It’s not censorship to stop hateful online content, insists UN rights chief

Some might argue that calling what happens in Gaza a genocide might be hate speach against Israel, and it should be censored. So who decides what is "hate" and what is not?
- In your example, there is clear, observable evidence of genocide occurring. They are killing civilians and demolishing critical civilian infrastructure. So, saying Israel is committing genocide has a certain amount of truth/accuracy in it, and the intent isn't to smear Israel, it's to point out what they are actively doing, while the world is receiving constant updates. In other words, there is objective evidence behind the claims.
  Hate speech is the opposite. It has no objective evidence behind it, and the intent is to make specific people/groups look a certain way. We can typically infer the intent of hate speech by the words they choose to use, and the way they frame their "argument". We employ critical thinking to do this. This process can also be peer reviewed for further accuracy.
  
  In your example, there is clear, observable evidence of genocide occurring.
  I've seen many denying the evidence which seems so obvious to you. Even my government is denying it.
  Who decides about objectivity?
- Some might argue that calling what happens in Gaza a genocide might be hate speach against Israel
  Paxton Wins Major Case Defending Texas’s Anti-Boycott-of-Israel Law
  “Texas’s anti-boycott law is both constitutional and, unfortunately, increasingly necessary as the radical left becomes increasingly hostile and antagonistic toward Israel,” said Attorney General Paxton. “Though some wish to get rid of the law and see Israel fail, the State of Texas will remain firm in our commitment to stand with Israel by refusing to do business with companies that boycott the only democratic nation in the Middle East. In this case, I’m pleased to see the court recognize that the plaintiff lacked any standing to bring this challenge. Thus, our important law remains in effect, and I will continue to defend it relentlessly.”

Censorship or not, tolerance is a social contract, and those who want to undo this system must be stopped by any means possible. Content moderation is actually the compromise.
- That depends on who's doing the moderation. If it's a government entity, that's censorship, and the only time I'm willing to accept it is if it's somehow actively harmful (i.e. terrorist plots and whatnot). If it's merely disgusting, that's for private entities to work out, and private entities absolutely have the right to moderate content they host however they choose.
  
  Why is a private entity significantly different from a government entity? If a coalition of private entities (say, facebook, twitter, youtube, ... ) controls most of the commons, they have the power to dictate everything beyond the fringes. We can already see this kind of collusion in mass media to the extent that it's labeled a propaganda model. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_model
  I just don't think the private/gov dichotomy is enough to decide when censorship and moderation is valid.

Lemmy was created because Desaulines(sp?) got "censored" on reddit. Now he famously over-censors his darling instance lemmy.ml.
My point is just that nobody really thinks it should be a free for all. Everyone is human and doesn't want to hear anything that they consider egregious, or in the case of lemmy.ml "against rule 2".
- .ml is garbage lead by legit garbage people. But, open source means we can take lemmy code made by garbage people and repurpose it for good. Unfortunately it seems like Lemmy image is forever stained by those people and the network will never be adopted by normal people fully.
- nobody really thinks it should be a free for all
  Social media probably shouldn't, but the law should allow for a free for all. I personally think we should be closer to "free for all" than "completely locked down," but everyone has their preferred balance.
  
  The creator of Lemmy is just one example. They remove a lot of content that isn't hateful, just against their political ideology. I used that as an example of a private social media website which does a lot of censoring, even though the creators are sort of, somehow, outwardly against censoring? So everyone is human is my point.
  The article in question is about hate speech, not political dissent. Hate speech is pretty widely moderated away on Lemmy, and I think a majority of people here are cool with that. Some here are arguing semantics which is fair. Censoring is censoring which is the definition of censoring. I'm in the camp that if someone online is threatening another person or group of people, that should be hidden/removed.

Meta's anti-LGBT rules are closely knit to their ending the fact-checking: It is science denialism and linked to racism and vaccine skepticism.
Homosexuality and gender identity are not considered mental illnesses, Sex is not a binary, and Race is not connected to intelligence.
Bigots never liked science on these three, and now they use political power to impose their narrative.
Meta never moderated such discourse. Nor reddit nor twitter nor youtube. There was no censorship to end here. What this is, it is a free pass to punch down trans and gay people. It is incitement to violence, and Zuckerberg and Musk must go to the gallows for it.
Don't get me started on the toxic harassment these platforms have allowed against African and Carribean reparation activists, how they have destroyed the lives of feminists, and how they have named all Palestinians terrorists.
At this point race realists and gender essentialists have ensured political and technological control of the narrative.
There is no room for debating sealioning trolls on this one. If they don't understand the social dynamics against gender/sex/minorities at this moment, they are no better than brownshirts.
It is permabans and hooks and jabs all the way, for every single weird freak that backs this deranged hateful shit.

Well, it is censorship.
People just wake up to a realization that some censorship should exist, and it makes many uncomfortable.
Other than that, don't be tolerant of the intolerant, and you'll be fine.

a belief held by most reasonable people and only opposed by Nazis
- And those that still think fReE sPEECh is an acceptable concept in the modern world?
  
  Free speech without consequences is what fascists are after. Free speech is an action to which they want no reaction or even worse when there is a negative reaction (also a desired goal) they will use that to attack the structures attempting to uphold peace.
  
  The freedom to speak has nothing to do with being heard.
  
  Free speech is absolutely an acceptable concept, but it's merely a restriction on government.
  Private platforms are free to drop you from their platform if they don't like your speech, and you can be prosecuted if your speech violates a law (e.g. hate speech). Platforms can also restrict the types of speech allowed on their platforms. None of that is a violation of free speech.
  Free speech is only violated if governments place a restriction on the speech itself, or force private entities to enforce restrictions.
- So the ACLU are Nazis now?
  
  i mean they've historically defended nazis yes

I feel like it is still censorship, but a degree of censorship required for public safety is tolerable...
Unless he's saying that social media sites policing content on their platform isn't censorship, because it's not. It's only censorship if it's a government doing it, you have the right to control what is said on a platform you own

Advertising is hateful content. Ban the entire marketing industry now please.
- The majority of advertising we see in the US should be banned for sure. It is just thinly veiled psychological fuckery designed to manipulate us. Not cool.
- Agreed. Let everyone be free to decide. I don't want something shoved to my face 24x7, its inorganic and harmful.

I mean it is censorship. But not all censorship is bad.
- There will be no protection under the social contract for those who wish to violate it.

Who decides what is hateful and worthy of removal? How is it not censorship? This is such a dumb article lol
You don’t have to be a free speech advocate. It’s fine if you want censorship, just quit changing definitions to make yourself sound less authoritarian.
- There's a fundamental Americanized understanding of censorship as de facto BAD. So in order to justify doing what is very obviously a form of censorship, we don't establish a justifiable and transparent process for censoring content. We just redefine the thing we're doing as "Not Censorship".
  At the same time, with so much of social media in the hands of a tiny minority of mega-advertisers, the debate is pointless. We don't get to decide what is or is not censured. The advertisers do. Smears against ethnic groups or religious movements or people of a particular gender or persuasion are only prohibited when they interfere with the distribution of marketing materials.
  Now that advertisers have sufficiently A/B tested their marketing material, there's no reason to explicitly prohibit bigoted content because you can simply cloister particular communities into atomized walled gardens of advertising media.
  I can sell Bud Light Fuck The Trans cans to the evangelical chuds, I can sell Bud Light Israel Did Nothing Wrong to Zionists, and I can sell Bud Light Communism Will Win to the Tankies. Everyone can have their own boutique Bud Light experience and sales of piss beer can keep going up forever.

And we say we are living in a democracy. Mark my word, there is not a SINGLE democracy in the world. It sounds good on paper but the technicalities are far from theory.
- Democracy isn't about getting your own way.
  True democracy (Direct Democracy) can't happen - you'd need to vote in every single decision. Without everyone's decision, nothing could get done. It's bad enough for a family of four to agree what movie to watch, let alone a whole country. It would be democratic if most people watched what they wanted, but the logistics for a country ain't gonna work.
  That's why most Western countries in the world have Representative Democracy - we elect people to do that stuff on our behalf, and are aware of affecting factors. And by and large, it works. Sure, there are always failings and scandals and someone can point these out, because human beings like to cheat and have their own agendas, and of course, power corrupts. Sadly, there is no form of government that is safe from subversion.
  If you don't like a decision, vote for a representative that you think will do more of what you want. Or form an effective protest.
  
  The voting system used is important. "Pick the one you want, most votes wins" sounds perfectly usable but it trends towards two main parties. There is undue pressure on the voter to choose the main party they dislike the least so avoid the main party they dislike the most. It gets worse the deeper we look at the "winner take all" (first past the post) voting system (used in the USA, UK).
  I don't know what an effective protest would look like but that's probably the better option. People tend to get insulted or bored if you try to explain how their vote doesn't really matter.

It IS censorship and they should stop saying it isn't, but they should clearly say "we will censor X because Y" and be transparent about it. Censorship where the majority of population agrees with it is still censorship, but approved and accepted for the greater good.
Now, the question is what does "hateful" mean? And where does "hateful" start and begin? Is saying "I hate my neighbour" and "I hate Nazis" the same? Is "I hate gay people" and "I hate Manchester United" the same? Why not focus on violence instead of hate. We should have the freedom to hate (hear me out...) but in the end it is a feeling and a preference and no censorship will change that. What should be prevented at all costs however, is violent content. People can love or hate whoever, but they shouldn't be allowed to call upon any type of violence towards them.
Someone hating someone doesn't change a thing, but someone calling for attacks against someone - this is a whole new dimension and deserves total censorship.
- Censorship isn't policing people's feelings, you're allowed to hate. Why should you be allowed to express hate, and make those people feel unwelcome?
  Your questions are also not as morally grey as you think. Manchester United isn't hated for a core part of their being, they're not victims of violence, they're not a class of person who has been enslaved or erased or mistreated throughout their existence.
  Individual freedom needs to take a back seat to collective freedom, and the freedom to self expression, identity, and well being for all. Freedom to oppress isn't freedom. Nobody is free unless we're all free.
  
  Well, I partly agree. Collective freedom does come before personal freedom. But, not everyone hates just because of the "being". For ex. a lot of refugees in Germany are hated not because they are from middle east, not because they are islamic, but for the sole reason that they are abusing the welfare system. They get free social apartments with monthly allowance that is higher than some peoples pensions, from which they still need to pay their apartment. It's not hate because of what they are, but because of what they do. And that is ok, because we hate pedophiles not because of the person, but because what they do or did in the past. Also, there is no freedom from feeling offended and unwelcome. It is a feedback. A boy can feel unwelcome in a girls locker room, no problem there really. Feeling unwelcome probably has some reason behind it. You either should not be there, or you should be or not be doing something.
  
  It's simple. If your rights infringe on my rights, and there is no way for me to avoid the "you", whatever it may be at the moment, it should be regulated.
  Go ahead and hate gays, but on a multicultural/multi-national platform that over a 3rd of the population use, you shouldn't be allowed to project that because it makes gay people feel unsafe. It infringes on their humanity.
  Just because a group is immune to the intricacies of this, re: straight and white, shouldn't be a license for them to say and do whatever they want.
  Try a group of gay people against straights, see how long that group lasts. Why the double meaning

A tolerant society can not tolerate intolerance.

Are we redefining words now?
- "BAAAHHH!!! YOU'RE CENSORING MY HATE SPEECH, RACIST SLURS AND DEATH THREATS!!!! WAAAAAAHHHHH!!!!!"
  That CANNOT be the arguement you stand behind.
  
  The argument is the dictionary.
- like how the right redefines free speech to mean hate speech
- Censorship means that some higher authority wants some information not to be seen by certain people. The target of censorship is therefore the readers/listeners and not primarily the person writing/speaking. Hence if the readers/listeners don't actually want to read/hear the hateful drivel that some person shouts into the void, removing it isn't censorship but content curation.
  
  And what if 50% of people want to read what you consider hateful drivel?
- We're always redefining words, that's how language works. This isn't even close to the most egregious within the last couple decades.
  
  Language works when words have a common meaning between the speaker and the listener. When 2 parties have 2 different interpretations of the same word because 1 decided they were going to manipulate into meaning something different from the commonly understood one, language breaks down, and we get senseless arguments among people who otherwise agree outside of semantics.
  So no, that's not how language works.
- I mean there has always been illegal speech, we just don't usually call it censorship.
- It's not a right to harass people, and you're not entitled to others' megaphones
  
  I don't disagree with you. But calling it anything other than what it is is disingenuous and misleading. Like when you buy a movie and it isn't available to download and the streaming service takes away access, did you really purchase that movie or did you just rent it? Words have meaning is all I'm saying.

It's literally censorship, but I argue it's acceptable - even desirable and laudable - censorship
- @Ledivin @Sunshine having constitutional rights and limitations, would figure under censorship?
  
  What?

Nobody has a problem censoring hateful and harmful content, so long as they're the ones that get to decide what that means.
- Misinformation and violent rhetoric about minorities is hate. It has no place in society and allowing it achieves nothing expect the proliferation of bigotry.
  
  the law shouldn't dictate this because that would require rigid definitions of misinformation and minorities. are Nazis minorities? What about Israelis? Or Palestinians?
  is spreading a rumor misinformation? What if it is later found out to be true?
  
  Sure, but should it be illegal? Unless it's causing direct harm, I think the answer is no, regardless of how disgusting and hurtful it is.
  For example, I can stand on the corner with a sign saying something disgusting like, "all Jews must die" or "all GOP members must die," and as long as it's not seen as an actual, credible threat, it's not and shouldn't be illegal. Should we, as a society, tolerate it? No, I fully expect people to confront me about it, I expect to lose friends, and I also expect businesses to choose to not serve me due to my speech. However, I also don't think there should be any legal opposition.
  The same is true for platforms, they should absolutely be allowed to tolerate or moderate speech however they choose. That's their right as the platform owner, and it's a violation of free speech to restrict that right. However, people also have the right to leave platforms they disagree with, other entities have the right to not boost that content, etc. That's how free speech works, you have the freedom to say whatever you want, and others have the right to ignore you and not let you onto their platforms.
  
  Why is this just about “minorities” and what is a “minority”? Who is going to define this definition? Why is this not also for hate of any kind such as calls for violence to “non-minorities”?
- Nobody has a problem with getting a malignant tumor removed, so long as they're the ones who decide whether they believe the diagnosis or not.

Yes, but just deleting without comment, as if it never existed, isn't the solution either.
- Are you saying it should be required by law to have a comment regarding removal of content?

Why is this not as simple as adding a setting button for moderation of hateful content? The user can decide to filter it out.
- And who decides whether content is hateful?
  
  Content moderators per community guidelines. Why is this so hard?
  
  O'Brien, he's trustworthy

Here on Lemmy, people who claim to advocate for freedom of speech and information, demanding for social networks to be shutdown and people to be censored based on unknown and ambiguous criteria, without even understanding the implications of it.
Details at six

leftists have become what they hated the most, horsehoe theory is real people, call it horseshoe fact
- And what exactly have leftists become and what do they hate?
  
  Freedom of speech, rationality, pragmatism to name a few. What else, lolz!