There is a rush by legislators and corporations to curb hate speech and fake news on social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter. Regulators are tripping over themselves and each other to write new laws on curbing offensive speech and to regulate social media all the while not having a clue how the internet works. Social media corporations are busy writing new algorithms to curb anything that politicians may find displeasing in an effort to avoid regulation and thus result in creating an even more restrictive environment than what the politicians would impose. I find all this to be a dangerously slippery slope and I would make the case that hate speech and fake news should be protected forms speech provided they are not calling for direct harm or damage to anyone or group.
We already have clear evidence that the social media algorithms designed to curb hate speech and fake news will block social media posts from those with conservative leanings while letting through content from far left-wing groups like BLM which openly supports killing of policemen and attacking people because they are white. Strangely enough, those same algorithms will also block or obfuscate any posts related to history or the US Constitution that supports free speech as being too violent.
As a parent of young children, I feel an instinctive rush to protect them whenever I hear someone had used a racial slur on my kids or made fun of them for being Asian. This especially hits home for me since when I was growing up in the 70s and 80s, I was picked on by both the white and black kids in my neighborhood. However, I teach my kids to be resilient and to hear what the bullies may say but realize nothing they say matters as they have no idea about anyone they are bad mouthing about. More importantly, it’s their view of their own self-worth that makes them put such comments into context. I would not support any rules banning bullies from saying rude things or hide my kids from hearing any such verbal abuse directed at them. It is part of growing up and learning how to deal with bad people and adversity.
FBI criminologists have found that the kids and young adults who commit mass murders were kids who where protected and insulated and snap when they run into rejection or adversity as they got older. They were not mentally capable of handling rejection and cannot understand why they are not getting the equivalent of a participation trophy when they thought they deserved one. If we were to effectively filter or ban all forms of unsavory speech or offensive material from social media, what will someone feel or react when they come across it? When the day comes we are all fed one version of the “truth”, that is not truth but propaganda as most all information is subjective. By being exposed to varying viewpoints, even extreme and negative ones, we learn to be critical and to question what we see and hear. That is how society learns and advances.
There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that any of the so-called Russian or foreign interference in the most recent election swayed opinions or votes one way or the other. People voted against Hillary Clinton, the presumed and anointed US President of the Democrats and the left not because some Facebook advert called her a “idiot with baggy pantsuits” but because she was a vile and morally reprehensible politician who had actually in real life interfered with the primaries of her own party. Not to mention that she called half the country “deplorables” and she had her operatives within the media passed her debate questions beforehand. No amount of foreign intervention will change these facts about Hillary Clinton.
Who determines what is hate speech or fake news? There are few topics outside of math (perhaps) in the past, present, or future that is not open to interpretation. Critical thinking develops when we question what we see and hear. Many people get their news and information through the internet and social media nowadays. If there is a filter between what we see and hear on social media and we take everything as truth, it is the end of critical, logical, and scientific thought. Society will stagnate and regress when the ability for critical thinking is lost.
Was Christopher Columbus a hero-explorer or a genocidal maniac directly and indirectly responsible for the deaths of millions of Native Americans? It depends on who you talk to. Nowadays, to speak ill of Native Americans who waged all-out war upon their weaker neighbors and performed ritual human sacrifices of their enemies is considered a hate crime even if you simply pointing out a fact of history. Apparently references to monkeys under any pretext, even if you are talking about real monkeys is also a racist hate crime. Who get’s to make these decisions in the algorithms that block and exclude certain types of speech?
Remember President George Bush (the first one) and his “I hate broccoli” comment? Broccoli enthusiasts and farmers railed against him and demanded a retraction as he was the President believe he was setting a bad example. If we keep going the way we are, that may be construed as hate speech that harms and damages those broccoli enthusiasts/farmers and be banned from social media.
