Hiding this information makes it look politically motivated. If it's so bad, why isn't the content of the material that got them banned reported on?
"Hate speech allegations" is more than meaningless. It means precisely nothing. What did they actually say?
People can belong to either school of thought. But if you agree with the first statement, then you should also agree that Reuters publishing hate speech is just as harmful as Facebook publishing it. If you agree with the second, you probably don't think Facebook should take the content down. If that's what you think go ahead, but it's not a tiny peeve - it's a major difference of opinion.
I'm not taking a stance either way, just pointing out the options - either both block the speech or neither does.
The only illogical thing would be agreeing with Facebook's decision to take the content down but disagreeing with Reuters' decision to not repeat the same content. I can't see how that would work.
So any definition of hate speech is fine, as long as Facebook and Reuters take broadly similar ones.
For argument's sake, let's take Facebook's definition
> We define hate speech as a direct attack on people based on what we call protected characteristics – race, ethnicity, national origin, religious affiliation, sexual orientation, caste, sex, gender, gender identity and serious disease or disability. We protect against attacks on the basis of age when age is paired with another protected characteristic, and also provide certain protections for immigration status. We define "attack" as violent or dehumanising speech, statements of inferiority, or calls for exclusion or segregation.
> We define hate speech as a direct attack on people based on what we call protected characteristics – race, ethnicity, national origin, religious affiliation, sexual orientation, caste, sex, gender, gender identity and serious disease or disability. We protect against attacks on the basis of age when age is paired with another protected characteristic, and also provide certain protections for immigration status. We define "attack" as violent or dehumanising speech, statements of inferiority, or calls for exclusion or segregation.
Sorry, but if you have the power to ruin people's lives over a standard you cannot clearly define and after the fact won't even provide their speech as context for your decision, then that's just straight political censorship.
I also draw a huge distinction between publishers repeating the words of others and people actually saying those things.
By your standards, the publisher of Mein Kampf reprints is just as guilty as Hitler himself -- even though they had nothing to do with writing it.
What an excellent way to end up watering plants with Brawndo - because that's what plants crave.