Maggie's Farm

Well, that's part of the issue, isn't it? I said she can't.
The reasons you listed are part of the reason why she can't.

That said, I'd like to stop these things. But not at the risk of undermining everything else that we have in life that comes with freedom. I just don't know what these things really are.

It's like saying I want to stop bullying. I want to. I can probably even define it pretty well. But I'll never be able to stop it EVEN IF I can define it.

My definition of a hate crime is that all crime is a hate crime.
You're unlikely to commit a crime against someone if you care about them, love them, or even like them.

Point is, most people do not commit crimes if only because they have a general love for humanity and would prefer to not damage or otherwise injure people or society.

Which would imply that crime itself comes, at least, not from a place of caring, but high dislike or lack of care - and usually even hate.

Exceptions exist (theft of a loaf of bread to avoid starvation is just survival instincts kicking in), but they are rare.

Crimes of prejudice (killing/injuring someone due to hating blacks, Asians, women, etc) are still crimes. Are they 'worse' because there is a innate hate of a group? I'd argue they are not.
Murdering someone can lead to the death penalty. If someone kills 10 people due to their race, how do you penalize them more than if they killed only 1? While scale, or even reasons, can shock people, they don't change much in terms of the crime itself.

To some degree a 'crime' is whatever society says it is. But the law here in the US is supposed to apply equally across all people. So regardless of how 'society' (whatever it is or how you define it) views crimes against a mural of a particular item, it should not vary if other murals or statues are damaged.

But it does today. Which says more about our politicians than it does about 'society'.

About 7 years ago I was taking a class on leadership.

One item the teacher discussed was how social media led to depression and low self-esteem because people thought others' lives were better than their own, based on what was posted.

I laughed. The teacher asked why. My answer was 2-fold.
1. I'm on social media, and I don't give a rat's ass if someone else is living a 'better' life. Do they travel more? Eat at great restaurants? Have a nice home? Beautiful car? Lots of money they flaunt? Some do, but so what? I see that in my everyday life, too. But what other people have doesn't change what I have or how I feel about myself. If it did, I had poor parents and poor self-esteem. It's not the social media causing the low self-esteem, it's how you raised your kid or taught them to manage things in their lives. So stop blaming the source of the information and address the individual misusing the information.

2. Removing social media, or putting limits on it, means you have to remove contact with people in real life, and remove all sources of information that would make me feel bad about myself. Those sources are ENDLESS. IF I allow them to make me feel bad.

I pointed out to him that people say perception is reality. I disagree. Reality is reality, and our job is to determine what the objective reality is, utilize that in our lives and learn to care for ourselves. That means discerning how our perception is distorting reality. One of my favorite scenes in a movie was the character of John Nash in "A Beautiful Mind" when he realized the people he was seeing never aged. He'd 'seen' them for years - but they never aged. It allowed him to cope with the fact they probably weren't real.

Does that happen in real life with real psychosis? I don't know. I'm not a psychiatrist. Probably not, and it's just a movie. But it illustrates my point. Stop thinking your perception is the reality. Use some common sense, and sort through the information.

This final point aligns with OneGuy's comment, above - what is misinformation or hate speech? Well, to me it's like pornography. We all know it when we see it. But we're unlikely to always agree on what it is. So there needs to be a lot of personal analysis put into that before limiting this stuff.

I have thought about that, too.

I agree, she could be a plant.

But, remember, lots of these people (including FB management) want all the things she's pushing for. FB management, however, would prefer to keep earning boatloads of cash and keep gov't at a distance. They want the power.

She would prefer to have the power to herself, it seems to me. Or at least be part of the process to give it to those she deems "worthy"

1. If algorithms were removed, there is no clarity on whether people would spend less time on it. We are TOLD they will. By FB. But in my experience, that's an excuse to use them - to "improve your experience." In reality, everyone I know is complaining about what the algorithms show, because it's not what their friends are posting, and that's what interests them...and it's why so many people have been LEAVING FB.
If they were removed, FB MIGHT make less money. But that, too, is unclear. I'd posit (and since I work in the industry, I know this) that's NOT true. There are lots of ways to drive revenue without algorithms. I know. It's part of what I do. Not everyone has algorithms. But you can use algorithms to maximize revenues, by pushing content that is revenue-driven...like the Russian stuff everyone complained about in 2016. Since I was intimately involved in this portion of the business, I'm familiar with the companies that were mentioned. While political motivations may have played a role, the reality is I dealt with blocking all these companies (no I don't work for FB, but I came to know them because they are endemic to digital) because they are all involved in ad fraud. All they want to do is make money. FB was a GREAT source for making money using the FB algorithm. Contrary to what many believe, these firms pushed ads which supported both Hillary and Trump, in equal measure. PUSHED. What they got results on is what drove the algorithm to a slight Trump favoritism. So, basically, FB was at fault in all that. Because their algorithms suck - all of them suck.

Your example of "hate speech" is an example, but not a definition, and is therefore useless. Is calling an Italian a "Wop" hate speech? Gee, my friends must all hate me...

Get a vaccine and not wear a mask WAS misinformation. The information didn't change. They lied about what the vaccines could do. That's documented. You don't have to believe it. You won't. But it's true.

If kids wrap my house (which they've done) that's them out having a good time. It's kids being kids. It's not vandalism unless you're an old dude telling them to get off your lawn, and frankly just an asshole. If they burn a cross on my yard, it's vandalism, which as I pointed out is a crime. And basically, all crime is rooted in some form of hate. You didn't expand it or define it differently. You simply feel if a law is on the books that's all you need to define it as something. I tend to look at things more holistically and logically. Something I've noticed you never do. All forms of crime instill fear. Ever have your pocket picked? I have. Once it happens, everytime you're tapped walking down the street, you fear you were picked again. I always check. Fear is part of crime. Again - you're just a massive failure.

You're hopelessly out of touch, aren't you?
FB growth being "phenomenal" ignores the MASSIVE fraudulent number of profiles created. Personally, just to test this a few years ago, I made 3 profiles and left them fallow. They "exist" to this day. FB says it can identify and remove 'fake' profiles. Yet this simply IS NOT TRUE. It is estimated that upwards of 10% of all profiles are fake. Not to mention FB themselves warned of slowing growth BECAUSE PEOPLE ARE LEAVING.
Don't talk my business with me. I know this. Just because Wall Street and FB refuse to admit the truth doesn't make it true, and you posting a picture of utter nonsense is laughable.

Yes, your definition IS laughable. Yelling the "n" word is part of many, many rap songs. Are these all hate speech? Sorry, your point is lost as the desire to make it is undermined by its use as a compliment on a regular basis. Creating a 'situational' doesn't prove anything except the fact you are a silly twat.

It is now proven the mutation WAS NOT more "infectious" as you claim. And it was LESS DEADLY. Stop parsing bullshit. It makes you look more stupid than you are. It was a lie - misinformation, misleading. You fell for it. Now you're just rationalizing your position. And listen, fat boy in your mom's basement, there is no "we". Grow up and be a legitimate human. Anonymization is fine, hiding behind a pseudonym legitimate. Several of us do. But you're just a sad, fat, wannabe musician hiding in a basement. Grow up already dipshit.

Burning a cross is a crime. You defining it as "intimidation" doesn't make it a hate crime. It's still a crime. Greed is a form of hate. Hatred of self, hatred of others, in love of filthy lucre. You know that. But you're vapid. And you prove it regularly.

I've ignored you for years, but you come back because you're just such a low life and crave attention. Time to go fat boy.
You're not educated. You're just empathetic. and stupid.

None of that is a definition.
Again, you can see it and you know it when you see it. But DEFINE IT.
Is it "oh that offends me?" Yeah, pretty much it is - today.

Modern explanations don't make this more 'real'

We all know how politically correct speech has infiltrated even dictionaries. Denying that they are motivated by politics is a lie.

Blondes are stupid. That's hate speech? Give me a f'in break.

Your definition, even the one in a dictionary of ill-repute, means little.

You "defined" it in a manner that makes YOU, and a few others, "feel good" about the definition. When I provided an example that refuted the "definition" you decided to move the goalposts to imply I said bigotry doesn't exist. Of course it does. But that doesn't mean that YOU can tell hate speech versus anything else.

When a friend calls me a dirty WOP, by your definition hate speech has occurred. Yet I'm laughing. When I tell a blonde joke, hate speech has occurred, but others laugh (including a blonde like me or my wife). Nevermind that the number of Irish, Polish, Italian, British, French or Russian jokes I've made that disparage those groups all represent "hate speech" in JUST THE RIGHT COMPANY.

It's not hate speech. It can be hateful if the situation warrants it - but who are you to say that the situation warrants it? Are you the judge and jury of that situation? Is a legal mind the judge and jury?

Of course not. We have all seen examples of laws run amok and you trying to justify one of the most ridiculous ones running amok now doesn't make it meaningful.

It just means you've aligned yourself with the mortally stupid.

And you know it. But as the common garden troll you are, you're sitting back and enjoying this because you know that you're wrong and just tweaking noses thinking you're smarter than everyone else.

Good for you. You're not. But keep pretending. You've proven nothing except that you're sad, lonely, fat and make shitty music.

And yes, that's all hateful and offensive on my part.

But you are hateful and offensive. You know it, but you hide behind a veil of false logic and low moral codes. You've rationalized your position to align with a group that you hope will defend and support you.

I'll warn you now, as I warned my son. Be careful who you align with. The groups you think are your friends will find you useless someday and then they'll cast you aside in a manner that won't benefit your health or life.

But you'll feel like you did something useful with your life as the guillotine slams down on your neck - however literal or figurative that guillotine is. Your former friends won't pay you any mind at that point. After all, you supported their revolution...but now your turn to pay has arrived.

The fact you tried to tell ME what the "real" story of Facebook is made me laugh. Read a story in media and you know everything, right? Find a chart, read a dictionary and find a definition that is utterly useless and somehow you're 'smart'.

It would be amusing if it wasn't so sad. Go crawl back in your hole dumbass. People like you help me understand why Facebook actually does have a little bit of power. You're stupid enough to fall for the shit that they collect and spread.