Idea: Would it be effective to refer to bigoted /hate speech as “”?

Nearly all operators of technical platforms (forums, lists, etc) support the idea of blocking spam. They know allowing spam is bad and makes your forum useless. Blocking open email relays is widely supported.

But when you talk about “hate speech” or “”, suddenly there's a great gnashing of teeth, intense debates if we've crossed some moral rubicon, claims that free speech is under fatal assault.

It's really hard for floss techies/hackers to define “spam”, it's almost “any useless speech that degrades the quality of the forum”. And that's what hate speech does!

If A sends lots of useless messages to B, that's called “spam”. If A sends lots of harassing messages to B, well that's also useless and devoid of conversation!


Maybe if we put “hate speech” in an anti-spam policy, we can get the old school cishet techies onboard!

(Or melt their minds with contradictions! 😛)

@ebel From a technical standpoint there is largely no difference between spam and hate speech and I think the paper I'm writing that @cwebber is helping me with will be as applicable, because the issue is really "unwanted content".

It doesn't matter to a computer if that content is spam, con job or whatever. The one difference is that I think hate speech might be easier to block because it's more reliant on single sources being available over time.

Sign in to participate in the conversation

The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!