useful to know whether or not you believe "hate" and "violence" have been recently redefined/had their definitions expanded, because this is the lynchpin of my entire argument, and you kind of keep dodging it, which allows you to now frame my assertion that these definitions have changed as being something that only a small subset of the population buys into. continuing to dodge this is either naïve or disingenuous—because it means that you're either claiming or feigning (respectively) ignorance about this topic, which is central to the claims made by the study, in the context in which it is being made.
I just said twice that the words have not been redefined and here you are asking again, pretending like you are a reasonable person engaged in good faith discussion.
I have repeatedly rejected your assertion that the words are redefined and I have repeatedly pushed back against your evidence ("some people disagree with me!") that leads you to think the words have been redefined. I have specifically said that we can easily refer to the dictionary instead of the strawman you are insisting on, because you found some people with unreasonable beliefs. It's as if you have not engaged with my posts at all.
It seems fair to discuss because we all know that research like this will be used to justify censoring "hate" groups that are not actually hate groups.
But they refuse to name the groups. I hope you can see the moral hazard in saying we you are going to deplatform dangerous groups, but we can't tell you what the groups are, because they are dangerous. It is a license to do whatever you want and get rid of groups you disagree with.
We have distinct words to define those distinct groups. There are certainly communities that are "only" offensive, not terrorist nor criminal, but should be lumped in with those groups nevertheless?
Perhaps the author of the post you responded to was referring to this sort of absurdity.
Many groups advance hatred. From the right, there are groups that hate transgender-advocacy groups that do youth outreach. From the left, the feeling is reciprocated.
Depending whom you ask, these groups are either hate groups or "saving our youth".
"Hate Groups" are defined as groups that hate a protected class.
IE: Its fine to hate Nazis, because Nazis are not a protected class. Its not fine to hate Transgender people, because Transgender people are a protected class.
Its fine to hate "hate groups", because "hate groups" are not a protected class.
-------------
The problem is not with "hating on hate groups". I'm pretty sure there are people who want men to be a protected class (IE: Mens' rights groups). Which... I dunno if that's a good idea and the groups that advocate that are kinda icky. But sure, we can debate whether or not that's needed.
But if the debate is "hate groups are ambiguous and illogical", I'm going to have to disagree with you. Its just that we don't consider white people or men to be protected classes, and that's what pisses some people off.
At the extreme end: at no point should Nazis or Ku Klux Klan ever be considered a protected class. Trying to minimize these group's influence on our society is the entire damn point of this hate-group definition.
You missed the point. I was asking if a group that hated orthodox religious groups would be considered a hate group. You are addressing whether religious groups can be hate groups.
I'm trying my best to name real-life organizations that match my real-life experience here, and you're seemingly trying to come up with hypothetical examples that may or may not have any relevance to the real world.
Could you give me an example of these organizations that are giving you such trouble in classifying hate group vs not-hate group?
---------
Like, who exactly are you trying to describe? Are you calling Militant Atheists a hate group (or a candidate for hate groups?) The Satanic Temple?
I'm certainly aware of militant atheist groups if that's where you're trying to go. All of them are "anti-religion", but I wouldn't call any of them a hate group. As a Catholic myself, I've had to deal with their anti-religion and anti-Christian bias. But I've never felt personally threatened, or physically threatened by them.
You aren't aware that LGBTQ+ advocacy groups are opposed to some religious groups? And that their their opposition is because of the religious beliefs? This is not a secret.
I literally listed The Satanic Temple (anti-religion, pro LGBTQ+ group) in my last post man.
Where are you going with this? I'm well aware of these groups and can even list them off by name. What problematic behavior do you want to discuss about The Satanic Temple, or other anti-religious groups?
The question arose from the fact that hate organization was mentioned along with terrorist and criminal organizations, which implies that these are somewhat equal terms. To me, these are widely different things.
Watch the scientism-believers come out of the woodwork to accuse you of asking this in bad faith. It is, of course, largely the same group of people who will redefine "hate" organization to include people who, for example, didn't want to get vaccinated against COVID-19 [1][2][3].
They know that "hate" can be redefined in any manner as they wish, and if they can correlate hate <=> censorship is beneficial, and they can correlate anything-I-don't-like <=> hate, then they can correlate anthing-I-don't-like <=> censorship is beneficial. But they want to pretend you're the "sea lion" in some moronic comic as an ironic shorthand to disrupt and short-circuit a serious conversation on censorship.
No real surprises here; once you remove the source, the moths stop flying towards it.
I reckon for most; their hate is based on emotional manipulation over an internal drive. This is what separates their "leaders" who are doing it for a specific end result, and their "followers" who are reacting to whatever comes across their feeds. Which is how they leverage this, it's easy to emotionally manipulate those who have no idea what's going on, they don't even recognize the ads/recommendations they're getting have served a specific purpose.
I would be curious in research involving removal of online hate speech and how it correlates to in person violence, mental outbreaks and similar stuff.
Controversial stuff in this day and age but these kind of interventions on large scale social media networks are positive in my mind. I'll share some thoughts and counter arguments
Keep in mind I'm European, and not American. I think we have a different view on this. Especially e.g. countries with a coloured history of hate speech like Germany.
1. Ideas need to be open so they can be challenged:
These platforms don't create discussions, they create echo chambers. Nobody of their right mind engages with the crazies online as it's obviously a waste of time. Try to go to Facebook and debate with any of their "Flat earth" groups. It's absolutely futile. These "debates" are better for recruiting new people into hateful ideology than building understanding.
2. "Free speech" something or another:
There is no such thing as "free speech" because there are already limits to speech. We've already drawn an arbitrary line on what's legal and harassment, death threats, racism, discrimination, defamation and multitudes of other types of speech are already controlled. If something is illegal to say to someones face, why should it be legal to say online? Not to mention that discussions about free speech spans borders and laws are different across them.
3. Who defines what's hate speech?
I'm not an American, but I am at the mercy of your platforms. I for one would much rather that at EU-based body, or my government (I know this sounds crazy for an American, but we have more trust in our institutions) decides what's OK to say rather than tech billionaires like Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg, or Sundar Pichai. These people are already making moderation decisions, which is inevitable with large-scale social media. Make these policy decisions openly. Make them democratically.
Large scale social media platforms are cesspools already. Unmoderated social platforms turn into cesspools by default. Moderation of these platforms must be moved out of private companies and into the public sphere so we as a society can agree on what is right, and what is wrong.
> these kind of interventions on large scale social media networks are positive in my mind.
I have an earnest and legitimate question for you and everyone else of this mindset: Do you believe that these social networks, the media, and the government will always be on the right side of history?
I don't really understand being a proponent of arrogating this enormous control of communications if there is a nonzero chance that the bad guys will be defining the terms of service ten or more years down the road.
Do you guys who advocate for this really believe that the risk of, for example, a Christian revival is precisely zero? That control of this apparatus would literally never shift, and the speech of your LGBTQ friends would never be brutally repressed by it?
That's the only thing I can possibly see as justification for being a proponent of building and normalizing the use of a censorship machine: the solid, perfect, unshakable, 100% conviction that the bad guys would never, ever, get their hands on it.
But if that's the mentality, I don't understand, because history does not support this degree of confidence.
> I have an earnest and legitimate question for you and everyone else of this mindset: Do you believe that these social networks, the media, and the government will always be on the right side of history?
Yes, I believe the local conditions where I am (Northern Europe and by extension the major powers in the EU) will stay stable enough for the foreseeable future that this will not turn into a 1984 scenario. I also understand why people of the United States may have a different view on this considering the unstable political situation you guys are in. I also want to make it clear that this instability is another argument on why relying on American tech platforms to moderate speech in the EU isn't a great option either.
> Do you guys who advocate for this really believe that the risk of, for example, a Christian revival is precisely zero? That control of this apparatus would literally never shift, and the speech of your LGBTQ friends would never be brutally repressed by it?
Yes, I do believe that it is exceedingly unlikely in Norway and the EU generally for the foreseeable future. Far less likely than the US at least.
I think a major point that you need to understand to empathize with this perspective is that capitalism and technological advance is viewed with considerably less optimism and trust in the EU.
Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, YouTube, Google (Search). All of these companies have a massive impact on the European public sphere. And none of these companies give a shit about the content they are promoting. How many Norwegian speaking moderators does Facebook have? How many Swiss? How many Lithuanian? How many Romanian? I bet way too few, and I bet their policies are more hands-off than hands-on. The more hands-on the more unpopular a platform becomes. I also bet that most moderation decisions are made by algorithms and not humans, which definitively affects speech.
While these companies make billions unleashing software that stokes racial and ethnic tensions, polarises, legitimately makes people less informed. Algorithms that structurally amplify the simple, and deprioritise the complex. All in the name of engagement, retention and monetization.
The effect these platforms have on Europe is massive, and I have more faith in democratic governments taking some of the reigns on this than the current state of American tech billionaires and board meetings behind closed doors. Americans have essentially accepted that corporations can use the populace as cattle to monetise. The EU has a different view on this.
The current state of affairs is worse than the chances of misuse in the future is essentially the argument for moving power to the government or enforcing more controls on the platforms in this case.
In terms of political stability, Europe has a far worse track record than the US, and recently, too — running right up to the 2000s.
The rise and fall of the Soviet bloc, Nazi Germany, fascist Italy, Franco’s Spain, and even The Troubles in Northern Ireland — just to name a few!
The majority of the past 75 years in Europe have seen serious, violent, and oppressive political turmoil.
I don’t see how you can possibly take the position that Europe is more stable than the US, much less that Europe has a track record of stability sufficient to justify handing authority over speech and free association to the government without any concern for future abuse.
I'm not European but I find it incredibly bizarre that you would prefer such a thing. The worst Elon Musk can do to you is kick you off his platform. As soon as a government gets involved you're looking at being potentially locked in a cage like an animal for expressing your opinion.
They say the people get the government they deserve though.
If your opinion consists of propagating hate, encouraging hate crimes and sharing death threats online I believe it's in order with a fine and potentially a light prison sentence for repeat offenders, yes.
I don't believe that my government will turn to tyranny suddenly when it's generally had a pretty good history of not going off the rails. I don't buy the slippery slope argument/fallacy.
>They say the people get the government they deserve though.
Touche. I'd be more concerned about this in the US with your highly polarized yo-yo politics.
Making death threats is already illegal and is not a "hate crime". You're advocating for governments to make more speech illegal, speech that you don't agree with.
As far as your government turning to tyranny. I can't think of many governments that turned to tyranny multiple times. They are usually removed, or stay in power. "My government is not currently tyrannical so I'm confident it will stay that way", is a strange way to think if you've read much history, imo.
>You're advocating for governments to make more speech illegal
Yes, and I'm arguing for stricter enforcement of current laws around these topics. I'm not saying that people can't discuss immigration policy. I'm saying that people shouldn't discuss immigration policy through inciting to violence and racism. And I'm saying that Elon Musk is absolutely the last person I'd want to be the arbiter of what speech is legal or not.
Yes, the Norwegian government has some not so great history of discriminating against the native population hundreds of years ago, the Roma people last century, LGB people ~30 years ago and most recently drug users. But thinking that "Because there's always a slim chance my government can go rogue we should minimise its power" is a strange and uniquely American way of thinking by the way. My views are not uncommon in Europe. But they are at odds with the US/Libertarian slant you find here.
> But thinking that "Because there's always a slim chance my government can go rogue we should minimise its power" is a strange and uniquely American way of thinking
Which is weird because the US government is easily in the top 5 rogue governments around the world.
I think it's very strange to say it's uniquely American when there have been, historically, far more tyrannical governments in Europe than just about anywhere else in the world and countries like Germany have criminalized basically any positive display/speech about their past tyrannical government. Your views may not be uncommon, but they're certainly not universal, and even if they were, that wouldn't make them correct, or even well thought out.
>I'm saying that people shouldn't discuss immigration policy through inciting to violence and racism. And I'm saying that Elon Musk is absolutely the last person I'd want to be the arbiter of what speech is legal or not.
Yes and I still think I'd rather be kicked off twitter by Musk than locked in a jail for saying the wrong thing. I honestly have no idea why you believe that the members of your government are more fair/just/whatever than anyone else, including Musk. They're not, and that's why they should have limited power.
> I honestly have no idea why you believe that the members of your government are more fair/just/whatever than anyone else, including Musk. They're not, and that's why they should have limited power.
I'll just dip out of this conversation right here. We have a fundamentally different view of how society is built up, functions and should work.
> Your views may not be uncommon, but they're certainly not universal, and even if they were, that wouldn't make them correct, or even well thought out.
Ok, that's fair. Just to be clear I was not trying to insult you or your government. Just pointing out that the people that make up your government are very normal people with the same weaknesses and blind-spots as the rest of us.
At the risk of seeming like I need the last word and further risk of sounding very cliche, there is a quote by a man named Martin Niemöller, a German man, about a German government, that I believe, tells us in no uncertain terms, that the slippery slope fallacy is not a fallacy AT ALL, and that we should take government powers and limits extremely seriously.
You seem sincere. Know that I am too. I’m also open for being proven wrong and my entire reason for commenting is to hear good arguments that challenge my views. But also know that fundamentally, I have a lot of faith in our governmental institutions and I believe that this faith is precisely why these institutions can work. Faith isn’t naivety, faith is trust. If that trust is broken I’m willing to change my views. Til now it hasn’t been fundamentally broken. I’d have a different view if I was based in the US as your democracy is flawed and your two-party system does not represent your people in a satisfactory or stable way. Sadly, that's not an exception on a worldwide basis.
> Germany have criminalized basically any positive display/speech about their past tyrannical government.
Germany went through the worst case scenario of hate speech. Hate speech is strictly regulated there because they know the dangers it poses and how it can make normal people into monsters. While many factors went into the rise of Hitler, hate speech was a fundamental part of how precisely Hitler got to power. Hate speech enables populists power through simple emotional messaging. Any idiot can do it, and many do. And lots of people fall for it. I don’t want emotional messaging controlling our politics (precisely like what’s happening with the culture wars in the US) I want boring, research backed, evidence-based policy made and championed by bureaucrats and domain-experts with decades of experience.
There’s a reason hate speech is being researched and platforms are being forced to deal with the unmoderated hate speech of the 2010s. It has vast political power in the wrong hands. And it inevitably leads to shit policy.
I 100% support discussion about immigration or if identity politics has gone too far. I 100% support the deplatforming of voices that stigmatise, discriminate, silence and incite violence towards these minorities on major platforms.
"First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out – because I was not a socialist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out – because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out – because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me – and there was no one left to speak for me.”
It's easy to ban a bunch of people and come up with an estimate of a large amount of hate reduced. "These hate-mongers posted X times per day to an audience of Y people, therefore we stopped Z hatred-incidents per month. Big progress in stopping hate.". That's the stupid man's interpretation of the available data.
It's a lot harder to measure things like the feeling that people who already feel disenfranchised about life feel when they can't even vent about stuff on the Internet and what that leads to. The people with the ban-hammers are doing nothing but creating further and further resentment and confirming whatever biases and conspiracy theories that many people already feel.