louis rossman made a video a few days ago on why/if privacy matters. talking about smartphones: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=BQKDL9VUzfs
but the argument ‘normal people don’t need privacy’ is very old/common and has been debunked many times.
There is a youtube-video from 2 years ago, debunking that idea: https://youtube.com/watch?v=NIhCuzxNvv0
so everything boils down to context, purpose and intent. saying that to skinheads is meant to offend. calling trump names infront of his supporters is meant to offend.
i’d say critique and harassment are two totally different things. a statement can be one of that, both or neither.
i’m happy with the wikipedia definition of harassment. It’s harassment if the only purpose is to annoy. Regardless of the statement made. You could say something and it’s okay or call someone every night at 3am and tell the same sentence, then hang up… and it’s harassment. It’s not really directly related to the sentence.
The fine line between something that’s annoying but valid critizism and something that’s not is probaby whether it fits another objective purpose apart from annoying someone.
I’m not sure with determining intent. Say i citizise my spouse for their baking skills in front of a whole audience. Or i do the same thing in private. That says something about what i’m trying to achieve. (I’d probably also go a bit into details to make that somewhat a productive thing.) And most talking behind so.'s back. Or doing such things repeatedly. I believe in real-world scenarios you can tell intent or mallace more often than not.
“Hitler was a bad guy” is probably a factual statement, and a true one. He’s the definition of “a bad guy”. That’d rule out defamation. And who would be harassed? Hitler? He’s dead.
Regarding your other example, i don’t think you can say something and that somehow implicitly says something about the supporters or opponents. That’s not included in that statement. You could say’ …, so all supporters must be evil people.’ But that would leave me with the question ‘And why should that be the case?’ instead of ‘Who might be harassed here?’.
That’s the problem with freedom. But it’s the wrong thing to restrict freedom for everyone in order to accommodate for such people. In a democracy you also put up with right, extreme and or stupid people. and for a good reason. I believe the correct way to handle this is to moderate, write good tools to assist with moderation, block them / don’t federate with these instances. But it’s probably alarming that alternative platforms could be associated with those people.
… writing this on a platform that is probably completely unavailable in some of the mentioned countries.
edit: seems lemmy is accessible frim china?!