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…”
SirEDCaLot@lemmy.today 1 week ago
For the record, I personally thing everything you said is truly repugnant. Although I’d point out the first one I’ve seen applied to Trump voters, frequently, in mainstream discussions on ‘civilized’ platforms, with little or no moderator response. So apparently it’s okay to be prejudiced and discriminatory as long as it’s against someone others don’t like.
That said, my problem is not the banning of these statements. Most platforms quite reasonably would ban such things, and I have no problem with that.
What I have a problem with is the government REQUIRING a platform ban certain speech. I don’t care if it’s the most vile horrible hate filled shit. It should be up to the platform, not the government, to decide what speech is acceptable or not.
Because if government gets to decide what private citizens are allowed to discuss on privately-owned forums, that’s a very slippery slope.
wanderingmagus@lemm.ee 1 week ago
In that case, what is the line between “simply” hate speech and actual radicalization to terroristic acts and/or conspiracy to terroristic acts and/or incitement to terroristic acts? At what point does it stop being “someone should [violent act] the [slur]s” and become “I bought a gun and several mags and have been practicing for the [dogwhistle mass violence event], let’s [violent act] the [slur]s”? At what point does it stop being 4chan trolling and become all but admitting intention to commit the Christchurch shooting? A Stormfront discussion forum becoming outright planning for and incitement to a Jan 6th riot?
SirEDCaLot@lemmy.today 1 week ago
A better question is where is the line between ‘simply’ a controversial opinion and actual hate speech?
Because if a platform is required by law to ban hate speech, that’s going to sweep up a lot of controversial opinions along with it.
Is it ‘hate speech’ to express any negative opinion about an oppressed group? And if not, where do you draw THAT line?
(if you want an answer to your original question I wrote one out but it’s somewhat long…)
wanderingmagus@lemm.ee 1 week ago
(Sure, I don’t mind long replies.)