"You're portraying this as some kind of whim that changes with people's moods, but that's a complete, total, 100% straw man."
This is completely false.
The popular definition of what people think FB ought to take down literally changes week by week.
It is absolutely a 'whim' that changes over time.
The issue with FB is not, for the most part the 'legal' definition 'hate speech' - it's 'speech which people consider harmful'.
If FB were to focus very intently on removing that which would 'legally' be considered, technically 'hate speech' - which I believe they do - the populism against them would be just the same.
Ironically - it's your argument that is the 'straw man' - by holding up a pragmatically fictitious standard (i.e. 'legal hate speech') as the standard by which FB would be measured.
And FYI FB's platform already doesn't allow hate speech by their own interpretation, and a whole host of other forms of speech as well, i.e. their bar is at least theoretically already higher than that.
This issue is Greyer than Grey, those who see this in Black and White I believe are not looking closely enough. It's messy.
EDIT: FYI 'hate speech' has legal definitions outside of the US.
I would also like to point out the very problematic implied assumption that American popular social framework is somehow relevant anywhere else in the world.
This is completely false.
The popular definition of what people think FB ought to take down literally changes week by week.
It is absolutely a 'whim' that changes over time.
The issue with FB is not, for the most part the 'legal' definition 'hate speech' - it's 'speech which people consider harmful'.
If FB were to focus very intently on removing that which would 'legally' be considered, technically 'hate speech' - which I believe they do - the populism against them would be just the same.
Ironically - it's your argument that is the 'straw man' - by holding up a pragmatically fictitious standard (i.e. 'legal hate speech') as the standard by which FB would be measured.
And FYI FB's platform already doesn't allow hate speech by their own interpretation, and a whole host of other forms of speech as well, i.e. their bar is at least theoretically already higher than that.
This issue is Greyer than Grey, those who see this in Black and White I believe are not looking closely enough. It's messy.
EDIT: FYI 'hate speech' has legal definitions outside of the US.
I would also like to point out the very problematic implied assumption that American popular social framework is somehow relevant anywhere else in the world.