Let me simplify further, in the face of your ad hominem:
If you're not actively trying to make the world a better place for everyone, you're passively making it worse for everyone.
If you're not actively trying to make the world a better place for everyone, you're passively making it worse for everyone.
Sorry? I attacked your phrasing and logic, not YOU. Its like you're wanting to get angry at nothing.
I'm done here if you don't want to act civilized.
Hate speech is always an attack.
Whether it's overt (Westboro, the N-word, Swastikas, homophobic slurs, etc.) or more subtle ("the 14 words", "88", etc). Supporting the "right" of someone to use hate speech is supporting their right to attack (and thus violate the rights of) others.
Whereas, by preventing those attacks, nothing of value is lost, and real harm is prevented.
That can go sideways. You think any of the monsters of history thought they were the bad guys?
[0]https://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/6492090-the-open-socie...
Oh, "but I wasn't SAYING it" you say? Who judges whether hate speech is excused by context? Facebook interns? AI algorithms? Sorry, the algorithm has pronounced you guilty, you are now banned.
That is the world you would create.
Let's just throw in the towel folks!
That said, you've shot down a lot of people's arguments but I haven't seen you promote a sensible alternative. Given your personal belief framework and given the first amendment, what do you see as a solution to this problem?
HOW? How do you eradicate hate speech? What is hate speech? Anything that makes you feel bad? So do you single-handedly decide what speech is ok or not?
You're lambasting people's protection for free speech as "protecting hate speech" (which is a false dichotomy) and not offering any alternatives. I don't really get what the point of what you're saying is other than "This upsets me." And that's fine if hate speech upsets you, but understand that it upsets other people too, even if those people support free speech as defined by the US bill of rights and legal framework.
I guess what I'm saying is...stop complaining unless you start examining the problem critically (ok, you don't like hate speech... who enforces what hate speech is? how is it enforced? etc. right now you're attacking free speech but not offering ANY compelling or thought-out alternatives) and for the love of everything stop thinking in absolutes. You seem to have forced yourself into black and white thinking. That's not only counterproductive, it's dangerous. People who think in absolutes are targets to become tools of hate. If you don't start seeing nuance in things, you will be easily swayed and manipulated by anyone who has a Nice Shiny Solution to "end hate speech."
It's plenty easy for people in general (except HN, where no one seems to have any notion of what that could possibly be without a grand arbiter to define it down to the spin of each quark) to recognize hate speech.
Platforms already have frameworks for dealing with bad actors. Hate speech is just like any other abuse of a platform, and should be treated as such.
In short, I have come to realize that I'm never going to convince this highly-privileged audience to genuinely care about actual marginalized people over some imagined, theoretical bogeyman. So this will be my last wasted effort on the subject, here.
I don't think you're examining the problem (and censorship IS a problem) critically. Forgive me, but you are the one copping out. And actually, people do ask "what is privacy." It is being redefined all the time and there are people actively fighting for their definition of it. They at least have a definition.