First of all, thanks for engaging in a thoughtful way. I’m going to try to respond to all your questions, apologies if I inadvertently group a few.

who decides what is hate speech?

Depends on the context. Often an individually community determines what falls into that category for them, but for example the UN defines it as “offensive discourse targeting a group or an individual based on inherent characteristics (such as race, religion or gender) and that may threaten social peace.” source

and why must it always be handled for the individuals by the authorities?

It’s definitely not always handled for individuals by authorities. In case of private individuals (e.g. lemmy instance owners), they may simply not want to pay for / engage with that content. In case of public individuals (e.g. elected representatives), they have a duty to act on behalf of their constituents to enact protections to allow everyone to safely exist in society.

sometimes i think people post harmful things because they’re confused/scared/ignorant. in fact, i’d venture to guess that’s what happens a majority of the time. in these cases, their mind isn’t set in stone, making it a prime time for someone to step in and engage in a hopefully-fruitful conversation with said person. even if they dont change their mind, they just had +1 neutral/pleasant conversation with someone they would normally write off (thanks to mainstream media) as unreasonable/aggressive/whatever.

That probably represents some cases, but it is not the responsibility of impacted communities to deprogram hateful people. People change because of real relationships, built over real shared values, not over shitposting on the internet.

stopping these engagements from happening is worth the risk that a truly bad apple exists in the public eye (before being banned or whatever), because these seemingly inconsequential interactions can lead to a better social ecosystem that is more self-sustaining. one that balances itself out from within, by individuals’ efforts, not the efforts of admins.

“Can lead to a better social ecosystem” is doing a LOT of heavy lifting here. I think for the majority of people, the infinitesimal chance of maybe having a positive change is far outweighed by the negative consequenses of allowing unfettered harassment and abuse.

admins should focus on keeping obviously illegal activity at a minimum, not on deciding what is morally good or bad. individuals have the block/mute button for that?

Admins should focus on whatever they want, they are the ones managing the space. The inconvenience to you is having to visit another website, the inconvenience to users targeted by this harassement is a lot more than that.

it’s impossible to erect walls, virtual or physical, that keep only bad actors at bay. inevitably, vulnerable individuals/people will find themselves trapped on the wrong side of enemy lines.

People make choices. If you find yourself on the wrong side, time to switch sides. If you don’t, then maybe you don’t actually believe you’re on the wrong side.

in real life, that’s much scarier than online. defederating from one’s neighborhood isn’t a thing. online networks can indirectly (maybe??) help make those neighborhoods better by leading by example and providing evidence that everyone can get along and benefits from doing so. people in certain parts of the world will never physically interact with X or Y kind of people. the internet is people’s only exposure to certain cultures and ideas. might as well help make that exposure good instead of hoping whatever exposure they get elsewhere is positive. i think the internet can be an incredibly powerful force for changing minds for the better (which can create a safer IRL space for all, indirectly), but that doesnt happen if zero discussion ever happens, even if that means including some differing/bad voices at times.

A lot of people rely on their internet communities to be safe for exactly that reason. Can’t put up a pride flag on your apartment because last time you got a brick through your window? At least you can be safe to be yourself in the online communities you chose. Nobody is stopping folks from interacting with online communities, you just have to agree to follow the community rules.

we aren’t fully aware of the powerful tool in our hands, especially when outside the grasp of centralized capitalist platforms. now’s the time to reimagine social media and not play by some megacorp’s growth-at-all-costs rules. hate fuels algorithms. hate keeps their social media platforms alive & monetized. we’ve been conditioned to believe hate must always beget hate… because it’s profitable.

Ironically defederation is the biggest boon we’ve been given. No longer subject to “engagement” based algorithms, communities are free to decide what they want to engage with. Defederation is not hate.

online, everyone is weirdly guilty until proven innocent. it’s easier to believe that’s true when people aren’t in front of you too. they’re just NPCs with funny names & avatars, not complex humans that have their share of good & bad days.

Spend any time on IRL social networks (e.g. LinkedIn, Facebook, Instagram, etc), and you’ll see that people don’t give a shit even when presented with real names and faces.

just because something is said, or discussed, doesn’t make it true or dangerous. the human mind is cool because it can can basically create VMs and toy around with ideas without risking damage to the rest of the mind. devil’s advocates aren’t devils when they take off their cosplay horns.

Devil’s advocacy is only useful when used to strengthen arguments, otherwise it’s just an excuse for people to hold a position without taking responsibility for it.

“free speech” to me isn’t being able to harass or incite violence. it means being free to say & think things without always meaning them. or being allowed to be wrong/uninformed. freedom of speech depends heavily on context, and i think that’s partially why encouraging free speech online is so hard (compared to with friends or in offline classrooms), but it’s worth attempting (i think). IRL, it’s far easier to see when someone is genuinely curious, joking, aggressive, confused, etc.

Everyone is free to say what they want, however, they are not free from the consequences. This is true of all interactions, IRL or online. People vomiting out every thought in their head instead of carefully considering is part of what leads to so much conflict.

the alternative is for any and all controversial discussions to only happen behind closed doors, online or offline. but that seems likely to improve nothing from where it stands today.

Controversial discussions can happen wherever people want to support them, and under the rules they set.

it’s easy to de-federate from instances with content deemed hateful to some (yes, i worded that carefully), but that means that certain individuals’ notions of those other people will never be challenged. this protects one’s fediverse but shifts the conflict IRL potentially. not everyone can just “turn off” the ignorant people around them.

The conflict is already there IRL. It is the responsibility of the individual to learn and grow, not for communities to proselytize.

do you know how hard it would be for a far right person to hate the queer community (for example) if they found themselves surrounded by non-combative, creative, talented, similar (in other ways lol) people? i think (i’m only guessing) that a similar thing happened back in the day with tattoos/piercings. seeing normal (& exceptional) people regularly that look a certain way can absolutely erode preconceived notions over time, like water drops carving the Grand Canyon. that is what changes minds. seeing other people, kinda like you, also kinda unlike you, living life and being cool.

Hateful people self isolate by choice, only interacting to attack those communities. Queer people are not welcome in their churches, bars, neighborhoods, social circles, etc.

i think wodespread defederation ensures all negative preconceived notions largely stay in tact. federating and handling issues on a case-by-case basis (or letting individuals handle their own disagreements, gasp!) just seems like a better strategy to me. but i could very well he wrong. i have zero relevant credentials to speak on any of this.

If you look at any of the truely “open” communities, they are essentially cesspools of hate and violence. Yeah people can clean dog shit off their own lawns, but much better if the shit wasn’t there in the first place.

i guess i just personally believe individual humans can & should look after themselves, their friends, and their communities without the need for overprotection by centralized powers — most of the time.

Disagree. You even disagree with yourself in your own definition. What is the responsibility of an individual who looks after themselves, their friends, and their communities? Maybe taking action to protect those friends and communities, instead of forcing them to protect themselves?

maybe i went off topic there a bit. sorry! this entire discussion fascinates me and frustrates me to no end. i truly think we could miss out on an opportunity to create a better Internet/network based on how this is all handled.

The internet is people, it’s not some mystical new social order. I want the fuckheads to stay away from me, just like IRL.