I've seen "hate speech" be defined as anything "I" (the reader) don't like and is offensive to "me" (the same reader). So shrug I just don't see why it's not up to the platform (as it is currently) about what they want to host, aside from illegal stuff like imminent physical threats, terrorism, national security, and similar.
Most of the content featured on social media is hate speech. Hate drives engagement so it's amplified.
And most of that hate is still considered acceptable even under the most restrictive policies.
There's hate speech like ageism, misandry, and racism against white people, which are technically covered by the policies but generally overlooked.
Then there's the shifting tide of hatred against people for a variety of other reasons. Like Elon Musk at the moment. Sometimes this even becomes harassment against private individuals (as in, not public figures) like when reddit falsely accused the wrong person of being the Boston Bomber, or the false allegations against the kids from Covington Catholic High School.
And of course the perennial political battle, which has somehow become even more partisan and hateful thanks to social media.
So I think that claims that changing Section 230 will unleash a torrent of hatred on social media and make it unusable are rather ill informed. Social media is already like that.
What it might do is give more people an opportunity to interact with people they hate and perhaps learn that they were wrong.
Yes, it's a difficult problem isn't it. On the one hand there are people behaving poorly towards other people, though which people they are and how poorly they are behaving depends on the opinions of each individual. On the other hand the insidious arm of the government reaching into the affairs of a free people and controlling thought by controlling media is not quite a comforting thought either.
As usual, if people would stop being so shitty to each other and greedy for themselves, none of this would even be necessary.
