It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
avatar
jamyskis: You know about the "Beer Hall Putsch" that acted as the precursor to WW2? Beer halls at that time were basically the Facebook of today: people would go there to rant about political and social problems that they really had no idea about. The Nazis spent their early days there ranting against the government and Jews before they organised to attempt a coup.

The point was that Hitler knew very well that "speech" and propaganda were more effective tools than force and disregard for the law. Hitler gained power - initially legitimately I might add - through populism, propaganda and skilful manipulation. 20 years later, six million Jews were dead.
Remember kids if you put enough effort into posting stupid shit on facebook, you too can become the next hitler!
Post edited June 01, 2016 by WBGhiro
I think that through the use of genetic engineering we can develop a chicken capable of riding a unicycle.




Am I in the wrong thread?
high rated
avatar
jamyskis: For the largest part, the biggest critics of "censorship of free speech" in relation to hate speech are the very ones that perpetrate the actual hate speech in the first place. You know, the ones that would have us all believe that there's some kind of mass Jewish conspiracy, that all Muslims are complicit in a plot to islamise Europe and the US, that gays have some kind of "agenda" and that it is a "lifestyle", and that women's rights are just a conspiracy to emasculate men.

Facebook, Twitter and Google in particular have been remarkably lax in keeping hate speech under control, which is why far-right, Islamic extremist and gender extremist groups have been allow to widely use Facebook and Twitter in particular as propaganda platforms (the far left as well, but they're more guilty of inciting violence against political interests - capitalism and the far right mostly - as opposed to against races, religions or genders).

I just hope that in the implementation of these rules, they don't go too far in the other direction by suppressing legitimate political discussion in an excess of caution (mind you, actual legitimate political discussion rarely finds a home on online forums - that's usually the reserve of RL).

For the most part, I find the EC's new regulations long-overdue, and I think it's important to mandate the removal of hate speech. I am a little concerned, however, about the role of these tech companies in promoting "counter-narratives". I find such counter-narratives important, but it's not the role of these platforms to adopt an overarching political position outside of the extremes, and it fails to recognise that views are rarely black and white. If common sense prevails, they'll keep such "counter-narratives" within the realm of providing evidence that propaganda is false or misleading (Hoax Slayers for instance) and not adopt a specific political position.

I also hope that these rules will cover the full gamut of hate speech: Islamophobia from the far right; misogyny from the far right, islamists and so-called "men's rights" groups, anti-semitism from the far left, far right and islamists, general racism from the far right, and misandry from extreme feminists.
See, that's like saying the only people opposed to having the government monitor your calls, emails and searching your home are the people engaging in illegal activity. That's not the case. In this country, at least, I fought for people's rights. And I support them. You have the right to free speech, even if what you're saying is a pile of crap. You have the right not to be searched without cause even if your neighborhood is notorious for illegal activity. You have the right to be treated like a person with individual thoughts even if those thoughts don't coincide with the government right now.

The governments should not be trying to control people's thoughts. And you're in favor of having normal, if heated, discussion blocked. Hate speech is such a vague term that could eventually be broadened to mean ANYTHING. One day, THIS post could be classified as hate speech.
avatar
jamyskis: All the EC has done is mandate that these tech companies act in accordance with member states' individual hate speech legislation and hold social media site responsible for the posts of their users. Of course, the bar defining hate speech varies from country to country.
Exactly.

What's happening here is that the European Commission has kindly asked multinational companies to stop disregarding regional laws and take down content that violates them. The multinational companies have gracefully nodded (of course, you don't say no to this eh?), but have of course no perceivable way of complying, really.

It's like pledging five bucks in a billion dollar goal Kickstarter just so that you can comment on the thing as a backer. Looks good on the KS resume, but you won't ever pay up those five bucks.


avatar
jamyskis: Lutz Bachmann did eventually get convicted for incitement to hatred for his Facebook post, although he ultimately only got what amounted to a slap on the wrists by the courts.
In the perspective of German law, he did in fact do something illegal 'on the internet' and faced the full extent of the law i.e. was slapped on the wrist for it. So that means there are regional laws in effect already that extend to hateful propaganda on the internet, and on occasion, those laws are even enforced.

With the resolution, nothing changes in regional laws or regulations.
Nothing changes in what is conceived as illegal.
So nothing changes in content removal.

It's not the first time facebook, twitter and google are paying lip service to the idea to crack down on illegal hate speech. Which is absurd: They can't take any country specific laws into account, there are no keywords to properly catch illegal hate speech (google) and social media remains so immeasurably profitable because support in the form of humans is practically non-existant (twitter, etc.), so who is supposed to screen those reporting emails, most of which certainly won't take any regional laws into account?

Evidently Emob up there can call GOG forum members "fucking idiots". He can distort the issue by insinuating (capital) punishment for perceived wrongdoers, something that isn't even remotely proposed or alluded to anywhere. He's inciting outrage with known forms of propaganda, but he does nothing illegal. There are some problematic forms of hate speech in there, certainly,

The European Commission neither asks that something be done against those, nor have google et al. pledged to do anything like this.

avatar
ShadowAngel.207: muslim subhumans
I guess they won't even screen for clear cut national socialist terminology.

Neither google nor twitter nor facebook nor Valve nor GOG.
Post edited June 01, 2016 by Vainamoinen
That tech companies have to abide by the rules is, i think, a good thing and results from the fact, that they can't just ignore the EU as a market.
If a single country would ask them to correct their behavior, they could just ignore it. But the EU as a whole has too much power for that.

You can of course talk about what should qualify as hate-speech. That's the important discussion imo.
To publicly call for the murder of certain people, should always be illegal for obvious reasons. But there are certainly some grey areas, that deserve to be look at.
This has been in place since Mark Zuckerberg spoke to Angela Merkel earlier this year. Unfortunately facebook has some very absurd morals.

Shortly after the AM/MZ meeting a satirical poem about Erdogan caused a 30 day ban for a Dutch news site and its chief editor. Most likely after reports from Dutch people from Turkish descent.
More recently a Dutch guy posting a photo from his dog sitting up straight on the couch was banned for 72 hours. According to facebook the photo was pornography.
Apparently criticizing a dictator in the making is worse than child pornography. Just like pictures and videos of breast feeding women are far more harmful than videos of IS members decapitating people.

I'm not on social media for a lot of reasons. Bullshit censorship is one of them.

On a side note, several legal and privacy experts have questioned this measure as unlawful, in clear violation of national and European legislation and think it won't hold in court. Unfortunately taking this to court could mean a legal case that runs for a few years.
Post edited June 01, 2016 by HertogJan
low rated
avatar
WBGhiro: Remember kids if you put enough effort into posting stupid shit on facebook, you too can become the next hitler!
PEGIDA started out as a Facebook group. Then it became a gathering. Now, to all extents and purposes, it has become a political party by annexing the AfD (which was formerly actually an honest, rational party before the Lucke-ites were ousted). Notice a pattern?
avatar
ShadowAngel.207: I think Video games are the smallest problem regarding censorship and things like that.
OP is American, enough said ;)
avatar
catpower1980: OP is American, enough said ;)
Which is why, being an American myself, I asked for people affected by these changes to speak up. I don't care much what other Americans think about rules and regulations in the EU. I don't care what someone, who can't even post a link to an article or anything about the subject thinks; someone who isn't actually affected but rather is outraged for others. That's my personal preference, true. I just wanted to get a better picture of what's actually happening. :D
low rated
avatar
ShadowAngel.207: muslim subhumans
avatar
Vainamoinen: I guess they won't even screen for clear cut national socialist terminology.
Sigh. Many these so-called "concerned citizens" don't even bother trying to hide their Nazi affiliations now. Many of them are even quite openly going after Jews as well (who already have a hard enough time as it is).
high rated
avatar
jamyskis: I also hope that these rules will cover the full gamut of hate speech: Islamophobia from the far right; misogyny from the far right, islamists and so-called "men's rights" groups, anti-semitism from the far left, far right and islamists, general racism from the far right, and misandry from extreme feminists.
How about the far-feminist hate speech towards men, like the known Finnish (now living in Sweden, figures) feminist Tiina Rosenberg saying things like "Having sex with men is a gender betrayal"?

You certainly have an odd view that people will adopt the "right" way of thinking as long as you "protect" them from wrong opinions.

I always considered that kind of view as seeing people (other people) as some kind of children who can't make up their own opinions, but are too easily affected by "wrong" opinions or data.

That tactic hasn't worked so far. There have been stupid "hate-speech" laws in lots of EU countries already before, yet people are more and more drawn to them. I think it is also because they want to see what the government is trying to hide from them.

I really wish Brexit becomes a reality and the EU will start crumbling down, as the EU commission makes stupid regulations like this. EU commission is an anti-democratic body anyway.
avatar
paladin181: Which is why, being an American myself, I asked for people affected by these changes to speak up. I don't care much what other Americans think about rules and regulations in the EU. I don't care what someone, who can't even post a link to an article or anything about the subject thinks; someone who isn't actually affected but rather is outraged for others. That's my personal preference, true. I just wanted to get a better picture of what's actually happening. :D
Well, I hope you're a bit clearer about it now. To be honest, it's not all that different from the US "imminent danger" principle. The "absolute" free speech in the US only protects the citizen from prior restraint, that is, the very act of saying something is not punishable, the citizen can only be held accountable for its consequences. We don't have "absolute" free speech in Germany, but the limitations are very minor: don't deny the holocaust, don't sing "Deutschland über alles" in public and no Hitler salutes in public. Even without the corresponding laws, these limitations are fairly reasonable.

And that's about it really. Everything else falls under defamation or within the principle of "imminent danger" like in the US.
avatar
paladin181: Thankfully for me, at least, those policies would NEVER fly here and the backlash would be over the top.
True. Once Donald Trump gets elected, hate speech will be mandatory.
low rated
avatar
paladin181: I think it doesn't affect you and we should hear from people it actually does affect.
avatar
MaximumBunny: I don't think anyone needs to hear anything from politically correct feminazis. The problem is that we hear too much from them even though they cry about never getting a voice. :P
Eat shit and die, cuntface.
avatar
paladin181: Thankfully for me, at least, those policies would NEVER fly here and the backlash would be over the top.
avatar
ET3D: True. Once Donald Trump gets elected, hate speech will be mandatory.
Hey, North Korea loves him! :D