Should social media sites censor hateful opinions?

Asked by: spirit49
  • It is Important

    Some children get hurt by awful comments posted and I think that it is important to censor hurtful comments. Bullies exist and victims of bullying must stay in the shade of it by having rude comments censored
    My child has been bullied, But some comments were deleted before being sent these were very rude. If he read the comments he would have cried.

  • Nazis shouldn't have a platform

    Social media sites shouldn't give nazis a place to speak and spread their terrible ideas. Now obviously, I don't believe that every conservative / trump supporter is a nazi, And that there's a clear line between nazi and not nazi if you're a reasonable person, So don't use that argument against me.

  • No. For when we say. . .

    When we say Hateful Opinions, They are equal to constructive and destructive criticism. Either way, They are both essential to man's development. This is the reason why, There are "Report Buttons" in some opinions just like in this website. And that is to report them, Censore or delete them.

    Now, Think about this: If you have hateful opinions dashing towards you, Isn't that a great thing? Why, You may ask. For, Who are those who receives hateful opinions? Those who are great and powerful. And if you receive hate, Therefore, You are above those who throw you some hate. And that's something you could think about.

    If you disagree, Reply.

  • Who's the arbiter of what's considered hateful?

    That's my biggest issue with censorship - who's going to be the decision maker? You? Me? Your grandparents? Someone wrote an awesome defense of free speech on a another opinion section (and I won't do it justice here), But basically, Free speech and freedom from offense cannot live together. While seemingly laudable, If your goal is to eliminate offensive speech entirely, Then the result will ultimately be no speech (due to fear of offense). That can't happen in a truly free society.

    Having said that, Social media sites walk a fine line. They're either a publisher or a platform. A platform is a company or technology that enables communication and distribution of information. A phone company is a good example. When talking to a friend, Certain words or ideas you communicate don’t get censored or buzzed out. A platform is not legally responsible for the content that is posted. A publisher, However, Is a company or person that curates and distributes content. Examples include news and media outlets. A publisher is legally responsible for its posted content and the source.

    So the question becomes, Are social media sites platforms (no liability for content) or publishers (liability for content)? If they want to hold themselves out as platforms, They cannot censor "hateful" opinions. Everything is fair game. However, If they want to censor those opinions (and others that they alone deem unsuitable), That's their right, But then they're publishers under the law and subject to litigation for the content that they carry.

    I'd prefer that social media work out ways to offer both. You can have a free market platform and a section where it's family-friendly (however they wish to define it). Right now, Most social media sites desire the legal protections afforded to platforms while enjoying the popular social benefits that come from censoring content like a publisher. They cannot have it both ways. No censorship in a platform!

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.