Hacker News Reader

Comment by gnicholas | Hacker News Reader

Do the TOS that Jones violated have definitions of "hate speech"?

Since there is no legal definition in the US, it would seem necessary for each TOS to create its own. If they have, I'd be curious to know how much they overlap, and how specific/vague they are.

EDIT: why the downvotes? I am honestly asking a question about how specific and consistent the definitions are. I didn't realize I would be punished for doing so.

View on HN

https://www.youtube.com/yt/about/policies/#community-guideli... - Hateful Content

http://itunespartner.apple.com/en/podcasts/faq ("Why was my podcast rejected or removed?") - Content depicting hate themes

https://www.facebook.com/communitystandards/hate_speech

Very useful, thanks!

The TLDR on these hate speech definitions:

YouTube: promotes violence against or incites hatred against protected groups

Apple: content including hate themes

Facebook: violent speech, dehumanizing speech, statements of inferiority, or calls for exclusion/segregation of people of protected classes

So it seems like YouTube's definition is the narrowest. Facebook's definition is much broader because it includes "statements of inferiority", and Apple's definition is vague.

Statements of inferiority are half the comments during election season. LOL

You don't need such definitions but it would be nice to have them yes.

Private entities do not need to have any TOS to justify banning anyone on their services. They can do so without a single reason.

There is no expectation to have access to any private service.

> They can do so without a single reason.

> There is no expectation to have access to any private service.

Does that mean that people just expect to get banned from Facebook without reason?

I'm not quite sure I get that.

Doesn't matter. They can ban him for any reason they want. Hate speech is whatever a mod determines it is. I could say "People with usernames that start with a 'g' are the worst," and if a mod decides that's hate speech then boom—banned.

Ok but that's a bad thing, right?

Unchecked corporate power to control public discourse was considered bad not long ago, wasn't it?

Maybe I'm still stuck at the anti net neutrality mindset we had a while ago and can't flip fast enough to now suddenly trust ISPs and platform providers to regulate my news diet.

Nothing to do with control over public discourse or corporate power. Just moderators banning idiots.

This is a honest question: how could banning radio shows from social media possibly be not meant to control discourse?

Just imagine they do that with future political campaigns. That'd just be a sudden, corporate pre-approval process of potential future electables.

Back in the day, we had the "fairness doctrine". If media gave an interview to a Democrat, say, they also had to give an approximately equivalent interview to a Republican. (Approximately equivalent in terms of length, not necessarily in terms of content.)

But they didn't have to give one to a member of the Communist Party, or to a National Socialist, or to a member of the KKK. It was major players only. They didn't have to give equal treatment to the fringe, of any flavor.

Because Facebook is not public discourse. Facebook is a private message board.

The radio show isn't banned. They can host it on their on platform with their own money. It's simply no longer being promoted and paid for by a private website.

Alex Jones has his own website. He can go to the FCC and get a broadcast license and play by the same rules as everyone else and broadcast his show on terrestrial radio if he wishes.

His speech isn't being stifled. No one is telling him he's not allowed to say it, and his listeners are free to continue to listen to his drivel.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com