Jump to content
Paulding.com
Sign in to follow this  
LPPT

Should social media sites censor hate speech

Should social media sites and networks be regulating hate speech and content?  

5 members have voted

  1. 1. Should social media sites and networks be regulating hate speech and content? I don't want this poll to be specifically political and I will ask moderators to poof those comments or new threads to make political comment. This is about how our country is responding to the lack of censorship that encourages hate.

    • Yes Because I believe it is impossible to censure a million individual social media users
      1
    • Yes Because it is destroying our country and inciting hatred and violence
      1
    • Yes Opinion is not fact and should not be treated as such
      2
    • N/A
      2
  2. 2. Should social media sites and networks be regulating hate speech and content?

    • No I don't believe in censoring any publication from anyone
      0
    • No I hold freedom of speech as our most precious constitutional right
      1
    • No Opinion is just as or more important than actual fact
      1
    • N/A
      3
  3. 3. I believe that lack of censorship on social media has been good for my community

    • Yes
      2
    • no
      4
  4. 4. I would like to see Paulding.com com become a kinder place to network

    • yes
      5
    • no
      0
  5. 5. What I would like to see most on Paulding,com

    • Joking around
      2
    • Politics
      2
    • local news
      5
  6. 6. Paulding.com com would be better with no discussion of national politics

    • Yes
      2
    • no
      3
  7. 7. I like the direction I see Paulding.com trying to go

    • Yes
      5
    • no
      0


Recommended Posts

 I don't want this poll to be specifically political the question is more in general. I will ask moderators to poof those comments or new threads to make specific political comment. This is about how our country is responding to the lack of censorship that encourages hate. This is my first poll so I may need to make changes. I also want to know how it is received locally and how it specifically impacts Paulding.com in this context that is why some questions are specific. I believe we fundamentally feel different about how things effect us locally. Of course I could be wrong.

Edited by otis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem becomes who decides what is hate speech?  It’s a Slippery Slope.  What’s hateful to one person may be just truth to another and just idiocy to a third. 

If i declare to be triggered by any discussion of something. Will it be banned?

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First, paulding.com has always featured limits on speech.  Moderation has been lighter than many want and heavier than others want but given the protections offered by section 230c of the DMCA, pcom has always asserted its right to moderate.  That moderation begins with the word filter routines that change words from profanity to something else and include the attitudes of those 'in charge.'

Fortunately, I'm no longer in control and the folks that are, are insisting on kinder/gentler pcom.

I would encourage them to focus on local news and local commerce, but most of all, on things that engage folks on the site in fun actions and activities.

gpatton

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, The Sound Guy said:

The problem becomes who decides what is hate speech?  It’s a Slippery Slope.  What’s hateful to one person may be just truth to another and just idiocy to a third. 

If i declare to be triggered by any discussion of something. Will it be banned?

There is a line where less than 1% don't know it when they see it. I think the term and the definition of inflammatory does more to deflect some speech before it comes in range of hate and may be the best we can do as a society. One thing is clear we can't be clutching the term slippery slope like a strand of heirloom pearls because it is not benefiting our society anymore and it only benefits individuals in a debate. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sigh.  And thus the Freedom of Speech starts it's decent into oblivion. 

Again, who decides where that line is that the "99%" knows it's there.  You are not going to be able to have the entire country vote on every post now are you?  Thus, the "elite", usually the owner(s) of the site, will really decide where that line is and you know they are going to inject their ideas into it. There goes the idea that the "99%" have anything to do with it.  It's one, or maybe 9, people's opinion and the heck with the rest.  That's the owners prerogative, they own the site, but don't try to sugar coat it by calling it banning "Hate Speech".   Call it what it is:  Censorship to meet their ideals, they do not want Free Speech on their site.  

i may not agree with some of the opinions expressed on here, heck I may get mad as hell about them.  But I will back their right to have those opinion and speak on them.   

 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The solution to speech you disagree with is more speech... not less.

"There more than one way to burn a book."

- Ray Bradbury

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I actually read that. I think he could write a horror story about how it has played out in America the last decade.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

“We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies, and competitive values.

For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people."

 

- John F. Kennedy

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, mrshoward said:

“We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies, and competitive values.

For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people."

 

- John F. Kennedy

 

Why do you use others to represent your thoughts and opinions? Just curious. These are memes not real communication. For these specifically you have to respect the person it is attributed to carry weight. Second none of these memes are specific to the issue of rhetoric and the current consequences of rhetoric being promoted as fact. Rhetoric is a well known means of controlling people through brain science. You can organically change the brain by using a high level of emotion when imparting information. Should decent people ask that rhetoric be censored?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with free speech these days is that one group of folks have found that if they ignore the element of truth - i.e. they say any damn thing they want - the soon discover if they say something untrue often enough, a lot of people will be fooled or otherwise bum-fuddled.

I  mean, manipulators - who are quite specialized and effective - have realized since the days of Mark Twain that "

A Lie Can Travel Halfway Around the World While the Truth Is Putting On Its Shoes "

The real point  here is that we are charged with maintaining a democratic form for our governing institutions but we can clearly identify a group of folks whose whole  existence is dedicated to those institutions being destroyed.  I mean, believe him when Steve Bannon says he wants to tear the  world order apart.

Some folks around  here seem intent on helping him do so through their manipulation of conversations. Others find such bull in the china shop antics totally undesirable and worthy of repudiation.

The question posed to the owners is whether they should take pains to repudiate the statements they know are lies or whether they just deny some of those folks the ability to speak. 

Obviously, in the past, and much to the chagrin of many who prefer less conflict to more, the tactic of repudiation is proving problematic. It is also a pain in the ass as the repudiation is by definition a reactive approach as the idiots spout their lies leaving the rest of us to put on our shoes and then chase the lies ... in some cases never catching them.

Abandoning the field of battle to the manipulators is also not an option leaving the formal STFU (censorship) option.

We see this with the Russian operatives sending to meme-ville videos of white women complaining/ranting about a hispanic taco truck parked close to their neighborhood ... hoping that the insults hurled at the Hispanics will cause them to over-react violently on tape, creating a rallying point for the white nationalists to point to as they are sent into the streets with their assault rifle to teach those Hispanics 'bout 'merica ...

The good news in this is that the national tribalism/partisanship really has very little to do with the local interactions during most times meaning there is plenty to talk about on pcom.

The bottom line, though, is that the right wing conservatives of the world believe our society is a 'zero-sum' game of monopoly and they think, somehow, they are not only destined to win, but this is an existential conflict and hence, there are ultimately no rules.

We, as a society, understood that about the philosophy of Nazism.  The question is whether Trumpism is any  different in its reliance on zero-sum economics and the existential realities of living in PRESIDENT of the UNITED STATES of America's world.

gpatton

'

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/8/2019 at 10:43 AM, The Sound Guy said:

The problem becomes who decides what is hate speech?  It’s a Slippery Slope.  What’s hateful to one person may be just truth to another and just idiocy to a third. 

If i declare to be triggered by any discussion of something. Will it be banned?

This is true.  A good example is what happens to those who call for tougher border security to prevent people from entering our country illegally.  Those who support that are now accused of being racists and using hate speech by those who think we should have open borders.  Or if you say many illegal immigrants are rapists and murders; you are accused of saying all illegal immigrants are rapists and murderers and therefore a racists and inciting hate speech.  It's crazy.
 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't like a lot of censorship, but do see the need for it on those rare occasions. (especially when a topic has totally spun out of control and turned into a name calling fight)  I personally felt that Pubby did a pretty good job!  I am sure that trying to keep "everyone" happy,  "all the time", is very difficult .   I guess what I am saying is,  not too much censorship, but sometimes a little policing when things are out of control.  

tightrope.jpeg

Edited by ivylove
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/8/2019 at 10:43 AM, The Sound Guy said:

The problem becomes who decides what is hate speech?  It’s a Slippery Slope.  What’s hateful to one person may be just truth to another and just idiocy to a third. 

If i declare to be triggered by any discussion of something. Will it be banned?

Sound Guy,  I agree with you on this.  However,  isn't it also a "slippery Slope"  to allow a thread to get totally out of control?  At what point, in your opinion, is it proper to intervene? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, ivylove said:

Sound Guy,  I agree with you on this.  However,  isn't it also a "slippery Slope"  to allow a thread to get totally out of control?  At what point, in your opinion, is it proper to intervene? 

Note I'm not saying there shouldn't be moderation.   Good moderation is critical to a sites success.   

If it was me running a community site?  It would be when personal attacks start or discussions get liable.   You can argue about the opinion, but leave the person/group that has the opinion out of the response and you can't discuss anything that would get the site owner in trouble.    

I might not like, say, ... EPA rules, but if instead of saying *why* or *what* about a particular rule I don't like, I start bashing the supporters of rule in some way, (They are idiots, or ignoramuses, etc)  that doesn't make for a constructive conversation.   Even automatic gainsaying, ( Saying "No it isn't", without additional discussion to a comment), while annoying and pretty useless discussion wise,  would be acceptable under this definition.  

However,  banning topics, just because certain people don't like them, calling them "hate speech", is just censorship.   Trying to wrap it up in velvet as "protecting" people from "bad things" means you end up with a bunch of people who can't handle reality.  And those people are scary as crap as you never know what they do in defense of their ideals. (I assume we all know someone that you don't ask about certain topics without them flying off the handle) 

That said, if the owners want to create forums *for* this kind of thing, like the "Marching Left" forum, then that is a choice too.   I'd like to make a one for the other side as well, "Correcting Right" or something, :) and if the rule is that the other side is not allowed to post anything that conflicts with that side, then you can let the dedicated persons scratch each others back to there hearts content. 

However, I seriously doubt even those forums will be conflict free, as you still have the problem of the difference of levels on both the Right and Left.    On another website I was on, one member got upset because most of the rest of "were not dedicated enough" to the right.  Moderators were lucky, he ended up leaving on his own, but it started getting heated before he did.  So even with separation into large groups, their can be conflict.  

And of course there is the "Yelling 'Fire" in a theater" type comments.   Start *demanding* or *supporting * violence against a person/group, that can be liable to the owner and should be nuked from orbit just to be sure.    

Now *if* the owners want to limit the site to specific topics, that is fine as well.   I'm just saying, they should have specific rules about what gets posted.  It's up to the owners to decide what the rules are and they should be plainly stated, and MUST be evenly applied. <---- Critical to keep tempers from flaring too much. 

'Just my opinion.   It could be wrong.  :)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/8/2019 at 10:43 AM, The Sound Guy said:

The problem becomes who decides what is hate speech?  

Universal truth ; Never trust a Politician, a Lawyer or an Insurance salesman. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, CitizenCain said:

Universal truth ; Never trust a Politician, a Lawyer or an Insurance salesman. 

For real.   I might add a car salesman and a vacuum salesman to that.  (Long stories both of them)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, CitizenCain said:

Universal truth ; Never trust a Politician, a Lawyer or an Insurance salesman. 

Far from universal truth, CC.  There was a time in our history - maybe ancient history - when none of those professions existed and yet, trust was even more fleeting than now. 

I recognize your intent was to provide a meaningless quip in hopes others would find it funny, or fitting but I fear that distrust is so rampant, not because of the lawyer, politician, insurance salesman, used car salesman or door-to-door vacuum salesman, but because of their bosses who threaten them with their job if they don't produce not only their daily bread but a thousand loaves for the owner.

gpatton

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.