> Hate speech is protected by the 1st Amendment. Nobody's being criminally prosecuted for being anti-trans.
Check your privilege! You'll be very much criminally prosecuted for hate speech in most (I believe all, but don't know the specifics of each) European countries. The definition of hate speech is similar (and it's a global debate, so they converge), only we do not have a concept of free speech that is similar.
> Facebook is doing exactly what you want below
Absolutely. I gave it as an example that looking to weaponize rules can backfire, as the weapon can be turned against you as well. The more aggressive the weaponization of rules becomes ("I am offended" as a general trigger for suspension would be the equivalent of "free nukes for everyone"), the larger the chance that unintended side-effects materialize ("I wanted to be safe from their attacks, but this also outlaws my attacks").
I'm do agree with you that breaking up the monopolists is the much better way to go. But that seems very unlikely, the utility route is the one that I consider much more probable.
> Check your privilege! You'll be very much criminally prosecuted for hate speech in most (I believe all, but don't know the specifics of each) European countries.
Very fair criticism. I don't think that Europe's restrictions are quite that broad, but there are a few countries with active hate speech laws on the books that are enforced.
That being said, Facebook doesn't really have control over European hate speech laws. This is worth keeping in mind, both Facebook and Twitter are American companies, and if they become utilities, they'll either become utilities under the American rules, or they'll get fractured and have different requirements for European users (see GDPR). I don't see how attacking Facebook/Twitter will change what the government can and can't do.
My (unrealistic) advice would be that if this is something Europe is really concerned about, then it should just adopt the more expansive American system of free speech. I realize that's unlikely to happen, but making a company public and giving the government control over what gets posted on it is a regression in free speech rights in most cases, no matter what country you're situated in.
You're worried about what happens if the government says that disagreement is hate speech. Have you considered the danger in the opposite direction?
What happens if the government says that criticizing a politician for openly bigoted remarks is cancel culture and not allowed, or that boycotting an awful company is illegal? What makes you think your government wouldn't abuse the power to force companies and individuals not to criticize, boycott, or filter objectionable content?
Even if you do live in a country with limited free speech protections, forcing platforms to carry content and forcing consumers not to boycott is counterproductive if you don't trust the government not to charge someone with a hate speech law. If you don't trust your government not to ban speech, you probably shouldn't trust it with compelled speech/association either.
Fragmentation of platforms is an issue, but it's already reality today, any market that is large enough gets to dictate their local rules. I'd prefer if we adopted the US idea of free speech globally (or at least online), but I don't believe it's going to happen.
My main problem with the idea of hate speech is that it hinges on individual judgement and is weaponized to suppress opposing speech. It's vague and in the end is only defined on a case-by-case basis by looking at the majority or the position of powerful institutions, and generally sympathy-based - a terrible foundation to build rules on.
You're certainly right that outlawing cancel culture would get us into trouble as well. We do have far reaching rules for compelled speech & association (not least via taxes that are redistributed), so I'm not sure there's a good reason to say "but we won't add this one" (I see no good reason to protect religious but not political convictions for example).
My favorite solution is to find rules that everybody is happy with, even if big tech fires all employees tomorrow and replaces them with proponents of the opposite ideology: build the shoe in such a way that you're okay if it's on the other foot tomorrow.
Check your privilege! You'll be very much criminally prosecuted for hate speech in most (I believe all, but don't know the specifics of each) European countries. The definition of hate speech is similar (and it's a global debate, so they converge), only we do not have a concept of free speech that is similar.
> Facebook is doing exactly what you want below
Absolutely. I gave it as an example that looking to weaponize rules can backfire, as the weapon can be turned against you as well. The more aggressive the weaponization of rules becomes ("I am offended" as a general trigger for suspension would be the equivalent of "free nukes for everyone"), the larger the chance that unintended side-effects materialize ("I wanted to be safe from their attacks, but this also outlaws my attacks").
I'm do agree with you that breaking up the monopolists is the much better way to go. But that seems very unlikely, the utility route is the one that I consider much more probable.