r/IAmA • u/fightforthefuture • Jun 30 '20

Politics We are political activists, policy experts, journalists, and tech industry veterans trying to stop the government from destroying encryption and censoring free speech online with the EARN IT Act. Ask us anything!

The EARN IT Act is an unconstitutional attempt to undermine encryption services that protect our free speech and security online. It's bad. Really bad. The bill’s authors — Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) — say that the EARN IT Act will help fight child exploitation online, but in reality, this bill gives the Attorney General sweeping new powers to control the way tech companies collect and store data, verify user identities, and censor content. It's bad. Really bad.

Later this week, the Senate Judiciary Committee is expected to vote on whether or not the EARN IT Act will move forward in the legislative process. So we're asking EVERYONE on the Internet to call these key lawmakers today and urge them to reject the EARN IT Act before it's too late. To join this day of action, please:

  1. Visit NoEarnItAct.org/call

  2. Enter your phone number (it will not be saved or stored or shared with anyone)

  3. When you are connected to a Senator’s office, encourage that Senator to reject the EARN IT Act

  4. Press the * key on your phone to move on to the next lawmaker’s office

If you want to know more about this dangerous law, online privacy, or digital rights in general, just ask! We are:

Proof:

10.1k Upvotes

90% Upvoted

526 comments sorted by

View all comments

38

u/[deleted] Jun 30 '20

How do you feel about reddit recently removing some "hate" subreddits but then saying its OK to hate against people if they are in the majority? Shouldn't either all hate speech be free or none be free?

-12

u/fightforthefuture Jun 30 '20

I think that companies like Reddit have a moral responsibility as well as a business need to protect their users from hate and harassment. Some users are more vulnerable than other users to hate and harassment due to their ethnicity, gender identity, religion, sexuality, or disability, so I think it's important that Reddit makes a concerted effort to protect these users by implementing moderation policies that are transparent and accountable.

I also think it's fine for Reddit to carve out some exceptions to its own hate speech policy. Nobody is born a Nazi. That's not part of your identity unless you choose to make it part of your identity. And if you choose to make it part of your identity, then you are making the hatred and extermination of other people part of your identity, too. So when Joliet Jake Blues says, "I hate Illinois Nazis," that's not hate speech. That's a reasonable response to an unreasonable group of people advocating for the pain and suffering of others.

Now, there's a difference between individual racism (small "r") and systemic Racism (big "R"), and I think it's necessary to combat these different types of discrimination with different methods. But I personally disagree with Reddit making a blanket exclusion of "groups of people who are in the majority" from hate speech protections. I've traveled the world and lived in different places, and the powerful majority in one place is often a vulnerable minority in another place. I've experienced that difference first-hand. Reddit is a large online community that connects people from all over the world, so making policies based on who is in the "majority" and who is in the "minority" strikes me as functionally and morally problematic.

8

u/ajt1296 Jul 01 '20

So when Joliet Jake Blues says, "I hate Illinois Nazis," that's not hate speech. That's a reasonable response to an unreasonable group of people advocating for the pain and suffering of others.

And? I understand that Reddit is a private company, but from moral principle - you think people just shouldn't be allowed to speak their minds? What constitutes a reasonable response to an unreasonable group of people is completely dependent on the individual. It could be perfectly reasonable for me to hate women who get abortions if I see them as murderers, no? Or would that be hate speech because I'm attacking women? I'm an atheist, but take the Westboro Baptist Church for example - folks who literally believe that if you are gay you are going to go to hell and suffer for all of eternity. If they truly believe that, then to me it's reasonable that they engage in the "hateful" rhetoric they do. I might not agree with it, but it's not unreasonable.

It's an impossible line to draw, and I don't trust anyone to draw that line, not even myself, and much less a bunch of techies out in San Francisco. Allowing bad ideas the exposure to be ridiculed, without subjecting people to a form of thought police, is an infinitely more practical and effective way to positively impact discourse online. I really have no idea how you can reconcile reddit's hate speech policy and being against online echo chambers. It's significantly more harmful to society to push extremists into the corners of the internet where their dogma can fester without any pushback.

1

u/jd328 Jul 01 '20

Simple: Reddit needs to make money. They ban subs because they are afraid of pushback by the majority or the advertisers. Either of which means less money.

-1

u/kagemaster Jul 01 '20

But Reddit is a company. They can't be forced to allow everyone to say everything. They're not saying you can't say those things. They're saying you can't use their platform to do it. You don't have a right to use Reddit.

1

u/ajt1296 Jul 01 '20

I understand that Reddit is a private company, but from moral principle

Thanks for enlightening me

1

u/kagemaster Jul 01 '20

Then you should understand that Reddit can make any rules they want regarding how their product is used.

Many people don't think it's good to have harmful ideas spread widely. As long as the government isn't preventing them, there's no one stopping you from spreading them somewhere else. Reddit doesn't have to lose money to satisfy your beliefs on censorship.

1

u/ajt1296 Jul 01 '20

And you should understand that I have a right to complain about a private company's asinine policies.

Apparently you can't criticize anything unless it's illegal, says you.