|
|
|
|
|
|
by emjoes1
1052 days ago
|
|
|
I understand trying to track misinformation but why are we tracking 'hate speech'? Tangent: If I am in a conversation with someone (a friend) and you over hear me saying 'that's gay' don't bother to come and tell me that's offensive. I wasn't talking to you and I don't think that is hate speech, especially in the context I was using. I feel like society is trying to police too much shit. It reminds me of the old movie Demolition Man where he is fined for saying a dirty/hate word. |
|
|
One of the main rationales given by advocates for very strong first amendment protections of free speech in the United States - for example, allowing Nazis to do their bullshit Nazi things rather than censoring them as the Germans do - is that it allows us to keep an eye on the Nazis. Who they are, what they're up to, etc.
Some other trends worthy of study come from having a free exchange of, ahem, "ideas." Like when we find police or government officials who can be held accountable under the law for openly racist, anti-Semitic, or harassing behavior in their public dealings on social media, and so on.
A more meaningful question would be, if you have the technology to track hate speech trends, why wouldn't you do it? I don't necessarily want the government to do it, but otherwise, sure.
> If I am in a conversation with someone (a friend) and you over hear me saying 'that's gay' don't bother to come and tell me that's offensive.
The bar for what CCDH (and more generally, sane people) regard as hate speech trends worthy of study is a little higher than stupid shit you were overheard saying to one of your friends.