If someone spray painted a swastika on your house, how would you react? That’s basically what people are doing to the Facebook platform, and Facebook is fine with it.
Which is weird, because they are already censoring you considering there is a long range of things you can’t share in their platform, such as pictures of you breastfeeding your baby.
I’m not sure why breastfeeding is considered worse than hate speech at Facebook but apparently it is. Please note that while I mentioned the swastika, I didn’t mean to imply that Facebook is only cool with alt-right nonsense, the truth is that you can share all sorts of radical hatred from any political standpoint and Facebook is completely fine with it.
I get the free speech argument though, but the truth is that you’re always on someone’s platform and most of them wouldn’t be cool with your crazy. I mean, you’d get thrown out of a public park if you started making Facebook styled hate comments at random strangers.
> If someone spray painted a swastika on your house, how would you react?
Where I live (Görlitzer Park), those kinds of signs are literally everywhere -- only they're the leftwing equivalent, calling for bloody revolution, for the rich to be booted from their homes, racists and xenophobes to be punched, etc. I'm actually pretty relaxed about it -- a bunch of 20 year olds who get their kicks spray painting while drinking copious amounts of booze? Big deal.
And to offer another perspective on the recent emotional concern expressed so histrioniocally by a, politically speaking, suspiciously homogeneous crowd: Last year there was a huge, state financed charity billboard celebrating the life of... Fidel Castro. It was a collab between our Green local govt and the Cuban tourist ministry IIRC. Castro... who was responsible for how many deaths, 50,000? 100K?
By way of comparison, Pinochet had (according to Wikipedia) 10-30K on his account. I guarantee you there were no billboards of him around. Do I need to mention the recent merry festivities surrounding Karl Marx 200th birthday -- ceremony lead by Jean-Claude Juncker? Lest I have my words twisted against: I don't desire either of the these men to be displayed on taxpayer financed billboards!
The point that I'm trying to make is that this kind of legislation, and the so-called journalism and commentary surrounding it, don't fool anyone who's even the slightest bit (like me) conservative. We see right through these tendentiously applied, faux histrionic ("oh pity the poor soul who has endure watching -- and then deleting -- horribly vicious, hate-filled posts") outbursts whose real purpose is totally obvious. Namely to leverage dominance in various domains (journalism, charity, education, civil service) to usurp the electoral beating the left taken in any number of countries over the past two years. A beating meted out by a population who sees through the phony social concern, and sees the manifest and seething hypocrisy, the coziness of those who are insanely rich and the charity, journalistic, and civil service complexes.
In this battle any means to push back against at the barbarians at the gate are deemed appropriate. And so we are treated to the pathetic spectacle of those screeching about the deleterious, democracy damaging impact of fake news happily engaging in its production if it suits their side, the so-called defenders of liberty and free speech engaging in a rampage of censorship, bullying, "calling out", etc. of anyone who has an even slightly different opinion.
Now, don't get me wrong, I understand that those forces have no intention of trying to convince me. That is definitely not the goal, for if it were, the path that's being taken would certainly be recognized as wholly counterproductive. No, the real goal is to set boundaries, to wear out, tire, and demoralize the enemy. In other words, this is a propaganda war, exactly as e.g. Jacques Ellul described it. The very focus on such emotively charged terms as "love" (what we're about) and "hate speech" (what they do) makes this patently obvious.
To finalize, my feeling is that the forces I've described are winning, and I actually think they'll prevail in the battle. The propaganda war won't make any friends, but I believe it will succeed in its purpose, which is to wear out and dissipate the forces currently arrayed against it.
Final note: this is just an opinion. It's a strong one, yes. But I really love being proven wrong, so I'm really happy for the many highly intelligent and well-informed HNers to tear my argument apart. Have fun :)
Yep, always funny when protesters think they are somehow rebelling against the interests of power. Protest is primarily an expression of power. Once I understood this things made a lot more sense.
The authentic protest is almost always met with violence, either directly from the state or with the state allowing or aiding in its administration.
I think, at its core, the message of the state sanctioned protest/counter-protest is essentially "these people can be unleashed on you and you will have no recourse".
I don't know if I can prove you wrong, but in my opinion your example of Karl Marx's 200th birthday is misjudged. As far as I know he neither killed nor ordered to be killed anyone. He is no more responsible for people (I assume you have Stalin in mind) twisting his thought than is anyone else. To follow that logic to its conclusion you would also need to express outrage at Christmas, or at the depiction of Jesus on the billboards of churches, because of the deaths occasioned by the Crusades.
Because they're in power. I recommend Jacques Ellul's Propaganda. The fact that the tactics are totally obvious is, in fact, exactly the point. They serve not to convince, but remind who has the power.
Ellul has a passage in which ancient Chinese poetry is "analyzed" by communist party members. This was served in classrooms of course. And the analysis was manifestly ridiculous. Anyone who reads it can't help but chuckle at the ham-fisted attempt to suggest that a poem about the sky, actually was referring to the glorious peoples revolution.
But: read that every day, hear in class every year, hear 1000 messages that confirm and reinforce this crazy, idiotic, message, and you can't help but be affected by it.
That is the nature of propaganda. In it's essence, it is a demonstration, an exercise of power. There is nothing subtle about it, and only part of it is covert.
```In on article in Pruula in May 1957. the Chinese writer Mao
Dun wrote that the ancient poets of Chma used the following
words to express the striving of the people toward a better life:
The Bowers perfume the air. the moon shines, man has a long
life " And he added: “Allow me to give a new explanation of these
poetic terms The flowers perfume the air — this means that the
flowers of the art of socialist realism are incomparably beautiful
The moon shines — this means that the sputnik has opened a new
era In the conquest of space Man has a long life — this means
that the grout Soviet Union will live tens and tens of thousands
of years “
When one reads this ouce, one smiles If one reads i* a thousand
times, and no longer reads anything else, one must undergo a
change. And we must reflect on the transformation of perspective
already suffered by a whole society in which texts like this I pub-
lished by the thousands) can be distributed and taken seriously not
only by the authorities but by the intellectuals This complete
change of perspective of the Weltanschauung is the primary totali-
tarian element of propaganda.
I view it a lot less like a battle between the establishment and the barbarians at the gate, and much more a struggle to take away the megaphone from the village idiot.
We’ve always had people who called vaccines dangerous against better evidence, but platforms like facebook, allowed these people to construct their own realities, and as a result people are now dying from diseases that have been extinct for more than 50 years.
As I’ve said, there have always been village idiots, but social media marks the first time in human history, that we’ve actually had to take them seriously.
This comment is rather amusing -- probably unwittingly so -- when juxtaposed with (your) preceding post. In one, you ask us to empathize with the feelings of one group of people, those who are flustered by seeing (horrible) extremist propaganda. In the very next, not only are those finely-tuned emotional antennae manifestly off, but... well, suggesting a rather large cohort of people are mentally disabled? This from the person that wishes to portray themselves as the adult who needs "take their megaphones", which I understand as code for "let's have any comments they make on FB or other social networks erased". A little childish, perhaps?
What do I make of these two comments? How I read them is as follows: you're so utterly sure of your position -- because you're likely inclined to believe it, and because you've been bombarded with messages confirming it ("the others are stupid") -- that you're quite literally failing to engage your brain. Instead, you're making lazy, emotive arguments.
So thanks for proving my point: the claims that one should consider so-and-so's feelings, the supposed humanism. That's just BS, isn't it?
What on earth gave you the impression that I was some sort of liberal lighthouse?
On parts of Facebook the value of a professor in medicine counts for less than the experiences of an average soccer mom, and you’re seriously telling me to accept that as a new norm because it might hurt someone’s feelings if I didn’t? Right.
"kicking" is an interesting euphemism. Even if it were true that fascism "kicked" downwards and socialism "kicked" upwards, what the egregious socialist and fascist governments of the 20th century did wasn't just kicking. It was often quite literally rape, torture, murder, enslavement, and genocide.
Socialism by definition takes care of everyone equally.
You can tell those regimes didn't actually believe in socialism, by how they oppressed the poor, the weak and those who were different (religiously, sexually and so on).
> Socialism by definition takes care of everyone equally.
I think this is far harder to implement than people assume. We still have many things in life that are non-fungible, the most obvious of which is probably housing location.
> I find it interesting that platforms are liable for hosting hate speech, but individual users are not liable for creating it.
NetzDG only regulates how platforms that get a lot of complaints about content that is already illegal under existing criminal code have to handle and report those complaints.
That is precisely the problem with NetzDG: That a private company effectively becomes judge, jury and executor.
It has been deemed unconstitutional by many experts - and whether it holds up against those claims will have to be decided in the supreme court.
That Arvato, the company running the content-checking centers, is a subsidiary of Bertelsmann isn't helping either: Criticism of the government that gets deleted on Facebook by a pro-government company like Bertelsmann comes with a certain stench.
As comes the fact that the NYT somehow forgets to mention this affiliation and somehow manages it to intertwine this with the "right cause" of post-war Germany's approach to limit free-speech for Nazism.
"It shall be unlawful for any person to publish or distribute written matter which is threatening, abusive, or insulting, or to broadcast by means of radio or television or other electronic communication words which are threatening, abusive, or insulting"
It's in the "Other forms of discrimination" => "Racial disharmony" section, so it's applied in the context of racism (there are other sections that dictate other acts such as sexual harassment etc). There is also another section on "131 - Inciting racial disharmony"
Thats true. One of my ex classmates went first time abroad, and upon leaving zoll (german border) he told officer “heil hitler” out of pure excitement and probably too many historical movies watched (is there anything else to watch that is german made?). No amount of explanations was sufficient. He got 3 months behind bars and 10 years ban to visit germany. That was in 2007. I assume now its even worse.
Well, the difference is that being a (neo)Nazi is, rightly, illegal in Germany. Being a Communist (or even a Stalinist) is perfectly acceptable, and even encouraged from the top, in Russia.
It's unclear whether you mean you're German, and your German classmate was leaving Germany, or you're foreign, and your classmate was entering Germany.
You really shouldn't blame the victim just because you've been reading more news stories than him. It's the sort of thing I might have done when I was younger. I grew up trusting authorities and them always being reasonable and I would never have imagined Germany was such a bizarrely brutal place. People often joke with the workers they have to interact with. I've done that before. It's human nature.
I used to have a nazi symbol on my car just to rile people up. Once a neighbor called the police who were completely reasonable and asked me to please not park so close to his house because it's making him angry.
At absolute best, it's tasteless, and certainly grounds for social exclusion, but criminalizing and especially pathologizing mildly anti-social behavior is profoundly immoral, reckless, and inhumane.
If you have a whole class of people who have every hour of the day to nanny and harass other people - to rile them up- with any means possible, seems like a good cause.
Bonus Points if you put a Hammer and Sickle right next to them.
Creepy Thought-controll-freaks of all nations united- in outrage. My man.
Yes they do. The students of the university I was at were always doing offensive things trying to provoke reactions. Like a column about "Underage celebrities I'd go to jail for" or drawing a giant penis on the carpark. It's normal student culture where I'm from.
Are you serious? I am from Switzerland and live in Germany for 10 years, even in Switzerland I would not dare to say this to an officer. At worst they will take it as a personal offence, like I'd imply they are like the Gestapo and at best they'll suspect that I am on drugs or mentally handicapped.
Point is, he's not a victim, he's a criminal and has received his well-deserved punishment.
> you've been reading more news stories than him.
When you go to another country, it is your responsibility to follow their laws. Ignorantia legis non excusat.
>I grew up trusting authorities and them always being reasonable and I would never have imagined Germany was such a bizarrely brutal place.
"Brutal". In all fairness, compared to US prisons, German prisons must feel like holiday resorts... As a German citizen, I trust my authorities to uphold the laws.
> I used to have a nazi symbol on my car just to rile people up.
No. You had Nazi symbolism on your car because you are likely someone who agrees with the ideology. This also reflects in the kind of people you hang around with.
> Once a neighbor called the police who were completely reasonable and asked me to please not park so close to his house because it's making him angry.
And in Germany, you would have gotten jail time (§ 86a StGB), have your car confiscated and likely destroyed, and probably would have lost your driving license because you have demonstrated that you lack the adequate character to safely operate a vehicle.
"And in Germany, you would have gotten jail time (§ 86a StGB), have your car confiscated and likely destroyed, and probably would have lost your driving license because you have demonstrated that you lack the adequate character to safely operate a vehicle.
You obviously know that it's a crime in Germany. The parent's friend obviously didn't.
Are you actually in support of rule of law no matter what, or is it just this law you like? For example, are you OK with China executing Falun Gong members? Are you OK with ISIS killing gay people (it's the law of Islam!)? Are you OK with slavery as long as it's legal? Or are you just angry about Nazis especially out of all the other horrible groups in history for some reason? What about the Romans? They were pretty brutal - do you want to destroy the property of people who write roman numerals and write Latin phrases on things? Your extreme reaction doesn't make sense to me.
> lack the adequate character to safely operate a vehicle
It has nothing to do with safety. I grew up playing Wolfenstein 3D and watching the History channel. Nazi symbols were completely normal and everywhere. It was in no sense a crime or an indication that you're so mentally ill that you're going to crash your car.
> No. You had Nazi symbolism on your car because you are likely someone who agrees with the ideology. This also reflects in the kind of people you hang around with.
Please don't make personal judgments. I explained my reason.
Still, the scale of the two issues - prosecutions vs platform censorship basically implies that most of the things being censored do not rise to that level of illegality.
Yes, the new thing is basically that the platforms are taking part in the enforcement. This provides a pragmatic and efficient solution:
* The illegal content can be removed quickly, without tying up resources in the prosecution of minor offenders. Prosecution can focus on the worst of them.
* The platforms get to play the role of a neutral party and are not themselves being responsible for distributing the illegal content.
Given the increased centralization on the Internet to a few of these platforms, this allows for efficient implementation of the law.
This is quite similar to the development of copyright law (in the US). The DMCA grants platforms immunity by actively taking part in the removal of illegal content when requested. I haven't checked the numbers, but I expect that here also the number of DMCA takedowns greatly outnumbers the copyright violation law suits (which would be kept for the worst offenders)
Your portrayal of NetzDG as "[allowing] for efficient implementation" is IMHO very naive. NetzDG has been highly controversial in the informed part of the populace (for example, it's frequently discussed https://netzpolitik.org, in German). Among the concerns are that providers preemptively take down content outside the regular juristical process without transparency and appeal. Moreover, the law is criticized for cementing the defacto monopolization on the Web, and has yet to stand before court. It is seen as a publicity stunt to "do something about hate speech and fake news" and has had also the smell of an attempt to suppress opposing views when it was signed just during last year's federal election campaign by Heiko Maas, former minister of justice, now minister of foreign affairs.
Which is weird, because they are already censoring you considering there is a long range of things you can’t share in their platform, such as pictures of you breastfeeding your baby.
I’m not sure why breastfeeding is considered worse than hate speech at Facebook but apparently it is. Please note that while I mentioned the swastika, I didn’t mean to imply that Facebook is only cool with alt-right nonsense, the truth is that you can share all sorts of radical hatred from any political standpoint and Facebook is completely fine with it.
I get the free speech argument though, but the truth is that you’re always on someone’s platform and most of them wouldn’t be cool with your crazy. I mean, you’d get thrown out of a public park if you started making Facebook styled hate comments at random strangers.