It’s not as simplistic as liberal versus conservative. At their most innermost cores, PC and freedom of speech are intractably conflicted. Freedom of speech unalterably depends on upholding absolutes: truth against false, lies and slander; while PC-imposed prohibitions of PC opinion-defined slurs and hate speech, depend upon the opinion of one person or group versus other persons or groups.
When Mark Zuckerburg spoke to Congress of “slurs” and Faceboook‘s AI algorithms, he addressed the heart of the matter: based on complaints they receive (from snowflakes and extremist zealots and political activists), Facebook is defining and dictating their bias of what is, and what is not, slurs and “hate speech” versus protected free speech. In other words, like other attempts at good intentions, Mark Zuckerburg has superimposed himself above Congress, the Supreme Court and every world leader as the absolute dictator of what the world can and cannot say in the modern public square.
Every group, and every person on earth, has some deep intellectual or spiritual investment in a mistaken notion. No one is perfectly correct. When truth pokes that notion, many people, particularly liberal snowflakes, political activists and religious zealots, are offended to action — filing complaints of what (s)he perceives as, and asserts are, slur or hate speech. The resulting body of complaints, and how they are assessed and prioritized, is what then drives the AI algorithms that limit “acceptable” speech. All other speech they relegate to the “harmful to society” bin and arbitrarily delete from public discussion. Thereby, these publishers attempt to evade traditional responsibilities, under defamation laws, to refuse to publish slander, libel and defamation; thereby relegating the traditional “old” defamation laws to the “defunct” bin.
Practically everything of significance is a slur and hate speech to someone, somewhere. Algorithms based on this approach depend entirely on the number of complaints they receive. So, if you dare to fight the current, complaints from that current empty your writer’s tool bag of the most critical terms and criticisms of that current. The majority will complain that you are disseminating slurs and hate speech; and your POV is then headed for the “harmful to society” bin. That is an unacceptable way to define and enforce prohibitions on speech. Worse, that path will never lead to a solution.
As an AI scientist myself, I have to point out that AI programs are not “smart” simply because they’re labeled “AI”. An algorithm that parses messages and counts “questionable phrases” makes its decision based on the designers’ biased opinion of severity and count cap of mentioned words or phrases. Despite the fact that the algorithm may have no idea what the writer has actually said, a pre-defined severity trigger or count of questionable words or phrases, automatically, unseen by human eyes, categorizes the writer as unacceptable or “harmful to the community” — based on the number of complaints they’ve received of those words or phrases from “the offended” (e.g., snowflakes, religious and political zealot-activists); whether they be liberal extremist activists or religious zealots. This is the trigger, and net, that has suppressed and deleted countless non-PC advocates — including me for decades as well as, most recently, Diamond & Silk. Somewhere in their text, Diamond & Silk either ran afoul of a “PC no-no” or exceeded a cap number of “PC suspicious” words or phrases triggering an automatic “harmful to society” tag. By definition, the product of PC has no connection to absolute right or wrong, absolute truth or false — nor the 1st Amendment.
Turns out, deletion from public discourse depends not on truth, nor science, nor facts; but solely on numbers of activist complaints Facebook, other social media, search engines and Wikipedia receive. 1st Amendment Freedom of Speech has deteriorated to a PC vote that deletes all those who disagree.
A very old, tried and true, adage is the one, and only one, workable alternative: truth is an absolute defense. If it’s true, a fact, then even a slur or hate speech must be admitted to the public discussion. “I hate Hitler, Nazis and racists” is hate speech. It also uses a catch-phrase that could trigger an AI program to delete this article! Worse, it mentions 4 terms that may trigger the “No-no” delete-to-harmful-to-society bin. So I’m risking this article being automatically deleted. It wouldn’t be my first time. This has been deleting and suppressing my message for decades. But the converse is also true: if it cannot be shown to be true, then an assertion that is a slanderous or libelous lie must be excised from public discussion with effective and financially-accessible remedy under the law.
Where we find ourselves today, however, is way down the road of PC — having abandoned the truth-versus-false touchstone far, over the horizon, behind. Truths about the PC correct cannot be accurately portrayed while the PC correct are enabled to slander and lie with impunity. The result: PC correct is the new “law” superseding the old “law”. The PC-correct have, indeed, imposed a law unto themselves, above the “old law”. This path has unavoidably led to the two different standards for two different classes. Each is certain of its “rightness” and what is true, false or slanderous no longer merits attention.
Update 2018.04.12 — Yesterday, Mr. Zuckerburg testified that he intends to submit questions of fact versus slurs/hate speech to a “fact checker” site. I’ve noticed in the past that some “fact checkers”, in fact, cherry-pick sources that comport with their preconceived views to corroborate and reinforce their views rather than dig down to actual evidence, facts and truth. What is needed is a board of scientists that includes science-trained historians and archeologists and the like to provide serious truth as opposed to merely propping up their PC.