Enlightened algorithms? Progressives ask Big Tech to censor 'bad' ideas
usatoday.com
usatoday.com
Performative Hate Speech Acts. Perlocutionary and Illocutionary Understandings in International Human Rights Law: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/334199177_PERFORMAT...
Oppressive Speech: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/000484008023703...
Why We Should Ban Oppressive Speech Acts: https://publicseminar.org/essays/why-we-should-outlaw-oppres...
Interesting phrasing. By using the word "and", you are saying that those are two different categories of speech, that do not totally overlap.
Meaning you believe speech that is not misinformation, i.e. true, factual speech, should be banned, if it is deemed "harmful"?
The second link gives me an endless captcha.
The closest to an example that I could find in the very verbose third link was the 'okay' hand gesture.
Is that the kind of expressions you want banned? What about, for example, a website that catalogues black-on-white murders, and ignores white-on-black murders, would that be allowed, or is it harmful?
What about the reverse?
The third link also says anti-immigrant speech should be banned. Does that mean "I believe immigration should be reduced" gets censored? If anti-immigrant speech should be banned, does it then follow that anti-non-immigrant speech is also not permissible? E.g. statements disparaging the local majority population?
When you say "harmful" speech, implicitly you mean "harmful to my values". Others see harm in speech that you find agreeable. But you are confident that the enforcers will share your values, and the speech that ends up banned won't be, for example, undermining the territorial integrity of China.
I deeply apologize if providing a single, one-sentence answer has exhausted your patience and attention. Your dismissal is of course correct - anyone that asks the most basic clarifying questions, as I have done, is doing so maliciously. If they weren't malicious, they would simply concede that you are correct, and that would be the end of the debate.