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

[D13H4RD]

Here's the bigger question

 

What's going to be the fallout and what's the actual solution? Banning seems to be the most obvious solution, but I don't think it'll work out as well as we would think it would've because it might end up adding gasoline to a rapidly-spreading inferno.

 

There's free-speech, but it should never be used as a way to forward a twisted ideology, which also gives me more questions.

 

• We know what hate speech is, but what grounds do these platforms go on when determining what is hate speech and on what terms? Is it hateful in general or hateful to a specific side?
• At this rate, is it possible that freedom-of-speech might actually turn into something that causes more harm than good given the whole concerns about supremacy?
• Has society as a whole just degraded to the point where we, quite literally, live in a world full of idiots?

[Sauron]

6 minutes ago, RejZoR said:

@Sauron

Shutting down just one type of propaganda you mean... Which these days means everything just a centimeter from the hard left. But the hard authoritarian left, butterflies and rainbows. Lol, people are so brainwashed...

If you say so. Just as a reminder, the president of the United States is right wing - but sure, keep believing that anything right of Stalin is being repressed and discriminated against if that makes you feel better... to each his own delusions I guess.

9 minutes ago, RejZoR said:

And no, shutting down people with controversial opinions doesn't make it go away.

No no no... you don't get to pass off fascism as a "controversial opinion". There's a difference between trying to obscure facts and refusing to give nazi recruiters a platform.

12 minutes ago, RejZoR said:

I'd never watch Richard Spencer otherwise, but I did, because I was curious. I guess all that censorship worked really well. Right?

From your last few comments I'd say you're exactly Spencer's target audience.

[D13H4RD]

The only thing I can say about this that's my own constructed opinion?

 

The end of the human race will most definitely come because of idiocy and blind ignorance plus general retardedness, regardless of standing.

 

At least I'll probably be around to document them (hopefully I don't get killed off by a mob of angry sheep)

 

 

[RejZoR]

Who should be the grand jury on deciding what is hate speech and what isn't? Why everyone feels the need platforms need to be that jury instead of leaving ideas to be judged in the court of the public?

 

You can just censor or ban so called "neo nazis" or you could talk with them and make them change their mind. Because by censoring and banning them, you're not proving anything. You're just screaming "lalalalalalalalala". That's the problem.

 

@Sauron

Throwing labels already, are we? See how quickly you jumped to call me "basically a nazi" and "Spencer's audience" just because I support free speech/all speech. Without even actually knowing me. I don't support leftist lunacy and neither I support right wing lunacy. Just because I was cheering Trump's election that doesn't make me a right winger. I was cheering it because years of leftist lunacy need some right wing lunacy to balance shit out. And I did agree with some points he makes and disagree with some. It's why I'm the dirty centrist master race (DCMR). A group of people hated by everyone. Because we piss off everyone by not following anyone.

[D13H4RD]

3 minutes ago, RejZoR said:

You can just censor or ban so called "neo nazis" or you could talk with them and make them change their mind. Because by censoring and banning them, you're not proving anything. You're just screaming "lalalalalalalalala". @Sauron

Sadly, I doubt that'll be easy. Those groups have their heads so far up that trying to reason with them is like the equivalent of trying to break past an extremely thick wall. The same goes for the other side. Never easy, as they'll likely be doing the same to anyone trying to reason (Plugging their ears and shouting "LALALALALALALA"

 

(Sorry for the double tag. I can't remove it no matter what I did)

[RejZoR]

1 minute ago, D13H4RD said:

Sadly, I doubt that'll be easy. Those groups have their heads so far up that trying to reason with them is like the equivalent of trying to break past an extremely thick wall. The same goes for the other side. Never easy.

 

(Sorry for the double tag. I can't remove it no matter what I did)

It was the same on Twitter to the other end. Every time I tried to talk about things with lefties, it ended with a block. And it wasn't an insult or anything, I was just trying to discuss things. So, in the end you ended up being in a bubble you didn't want to be a part of because the other end pushed you in one by blocking you almost by default.

[D13H4RD]

1 minute ago, RejZoR said:

It was the same on Twitter to the other end. Every time I tried to talk about things with lefties, it ended with a block. And it wasn't an insult or anything, I was just trying to discuss things. So, in the end you ended up being in a bubble you didn't want to be a part of because the other end pushed you in one by blocking you almost by default.

And that's the issue.

 

Anyone on the extreme left and right might as well be wearing earplugs with pillows tied on the side of their heads. It's almost impossible to knock sense in their heads because they're so blindly following something that they completely ignore any semblance of reason or common sense.

 

You can block or ban them, but that also raises the entirely new question of whether the Streisand effect will take place.

[Sauron]

3 minutes ago, D13H4RD said:

Here's the bigger question

 

What's going to be the fallout and what's the actual solution? Banning seems to be the most obvious solution, but I don't think it'll work out as well as we would think it would've because it might end up adding gasoline to a rapidly-spreading inferno.

Banning who or what exactly? This situation isn't really about someone posting hate speech on facebook, it's about facebook providing tools to specifically target neonazis and potential fascist supporters. The "solution", to be blunt, is to realize that Facebook's business model isn't sustainable and needs to be completely restructured - or the platform needs to die.

6 minutes ago, D13H4RD said:

There's free-speech, but it should never be used as a way to forward a twisted ideology, which also gives me more questions.

• We know what hate speech is, but what grounds do these platforms go on when determining what is hate speech and on what terms? Is it hateful in general or hateful to a specific side?

When someone calls for genocide I think it's fair to consider it hate speech. What "side" they're on shouldn't matter, and it scares me to think that some people consider their "side" to include ideals of genocide and racial supremacy. In a healthy political situation, neither the right nor the left should want anything to do with stuff like that. Beyond that, a platform can choose to regulate itself as much as it feels is necessary - if facebook really liked running nazi ads and those ads weren't illegal, they could choose to keep running them. Of course, that would likely result in a large part (hopefully the majority) of their user base leaving the platform in disgust.

11 minutes ago, D13H4RD said:

At this rate, is it possible that freedom-of-speech might actually turn into something that causes more harm than good given the whole concerns about supremacy?

No, free speech doesn't protect fascism. It's the twisted interpretation that some people give it which does.

12 minutes ago, D13H4RD said:

Has society as a whole just degraded to the point where we, quite literally, live in a world full of idiots?

No. We live in a world of human beings, who all come with both wonderful qualities and terrible defects. I would advise against judging other people's intelligence, however tempting that might be.

 

2 minutes ago, RejZoR said:

@Sauron

Throwing labels already, are we? See how quickly you jumped to call me "basically a nazi" and "Spencer's audience" just because I support free speech/all speech.

That's rich:

Spoiler

Quote

everyone is too busy screaming "muh nazis"

Quote

that's how current weak and pathetic society operates

Quote

people are such dumb sheep.

Quote

masses just want to shut off everything they disagree with proactively

Quote

Which these days means everything just a centimeter from the hard left. But the hard authoritarian left, butterflies and rainbows. Lol, people are so brainwashed...

 

Enjoying your double standards? I've also NEVER called you "basically a nazi", but I suppose making one more thing up won't matter to you, will it?

8 minutes ago, RejZoR said:

Just because I was cheering Trump's election that doesn't make me a right winger. I was cheering it because years of leftist lunacy need some right wing lunacy to balance shit out. And I did agree with some points he makes and disagree with some. It's why I'm the dirty centrist master race (DCMR). A group of people hated by everyone. Because we piss off everyone by not following anyone.

That's... uh... how can I say it... delusional. As for pissing off people, you sure seem to be the angriest one around here.

7 minutes ago, D13H4RD said:

Sadly, I doubt that'll be easy. Those groups have their heads so far up that trying to reason with them is like the equivalent of trying to break past an extremely thick wall. The same goes for the other side. Never easy, as they'll likely be doing the same to anyone trying to reason (Plugging their ears and shouting "LALALALALALALA"

 

(Sorry for the double tag. I can't remove it no matter what I did)

Sure, I just wish we didn't need to go through the "free speech" routine every time something like this pops out. Then again I think it's worth reiterating.

[matrix07012]

 

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1802.05287.pdf / https://web.archive.org/web/20181031055715/https://arxiv.org/pdf/1802.05287.pdf

 

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/amphtml/katienotopoulos/twitter-is-sorry-for-listing-kill-all-jews-as-a-trending / http://archive.fo/JfB3K

 

 

49 minutes ago, Sauron said:

From your last few comments I'd say you're exactly Spencer's target audience.

That's quite disingenuous of you. Richard Spencer is against free speech.

 

[Sauron]

3 minutes ago, matrix07012 said:

That's quite disingenuous of you. Richard Spencer is against free speech.

I know. That's part of the irony.

[aezakmi]

1 hour ago, RejZoR said:

So, what even is "hate speech"? From what I see it, "this offends me, erase it so my weak boo boo can't be hurt". Pathetic. It's why people are such dumb sheep. I've watched Richard Spencer speech few times out of curiosity to see why people are so outraged. Being pro free speech means you listen to people with different opinions, even if they aren't right or you think/believe otherwise. But masses just want to shut off everything they disagree with proactively.

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

[matrix07012]

1 minute ago, Sauron said:

I know. That's part of the irony.

Sorry, but I don't see it.

 

Gab being taken down was purely political. Companies providing services to Gab fell under pressure from activists, possibly under threats of a PR nightmare.

[RejZoR]

Richard Spencer against free speech? How? Is he mass rounding his critics in concentration camps and gassing them? Demanding social paltforms to censor and silence his opponents? Funny, I see you all here are performing act of free speech by criticizing him. That's free speech. It goes both ways. People literally don't understand the concept of free speech these days, but they sure want to be the ones having it while silencing others... That's not how free speech works. Not even remotely.

[matrix07012]

2 minutes ago, RejZoR said:

Richard Spencer against free speech? How? Is he mass rounding his critics in concentration camps and gassing them? Demanding social paltforms to censor and silence his opponents? Funny, I see you all here are performing act of free speech by criticizing him. That's free speech. It goes both ways. People literally don't understand the concept of free speech these days, but they sure want to be the ones having it while silencing others... That's not how free speech works. Not even remotely.

I was defending you stupid.

[Unixsystem]

1 hour ago, Sauron said:

No, free speech doesn't protect fascism. It's the twisted interpretation that some people give it which does.

Um, what? The only limits to free speech are those that directly and concretely effect someone's livelihood or physical wellbeing (libel, incitement, specific and credible threats, etc). Fascism is no less protected by freedom of speech than socialism or capitalism is.

 

Don't get me wrong, fascism is a braindead stupid ideology, but the only reason I even know that is because I can look around and see the insane things that those types of people say and judge for myself. Banning then and secreting them away in some dark corner of the internet only allows them to band together and amplify their ideals to one another, and creates a mysterious and scary element that only gives them more power.

 

The way to beat Nazis is to laugh at them for their failed and backwards ideas, not to turn them into supervillains. 

[Sauron]

Just now, Waffles13 said:

Um, what? The only limits to free speech are those that directly and concretely effect someone's livelihood or physical wellbeing (libel, incitement, specific and credible threats, etc). Fascism is no less protected by freedom of speech than socialism or capitalism is.

Fascism actively promotes discrimination and genocide, both of which are credible threats, so no, it's not free speech by any definition that is actually in use.

1 minute ago, Waffles13 said:

Don't get me wrong, fascism is a braindead stupid ideology, but the only reason I even know that is because I can look around and see the insane things that those types of people say and judge for myself. Banning then and secreting them away in some dark corner of the internet only allows them to band together and amplify their ideals to one another, and creates a mysterious and scary element that only gives them more power.

We have enough historical evidence to condemn fascism, we don't need to cultivate it in our garden to know what it is and what it does.

2 minutes ago, Waffles13 said:

The way to beat Nazis is to laugh at them for their failed and backwards ideas, not to turn them into supervillains. 

Yes, the problem is that the slope is slippery and doesn't begin with genocide. The people whose audience might be receptive to laughter aren't bad enough to be instantly dismissed, and the deeped you go, the less effective laughter is despite the increasing absurdity of what they say.

38 minutes ago, matrix07012 said:

I was defending you stupid.

That may have been a mistake

[Unixsystem]

1 minute ago, Sauron said:

Fascism actively promotes discrimination and genocide, both of which are credible threats, so no, it's not free speech by any definition that is actually in use.

No, it isn't. A credible threat is "I have a truck and I'm going to wait outside this guy's work on this date to run him down". Saying "I hope that guy gets hit by a truck" is completely within the bounds of free speech. It's even less credible when applied to a group. Unless you can definitely prove that someone is specifically going to harm a group, you can't claim its anything other than an opinion. Otherwise that'd be the same as a company owner claiming defamation for a negative review of a product. 

 

2 minutes ago, Sauron said:

We have enough historical evidence to condemn fascism, we don't need to cultivate it in our garden to know what it is and what it does.

We have even more evidence to condemn communism, and yet it's an extremely popular ideology among students and academics, because they don't get exposed to it enough to really internalize how evil it is. 

3 minutes ago, Sauron said:

Yes, the problem is that the slope is slippery and doesn't begin with genocide. The people whose audience might be receptive to laughter aren't bad enough to be instantly dismissed, and the deeped you go, the less effective laughter is despite the increasing absurdity of what they say.

One of the most widespread antecedents to genocide is the victimization (of feeling of victimization) on the part of the group that winds up committing the genocide. If you want Nazis to get violent, the best way convince them that there is a widespread effort to censor them, thereby cementing their beliefs of a widespread conspiracy against them.

 

The only way to stop them is to debate and beat their arguments. Even if you don't convince them, you convince everyone else watching of how outrageous their ideas are, and prevent those third parties from going and seeking out more info on their own, where there's a good chance they will stumble into /pol/ or somewhere similar where they can massage the message to make their ideas look easy more viable than they actually are.

 

You can only win by facing them directly and beating the ideas themselves, not shunning them and acting like they don't exist. 

[Sauron]

2 minutes ago, Waffles13 said:

No, it isn't. A credible threat is "I have a truck and I'm going to wait outside this guy's work on this date to run him down". Saying "I hope that guy gets hit by a truck" is completely within the bounds of free speech.

That's not what's being said. What's being said is "we should kill jews".

[matrix07012]

19 minutes ago, Sauron said:

 Fascism actively promotes discrimination and genocide, both of which are credible threats, so no, it's not free speech by any definition that is actually in use.

I have a rule on my Mastodon instance:

• No Direct Threats
  • "Kill group/person x.", "Destroy place y.",...

Today I realized that I need to change that rule, because it is too broad, because of this toot: "i am going to fucking kill burger king with my bare hands"

[Commodus]

3 hours ago, RejZoR said:

Should I be shocked or surprised? That's literally a definition of free speech. There is still bunch of ISIS and other terrorist pages on Facebook and Twitter and no one gives a damn about them because brown muslim people I guess, But for Gab, "muh nazis" all the frigging time. Give me a break. Free speech means you allow even undesired opinions to be expressed. Not everything you disagree with is a hate speech you know. But silicon valley desperately tries to make you think that way. And judging by your reply, it's working. Beeeeeeeee.

 

Gab IS a champion of free speech, it's just that everyone is too busy screaming "muh nazis" at them to realize it. Platform doesn't and shouldn't be responsible for type of people hanging on it or what kind of things they post. So what if someone is screeching about wanting white ethno state? Do you think silencing that person will make things better? That's literally a definition of sticking your head in the sand, pretending things don't exist. They'll still be around, you just won't see them. But that's how current weak and pathetic society operates and it's really sad.

You really think I'm the product of conditioning?  I'm laughing -- please, don't try the more-counterculture-than-thou shtick on me.  I know Gab wasn't uniformly about hate speech, but like 8chan, Voat and other self-proclaimed "anything goes" sites, it attracted extremist bigots like a magnet... and the creators knew it.  That's the issue -- not that they had "undesired opinions," but that Gab knew these were the kind of people who would harass and threaten ethnic groups and were the sort who might follow through.

 

Oh, also: Facebook, Twitter et. al. regularly take down extremist material from ISIS and other groups (European governments are even mandating removal within a short time after detecting it), but they can't stop absolutely everything all the time.  Just because they aren't perfect at removing content doesn't mean they're tolerant of it.

 

And yes, actually, silencing neo-Nazis does help.  It doesn't stop them from existing, but it prevents them from recruiting more people, and creates an environment where the people targeted by that hate can speak freely.  It's easy for you to be a free speech absolutist if you've never had people on a social network harass or threaten you merely because of your ethnicity.  You can respect their free speech rights on a basic level, but you don't have to help them spread their hate by giving them a platform.

[D13H4RD]

Don't forget the Streisand Effect

 

Just pointing that out because it's never as easy as just silencing them or locking them head-on with horns. 

 

You might actually get the exact opposite of what should've happened. I've experienced it beforehand. 

 

For instance, you can silence them, but there's the possibility that you may inadvertently add ammo to whatever "cause" they have, which tends to make them louder. 

 

At the same time, you can try to counter them head-on, but you may also put yourself in a sticky situation.

 

Neither would be ideal, but you also want this to stop spreading. So something has to give. 

 

Also, never forget the reason why all this is happening in the first place. If you remove that, there's a good chance that you also eliminate the problem through the elimination of its source. 

[matrix07012]

21 minutes ago, matrix07012 said:

I have a rule on my Mastodon instance:

• No Direct Threats
  • "Kill group/person x.", "Destroy place y.",...

Today I realized that I need to change that rule, because it is too broad, because of this toot: "i am going to fucking kill burger king with my bare hands"

@Sauron

I actually forgot to make a point. My point is that fascists (which is at max 0,02% of US population) hating Jews or making general statement "we should kill  jews" is just credible as the toot I cited.

 

Did you forget that news anchor demonized an entire group of people just a few days ago? What do you think should happen to him?

 

Also this again: 

 

[Unixsystem]

43 minutes ago, Sauron said:

That's not what's being said. What's being said is "we should kill jews".

As others have pointed out already, that is not a credible threat. If they say "we are going to kill jews and we have plan to do so", then you would be outside the realm of free speech. One is a (shitty) opinion, the other is an actual threat.

 

At that point, the solution involves handcuffs, not polite bannings. And I don't know about you, I'd rather have arrest worthy threats aired publicly where they are easy to report and document than hidden away on some obscure chat room where no one outside the perpetrators can see it. 

[asus killer]

"People interested in white genocide"

 

[Sauron]

45 minutes ago, matrix07012 said:

@Sauron

I actually forgot to make a point. My point is that fascists (which is at max 0,02% of US population) hating Jews or making general statement "we should kill  jews" is just credible as the toot I cited.

 

15 minutes ago, Waffles13 said:

As others have pointed out already, that is not a credible threat. If they say "we are going to kill jews and we have plan to do so", then you would be outside the realm of free speech. One is a (shitty) opinion, the other is an actual threat.

I think even if there is a distinction, it doesn't matter. Even if you can't enact your threat, making it is bad enough. Not to mention we're literally talking about a mass murder here - we're beyond what can be considered a threat. You never know what a random guy on the internet is capable of and we shouldn't gamble with people's lives.

18 minutes ago, Waffles13 said:

At that point, the solution involves handcuffs, not polite bannings. And I don't know about you, I'd rather have arrest worthy threats aired publicly where they are easy to report and document than hidden away on some obscure chat room where no one outside the perpetrators can see it. 

Sure, but we're not talking about people being banned. We're talking about facebook serving them (more) propaganda. Other than that, I'm totally for calling the police on people like that.