Support NeoGAF

[freeofgreed]

Do you think gaf is legally obligated to ban you? I'm having trouble understanding your point.

What difference does that make? Whether it was done legally or by choice.

 

[tokkun]

I hope people remember that there are laws in many countries making it illegal to mock or criticize religions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemy_law

Let's say I make a post on Facebook criticizing the Pope's comments on transgender people, and someone from one of those countries reports it. Do you think Facebook should be legally obligated to delete my post?

 

[KHarvey16]

What difference does that make? Whether it was done legally or by choice.

Is that a serious question? Of course it makes a difference.

 

[freeofgreed]

Is that a serious question? Of course it makes a difference.

Yes explain. Business have to follow the law of whatever country they wish to operate in. If FB wishes to operate in Germany than they have to follow German laws, if it doesn't then they are free to pull out. Do you think FB shouldn't have to remove death threats just because the US law makes it?

 

[KHarvey16]

Yes explain. Business have to follow the law of whatever country they wish to operate in. If FB wishes to operate in Germany than they have to follow German laws, if it doesn't then they are free to pull out. Do you think FB shouldn't have to remove death threats just because the US law makes it?

Wait I thought we were talking about the difference between freely choosing to do something and being legally obligated to, and if there was any difference between the two. Very obviously there is.

 

[freeofgreed]

Wait I thought we were talking about the difference between freely choosing to do something and being legally obligated to, and if there was any difference between the two. Very obviously there is.

I mean obviously it is. But I don't think that's relevant in this case, especially considering most companies policies of what's acceptable are based off of local laws anyway.

 

[KHarvey16]

I mean obviously it is. But I don't think that's relevant in this case, especially considering most companies policies of what's acceptable are based off of local laws anyway.

It's relevant to the specific discussion that was being had, of which the post you quoted was a part.

 

[freeofgreed]

It's relevant to the specific discussion that was being had, of which the post you quoted was a part.

That poster made a comparison between Gaf banning someone and FB banning someone.

You brought up the distinction that Gaf bans of "free will" and that FB would ban because of obligation.

And I responded that that distinction doesn't matter in that case.

 

[KHarvey16]

That poster made a comparison between Gaf banning someone and FB banning someone.

You brought up the distinction that Gaf bans of "free will" and that FB would ban because of obligation.

And I responded that that distinction doesn't matter in that case.

And I responded by asking if that was a joke, because of course that distinction matters. I like Diet Coke, so why can't you be forced to drink it?

 

[RM8]

The slippery slope argument is so fucking lame. Everything in your penal code is open to interpretation. Doesn't make it any less viable.

It's my least favourite argument ever. "Yeah, I concede that there's actually nothing wrong with X, but what if Y and Z also happen! Where do we draw the line!?".

 

[freeofgreed]

And I responded by asking if that was a joke, because of course that distinction matters. I like Diet Coke, so why can't you be forced to drink it?

You haven't explained why it matters though. You explain that one exist, but not why its relevant.

 

[oti]

I hope people remember that there are laws in many countries making it illegal to mock or criticize religions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemy_law

Let's say I make a post on Facebook criticizing the Pope's comments on transgender people, and someone from one of those countries reports it. Do you think Facebook should be legally obligated to delete my post?

"Do you think people SHOULDN'T be allowed to call for refugees/minorities to get gassed and light on fire because [hypothetical scenario]?"

 

[KHarvey16]

You haven't explained why it matters though. You explain that one exist, but not why its relevant.

I gave you an example right there. Do you not take issue with that reasoning? If everyone were forced to drink the same thing because others might choose it, would you still wonder at the relevance of the distinction between choice and legal obligation?

 

[freeofgreed]

I gave you an example right there. Do you not take issue with that reasoning? If everyone were forced to drink the same thing because others might choose it, would you still wonder at the relevance of the distinction between choice and legal obligation?

You keep talking about the general distinction between choice and obligation. I know that it exist. I'm talking about how that point relates to the topic of this thread specifically.

 

[KHarvey16]

You keep talking about the general distinction between choice and obligation. I know that it exist. I'm talking about how that point relates to the topic of this thread specifically.

GAF choosing to ban a person has no relevance whatsoever to Facebook being forced to ban users or remove content. Facebook clearly chooses not to do those things. The inability or unwillingness to concede this point is blowing my mind. It's a stupid comparison that was made.

 

[freeofgreed]

GAF choosing to ban a person has no relevance whatsoever to Facebook being forced to ban users or remove content. Facebook clearly chooses not to do those things. The inability or unwillingness to concede this point is blowing my mind. It's a stupid comparison that was made.

You're missing my point. My point is that whether or not FB "wants" to do this is irrelevant. The law is stating that it has too do, so it has to do it.

 

[Siegcram]

It's because America is able to handle hate speech without it resulting in world wars.

Sure, not like an incompetent proto-fascist is close to the nuclear codes or anything.

 

[Henkka]

Racism will disappear when racism is made illegal. It's science.

 

[KHarvey16]

You're missing my point. My point is that whether or not FB "wants" to do this is irrelevant. The law is stating that it has too do, so it has to do it.

That's nice that that's what you're saying. The person whose post I responded to used GAFs decisions about banning to ask why Facebook has an issue with it. That reasoning had nothing to do with the laws of Germany.

You want to have an entirely different discussion than the one you joined in on.

 

[freeofgreed]

That's nice that that's what you're saying. The person whose post I responded to used GAFs decisions about banning to ask why Facebook has an issue with it. That reasoning had nothing to do with the laws of Germany.

You want to have an entirely different discussion than the one you joined in on.

1. What discussion? He made a post and you replied to it. Hardly what i'd call a discussion.

2. That OP didn't even bring up anything relating to legal requirements/free choice. you did. And I responded by saying that entire point wasn't necessary. Because that's how forums operate. If you wanted to have a 1 on 1 with that guy you should've pm'ed him.

 

[KHarvey16]

1. What discussion? He made a post and you replied to it. Hardly what i'd call a discussion.

2. That OP didn't even bring up anything relating to legal requirements/free choice. you did. And I responded by saying that entire point wasn't necessary. Because that's how forums operate. If you wanted to have a 1 on 1 with that guy you should've pm'ed him.

Who GAF bans and why IS A CHOICE. I didn't bring that up, it's the fundamental reason why comparing gaf choosing to do something to Facebook being forced to is dumb.

The poster asked why Facebook couldn't if GAF can. The very obvious response is that GAF chooses to and Facebook doesn't. If we consider German law the comparison is still silly because GAF's decisions aren't based on German law.

I'm at a loss here. You're making something so obvious and simple into a complicated matter.

 

[freeofgreed]

Who GAF bans and why IS A CHOICE. I didn't bring that up, it's the fundamental reason why comparing gaf choosing to do something to Facebook being forced to is dumb.

The poster asked why Facebook couldn't if GAF can. The very obvious response is that GAF chooses to and Facebook doesn't. If we consider German law the comparison is still silly because GAF's decisions aren't based on German law.

I'm at a loss here. You're making something so obvious and simple into a complicated matter.

I feel like this what you're doing.

The very obvious response is that GAF chooses to and Facebook doesn't.

My response to this is so what? Gaf can block people for hate speech, and FB can too. They both have the capability to do this. Whether or not FB wants to is irrelevant. If it wants to operate in Germany than that's what it has to do. This is a fairly simple point.

 

[Chaplain]

The problem with hate speech is that a select few become dictators on what is morally right or wrong.

"The fundamental and unavoidable problem with hate speech is that no one can say definitively what it is. The result is that there are huge and consequential differences between the claims, and since it is essentially subjective, it is always open to abuse. To define hate speech according to the eye of the beholder is to put a sword in the hands of the power wielder...Subjective notions such as hate speech have in turn aggravated two other negative responses: victim playing and phobiaization. The first of these bad responses occurs when people feel threatened and then play the victim card in order to seize the high ground by posing as "more victimized than thou." This tactic works well, of course, in societies influenced by the Jewish and Christian faiths, for as Nietzsche recognized with scorn, the latter privilege the status of the victim. Under some philosophies and in some cultures they would be treated simply as history's roadkill. Needless to say, hate speech itself is a crime viewed from the perspective of the victim rather than society, so the encouragement to victim playing grows out easily from the category... There is no question that speech is a vital consideration for all who wish to promote freedom, that those who speak with hatred are a deadly menace to society and that censorship always arises at the hands of those who set themselves up as guardians of the community's moral standing—be they conservative as in the past or liberal as so often today. But for all the good intentions behind the policing of offense and the politics of hate speech, the unintended consequences are disastrous...the stifling blanket of "No offense" wraps around our heads, potential charges of partiality are like concealed tripwires for our arguments and the fear of lawsuits, countersuits and even death threats and bounties hang over us like a sword. Studies of earlier evils such anti-Semitism demonstrate that hate-speech prosecutions have not achieved what their authors hoped to achieve. Rather, such restrictions leave the universities and countries that adopt them more litigious, uncertain and restless than ever, and vulnerable to even greater tensions and conflict." (Os Guinness, Guest Scholar at the Woodrow Wilson Center and a Visiting Fellow at the Brookings Institution)

 

[freeofgreed]

The problem with hate speech is that a select few become dictators on what is morally right or wrong.

Welcome to representative democracy.

 

[KHarvey16]

I feel like this what you're doing.



My response to this is so what? Gaf can block people for hate speech, and FB can too. They both have the capability to do this. Whether or not FB wants to is irrelevant. If it wants to operate in Germany than that's what it has to do. This is a fairly simple point.

I can't believe this is real.

"GAF does so why can't Facebook?" was the post. It's a silly question because GAF wants to and Facebook doesn't.

If I want to go to the movies but you don't, it's like someone coming along and asking you "well he can go, why can't you?" Because you don't want to.

 

[freeofgreed]

I can't believe this is real.

"GAF does so why can't Facebook?" was the post. It's a silly question because GAF wants to and Facebook doesn't.

If I want to go to the movies but you don't, it's like someone coming along and asking you "well he can go, why can't you?" Because you don't want to.

You were taking his question far too literally. He wasn't literally asking why FB wasn't removing hate speech, because clearly the answer to that is obvious, it's as you said they don't want to. He was making the point that FB should/could remove Hate Speech.

 

[KHarvey16]

You were taking his question far too literally. He wasn't literally asking why FB wasn't removing hate speech, because clearly the answer to that is obvious, it's as you said they don't want to. He was making the point that FB should/could remove Hate Speech.

The person in my example could think you can or should go to the movies, too. But you still don't want to and that makes their question silly.

The post was just poor reasoning.

 

[Erevador]

Moronic and dangerous.

That would be the most foolish thing they could possibly do. You cannot suppress public opinion, that will only make it more and more explosive.

This is exactly the kind of thing Merkel should not be doing if she wants to regain the trust of her people.

 

[Frankfurter]

It's because America is able to handle hate speech without it resulting in world wars.

Just barely though, considering Trump.

 

[hydrophilic attack]

Good.

Hopefully this will finally push Facebook and Twitter to do something about their lax moderation. If a (in the grand scheme of things) relatively minor site like NeoGAF.com can do proper moderation, so should giants like Facebook and Twitter.

Some Americans seem confused. But here in Europe, we have really tried to learn from our past. Hate speech should not be allowed to fester. We know where that road leads, and we don't want to go down it in the future. USA doesn't seem to learn as strongly from its own history unfortunately with how some people still wish to prevent certain groups for voting, or make them work for free (in prisons instead of plantations, but conceptually it's still slavery).

 

[fart town usa]

Good.

Hopefully this will finally push Facebook and Twitter to do something about their lax moderation. If a (in the grand scheme of things) relatively minor site like NeoGAF.com can do proper moderation, so should giants like Facebook and Twitter.

Some Americans seem confused. But here in Europe, we have really tried to learn from our past. Hate speech should not be allowed to fester. We know where that road leads, and we don't want to go down it in the future. USA doesn't seem to learn as strongly from its own history unfortunately with how some people still wish to prevent certain groups for voting, or make them work for free (in prisons instead of plantations, but conceptually it's still slavery).

We don't need to reflect on our past because god chose us and we're more special than everyone else. Haven't you heard of manifest destiny?


That's sarcasm. I agree with everything you posted.

 

[ElTorro]

I do not see the point of deleting racist social media posts; especially not when many people post them under their real names.

It's more effective to actually share such opinions, expose them, criticise them rationally if possible, or mock them if rational discourse is not possible. At the very least, social media makes the existence of such trends transparent. It is worse for a society to have such trends and not notice them. Conversely, nobody wins anything by deleting them, except temporary personal relief from a source of offence, which is understandable, but ultimately inconsequential.

/edit: This discussion is difficult to have without examples, though. There is a huge difference between an expression of opinion ("I don't want refugees in my neighbourhood") and a call for unlawful action ("We should burn down refugee shelters. Who is with me?"). There is good reason take action against the latter.

 

[Nere]

I think if people are criticizing goverment decision they should do it. They are members of that society and pay taxes can't they say what they think about their goverment? But threats on people and harassment against people should be monitored.

The danger doing that though is that what is hate speech and what isn't? Who is going to monitor the hate speech and delete posts? What happens if the goverment goes overboard and deletes non hate speech posts?

 

[Deleted member 1235]

This is a horrible idea.

Yeah what would the Germans know about letting hate speech run unchecked?!

 

[IdreamofHIME]

There is no local law on the internet.

If these companies are operating in these countries and earning money, they are certainly subject to certain laws.

 

[Fantastapotamus]

I do not see the point of deleting racist social media posts; especially not when many people post them under their real names.

It's more effective to actually share such opinions, expose them, criticise them rationally if possible, or mock them if rational discourse is not possible. At the very least, social media makes the existence of such trends transparent. It is worse for a society to have such trends and not notice them. Conversely, nobody wins anything by deleting them, except temporary personal relief from a source of offence, which is understandable, but ultimately inconsequential.

The problem is: Who will expose, criticise or mock it? Let's say you are some 16 year old dude, do you think anybody but your friends will give a shit what you post on Facebook? And your friends probably think the same way you do.

And that's where it becomes even more problematic: The more you read those messages on Facebook, the more normal they become to you. Reading "I hope those refugees all get killed" doesn't sound that shocking or horrible anymore when you can read it every day in your feed, when you can openly discuss that with random strangers without any fear of consequence. If hate speech like this is allowed and can be plastered all over Facebook it becomes trivial.

The danger doing that though is that what is hate speech and what isn't? Who is going to monitor the hate speech and delete posts? What happens if the goverment goes overboard and deletes non hate speech posts?

There is a law that pretty clearly establishes what hate speech is and what it isn't. If the german government "goes overboard" people will report it. Unless you are talking about a full Erdogan move, silencing the press etc. But it's not like being able to say "I want to burn down this home for refugees" is somehow stopping that from happening.

 

[Siegcram]

I think if people are criticizing goverment decision they should do it. They are members of that society and pay taxes can't they say what they think about their goverment? But threats on people and harassment against people should be monitored.

The danger doing that though is that what is hate speech and what isn't? Who is going to monitor the hate speech and delete posts? What happens if the goverment goes overboard and deletes non hate speech posts?

If only Germany had clearly defined hate speech laws with decades of precedences ...

 

[Frankfurter]

I do not see the point of deleting racist social media posts; especially not when many people post them under their real names.

It's more effective to actually share such opinions, expose them, criticise them rationally if possible, or mock them if rational discourse is not possible. At the very least, social media makes the existence of such trends transparent. It is worse for a society to have such trends and not notice them. Conversely, nobody wins anything by deleting them, except temporary personal relief from a source of offence, which is understandable, but ultimately inconsequential.

/edit: This discussion is difficult to have without examples, though. There is a huge difference between an expression of opinion ("I don't want refugees in my neighbourhood") and a call for unlawful action ("We should burn down refugee shelters. Who is with me?"). There is good reason take action against the latter.

Nothing is gonna happen if you post sth. like this...

 

[Elchele]

There is no local law on the internet. Other countries shouldnt be subjugated to Germany's censorship.

tell that to torrent sites m8

 

[oti]

Nothing is gonna happen if you post sth. like this...

"I dont like refugees" is a xenophobic but not a dangerous post.
"I think refugee homes should be burnt down with as many refugees in them as possible" is a dangerous post and should be deleted.

I don't understand how some people here don't see the difference in those statements and I'm not talking about Torro.

"But what about other nations" or "But what if this leads to World War" or something is not a valid point in this discussion.

 

[tokkun]

"Do you think people SHOULDN'T be allowed to call for refugees/minorities to get gassed and light on fire because [hypothetical scenario]?"

Do you have a problem with considering hypothetical scenarios? I make decisions every day based on hypothetical scenarios ranging from whether to look both ways before crossing to the street to whether I should worry about Donald Trump being elected. People complain about hypotheticals as being a slippery slope argument, but the flip side is that not considering any hypotheticals is myopic.

I'm reminded of conservatives Justices dismissing claims that the Citizens United ruling would result in a huge influx of corporate spending into American politics as being a hypothetical scenario and a slippery slope argument. We've seen how that turned out.

 

[zou]

Just barely though, considering Trump.

and yet Germany is the one with neo-nazi and extremists parties in state governments.

 

[PdotMichael]

and yet Germany is the one with neo-nazi and extremists parties in state governments.

No

 

[SomTervo]

Because that's the essence of free speech.

Ah yes, the gold old American definition of free speech.

 

[oti]

Do you have a problem with considering hypothetical scenarios? I make decisions every day based on hypothetical scenarios ranging from whether to look both ways before crossing to the street to whether I should worry about Donald Trump being elected. People complain about hypotheticals as being a slippery slope argument, but the flip side is that not considering any hypotheticals is myopic.

I'm reminded of conservatives Justices dismissing claims that the Citizens United ruling would result in a huge influx of corporate spending into American politics as being a hypothetical scenario and a slippery slope argument. We've seen how that turned out.

I hear you. My response was an extreme which is never good in a discussion. Hypothetical scenarios are important in the decision making process, the arguments against TTIP for instsnce are mostly based on hypothesis. I just don't think that other nation's laws about religion have something to do with Germany's actions against people saying on social media that humans should be murdered.

I get the slippery slope fear, I'm just not sharing it. But this "all speech is free speech" sentiment I don't agree on at all. Not that you brought that up, just in general.

 

[Irminsul]

and yet Germany is the one with neo-nazi and extremists parties in state governments.

You do know the parliament isn't the government?

 

[DarkHeartedKill]

It's my least favourite argument ever. "Yeah, I concede that there's actually nothing wrong with X, but what if Y and Z also happen! Where do we draw the line!?".

I just respond: "Simple draw the line after X but before Y. If you have no problem with X then allow it and don't allow the rest pretty simple. Unless, you actually do have a problem with X and you're just masking it with bullshit hypothetical scenarios! Dick."

 

[zou]

No

NPD
9.2% in Saxony (2004)
7% in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern (2006)

AfD
Represented in 10/16 state parliaments
10% in Saxony (2014)
10.5% in Thuringian (2014)
12% in Brandenburg (2014)
6% in Hamburg (2015)
5% in Hamburg (2015)
24% in Saxony-Anhalt (2016)
15% in Baden-Wuerttemberg (2016)
12% in Rhineland-Palatinate (2016)
20% in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern (2016)

If anything, the rise of the right-wing in Germany is only accelerating, now that they finally have an acceptable party in the AfD.

 

[zou]

You do know the parliament isn't the government?

It's part of the government unless you want to be pedantic.

 

[tokkun]

I hear you. My response was an extreme which is never good in a discussion. Hypothetical scenarios are important in the decision making process, the arguments against TTIP for instsnce are mostly based on hypothesis. I just don't think that other nation's laws about religion have something to do with Germany's actions against people saying on social media that humans should be murdered.

I get the slippery slope fear, I'm just not sharing it. But this "all speech is free speech" sentiment I don't agree on at all. Not that you brought that up, just in general.

The differentiation between the type of speech you are describing here:

"I dont like refugees" is a xenophobic but not a dangerous post.
"I think refugee homes should be burnt down with as many refugees in them as possible" is a dangerous post and should be deleted.

I don't understand how some people here don't see the difference in those statements and I'm not talking about Torro.

"But what about other nations" or "But what if this leads to World War" or something is not a valid point in this discussion.

Are already present in the laws of Twitter and Facebook's home country. The US separates out threats and incitements to violence from other forms of hate speech, and they can be considered criminal acts. If you are only concerned with that type of speech, you do not need to advocate for those companies to be subject to the speech laws of a foreign nation.

I just respond: "Simple draw the line after X but before Y. If you have no problem with X then allow it and don't allow the rest pretty simple. Unless, you actually do have a problem with X and you're just masking it with bullshit hypothetical scenarios! Dick."

There is a certain weakness with that argument when we are talking about legal precedent. Drawing that line may not be "simple" and may in fact take many years of protracted legal battles. Using the Citizens United example, we are still a long ways off from getting that line drawn, despite a significant amount of public sentiment in favor of it.

Abuse of DMCA takedowns are another object lesson in so-called "slippery slope" arguments that turned out to be prophetic, to the detriment of society.

I think history has shown you have to be very careful about the "we'll fix it later if there are problems" attitude.