Why do you think anyone reserves the right to block funding to what gov determines as “hate speech”. If someone wants to pay for hate speech they can anyways do it right now with donations.
Ideas like this quickly devolves into gov marking any message that criticizes them as “Hate speech”. Democracies like Japan, to an extent Singapore do that already, officially by law.
Nations like Canada, India, Israel, Hungary, do it indirectly in unofficial but rampant ways.
Speech is not a crime, listening to hate speech and starting to be unjustly hateful towards people is a crime.
Punish the people who discriminate and act on the advice of hate speech. Do not punish speech, or else soon, you’ll get confused when gov starts changing what “hate” means.
> Speech is not a crime, listening to hate speech and starting to be unjustly hateful towards people is a crime.
I'm confused. You start off talking about merrits of blocking payment related to hate speech (or lack thereof). And then you point to the danger of government deciding what "hate" means.
That is all good and well, but to get back to the original issue - I'm wondering if you feel paying money to people spreading hate speech amounts to a crime or not?
Unfettered speech can lead to a cult following which, as we here in Europe know very well, can be extremely fucking dangerous. Which is precisely why some speech will land you in prison.
Germany had plenty of hate speech laws back when Hitler was elected. Still the question that remains here would be: which government gets to decide what's hate speech? Like even if we could have a payment webAPI that could "block" hate speech (not sure how that would be possible), do we go by the standards of the US? Europe? Russia? How would it work concretely?
Trying to discuss the implications of hate speech for something that would be international is asinine imo, the term basically means everything and nothing (when used in a global context)
Why do you care about the two degrees of separation ?
The people posting hate speech already get in legal trouble.
And the websites hosting that can eventually get in trouble too (if they can't show that they did due diligence / were sufficiently close to a "common carrier" status).
And if it gets bad enough (typically if these fist two categories violate a bunch of other laws), their funding might get investigated too. Money flows for that kind of use typically fairly easy to track, as long as law enforcement actually bothers to.
In the US the receiver gets unbanked without warning or explanation and permanently loses the ability to accept money through any service via systems like MATCH.
2 of the sites in the top 10 of that list have been criticized for hosting hate speech.
The 3 sites which have had trouble receiving payments don't overlap with the 2 which have been criticized for hosting hate speech.
And notably, many sites which are more hateful than those and have experienced deplatforming efforts, are still thriving, such as KiwiFarms and 4Chan. As it turns out, there are enough hateful people out there that they can manage technical/financial solutions to deplatforming efforts.
Hate speech is becoming a go-to justification for policing the internet, but the reality is that those policies are more effective in harming user privacy and freedom than they are in curbing hate speech.
Porn can be an understandable concern because of the amount of chargebacks it can create for processors, though the excessive chargebacks should be the rule not the porn. Hate speech they never tried to explain afaik. FWIW repealing fair banking[1] was immediate priority for Biden up there with fortifying elections[2].
You're not saying anything I don't already know, you're just changing the topic.
My point is that when you said, "In the US the receiver gets unbanked without warning or explanation and permanently loses the ability to accept money through any service via systems like MATCH", that's flat wrong in the most prominent cases, and in less-prominent cases where deplatforming has been applied it hasn't been effective.
It's absurd to try to block a direct payment model to all content creators because you think it will be an effective payment model for hate speech, when hate speakers already have working payment models.
The regime doesn’t want people saying or thinking things they aren’t being currently told to say and think. The regime is technically not allowed to use the legal system directly to punish people for this quasi-crime but is very happy to ruin everything else in same pursuit. So why should a protocol for p2p financial transactions the regime doesn’t control be allowed to exist?