Go through my examples and tell me which you would deem illegal.

Here are some examples:

"It's going to rain tomorrow" and it does not actually rain tomorrow making this a false statement.

"Black people commit the most crime" which is statistically true but mean spirited and borderline racist.

"Bill gates is an asshole" this is a matter of opinion but mean.

"Hilary Clinton is a slut" this is mean but how do you prove one way or another?

"There was election fraud" said by someone who was told this by someone else at a bar they frequent. do people need to site sources for what they believe to be true statement?

"I will smack the next guy who says pineapple on pizza is good". Threats of violence?

"I hate mexicans" mean spirited but are people allowed to dislike other groups or is that punishable?

"Donald Trump slapped me in 3rd grade" how do you disprove this?

No try sorting these types of things out for millions of messages a day everyday.

I mean, look, what you are describing was tried in the UK per this post. Lots of people spent a lot of time and money on it and it failed (hurt freedom and backfired).

Speech censorship has been tried and is tried throughout history and it has always significantly negatively impacted democracy and freedom.

Just saying "we just haven't figured it out yet" isn't a valid response to then take away freedoms yet again.

Saying "we need to do something" is dangerous in that it ignores the fact that the government and laws are not able to solve every problem in existence. The question should be instead "what effective tools do we have to limit hate speech?"

"We need to do something " is an emotional argument to solve a logical problem. Wanting to solve it does not mean it's solvable.

I have lots of bugs in my yard, I can limit them a number of ways but I can't eradicate them unfortunately. By your logic I should "do something" like burn down my and my neighbors yards to try and permanently get rid of them. Or I can conversely understand that we live in a world with real constraints.

You can't legislate away complex problems. Think about it, if we could effectively legislate away problems we would have done it by now.

Throwing shit at the wall is bad for society especially when it's at the cost of our freedom.

I'm not willing to give up my freedom because you want to "do something", especially when it has never proven to be effective. In contrast "doing something" results in making things worse.

Check out the cobra effect. It gives examples of legislation that simply makes problems worse.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perverse_incentive

Never said there weren't boundaries in the past, not sure where you got that from...

What I am saying is that outside of basic boundaries which generally involve the matter being settled in the courts, there hasn't been been effective more wholesale censorship implemented in a way that doesn't severely undermine democracy.

You are just throwing your opinion out there "more censorship will equal less hate speech" without any specific details on how such a complicated and vast system would operate.

Try this...explain in detail what would and would not constitute hate speech as well as inaccurate information.

I think you describe it at a high level but where I think this breaks down is on literally the exact logic or criteria that would be used to deem something "hate" or "false and damaging". Basically where the rubber meets the road.

When you actually think about ok how do I describe this, it becomes very hard to do consistently and without casting too wide a net.

Leaving it up to companies to just "use there best judgement" based on high level goals from the government is not good for a variety of reasons. It's too subjective and would be coerced.

It's very hard to clearly define different types of speech to consistently and clearly dictate what is acceptable and what is not.

In anyone who I eve have talked to on this subject have ever been able to in detail describe "the rules" and instead it's very broad goals that would be way to subjective and overly prevent speech which is exatwhat happened in the UK when it was implemented...

You miss the point clearly.

There are pros & cons easy way here. However it's clear that free speech is the better of the 2 (vs censoring speech)

Alright I genuinely apologize for being rude and condescending.

If you wouldn't mind. Please explain to me the criteria and method you would propose we use to decide which speech is acceptable and which is not.

You can't even explain your primary point (what would be censored).

It's really funny because small minds like you say "we need censorship to stop hate speech".

As soon as you ask basic questions like "ok what criteria would be used to deem what is and is not allowed?"

The response is basically the one you have of. "Your are stupid, I don't have to explain this fundamental part of my argument. My feelings!!!!"

Please explain 3 key things if you want any sort of credibility here.

What logic, rules, framework you would use to decide exactly what is inaccurate or hateful vs OK.

How you would apply that to reviewing billions of messages a day.

Who gets to determine the set of rules?

Lmao you literally can't even answer basic questions about how this would all work.

Your position is one of "censor everyones speech in the hope (not reality) it will prevent lying and hate speech".

When in reality you can't even articulate at a high level what that system would look like or how much it would even limit hate speech.

It's scary you would promote such a drastic change impacting millions of lives without any sense to how it could feasibly work.

Oof!

Who determines what the "truth" is?

Who monitors the billions of social media posts per day?

Who fines the millions of people per day and who gets the money?

You can't take every potential inaccurate or mean spirited statement to court so there would be no due process in this and certainty would be corrupted.

How do you prove things that aren't really provable? How do you prove if someone is lying or just uninformed? Are people making what they think are truthful statements that are actually inaccurate going to be punished?

Here are some examples:

"It's going to rain tomorrow" and it does not actually rain tomorrow making this a false statement. Fined?

"Black people commit the most crime" which is statistically true but mean spirited and borderline racist.

"Bill gates is an asshole" this is a matter of opinion but mean.

"Hilary Clinton is a slut" this is mean but how do you prove one way or another?

"There was election fraud" said by someone who was told this by someone else at a bar they frequent. do people need to cite sources for what they believe to be true statement?

"I will smack the next guy who says pineapple on pizza is good". Threats of violence?

"I hate mexicans" mean spirited but are people allowed to dislike other groups or is that punishable?

"Donald Trump slapped me in 3rd grade" how do you disprove this?

Now who reads, researched and then hands out punishments to the millions or billions of infractions each day?

There are problems with allowing free speech to be sure. Democracy is a messy system but it's the best we have.

History has taught us over and over that free speech is a cornerstone of a legitimate democracy.

Free speech has issues but censoring speech has much worse issues.

Basically you are using the wrong tool (censoring people and removing freedom of speech) to stop hate speech.

Reddit is a small % of the western world and is an extreme echo chamber. Even among Reddit users, it's again a very vocal group constantly on about this topic.

When you are a hammer (extreme liberal) everything is a nail (perceived racism or hate).

It's also been shown, like in the UK how detrimental it is to society and democracy to censor speech. It's sad really.

The sad thing is there shouldn't be any outrage over enabling free speech.

Only a small vocal, mis guided minority oppose it thank goodness.

Common sense and reason win, thank goodness.