Hacker News Reader

Comment by miohtama | Hacker News Reader

Problem with HateAid is that it doesn't focus on helping on hate crimes alone, but also combats hate speech, which is very widely interpreted. This sometimes have included criticism to politicians in power. Although its mission might be noble, the execution is sometimes murky. Of course if we get to the future where the government draws the line between the hate and the murky, the line will be drawn by White House for the US companies, not the EU.

https://europeanconservative.com/articles/commentary/germany...

View on HN

US companies doing business in the EU are bound by EU law, not US law. The US set that precedent so it's only fair that this works both ways. You may disagree with the law but using sanctions like this to go after people whose opinions you disagree with is textbook censorship and to do so in the name of free speech is absolutely ridiculous.

These particular people were happy to deplatform Trump in the past. He is guilty of hate speech and might be racist, old, senile, bully and idiot but he is still democratically elected president of the US. They can take their disagreement to him, and based on the history he is not happy what these people have done to him. So from the realpolitik, it is not ridiculous. And if they still think this is ridiculous take can summon Trump to any European court.

Wasn't the mantra always that whoever owns the platform gets to decide who is on it?

I don't care that Musk turned Twitter into a Nazi safe haven, I just left.

DJT has no right to any coverage, prizes, diplomas and so on, he's just another politician and worse than most. The fact that he's democratically elected is a blemish on the USA just like Wilders is on NL.

> And if they still think this is ridiculous take can summon Trump to any European court.

Ok, so you're really just trolling. Goodbye.

> These particular people were happy to deplatform Trump in the past.

Another prime example of advanced conservative thinking, for them it's always:

wrong + wrong == right

Maybe, it's just twice as wrong, no? Maybe, being "not happy [with] what these people have done to him" doesn't automatically make someone's actions right? How about twice as wrong again?

As an example of this, I personally know several feminists who have been censored and even banned from major social media platforms for speaking up on women's rights. Their words were incorrectly flagged as "hate" and removed.

I'm sure that these organizations do some good work in removing actual threatening content but often it's also used to censor views that their operatives find objectionable simply because it doesn't concord with their own beliefs.

Who are these feminists? I don't want to not believe you but the lack of detail here feels like you're just dogwhistling feminist for transphobic

Yeah, that seems to be what it was. I pointed that out in another comment and it got falsely flagged.

> I personally know several feminists who have been censored and even banned from major social media platforms for speaking up on women's rights. Their words were incorrectly flagged as "hate" and removed.

I mean, were they saying stuff against transwomen? If so, then it may not have been incorrectly flagged as hate.

> the execution is sometimes murky

Is the "murky" part "criticism to politicians in power" or what exactly is unclear about combating hate speech?

> the line will be drawn by White House for the US companies, not the EU.

I don't think there is "one line" drawn by a single person, there are multiple entities here drawing their own lines wherever they want. In some governments, the lines have already been drawn between what is hate speech or not.

> Is the "murky" part "criticism to politicians in power" or what exactly is unclear about combating hate speech?

Chiefly, the subjective definition beyond "speech someone hates". Social media is trending towards establishing lockstep opinions and smushing disagreement. Using such labels is effective in cowing dissent.

It's tempting to objectively label something as bad through a subjective process, as appeals to authority are powerful. Your point about diverging lines being drawn highlights the importance of skepticism of these appeals.

> Is the "murky" part "criticism to politicians in power" or what exactly is unclear about combating hate speech?

Not the commenter you are respoinding to, but the link they shared explained that some of the 'hate speech’ that gets flagged is not anything that would rise to the level of ‘hate speech’ in many other jurisdictions. One of the examples cited was a person prosecuted for calling a politician a “professional moron”. The politician in question had had 700 people investigated for insulting them online in such a fashion; another politician had made more than 500 similar complaints.

Personally, I am uncomfortable with labeling some speech ‘hate speech’ and punishing the speaker even if it is indeed hateful because inevitably such laws will be used by people I don’t agree with to limit expression well beyond ‘hate speech’. Yet even if a case might be made for limiting some speech (denial of the Holocaust, for example) I don’t think that there is a strong case for limiting my ability to call a politician a moron, professional or otherwise.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com