this post was submitted on 21 Oct 2024
875 points (98.8% liked)

Technology

59881 readers
5148 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I oppose letting anyone define hate speech as a matter of principle, because even if I agree with the definition completely now, I may not continue to agree with the definition in the future. Look at what has been happening in the USA since the October 7 attack: a lot of people I had considered my political allies turned out to have beliefs I consider to be hateful, and meanwhile these people consider my own beliefs hateful. The solution is not to empower a single central authority to decide which sort of hate is allowed. It is (as it has always been) to maintain the principle of free speech.

[โ€“] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago

How about incitements to violence and outright explicit disinformation/misinformation, like:

  • [group] should be [violent act]
  • [group] are [dehumanizing pejorative] that deserve [violent act]
  • [dogwhistle for the actual Nazis, like the 14 words, terminology specifically referencing the Final Solution, etc]
  • [hard r] are [extreme dehumanizing pejorative] and don't deserve [human rights]
  • [violent or repulsive act] the [slur]
  • "Despite only making up 13%..."
  • "Whites create and forget, [slur]s copy and remember..."