this post was submitted on 29 Jun 2023
44 points (97.8% liked)

Canada

10267 readers
505 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Related Communities


🍁 Meta


🗺️ Provinces / Territories


🏙️ Cities / Local Communities

Sorted alphabetically by city name.


🏒 SportsHockey

Football (NFL): incomplete

Football (CFL): incomplete

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer


💻 Schools / Universities

Sorted by province, then by total full-time enrolment.


💵 Finance, Shopping, Sales


🗣️ Politics


🍁 Social / Culture


Rules

  1. Keep the original title when submitting an article. You can put your own commentary in the body of the post or in the comment section.

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage: lemmy.ca


founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] justhach@lemmy.world 24 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Precisely. The right-wing hate machine has been churning out hateful rhetoric for years about how people like this gender studies teacher were "contributing to the moral decay" of society.

And this is exactly why we need to regulate this kind of dangerous rhetoric more seriously. The longer we allow it to spew.consequence free, the more these attacks will happen.

[–] doylio@lemmy.ca -3 points 2 years ago (3 children)

I am sympathetic to this concern, but I am also very concerned about the potential for overreach. Tech allows control of the overton window moreso than the mass media of the 20th century. It will be very tempting for whoever is trying to solve the problem of radicalization to also use this power for their own purposes

I do think we should stop using the term "hate" in these contexts, because of its moral connotations. We should say what caused this: radicalization. We all know most of these attacks happen by people who spend too much time in crazy echo chambers

[–] mars@lemmy.ca 3 points 2 years ago (1 children)

What sort of "moral connotations" are you referring to? The term "hate crime" is pretty clear cut in Canadian law, defined in sections 318 and 319 of the Criminal Code.

[–] doylio@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

This is fair, if it's a legal term then use it. But the vocabulary slants the way we think about it. Saying "this person did XYZ because they are hateful" rhetorically suggests that they are just an evil person. If instead we said "this person did XYZ because they were radicalized" suggests that this was a process that was potentially predictable

[–] jerkface@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 years ago

Unfortunately, we all have the capacity for hate within us. I think you are reading something in that is not there.

[–] SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Why not simply make social media sites liable for anything their algorithm recommends? This is the same way as it's always worked for published media, and when you think about it, having content picked up by an algorithm is very analogous to having something published in traditional media.

Then the liability in these cases get decided on a case by case basis, but overall social media sites would be incentivised to avoid having their algorithms promote anything that's in the hate speech grey area.

Everyone could still post whatever they want, but you're unlikely to get picked up by an algorithm for doing stochastic terrorism, which removes the profit motive in doing it.

[–] doylio@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 years ago

This would be worth exploring. But no doubt big tech will fight this like their lives (or profit margins) depend on it

[–] jerkface@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

I do not understand the distinction you are trying to draw between hate and radicalization. That's like insisting we carefully distinguish between sub zero temperatures and freezing. It might not be the exact same concept but it's interchangeable. Hate is the vehicle of radicalization.