You seem to believe that Gab is wholly composed of harassers. This is simply false.
The majority of Gab users are nothing like that. AND harassers exist on every platform.
Singling out Gab like this is silly.
The reason Gab has been seized upon is because it's popular with Trump supporters, and a lot of Trump opponents are desperate to do anything they can to prevent Trump 2020.
That's the issue that I see with free speech. To clarify, "free speech" as an ideology is different than "free speech" as a right.
Words are able to harm and kill people by directly amplifying hate in people, who then commit actual hate crimes. There are examples of exactly that happening. [>>]
"Free speech" as a law takes that into account, where "free speech" as an ideology completely ignores that relationship in favor of "I can say whatever I want and it will have no consequences".
The consequences are there in the open to see - and, for some reason, they are not seen by the proponents of absolute free speech as an ideology.
@phoe @jhol @fdroidorg First of all : a) that is not a legally accepted definition, since moral relativism is incompatible with the basis of law which is natural law, b) it's not an objective definition, since there can be no laws that have to applied differently to different groups, c) it's not a logical definition, because, since no standard of what constitutes a "protected attribute" is defined, ANY attribute IS a protected attribute, therefore ALL groups are protected groups, which renders the meaning of "protected group" contradictory, d) it's not a rational definition since if the objective of the concept of "hate speech" is to fight discrimination, it is irrational to fight discrimination by discriminating between "protected" and "non-protected" groups.
Therefore trying to create a non existent standard of law applying moral relativism using as an authority ( i.e. Wikipedia ) that is not part of the justice or lawmaking branch, is both pointless and self-defeating.
@phoe @jhol @fdroidorg Repeat with me : "Your feelings are not an argument". So, empathy it is NOT a logical justification of anything, not public policies, not economic policies, not social policies. Only rational policies based on falsifiable hypothesis that allows to correct those policies if what they predict does not match objective reality.
No, I disagree.
Repeat with me: "emotions exist and are real and valuable". Humans are emotional beasts, not computers; emotions are an integral part of human life and convey a ton of information to other people, and it is wasteful to purposefully ignore such a valuable source of information and perception.
I see what you're saying. I think I am more temperamentally inclined to the @The_Mad_Pirate 's way of thinking.
I agree we need to understand people's feelings.
My concern is that feelings are becoming quite divorced from reality, and being used to drive bone-headed arbitrary decisions.
Since they're intertwined with everything, it's impossible for me to consider reality without its emotional context, because - if we remove one source of information along with everything connected to it - then decisions made on the basis of that source will seem completely unjustified and "bone-headed". [>>]
@jhol @The_Mad_Pirate And if they seem unjustified and bone-headed and arbitrary, then it's trivial for a person to go into full-stop mode and start opposing the decision in question along with people who have made it. It's stupid, it's bonkers, it's idiotic - and these statements immediately block any attempts that would otherwise try to understand that decision with more information - including the emotional part of it. [>>]
@jhol @The_Mad_Pirate Which, again, I want to have complete information. Otherwise I'll end up with a logical system that, by definition, cannot explain everything. The holes that are made in the logical system are where we must use assumptions, and it's trivial to base a whole theory off a wrong assumption.
The way I think of it, nowadays people are almost trained by the general society to succeed via wealth and money, via social status, via company size, via contract sizes, et cetera; the fact that people are emotional beings is downplayed, ignored, shamed, and/or marked as weakness. [>>]
And I consider that to be highly crippling in general, since it shapes a legion of people who are, by design, unable to understand emotions, and therefore prone to depression, illnesses, and suicide (especially men).
That, in turn, makes them emotionally illiterate *without any fault from their side*, and I wonder if @The_Mad_Pirate is one of these folk. (That's not a question for me to answer though - I'm not in their head and can't figure it out from outside.)
I don't think you really choose your political affiliation. It looks like an expression of your innate personality type.
Politics emerges because both left and right logic and emotion have utility. Then a negotiation takes place that allows society to respond to the world. This is why we must listen to each other again.
No good can come of all this deplatforming that's going on
If the discussion occurs in a civilized manner - for instance, without harmful speech - then it is obvious that it has a chance of succeeding and producing adequate results. Otherwise, discussion is impossible. That's the core of the issue.
And so there's no way of making discriminations like this without authoritarianism, bias, contradictions and double standards.
Which is why, even though it's often ugly, freedom is the only way to go.
Let people speak.
> Isn't deplatforming supposed to be essentially a tactical tool for silencing harmful speech or punishing bad actors, when those issues are not being dealt with by other means?
It is. The speaking ones are unwilling to be quiet en masse, the listening ones are unable to listen en masse, so nuclear options, such as deplatforming, are chosen and executed.
Since when "Hate" = "It offended me"?
Maybe, but I'm not talking abut legal definition. Legal definition of free speech also exists, yet you didn't mention it. Maybe because legal definition of free speech clearly excludes inciting violence and other crimes, which is exactly the boundary of free speech we are dealing with now.
@jhol I have to remind you again that you started arguing with "law" yourself. I never said the issue of free speech and hate speech is about law, you did.
The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!