I don't understand why we don't let such platforms adopt a more laissez faire approach to such situations. There's an inordinate amount of pressure to curb free speech these days which seems very un-American.
This stuff is dangerous, it can warp the way you view the world, any information glorifying it should always be accompanied with explanations and warnings as to the hate it is imbued with... It is un-American to hate another person because of their origin or their religion, it's also un-American to squash an open discussion on that topic but... that discussion needs to happen between mature adults in a setting that makes it clear how unacceptable it is to lean on racist tropes.
[1] Expat, still a US citizen.
A lot of people will say people who wear MAGA hats are white supremacists for instance. It's a slippery slope, and a dangerous one.
I think the only lasting solution to this is to raise a populace smart enough to be impervious to the radical left and right, both fringes being the domain of sloppy thinking and emotionally driven agendas. And in a way that keeps the flywheel of education spinning. We do a bad job of that today, I think.
But that takes time, strength, money, and – most critically – unified vision that I'm not sure America has right now.
So how do you implement education reform that takes 50 years, when nobody even agrees that it's needed, and kids are getting killed and radicalized today?
Do you allow it to continue in defense of the underlying principle of truly free speech? Maybe. To abandon that principle is a terrifying slippery slope.
This is just one of the ways where tech and culture vastly outpace science and regulation.
I have no answers.
Now we're in an era where speech can start out as individual, and then be broadcast. Or perhaps it's better considered a false dichotomy in the first place. Either way, we definitely haven't figured out how to handle this as a society.
Smashing natural boundaries like that creates anomalies that we have to learn to deal with. I think it's also something that will enable us to spread to other planets sooner or later, hopefully.
Hacking natural boundaries and overcoming the self regulating mechanism that otherwise would take place could be painful in a way and bite us back. But just think about the global exchange of knowledge, people getting interested in things they never thought they'd have access to under pre internet circumstances. A hell of a ride indeed..
Separately, hate speech crosses over into a form of speech many societies, America included, have decided can cause direct harm and needs special treatment (including legal restrictions). People can disagree about that, but should probably get that disagreement sorted before diving into the additional questions of speech versus distribution.
Seems to me that the issue is actually with private ownership being able to censor. Which can only be addressed with, guess what, government intervention.
No, it really is not.
"There are quite a few laws on the books about hate speech"
In the USA I believe there are zero. [1]
There's a misnomer that free speech only exists somewhat arbitrarily as a bill of right. In fact, we actually value free speech even when granted by a private entity.
1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_in_the_United_Stat...