That’s just because hate speech is a bullshit made up concept that one party defines as anything that it finds objectionable, based on their particular ingroup values and objectives, and then uses as a weapon against both real and perceived opponents.
Two months later; still waiting for a nonpartisan definition....https://twitter.com/primalpoly/status/1026663312824496129 …
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
There is no definition I can think of in a vacuum. Inciting violence could be a reaction to such speech, but the speech itself is not so easy to quantify. I have always had an issue with the term. Virtually anything could be hate speech. Pineapple pizza for instance.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
hate speech is synonymous with free speech...usage based on perspective.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
You will continue to wait. #2 is a high threshold, language is too pliable, and well intentioned words too easily twisted.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Some form of "all [type of people] are evil and must be cleansed from the earth" seems like the thing we want to avoid. No room for nuance or debate. MS-13 isn't a "type of person," nor would I say is "militant Islamic extremists." Both of those, AFAIK, are referring to violence
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
- 1 more reply
-
-
-
Does advocating for violence against “them” count?
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
I agree. I think that’s the only way you could properly monitor it. Keep restriction narrow and precise. You couldn’t include hate words either, since cultures use words differently and context matters.
End of conversation
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.