Social media posts inciting hate and division have “real world consequences” and there is a responsibility to regulate content, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, insisted on Friday, following Meta’s decision to end its fact-checking programme in the United States.
It seems we’re arguing the same thing.
The far right in the US argues that “free speech” means forcing large SM orgs to give them a platform, and this UN goon seems to think it means silencing “hate speech” (I guess freedom from speech?).
Both are wrong.
Yes that’s what it means. The platforms are under no obligation to give it to them, but if they don’t allow certain types of speech, that is the definition of censorship (the opposite of free speech). It is their prerogative as a private platform to censor speech.
The UN goons think silencing hate speech is not censorship. It is. Let’s stop playing senseless semantics games and just own it. Say “yes we are censoring hate speech” because arguing that it’s not is dishonest.
Exactly, and I argue censorship is only a problem when it comes from the government. If a private platform censors my speech, I can either accept it or go elsewhere. If the government censors my speech, I’m screwed.