In the wake of Pittsburgh massacre, Facebook allegedly sorry for showing "White Supremacist" ADs

[leadeater]

1 hour ago, Waffles13 said:

And I pointed out that you can go stand in front of the White and talk about wanting to blow it up and that's completely legal. Maybe laws are different where you are, but all these social media companies are located in the US so our laws are presumably more relevant to this discussion than yours are. 

No the problem is you do have laws that would prevent it, you're pointing towards an enforcement issue not a lack of a law that could stop it.

[Unixsystem]

1 hour ago, JoostinOnline said:

Why does the size matter?  It's still a private platform.

There is an argument to be made on both sides.

 

Yes, you are absolutely right that under current laws, free speech doesn't apply, and the companies can make whatever choices they want with regard to banning. The question is whether or not that should be the law. 

 

The whole free speech idea comes from a time when the vast majority of your exposure to the outside world came from public marketplace and town halls, areas owned by the government where it was important for people to be able to spread new ideas or protest bad ones. Nowadays no one congregates in public with any regulatory, and social media in the internet has replaced that sort of broad public interaction.

 

That's not necessarily to say that regulating these companies is a great idea, or that the benefits would outweigh the cons, but the current laws weren't written with multi - billion dollar corporations in mind. Corporations that have more power over public opinion than most (or arguably all) nations do. 

 

Its certainly not a clear cut issue but there is a legitimate debate to be had. 

[Unixsystem]

3 minutes ago, leadeater said:

No the problem is you do have laws that would prevent it, you're pointing towards an enforcement issue not a lack of a law that could stop it.

What laws? I'm on my phone and can't easily look it up, but I'm fairly certain that current enforcement specifically requires a threat to be credible or imminent to be actionable. Saying "I want to do X" is not the same as "I am going to do X". It's not a black and white issue and there is a lot a gray area as to what constitutes credibility, but saying someone should die or something bad should happen is not considered a legal threat in most cases. 

[leadeater]

1 minute ago, Waffles13 said:

What laws? I'm on my phone and can't easily look it up, but I'm fairly certain that current enforcement specifically requires a threat to be credible or imminent to be actionable. Saying "I want to do X" is not the same as "I am going to do X". It's not a black and white issue and there is a lot a gray area as to what constitutes credibility, but saying someone should die or something bad should happen is not considered a legal threat in most cases. 

For a start, https://definitions.uslegal.com/p/public-disturbance/

 

Edit: And it is black and white. I'm specifically talking about making a speech about murder and mass murder, not grey areas or anything else. That has never been allowed, it's just so immensely harder to enforce online.

[AlTech]

5 hours ago, suits said:

so many the article just has no idea what they're talking about? Someone messed up somewhere is all I know.

I think they screwed up.

[Unixsystem]

2 hours ago, leadeater said:

For a start, https://definitions.uslegal.com/p/public-disturbance/

 

Edit: And it is black and white. I'm specifically talking about making a speech about murder and mass murder, not grey areas or anything else. That has never been allowed, it's just so immensely harder to enforce online.

You're proving my point here :

Quote

1. Offensive language addressed in a face-to-face manner to a specific individual and uttered under circumstances which are likely to produce an immediate violent response from a reasonable recipient; or
2. Threatening to commit a felonious act against any person under circumstances which are likely to cause a reasonable person to fear that such threat may be carried out; or

In other words, if the threat is credible. I should have been more clear in my original point; it's not that it would always be allowed. If you had a mob "protesting" in front of a synagogue and using lots of violent rhetoric, that would probably be legally different than "protesting" on a random street corner and just yelling to random passersby that "Jews should die". 

 

And yes, if a group just went out and starting making a racket anywhere it probably would be shut down if they didn't have proper permits in place. However, that would be shut down as a potential danger just due to things like noise and traffic violations, not because of speech, and if they had permits in place they would be able to continue, unless the threats become either directly at a specific individual or threaten to incite the mob to become violent generally. 

 

So depending on the circumstances, it is entirely likely that yelling "kill all Jews" could be an arrestable offense, however saying derogatory things or claiming that things would be better without them generally wouldn't. At least until the rhetoric changes from "this is my opinion!" to "we should do something about it!" 

 

And even on top of all that, things change drastically when you're online, because there is no longer the immediate physical threat on someone standing directly in front of you. Yes, a crazy person may travel across the country to do something, but generally if they do that there are going to be plenty of other signs of that, especially if they are planning it as a group. And if they are planning alone, banning then from speaking isn't going to stop those plans, it may accelerate those plans, and it ensures that they aren't going to reveal those plans in a way that will allow them to be reported and prevented from committing the act. 

 

Edit: To clarify: whereas someone looking you in the eye yelling "I'm going to kill you" is very likely to cause a reasonable person to fear that they may be telling the truth, some random person you don't know saying it on social media with no other information or evidence really shouldn't cause anyone to feel afraid. Just purely by the numbers its probably a kid or someone irrationally pissed about something you did or said, deliberately said just to make you scared without any effort. If they do something like post your home address or your work schedule or something that shows they actually have real intent, then by all means you should report it and the law should handle the rest. In the vast majority of cases though - you don't feed the trolls. 

[JoostinOnline]

2 hours ago, RejZoR said:

Only thing ridiculous are your reading skills. Then again, it's the same on basically all forums... Also, context matters. Case being that nazi saluting pug where they just threw away the context entirely...

You've given no reason why it should be.

[leadeater]

3 hours ago, Waffles13 said:

So depending on the circumstances, it is entirely likely that yelling "kill all Jews" could be an arrestable offense, however saying derogatory things or claiming that things would be better without them generally wouldn't.

And that is what I said and my specific point, I have said nothing about racist or bigoted comments.

[RejZoR]

5 hours ago, JoostinOnline said:

You've given no reason why it should be.

Because that's how free speech works. It's not a selective thing and never should have been. But perpetually offended idiots made it that way and it's just getting worse with every passing day...

[JoostinOnline]

10 hours ago, RejZoR said:

Because that's how free speech works. It's not a selective thing and never should have been. But perpetually offended idiots made it that way and it's just getting worse with every passing day...

It's ALWAYS been selective. It's just idiots who don't understand the concept that keep trying to use it as some sort of immunity for their actions.

[Commodus]

17 hours ago, Waffles13 said:

And even on top of all that, things change drastically when you're online, because there is no longer the immediate physical threat on someone standing directly in front of you. Yes, a crazy person may travel across the country to do something, but generally if they do that there are going to be plenty of other signs of that, especially if they are planning it as a group. And if they are planning alone, banning then from speaking isn't going to stop those plans, it may accelerate those plans, and it ensures that they aren't going to reveal those plans in a way that will allow them to be reported and prevented from committing the act. 

 

Edit: To clarify: whereas someone looking you in the eye yelling "I'm going to kill you" is very likely to cause a reasonable person to fear that they may be telling the truth, some random person you don't know saying it on social media with no other information or evidence really shouldn't cause anyone to feel afraid. Just purely by the numbers its probably a kid or someone irrationally pissed about something you did or said, deliberately said just to make you scared without any effort. If they do something like post your home address or your work schedule or something that shows they actually have real intent, then by all means you should report it and the law should handle the rest. In the vast majority of cases though - you don't feed the trolls. 

 

I know what you're getting at, but we shouldn't dismiss digital threats simply because there isn't that immediate danger.  As the women threatened by GamerGate assholes can tell you, it only takes one of those "I'm going to kill you" people showing up at your door to ruin everything.  If you make an explicit threat against someone or a group, you deserve the full weight of the law thrown against you.  No exceptions, no excuses.

[leadeater]

1 hour ago, Commodus said:

I know what you're getting at, but we shouldn't dismiss digital threats simply because there isn't that immediate danger.  As the women threatened by GamerGate assholes can tell you, it only takes one of those "I'm going to kill you" people showing up at your door to ruin everything.  If you make an explicit threat against someone or a group, you deserve the full weight of the law thrown against you.  No exceptions, no excuses.

It only seems like a lesser offence because the perpetrator is typically protected by anonymity and themselves has no fear or repercussion.

 

There is no real difference between threatening someone to their face, or calling their home or doing it online it's just convenient for those that make such threats to portray that there is a difference because the first two will net you a visit from police and the third won't, typically.

 

If you really want to exercise your freedom of speech put your name behind it, let everyone know who you are or let them see you.

[RejZoR]

2 hours ago, Commodus said:

 

I know what you're getting at, but we shouldn't dismiss digital threats simply because there isn't that immediate danger.  As the women threatened by GamerGate assholes can tell you, it only takes one of those "I'm going to kill you" people showing up at your door to ruin everything.  If you make an explicit threat against someone or a group, you deserve the full weight of the law thrown against you.  No exceptions, no excuses.

I was a part of GamerGate thing back in the day. It was anything but what you say. The media pushed narrative about poor womynz being harassed by evil misogynistic gamers and that sweet victimhood bucks flow was just too hard to resist. Some were making 4 digit Patreons monthly, producing absolutely nothing, literally just for being a faux victim. GamerGate originally was about journalistic integrity and a huge number of people (me included) were there for it along with important people from the industry like John Bain (TotalBiscuit, rest in peace man) and Notch (the maker of Minecraft). Of course trolls were involved and dumb media grabbed them with all four limbs because drama sells. And that's all they do. Make fake drama to make money out of it. There were also other parts where discussion sparked and it was the feminists and all that gender stuff and whole thing turned into so complex thing only people who were in it from the beginning understood. Everyone else basically had no clue what's what in the end because no one could explain it to anyone in few short sentences. And you know what happens when thousands of people are spreading misinformation and that misinformation gets further misinformed by every iteration it makes between people.

 

You can't say GamerGate wasn't about journalistic integrity because a lot of gaming outlets went down because of it, a lot of them reformed and it's exactly that time when gaming journo outlets started using disclosures about their relations with game makers, publishers, how products were obtained and if there were any compensations. It didn't all just randomly happened, it was the push gamers made. I'm surprised this much was achieved considering the neverending smearing by the mainstream media...

[Commodus]

7 minutes ago, RejZoR said:

I was a part of GamerGate thing back in the day. It was anything but what you say. The media pushed narrative about poor womynz being harassed by evil misogynistic gamers and that sweet victimhood bucks flow was just too hard to resist. Some were making 4 digit Patreons monthly, producing absolutely nothing, literally just for being a faux victim. GamerGate originally was about journalistic integrity and a huge number of people (me included) were there for it along with important people from the industry like John Bain (TotalBiscuit, rest in peace man) and Notch (the maker of Minecraft). Of course trolls were involved and dumb media grabbed them with all four limbs because drama sells. And that's all they do. Make fake drama to make money out of it. There were also other parts where discussion sparked and it was the feminists and all that gender stuff and whole thing turned into so complex thing only people who were in it from the beginning understood. Everyone else basically had no clue what's what in the end because no one could explain it to anyone in few short sentences. And you know what happens when thousands of people are spreading misinformation and that misinformation gets further misinformed by every iteration it makes between people.

 

You can't say GamerGate wasn't about journalistic integrity because a lot of gaming outlets went down because of it, a lot of them reformed and it's exactly that time when gaming journo outlets started using disclosures about their relations with game makers, publishers, how products were obtained and if there were any compensations. It didn't all just randomly happened, it was the push gamers made. I'm surprised this much was achieved considering the neverending smearing by the mainstream media...

I'm not going to rehash this argument other than to say you're being dishonest, and that the fact remains that people identifying under the GG banner in forums and social networks doxxed, harassed and stalked women.

 

Let's get back on track, shall we?  Can we at least agree that anyone who explicitly threatens someone else online deserves to at least be banned, and hopefully face legal action?

[TechGod]

On 11/4/2018 at 7:39 AM, aezakmi said:

SJWs and feminists are pro free speech as long as you're not a white straight male

Bull fucking shit. 

[TechGod]

20 minutes ago, RejZoR said:

I was a part of GamerGate thing back in the day. It was anything but what you say. The media pushed narrative about poor womynz being harassed by evil misogynistic gamers and that sweet victimhood bucks flow was just too hard to resist. Some were making 4 digit Patreons monthly, producing absolutely nothing, literally just for being a faux victim. GamerGate originally was about journalistic integrity and a huge number of people (me included) were there for it along with important people from the industry like John Bain (TotalBiscuit, rest in peace man) and Notch (the maker of Minecraft). Of course trolls were involved and dumb media grabbed them with all four limbs because drama sells. And that's all they do. Make fake drama to make money out of it. There were also other parts where discussion sparked and it was the feminists and all that gender stuff and whole thing turned into so complex thing only people who were in it from the beginning understood. Everyone else basically had no clue what's what in the end because no one could explain it to anyone in few short sentences. And you know what happens when thousands of people are spreading misinformation and that misinformation gets further misinformed by every iteration it makes between people.

 

You can't say GamerGate wasn't about journalistic integrity because a lot of gaming outlets went down because of it, a lot of them reformed and it's exactly that time when gaming journo outlets started using disclosures about their relations with game makers, publishers, how products were obtained and if there were any compensations. It didn't all just randomly happened, it was the push gamers made. I'm surprised this much was achieved considering the neverending smearing by the mainstream media...

Of course you were part of gamer gate and of course you’re lying about the reality of what it was. 

[Drak3]

On 11/3/2018 at 12:39 PM, aezakmi said:

SJWs and feminists are pro free speech as long as you're not a white straight male

Techgod is right.

 

They're pro free speech as ling as ypu're not a white straight male that disagrees with them in any way.

[aezakmi]

2 hours ago, Drak3 said:

Techgod is right.

 

They're pro free speech as ling as ypu're not a white straight male that disagrees with them in any way.

Ah that's my secret cap, I'm a white straight male, Techgod's comment just confirms my comment.

[Sauron]

On 11/5/2018 at 9:20 PM, Trik'Stari said:

Don Lemon: "We to realize the biggest terror threat in this country is white men, we have to start doing something about them"

I'm sorry, but that's the kind of shit people were saying about the Jewish community during the early 30's.

That's pretty funny considering the sheer volume of Sargon videos where he rants on some variation of "the statistics are clear, immigrants/afroamericans/muslims commit more crimes" (even when it's bullshit)... I'm not familiar with this Don Lemon guy, but "doing something about them" does not automatically mean "exterminate them" - it could mean help find what drives them to commit these acts and trying to help them, instead of buying into the racist histeria that would have you believe the "problem" are immigrants and we should close the borders to avoid tErRoRiSt AtTaCkS. Then again, taking things out of context is Sargon's specialty, not mine; judging a man's ideals from a single ambiguous sentence seems a little pretentious to me.

On 11/5/2018 at 9:20 PM, Trik'Stari said:

The issue there is the media are beginning to have more power to "inform" the population at large. Power must always be checked.

 

You have idiots on CNN saying blatantly racist things about white people, not being reprimanded or fired or even receiving any official blowback or apologizing.

I don't think Alex Jones or Breitbart have ever publicly apologised for anything... why the double standards? Oh, and I guarantee you the CNN has never said anything to the effect of "we should remove while people from the country" or called white people "unamerican devils" (unlike the "news outlets" I mentioned did for other groups).

On 11/5/2018 at 6:00 PM, suits said:

Does the OP know that White Supremacist and White Genocide are literally exact opposites?

 

I hope this is a mistake or ignorance, otherwise the narative you've started is literally the problem with news these days. Twisting something to be the exact opposite of what it is.

 

I get he's quoting the article, so many the article just has no idea what they're talking about? Someone messed up somewhere is all I know.

Except only white supremacists talk about "white genocide". It's a scare tactic buzz word they use to convince people that the "white race" is being attacked. They desperately want to appear as the victims fighting for survival, because under that lense their racist bullshit seems a little less crazy.

 

If you don't believe me, I defy you to find any group saying they are pro "white genocide" unironically. One of the first results on google is a wikipedia article about the "white genocide conspiracy theory"...

[Cornontheecob]

On 11/3/2018 at 9:07 AM, Commodus said:

You do know that Gab was fully aware it was hosting neo-Nazis long before the mass shooting, right?  That it was well-known as a haven for extremists, and this was just the first time one of the extremists in its community went so far as to kill people?  Gab isn't a champion of free speech; it courts the people whose hate, harassment and threats get them kicked off of better social networks.

Free speech does not choose sides. With it comes the good and the bad. If you censor the bad then it is no longer free speech now is it.

[leadeater]

21 minutes ago, Cornontheecob said:

Free speech does not choose sides. With it comes the good and the bad. If you censor the bad then it is no longer free speech now is it.

Free speech is to do with governments not taking it away, it is not given to you. Most democratic countries have laws preventing their government from infringing on your ability to speak (and other forms of it). People harp on about it so much on the internet when 90% of the time it has nothing to do with what is going on. I mean unless we're talking about a government creating a law to force private companies to censor people then it would apply. Us generally saying Facebook or any other platform should not allow the spreading of speech that incites violence has little to do with 'free speech'. 

 

Free speech is not immunity from the right of reply, challenge, consequence or repercussion. Exercising free speech and getting banned or shutdown is still free speech in action so long as it's not government enacted.

[Andreas Lilja]

7 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Free speech is to do with governments not taking it away, it is not given to you. Most democratic countries have laws preventing their government from infringing on your ability to speak (and other forms of it). People harp on about it so much on the internet when 90% of the time it has nothing to do with what is going on. I mean unless we're talking about a government creating a law to force private companies to censor people then it would apply. Us generally saying Facebook or any other platform should not allow the spreading of speech that incites violence has little to do with 'free speech'. 

 

Free speech is not immunity from the right of reply, challenge, consequence or repercussion. Exercising free speech and getting banned or shutdown is still free speech in action so long as it's not government enacted.

Free speech isn't limited to the 1st Amendment. 

[leadeater]

56 minutes ago, Raskolnikov said:

Free speech isn't limited to the 1st Amendment. 

The First Amendment isn't Free Speech, it's the preservation of it. The First Amendment doesn't 'give you' Free Speech.

 

Edit:

And unless you missed it whoever censored you or shut you down for your free speech is using their free speech to stop you. If Facebook says not on my platform that is free speech.

[Unixsystem]

20 hours ago, leadeater said:

Free speech is not immunity from the right of reply, challenge, consequence or repercussion. Exercising free speech and getting banned or shutdown is still free speech in action so long as it's not government enacted.

There's two separate arguments here. One is whether or not corporations have the right to ban people's ability to speak. That's a legal question, and in most/all of the western world the answer is objectively yes, they can effectively do whatever they want with their users. There are plenty of conversations to be had about whether or not the law should be changed, but that starts to steer much more political and I'm not sure what that line is in the context of this forum. However, I don't think anyone here is arguing whether or not these companies can ban people.

 

The actual question is whether or not they should ban people, especially with the rationale that they are protecting and helping anyone. This has nothing to do with the laws, and it is more of a question of why these companies feel the need to quash certain kinds of speech but leave others that are just as extreme on the other end of the spectrum. If these companies want to act as arbiters of what is right or wrong they technically can, but why would they want to when their stated goal is usually along the lines of connecting people and allowing conversations, and their unstated goal is to make a whole truckload of cash and get as many users as humanly possible. It points to an ideological tilt that betrays the spirit of free speech, even if it doesn't violate the law itself. 

 

On 11/6/2018 at 1:35 PM, leadeater said:

There is no real difference between threatening someone to their face, or calling their home or doing it online it's just convenient for those that make such threats to portray that there is a difference because the first two will net you a visit from police and the third won't, typically.

If someone threatens you in person, there is an immediate physical threat that it could happen right then and there. If someone calls you in a personal, non public phone number then it means they have some level of information on who you are and probably details on where you live, where you work, etc. Even if it's not all that difficult to find, it still requires some amount of effort to procure and that indicates at least a slightly elevated chance that the threat means something. 

 

If someone you don't know makes and anonymous that to you on, say, Twitter, what does that indicate? The vast majority of the time it means they didn't like something you said or did. Unless you're someone that likes to advertise your identity and personal information online, a threat on social media has essentially zero bearing on anything in the real world, outside of the fact that someone somewhere doesn't like you very much. 

 

Just for the sake of the argument though, let's move past the whole "what is a credible threat" issue. Let's say any threat, realistic or not, is banned. Theoretically, all those meaningless threats that weren't really intended but were still mean suddenly no longer show up in your feed, and everyone's happy. 

 

But what happens to any of those threats that actually were genuine? What if someone actually does mean you harm? What if they try to threaten your life but they are banned and the message is deleted before you actually see it? Does this help you? Would you rather be completely ignorant to the danger than know that someone is out to get you?

 

I don't know about you, but I think that I should have the right to choose for myself what is or isn't a threat. Dealing with a handful of assholes who may casually say awful things is absolutely worth it if I can see that one guy who posts a photo of my house that I can then take to the police and say "hey, this guy actually seems serious". 

 

Banning this sort of behavior may make people feel safer, but it doesn't do jack shit in terms of actually making people safer, and it may do the opposite. It's a lot easier to just tell people to grow a bit of a backbone and deal with the fact that, spoilers, some people in life are just jerks and should be ignored. Use a critical eye and decide for yourself, don't leave it up to a soulless corporation to decide for you what you should or shouldn't see. 

[leadeater]

35 minutes ago, Waffles13 said:

But what happens to any of those threats that actually were genuine? What if someone actually does mean you harm? What if they try to threaten your life but they are banned and the message is deleted before you actually see it? Does this help you? Would you rather be completely ignorant to the danger than know that someone is out to get you?

 

You do know threatening messages can be reported when blocked, both to the person being threatened and police.

 

35 minutes ago, Waffles13 said:

Banning this sort of behavior may make people feel safer, but it doesn't do jack shit in terms of actually making people safer, and it may do the opposite.

It doesn't have to about feeling safer, stopping the spread of calls of violence does have other effects.

 

Places that are safe havens for 'free speech' that attract the type of people who spread that hate speech and calls for violence are there because they can be anonymous, free from challenge and consequence, those people are cowards. 

 

35 minutes ago, Waffles13 said:

should be ignored.

You aren't ignoring them though, that is giving them a platform.