Who decides what hate speech is and how long until those goal posts are moved?

Judges

When judges or legislators say

Theres a very real distinction between action and speech. If I’m bragging about how I just robbed someone and some fb admin reports me that’s understandable because an act of crime was committed. If I’m saying this guy needs to be punched In the face, I want to punch this guy in the face, etc. you shouldn’t be able to prosecute that.

This is some minority report type stuff.

threatening and inciting are already potentially a legal issue depending on the circumstance

Don’t be obtuse that’s not what I’m talking about. If I say this guy cut me off he needs to be punched in the face, that’s neither of those things.
If I say this Asian guy cut me off he needs to be punched in the face, is something like that going to be picked up under their opaque hate speech algos to be passed onto the courts?

This is very Stasi like.

This post was edited by ofthevoid on Jun 25 2019 08:32pm

You could answer the questions just by looking up the applicable laws. Usually hate speech is something that incites violence based on race or other protected class.

but isnt this at the core of our current debate about free speech/hate speech and censorship on social media?
the fact that on social media, it are the social media companies themselves - and not judges! - who decide what they consider hate speech or what they otherwise deem unacceptable opinions, all without an ounce of democratic legitimation or oversight.

the social media giants have grown too powerful, and they are starting to abuse this power to force their democratically not legitimized agenda onto the broader public. they are increasingly becoming political actors of their own, but without the usual responsibility to voters or the option to vote them out of office/away from the corridors of power.

it's damn time to whip out the antitrust laws.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Jun 25 2019 09:11pm

You would have a hard time enforcing them as trusts or monopolies. They have direct competitors although they make up the bulk of the market share.

Hm, maybe, but I think you know what I mean... they might not be trusts, but labeling them as monopolies imho is very justified. On social media, the size of a network is a value of its own, in a way that smaller competitors just cannot compete with it. Social media of various types just has a natural tendency to form monopolies, or quasi-monopolies.

Hypothetically: if the government busted facebook using anti-monopoly laws and facebook got completely destroyed, then 10 years later, we would again be in the same situation where its successor "hairpaper", or perhaps a resurrected myspace, enjoys a 90%+ market share.

Facebook has a huge share, but it overlaps with the user-base of twitter, youtube, etc. so heavily that you can't really say any of them have anything close to a monopoly. We're beyond a time when concepts like monopoly and market share are useful.