Quote:
Originally Posted by PepsiFree
Hypocritical how? As Scroopy mentioned, they have terms and conditions. There are specific policies in place. One of those is that you can't spread hate speech, which also happens to be restricted by law in many countries.
They're still open platforms. You can spread nearly any idea you want, so long as you aren't spreading hate speech, which seems pretty fair.
Are you suggesting that hate speech is simply a "disagreeable idea"? Given that there is no shortage of voices on these platforms from across the political spectrum, what ideas or beliefs do you think they disagree with?
Do you disagree with restricting hate speech?
|
I disagree with nebulous definitions of what "hate speech" entails. Today it may be White Supremacists and Nazis. Tomorrow its critics of BLM. Next week it might be any perspective to the right of Mao. Selective enforcement of overly-broad weasel-worded TOS is a problem for me.
Regulating speech is a complex subject and an extremely slippery slope that needs constant public vigilance to prevent the government from encroaching upon, let alone mega-corporations that already monopolize discourse on the internet. I would prefer to err on the side of allowing all speech (excepting already agreed upon illegal speech such as incitement to imminent violence, doxxing, links to child porn, etc..) with all the ugliness and warts that entails.