Germany tells social media companies to delete hate speech or face fines

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

agent00f

Lifer
Jun 9, 2016
12,203
1,242
86
I'm not aligning with racists and I'm all for progressive revenue increases (tax the rich more, I'm all for it), I'm also for allowing people the freedom of though and expression - even that which I don't agree with. Stripping people of that right enters into a totalitarian government in some false pretense of a utopia. Whether it be the US or Germany or wherever, the population falls into that trap like a bunch of lemmings.

Freedom of speech and expression should be a fundamental human right, I'm not sure what else to say.

Let's not pretend you're liberal given the complete lack of misgiving over the consequences of absence of deconfederation.
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,785
6,187
126
That's how they do in Germany. They've tried it the other way. If even pragmatic Germans can fall for hateful incitement and become mass murderers, then it's something we need to be very careful of. As far as it being a slippery slope to dictatorship, usually dictatorships emerge from free for all chaos, and then impose strict censorship to preserve their rule. Having a rule based system is not a road to dictatorship.
 
  • Like
Reactions: agent00f

Ackmed

Diamond Member
Oct 1, 2003
8,476
523
126
I'm not trading anything, actually. I'm saying the people who provide the press get to decide what is printed. It has always been this way, and always will be.

The very idea that "bias" needs to be avoided at all costs is absurd. No one wants to be neutral in the first place. Critical thinkers will compensate for bias as they always have done. Zealots will only feed their biases and not allow their bubbles to be burst, also as always.

The goal of the media/press should never be neutrality. It should be conveying the news of the day in a way that explains to the audience what happened. If you only want plain recording of facts there are plenty of ways to get those in many situations. I'd rather have experienced and intelligent people relay the facts with context and analysis.

Your post that I quoted was talking about sites, and this site specifically. It was not talking about the media/press (such as CNN/Fox/MSN), nor was I.

Bias does need to be avoided when you are supposed to be administering rules evenly. Just as judges can't act on their bias, conflict of interest, etc. You stated that you'd like to see sites administer their own policy of hate, instead of the government imposing fines. Frankly, I agree with you on that. I would like to keep the government as far away as possible from this. The point I was making is that forums (you said this site) can have admins that are bias. They can administer their own policy of hate, interpret the rules how they see fit, and at their discretion and not evenly to all posters because of a bias or agenda. Basically to let someone speak or speak differently, but not someone who they don't like. That is the issue I have.
 

agent00f

Lifer
Jun 9, 2016
12,203
1,242
86
That's how they do in Germany. They've tried it the other way. If even pragmatic Germans can fall for hateful incitement and become mass murderers, then it's something we need to be very careful of. As far as it being a slippery slope to dictatorship, usually dictatorships emerge from free for all chaos, and then impose strict censorship to preserve their rule. Having a rule based system is not a road to dictatorship.

In fairness to the germans, it was in their practical self-interest for a time to be nazis given the benefits of membership, just as denazification made the same move against self-interest. Same as it was for many americans to support the confederacy or segregation or similar bigotry today to maintain their social status over various minorities. That's why they complain so much about the minor social stigma against doing what they do.
 

jackstar7

Lifer
Jun 26, 2009
11,679
1,944
126
It's amazing how some of you so callously disregard one of our fundamental rights as citizens/humans (yes in regards to the US). There's a message you don't like so that makes it ok to shut it down, to not allow people the freedom of expression.

It's so absurd to even have this arguement. I don't agree with those espousing racism (since that seems to be the trump card gotcha of the moment) but I do absolutely agree with someone's right to express it. Good lord people, read the book 1984. We don't want the thought police.
Who are you arguing against?

Follow up, are they windmills?
 

jackstar7

Lifer
Jun 26, 2009
11,679
1,944
126
Your post that I quoted was talking about sites, and this site specifically. It was not talking about the media/press (such as CNN/Fox/MSN), nor was I.

Bias does need to be avoided when you are supposed to be administering rules evenly. Just as judges can't act on their bias, conflict of interest, etc. You stated that you'd like to see sites administer their own policy of hate, instead of the government imposing fines. Frankly, I agree with you on that. I would like to keep the government as far away as possible from this. The point I was making is that forums (you said this site) can have admins that are bias. They can administer their own policy of hate, interpret the rules how they see fit, and at their discretion and not evenly to all posters because of a bias or agenda. Basically to let someone speak or speak differently, but not someone who they don't like. That is the issue I have.
Wait what? There's too much to unpack here.

Firstly, all media and sites own presses. Some are ethereal, some are physical.

Judges actively act on their biases. Spend much time in courtrooms?

I have no issue with admins/mods. I'm not sure why you do. Most are volunteers. Most places post their posting rules. Follow 'em. Report people who don't if you want to actively police people. Otherwise, let the mods handle their business.

Though I'd avoid saying you don't agree with the moderation on this site. That's to be done in the Mod forum, as per the rules.
 

jackstar7

Lifer
Jun 26, 2009
11,679
1,944
126
Arguing against anyone who feels people shouldn't have the right to say what they want, even if it's abhorrent and I completely disagree with it.
Everyone can say whatever they want.

Is someone being jailed right now in America for their speech?
 

UglyCasanova

Lifer
Mar 25, 2001
19,275
1,361
126
We are 6 pages in and the arguement from several people is no they shouldn't be able to. My opinion is the freedom of speech should be a fundamental human right, when you look around the world the worst countries have the strictest rules on speech.

America? No the Supreme Court has ruled on that several times. Different countries like Germany and the situation is different. Just like jailing journalist, the government shouldn't be trusted to regulate speech. The push should always be for open societies.

I'm astonished that so many are arguing for regulation of speech.
 

jackstar7

Lifer
Jun 26, 2009
11,679
1,944
126
We are 6 pages in and the arguement from several people is no they shouldn't be able to. My opinion is the freedom of speech should be a fundamental human right, when you look around the world the worst countries have the strictest rules on speech.

America? No the Supreme Court has ruled on that several times. Different countries like Germany and the situation is different. Just like jailing journalist, the government shouldn't be trusted to regulate speech. The push should always be for open societies.

I'm astonished that so many are arguing for regulation of speech.
Support the ACLU, hombre.

And we do regulate speech. Especially when it infringes on other freedoms, like freedom from religion for instance. You seem to see us on some slippery slope, but there's little evidence of speech regulation here. So why the panic?
 
  • Like
Reactions: mikeymikec

pmv

Lifer
May 30, 2008
12,972
7,891
136


But the US does have limits on free speech (copyright, libel, national security, incitement - offering a hit-man money to kill someone is an act of speech, ater all - all sorts of laws limit speech, indeed, ultimately, the law of private property is such a limit as how much you can speak is dependent on whether you own the means of speaking and if you have the economic security to weather the consequences), so it is strictly true that 'all developed countries have some limits on speech'.

If the US has no limit on speech, why is Snowden in Russia?

However, the US does have fewer limits than most countries. I'm not arguing for more restrictions, I just get a bit irritated by those who make absolutist claims and pose as defenders of 'total free speech'. Because there isn't any such thing as complete free speech, there are just degrees of restriction.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Victorian Gray

UglyCasanova

Lifer
Mar 25, 2001
19,275
1,361
126
But the US does have limits on free speech (copyright, libel, national security, incitement - offering a hit-man money to kill someone is an act of speech, ater all - all sorts of laws limit speech, indeed, ultimately, the law of private property is such a limit as how much you can speak is dependent on whether you own the means of speaking and if you have the economic security to weather the consequences), so it is strictly true that 'all developed countries have some limits on speech'.

If the US has no limit on speech, why is Snowden in Russia?

However, the US does have fewer limits than most countries. I'm not arguing for more restrictions, I just get a bit irritated by those who make absolutist claims and pose as defenders of 'total free speech'. Because there isn't any such thing as complete free speech, there are just degrees of restriction.

Read through the thread, I didn't talk in absolutes and made mention of the exceptions. To be an exception it has to pose a cleR and present danger to someone, not just a generic threat to no one in particular.


Support the ACLU, hombre.

And we do regulate speech. Especially when it infringes on other freedoms, like freedom from religion for instance. You seem to see us on some slippery slope, but there's little evidence of speech regulation here. So why the panic?


I don't think freedom from religion religion counts , they are allowed to prothlecize. There is registictions (or supposed to be) on the government conducting that speech if that's what you meant.
 

Skyclad1uhm1

Lifer
Aug 10, 2001
11,383
87
91
If IS would start using AT to discuss attacks on US soil or even to just discuss how all those with non-IS ideals are inhuman and should be killed I bet a lot of people here would have no problems with them getting banned.

However, when it's Neo-Nazis who want all Jews or all Muslims to be exterminated it's suddenly freedom of thought and speech.

In my view all fascists are a danger to humanity, no matter whether it concerns al-Baghdadi, Trump, Modi, Netanyahu, Putin, Duterte, Mugabe, Kim Jung-un or others like them.
 

UglyCasanova

Lifer
Mar 25, 2001
19,275
1,361
126
A private site like AT just like private social media companies should and do have every right to regulate what is acceptable to say on their sites. That's a big difference between the government doing a blanket ban on thoughtband speech.


You say fascism is a danger, I agree. One of the hallmarks is in a fascist state they regulate speech to quell dissenting opinions. Governments can and do abuse this power.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism#Totalitarianism

It attempted to purge ideas that were not consistent with the beliefs of the fascist movement and to teach students to be obedient to the state.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: cytg111

pmv

Lifer
May 30, 2008
12,972
7,891
136
Read through the thread, I didn't talk in absolutes and made mention of the exceptions. To be an exception it has to pose a cleR and present danger to someone, not just a generic threat to no one in particular.

I'm not saying you personally were talking in absolutes or striking postures, just that people often do that when this topic comes up. But the immediate point was someone saying 'all countries have some restrictions' and you appeared to deny that, but it is in fact true.

As for 'clear and present danger', that isn't true either, there are many more restrictions on free speech than that, e.g. copyright or state secrets or libel (and the implicit limitations that result from a society's particular approach to private property rights, as in what can be said on privately owned forums).

And in any case that 'danger to specific individuals' is itself a distinction that needs to be argued for, I don't see there's a compelling reason why everyone has to accept that distinction. The point of hate speech laws is that there is a continuum between 'an immediate threat to someone in particular' and 'generic threat to no-one in particular'. The argument would be that something that incites hatred against a vulnerable minority group falls in between those two extremes.

As so often I'm not really defending the other position - I'm dubious about hate-speech laws myself - just pointing out it's not as clear-cut as you seem to be implying. Which is why I think these things can vary by culture, depending on what the common view in a society happens to be (for obvious reasons Germany falls on one end of the spectrum, while the US tends to be on the other end).
 

1sikbITCH

Diamond Member
Jan 3, 2001
4,194
574
126
so you don't believe hate speech creates an imminent public danger?

Westboro Baptist Church has been slinging hate for decades, nobody has died. KKK marches up and down every redneck shithole in the country, swinging nooses and chanting hate speech, nobody gets killed.

Does not seem to be a correlation here.
 

jackstar7

Lifer
Jun 26, 2009
11,679
1,944
126
KKK marches up and down every redneck shithole in the country, swinging nooses and chanting hate speech, nobody gets killed.

Does not seem to be a correlation here.
Nobody gets killed? Or you don't know about the people killed?
 

agent00f

Lifer
Jun 9, 2016
12,203
1,242
86
A private site like AT just like private social media companies should and do have every right to regulate what is acceptable to say on their sites. That's a big difference between the government doing a blanket ban on thoughtband speech.


You say fascism is a danger, I agree. One of the hallmarks is in a fascist state they regulate speech to quell dissenting opinions. Governments can and do abuse this power.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism#Totalitarianism
so? whats the problem with that? why do you hate freedom?

Funny when the fascists & sympathizers portray themselves as the Real victims of fascism.

There certainly are liberals concerned about weighing the benefits of free expression vs free expression by confederate types which led to segregation & so on. These dishonest pieces of shit are the latter and not the former.
 

UglyCasanova

Lifer
Mar 25, 2001
19,275
1,361
126
Nobody gets killed? Or you don't know about the people killed?


Link me to the last KKK killing. It's turned into the go-to boogeyman that by the sounds of it is as big, violent, and powerful here in the State's as ISIS is in the ME. I'd be surprised if there were even legitimate active KKK chapters anymore. The race card is played far too often as a gotcha and the mighty KKK is brought up in conversations as this force to be feared. Not to say they are a wonderful group or haven't committed plenty of atrocities, but this is 2017 and as far as being something to be feared I don't buy it, sorry.
 
Last edited:

agent00f

Lifer
Jun 9, 2016
12,203
1,242
86
Link me to the last KKK killing. It's turned into the go-to boogeyman that by the sounds of it is as big, violent, and powerful here in the State's as ISIS is in the ME. I'd be surprised if there were even legitimate active KKK chapters anymore. The race card is played far too often as a gotcha and the mighty KKK is brought up in conversations as this force to be feared. Not to say they are a wonderful group or haven't committed plenty of atrocities, but this is 2017 and as far as being something to be feared I don't buy it, sorry.

To be expected from apologists who evidently have far less of a problem with their roflmouth/chucky peers than people who point that out.