hate-speech   79

« earlier    

Öffentlichkeit: Geflüchtete, Islam, AfD: So toxisch ist die Debatte im Netz
Wir haben rund 10.000 Facebook-Kommentare und Tweets an deutsche Abgeordnete gesichtet. Unsere Datenanalyse zeigt: Wer sich positiv über Migranten und Muslime äußert oder Rechtspopulisten kritisiert, kriegt ordentlich Hass ab. Aber nicht jede Kritik ist gleich ein Shitstorm.

am 28.05.2018
Alexander Fanta, Marie Bröckling, Julian Pütz, Leo Thüer
hate-speech  Hassrede  twitter  facebook  Studien  Hatespeech 
7 weeks ago by amprekord
Why a tech journalist like Quinn Norton might think it’s fine to be friends with Weev.
Defending free speech is critically important. But free speech doesn’t exist in a vacuum. It exists in relation to social and economic realities that shape our lives with equal force.

In a way, Norton’s friendship with Weev can be made sense of through the lens of the communities that they both traveled through. They belonged to a group that had the prescient insight that the internet was worth fighting for. Those fights were often railing against the threat of censorship, in defense of personal privacy, and thus in defense of hackers who found security holes, and the ability to use the internet as freely as possible, without government meddling. It’s a train of thought that preserved free speech but didn’t simultaneously work as hard to defend communities that were ostracized on the internet because so much of that speech was harmful.
quinn-norton  free-speech  nazi  internet  governance  public-space  civil-liberties  hate-speech 
february 2018 by tarakc02
Virginia Heffernan on Twitter: "PSA. For anyone beset by Nazi and brownshirt bots: I changed my Twitter address to Germany at the suggestion of a shrewd friend, and they va… https://t.co/dhwtWzEmbN"
PSA. For anyone beset by Nazi and brownshirt bots: I changed my Twitter address to Germany at the suggestion of a shrewd friend, and they vanished. Germany has stricter hate-speech laws.
twitter  tweet  tools  practical  social_media  social_networks  Germany  Nazi  hate-speech 
december 2017 by cataspanglish
Judith Butler Overestimates the Power of Hateful Speech - The Atlantic
More controversial were her suggestions that the Constitutions’s equal-protection clause is sometimes at odds with protected speech, and that Title IX and UC Berkeley’s Principles of Community should sometimes trump the First Amendment. As she put it:

If the commitment to free speech provisions under the First Amendment takes precedence over Title IX, the Equal Protection Clause, and the Berkeley Principles of Community, then I suppose we are being asked to understand that we will, in the name of freedom of speech, willingly allow our environment to be suffused with hatred, threats, and violence, that we will see the values we teach and to which we adhere destroyed by our commitment to free speech or, rather, to a very specific – possibly overbroad – interpretation of what constitutes expressive activity protected by that constitutional principle.

That passage is striking for its non-sequitur. For decades, the First Amendment has taken precedence over federal statutes like Title IX and campus codes of conduct. Yet public universities have not been suffused with hatred, threats, and violence as a result; and there is no reason to expect UC Berkeley to meet that fate.

Equally baseless is the notion that the values UC Berkeley teaches and adheres to will be destroyed unless certain kinds of speech are suppressed from its campus. No force-field prevents outside ideas from crossing Bancroft Way. Berkeley students will inevitably encounter many viewpoints contrary to those taught to them on campus. There is no reason to suspect that the worst of those viewpoints are more persuasive or more damaging when uttered in official events sponsored by campus Republicans than when heard on a podcast or seen on Reddit. And it seems to me that young people are least likely to fall for hucksters they encounter among peers and professors ready with a full range of critical retorts, as compared to stumbling on them alone or in an online echo chamber.

Butler’s instincts are different than mine in part because she believes that wrongheaded speakers wield extraordinary power over college students, and implies one cannot really oppose bad values without suppressing the expression of them.

She stated:

If free speech does take precedence over every other constitutional principle and every other community principle, then perhaps we should no longer claim to be weighing or balancing competing principles or values.

We should perhaps frankly admit that we have agreed in advance to have our community sundered, racial and sexual minorities demeaned, the dignity of trans people denied, that we are, in effect, willing to be wrecked by this principle of free speech, considered more important than any other value. If so, we should be honest about the bargain we have made: we are willing to be broken by that principle, and that, yes, our commitments to dignity, equality, and non-violence will be, for better or worse, secondary. Is that how we want it to be?

But all people are created equal and endowed with dignity by virtue of being human. A trans student’s dignity—their quality of being worthy of honor or respect—is not something an anti-trans speaker can take away; Butler is wrong to write as if their dignity is so contingent that an anti-trans speaker can somehow abscond with it (but not if he’s denied a campus platform and says the same words elsewhere?). Trans students will spend decades in a world with folks who attack their dignity. They are done a horrific disservice if the message they get at university is that their dignity is thereby diminished every time.
Judith-Butler  free-speech  hate-speech 
december 2017 by thegrandnarrative
Facebook: Mark Zuckerberg will eine Magna Carta - WELT
Man sei offen für alle Ideen, sagt Facebook-Gründer Mark Zuckerberg. Aber damit kann er Hassbotschaften in seinem Netzwerk nicht mehr entschuldigen. Ein Expertenrat soll jetzt neue Leitlinien erarbeiten.
facebook  Hassrede  hate-speech  DonaldTrump  MarcZuckerberg  LucianoFloridi  socialbots  datenschutz 
october 2017 by amprekord
WHY HATE SPEECH SHOULD NOT BE BANNED | Pandaemonium
Hate speech restriction is a means not of tackling bigotry but of rebranding certain, often obnoxious, ideas or arguments as immoral. It is a way of making certain ideas illegitimate without bothering politically to challenge them. And that is dangerous.
free-speech  hate-speech 
october 2017 by shorewalker
"You Can't Stay Here: The Efficacy of Reddit’s 2015 Ban Examined Through Hate Speech"

In 2015, Reddit closed several subreddits—foremost among them r/fatpeoplehate and r/CoonTown—due to violations of Reddit’s anti-harassment policy. However, the effectiveness of banning as a moderation approach remains unclear: banning might diminish hateful behavior, or it may relocate such behavior to different parts of the site.

We study the ban of r/fatpeoplehate and r/CoonTown in terms of its effect on both participating users and affected subreddits. Working from over 100M Reddit posts and comments, we generate hate speech lexicons to examine variations in hate speech usage via causal inference methods. We find that the ban worked for Reddit. More accounts than expected discontinued using the site; those that stayed drastically decreased their hate speech usage—by at least 80%. Though many subreddits saw an influx of r/fatpeoplehate and r/CoonTown “migrants,” those subreddits saw no significant changes in hate speech usage. In other words, other subreddits did not inherit the problem. We conclude by reflecting on the apparent success of the ban, discussing implications for online moderation, Reddit and internet communities more broadly.


(Via Anil Dash)
abuse  reddit  research  hate-speech  community  moderation  racism  internet 
september 2017 by jm
reddit's 2015 ban, hate speech
Shutting down hateful & racist subreddits worked. The total amount of hatred spewed decreased. Read the research:
hate-speech  online-discourse  reddit  online-abuse  abuse 
september 2017 by mappings
How Hate Groups Forced Online Platforms to Reveal Their True Nature
"A community of trolls on an internet platform is, in political terms, not totally unlike a fascist movement in a weak liberal democracy: It engages with and uses the rules and protections of the system it inhabits with the intent of subverting it and eventually remaking it in their image or, if that fails, merely destroying it."

Using a systems hugest ideals to undermine it

"In the process of building private communities, these companies had put on the costumes of liberal democracies. They borrowed the language of rights to legitimize arbitrary rules, creating what the technology lawyer Kendra Albert calls ‘‘legal talismans.’’ This was first and foremost operationally convenient or even necessary: What better way to avoid liability and responsibility for how customers use your product? It was also good marketing. It’s easier to entrust increasingly large portions of your private and public life to an advertising and data-mining firm if you’re led to believe it’s something more. But as major internet platforms have grown to compose a greater share of the public sphere, playing host to consequential political organization — not to mention media — their internal contradictions have become harder to ignore. Far before Charlottesville, they had already become acute."

A costume to go with the power they're accumulating

"The platforms’ sudden action in response to an outpouring of public grief and rage resembles, at first glance, a moral awakening and suggests a mounting sense of responsibility to the body politic. You could be forgiven for seeing this as a turning point for these sites, away from a hands-off approach to the communities they host and toward something with more oversight and regulation. An inside-out version of this analysis has been embraced by right-wing users, who have wasted no time declaring these bans a violation of their free speech. But this is an incomplete accounting of what happened and one that serves two parties and two parties alone: the companies themselves and the people they’ve just banned."

Fast reaction to new-Nazi online presence may not be as wonderful as it seems
facebook  panopticon  regulation  hate-speech  from instapaper
september 2017 by jesse_the_k
How Hate Groups Forced Online Platforms to Reveal Their True Nature - The New York Times
In the process of building private communities, these companies had put on the costumes of liberal democracies. They borrowed the language of rights to legitimize arbitrary rules, creating what the technology lawyer Kendra Albert calls ‘‘legal talismans.’’ This was first and foremost operationally convenient or even necessary: What better way to avoid liability and responsibility for how customers use your product? It was also good marketing. It’s easier to entrust increasingly large portions of your private and public life to an advertising and data-mining firm if you’re led to believe it’s something more. But as major internet platforms have grown to compose a greater share of the public sphere, playing host to consequential political organization — not to mention media — their internal contradictions have become harder to ignore. Far before Charlottesville, they had already become acute.
hate-speech  internet  discourse  racism  nazi  kkk  capitalism  public-square  public-space  governance  privatization 
august 2017 by tarakc02

« earlier    

related tags

#nichtegal  1st-amendment  4chan  abu-usamah-at-thahabi  abuse  academia  activism  ahmadi  alt-right  amok  arvato  author:julia-angwin  automatisierung  banning-words  bertelsmann  bigotry  bild  black-twitter  bmjv  bots  boycott  bpb  bullying  bundestag  business  bverfg  capitalism  cdu/csu-bundestagsfraktion  cdu  cen  censorship  charlottesville  chat-bot  civil-liberties  clerics  cloudflare  comments  commercial  community-management  community  conservatism  court  csu  datenschutz  david-hudson  definition  delicious  democracy  deutsch  disability  discourse  discrimination  diversity  donaldtrump  dorotheescholz  doxxing  echr  emotionen  englisch  english  eric-schmidt  eu  europe  facebook-content-moderation  facebook  fact-checking  faith  fake  fake_news  feminism  filtering  first-amendment-center  first-amendment  free-speech  freedom  freedomofexpression  freespeech  gamergate  gaming  genie-lauren  german  germany  glennbeck  google  governance  hannes-grassegger  harassment  hass  hassrede  hate-crimes  hate  haters  hatespeech  heikomaas  holocaust  human-rights  infrastructure  internet-culture  internet  iran  islam  israel  italy  janfleischhauer  japan  josefkraus  journalism  journalismus  judith-butler  julia-angwin  juliakrüger  justiz  katatrophe  kevin-marks  kkk  krise  krisenkompetenzen  la-times  laura-beth-nielsen  law  legal  lgbt  liberalism  liberty  linksammlung  lucianofloridi  marcusdagloriamartins  marczuckerberg  media  mediabias  medienkompetenz  medienpolitik  medienrecht  medienregulierung  medienwissenschaft  meinungsfreiheit  misogyny  moderation  moreandagain  muslims  nazi  netherlands  netzdg  netzohnehass  netzpolitik  neueunsicherheit  ofcom  ohforfuckssake  online-abuse  online-bullying  online-discourse  online-hate-speech  online  operalization  pakistan  panopticon  papers  podcast  police  political-correctness  politicalbots  politics  polizei  practical  privatization  propublica  public-space  public-square  publication:propublica  quinn-norton  race-ethnicity  racism  rants  reddit  regulation  religion  religious-bigotry  republican  research  right-to-be-forgotten  sally-kern  schule  sea-lions  secret  service  slate-mag  social-media  social-networks  social_media  social_networks  socialbots  socialmedia  sozialenetzwerke  spam-bot  speech  spiegel-online  spiegel  splc  stanford  studien  suaem  switzerland  the-root  tools  trolle  tv  tweet  twitter  un  usa  violence  white-privilege  william-satelan  youtube  Öffentlichkeit 

Copy this bookmark:



description:


tags: