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

[Mihle]

Saying something like "someone should kill X" is illegal by Norwegian law btw.

Because by law, urging someone to do something illegal is illegal. And it should be. I don't know what the people that say it shouldn't is thinking with.....

 

[Kamina]

Gab got targeted because they're a competitor to the big social media companies. These corporations will bully their competitors by crying as they as they strike because they know many overly empathetic, useful idiots will stand by their actions.

 

Has nothing to do with the arbitrary concept of hate speech or white supremacy. Gab is and has always been a free speech platform, it just happened to have organically attracted extremists of the right. They don't target the opposing side on their platform and ban them for wrongthink, unlike Twitter and Facebook.

[Unixsystem]

4 minutes ago, Mihle said:

Because by law, urging someone to do something illegal is illegal. And it should be. I don't know what the people that say it shouldn't is thinking with.....

If I say "you deserve to get slapped" is that the same as me driving to your home, ringing your doorbell and giving you a backhand? One causes you no harm, and had no real indication that harm will ever come. That said, if I post "you deserve to get slapped" along with a picture with plane tickets to Norway and street view photos of where you live, then all of a sudden some innocent ribbing becomes a credible threat. If you want to debate where the acceptable line is, that's a reasonable discussion to have, but they are clearly not the same thing. 

 

And yes, there is a difference between a death threat and a slapping, but the principal is the same. The only difference would be a severity of sentence, not whether it not one is legal and the other isn't. 

 

23 minutes ago, Sauron said:

I think even if there is a distinction, it doesn't matter

US law disagrees. 

 

26 minutes ago, Sauron said:

Not to mention we're literally talking about a mass murder here - we're beyond what can be considered a threat.

That only means that its is significantly less credible. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure that in order for a threat to be considered of legal consequence, it needs to be reasonable to assume that the person making the threat is actually capable of doing what they say.

 

And like I said before, treating your average Neo-Nazi like a supervillain with limitless power is a good way to draw more disenfranchised people to seek it out. The proper response to "we should kill all the Jews" is "alright bud, you have fun with that." You don't feed the trolls. 

 

31 minutes ago, Sauron said:

You never know what a random guy on the internet is capable of and we shouldn't gamble with people's lives.

By that logic I should have spent my entire adolescence in abject fear from all the awful credible threats directed at my mother on Xbox Live. 

 

I'm genuinely curious, what do you think we should do about all those people who unironically supported #killallmen a while back? Or the fanatical fringe of BLM who support killing all whites? Seems to me that if any and all mean statements are credible threats that we are due for some real mass purges across social media. 

[matrix07012]

35 minutes ago, Mihle said:

Saying something like "someone should kill X" is illegal by Norwegian law btw.

 Because by law, urging someone to do something illegal is illegal. And it should be. I don't know what the people that say it shouldn't is thinking with.....

  

Using an argument "this thing is illegal somewhere" is a useless argument, because I could name probably dozens of stupid laws just in the US.

There is no victim when someone says "someone should kill X" on social media.

 

Nobody has addressed this yet:

1 hour ago, matrix07012 said:

Did you people 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: 



 

 

[Sauron]

33 minutes ago, Waffles13 said:

That only means that its is significantly less credible. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure that in order for a threat to be considered of legal consequence, it needs to be reasonable to assume that the person making the threat is actually capable of doing what they say.

I'm not sure you realize... this post comes in the wake of a massacre. An actual massacre where people died.

[leadeater]

37 minutes ago, Sauron said:

I'm not sure you realize... this post comes in the wake of a massacre. An actual massacre where people died.

When someone is using examples like "I'm going to slap you" or "I will slap you, with photos etc etc" then that is what I would call an intentional effort to mischaracterize the issue. A child can identify the difference between that and rhetoric about acts to commit murder or mass murder, ability to carry out that kind of threat is not a factor. It's not complicated no matter how one might want to portray that it is, the sheer volume of it that exists online just makes it easy to find it and use it as examples of how it's not getting removed and that is what is complicated. It's not being able to identify what is and isn't but rather detecting it all.

 

You can't stand in the middle of a shopping mall and give a speech about murder and mass killing without getting arrested so why should you be able to online.

[Unixsystem]

31 minutes ago, Sauron said:

I'm not sure you realize... this post comes in the wake of a massacre. An actual massacre where people died.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the massacre wasn't committed with words, was it? 

 

There are two possibilities: the perpetrators publicly discussed their plans in social media, in which case the failing was in either law enforcement or the platform in question for not noticing or caring enough to report it. Or, they didn't discuss their plans publicly, in which case no limitations on speech would have made any difference.

 

Something that applies in either scenario, however, is that if they had been on Twitter or Facebook instead of a much smaller, more niche service like Gab, I bet that whatever they said would have been seen a whole lot sooner and by more people, and if they were throwing around a lot a rhetoric then the police could have been keeping an eye on them. Shunning them to another service clearly didn't stop anything, and it may have caused more harm than good. 

[Unixsystem]

4 minutes ago, leadeater said:

 

You can't stand in the middle of a shopping mall and give a speech about murder and mass killing without getting arrested so why should be able to online.

Maybe not a shopping mall, but you could in a public square, as long as you were clearly not directly the threat at a specific person/location. 

 

Its basically the same as those Westboro Church pricks were doing. Awful thing to do, but totally legal. 

[Sauron]

1 minute ago, leadeater said:

You can't stand in the middle of a shopping mall and give a speech about murder and mass killing without getting arrested so why should be able to online.

That's what I'm saying!

1 minute ago, Waffles13 said:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the massacre wasn't committed with words, was it?

How is this relevant to anything? We were discussing on whether or not the threats were "believable" enough to be considered exempt of free speech, the mass murder proves they are, what more is there to say?

3 minutes ago, Waffles13 said:

the perpetrators publicly discussed their plans in social media, in which case the failing was in either law enforcement or the platform in question for not noticng or caring enough to report it.

Yes, and that social media platform was Gab with Facebook seemingly looking to follow their footsteps according to this news post.

4 minutes ago, Waffles13 said:

Something that applies in either scenario, however, is that if they had been on Twitter or Facebook instead of a much smaller, more niche service like Gab, I bet that whatever they said would have been seen a whole lot sooner and by more people, and if they were throwing around a lot a rhetoric then the police could have been keeping an eye on them. Shunning them to another service clearly didn't stop anything, and it may have caused more harm than good. 

The problem is not preventing existing hotheads from organizing, that's impossible unfortunately. The problem is not letting others fall victim to the same delusions. And given how many people are tauting gab as a "champion of free speech", even on this very thread, I guarantee you there were plenty of insecure teens flocking to the site only to be spoonfed the fascist rethoric. If you want to publicly shun them, sure, go ahead - but promoting them and feeding people their propaganda is unacceptable, and that's what FB was doing.

[leadeater]

12 minutes ago, Waffles13 said:

Maybe not a shopping mall, but you could in a public square, as long as you were clearly not directly the threat at a specific person/location. 

 

Its basically the same as those Westboro Church pricks were doing. Awful thing to do, but totally legal. 

You can't in either, you will get arrested in both. And no it doesn't need to be a direct threat. You make a speech in public about mass murder, as in support of it, and you will get arrested. You might not actually get charged with a crime but you will be removed, you will be detained and questioned.

 

You turn up with a group of people to make that same speech and yes you might not, I can guarantee someone in the group likely will because the fact is it's harder to deal with a group of people than it is for a single person. And how is it do you think they organized such a gathering of people? Through the failings of being able to do the same thing online then move it from online in to public spaces.

[Mihle]

1 hour ago, matrix07012 said:

Using an argument "this thing is illegal somewhere" is a useless argument, because I could name probably dozens of stupid laws just in the US.

There is no victim when someone says "someone should kill X" on social media.

The law is not stupid. Someone urging others, especially if they are well l own or someone with influence does it, someone stupid or brainwashed people might end up actually doing it. Much more likely if it's said irl tho. This is all about it being a serious statement from someone and not a joke between friends for example rho.

There is a victim, those that it said against. That might get affected by it.

 

As far as I know that law have been used most in court when the crime actually ended up happening. Can be everything from beating someone to urging someone to drive way to fast.

[Drak3]

3 hours ago, Sauron said:

Fascism actively promotes discrimination and genocide

No, it doesn't. Nazism does.

 

Fascism is socialism with a totalitarian government instead of a democratic one.

[matrix07012]

6 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

No, it doesn't. Nazism does.

 

Fascism is socialism with a totalitarian government instead of a democratic one.

That makes no sense.

[leadeater]

3 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

No, it doesn't. Nazism does.

 

Fascism is socialism with a totalitarian government instead of a democratic one.

 

Quote

Fascism (/ˈfæʃɪzəm/) is a form of radical authoritarian ultranationalism,[1][2][3][4] characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition and strong regimentation of society and of the economy,[5] which came to prominence in early 20th-century Europe.[6] The first fascist movements emerged in Italy during World War I before it spread to other European countries.

 

Fascists believe that liberal democracy is obsolete and they regard the complete mobilization of society under a totalitarian one-party state as necessary to prepare a nation for armed conflict and to respond effectively to economic difficulties.[14] Such a state is led by a strong leader—such as a dictator and a martial government composed of the members of the governing fascist party—to forge national unity and maintain a stable and orderly society.[14] Fascism rejects assertions that violence is automatically negative in nature and views political violence, war and imperialism as means that can achieve national rejuvenation.

 

[Arika]

6 hours ago, ARikozuM said:

Seriously, guys? If Facebook is going to be a media company (which it is), it needs to vet all of their articles for truthfulness and correctness since it is publishing those articles as advertisements. 

If Facebook is going to be a media company (which it is), it will do what ever it can for them clicks.

 

Also I feel like the terms racist, nazi, white supremacist are being thrown around at anyone right of centre that it's lost all meaning

[Sauron]

1 minute ago, Drak3 said:

No, it doesn't. Nazism does.

 

Fascism is socialism with a totalitarian government instead of a democratic one.

nazism and fascism are the same thing. fascism is the core idea, nazism takes the name of one party which enacted it. Germany, Italy, Japan, Spain and more were under a fascist dictatorship when WW2 started, and in Germany it took the form of the nazi party. Mussolini had no qualms about helping Hitler with his genocide, despite being a "normal" fascist and not a nazi.

 

And no, fascism has nothing to do with socialism as we know it today. I'm afraid that's a lie spread by people who don't like to be directly associated with nazis while saying the same things the nazis did. Hitler claimed to be a socialist occasionally, and the nazi party technically cointains "socialist" in its name, but his speeches have always been 99% lies, designed to gather as much consensus as possible from anywhere he could get it, in order to gain power and carry out his real objectives. Read up on the "night of the long knives" if you want to know what happened to the more "socialist" side of the nazi party when Hitler became chancellor. I can PM you with a video that explains it better if you want.

[Drak3]

2 minutes ago, matrix07012 said:

That makes no sense.

 

Nazism is a subset of Fascism. Nazism is NOT another name for Fascism.

 

The Fascist system is just the economic ideals of socialism with a totalitarian government system. Nazism is a Fascist system incorporating racial purism.

[Nowak]

17 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

Nazism is a subset of Fascism. Nazism is NOT another name for Fascism.

 

The Fascist system is just the economic ideals of socialism with a totalitarian government system. Nazism is a Fascist system incorporating racial purism.

"The National Socialist German Worker's Party contained the word "socialist", therefore Nazis were socialists!"

Just ignore how Hitler locked up socialists too, buddy.

[Drak3]

Just now, Nowak said:

"The National Socialist German Worker's Party contained the word "socialist", therefore Nazis were socialists!"

Just ignore how Hitler locked up socialists too, buddy.

I can't see any reason why a totalitarian system would have issues with those of the political belief that a democratic system would be better.

 

/s.

[Nowak]

Just now, Drak3 said:

I can't see any reason why a totalitarian system would have issues with those of the political belief that a democratic system would be better.

 

/s.

I mean, of course it would be  

[matrix07012]

49 minutes ago, Mihle said:

The law is not stupid. Someone urging others, especially if they are well l own or someone with influence does it, someone stupid or brainwashed people might end up actually doing it. Much more likely if it's said irl tho. This is all about it being a serious statement from someone and not a joke between friends for example rho.

There is a victim, those that it said against. That might get affected by it.

 

As far as I know that law have been used most in court when the crime actually ended up happening. Can be everything from beating someone to urging someone to drive way to fast.

There is a difference between the credibility of a call for violence or threat. A speaker in front of a mob saying "Get that guy." or someone on social media saying "I'm gonna shoot up a synagogue tomorrow." has absolutely different credibility than someone on social media saying something vague like "We should kill jews.".

I'm willing to bet that 99, 9% calls for violence on the internet are empty and thus have no actual victim.

 

36 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

Nazism is a subset of Fascism. Nazism is NOT another name for Fascism.

 

The Fascist system is just the economic ideals of socialism with a totalitarian government system. Nazism is a Fascist system incorporating racial purism.

Nazism is indeed a subset of fascism, but they don't have much to do with the left wing "seize the means of production" kind of socialism. 

14 minutes ago, Nowak said:

"The National Socialist German Worker's Party contained the word "socialist", therefore Nazis were socialists!"

Just ignore how Hitler locked up socialists too, buddy.

Fascist and Nazis are technically socialist, but in a completely different way than the leftwing and don't have much to do with" seizing the means of production".

Nazis killed socialist isn't really a good argument, since authoritarian ideologies constantly eat their own. 

 

I'm gonna have to find my copy of "Explaining Postmodernism" since Hicks explains this fairly well. 

[Speed Weed]

White Supremacy, KKK, and other races supremacy are stupid for me. Why can't we all get alone? Shake hands, hugs each other, and have a drink instead of hatred and chaos. This is why God abandoned us. -insert meme picture - Everyday, we astray away from God. 

[Drak3]

3 minutes ago, Speed Weed said:

Why can't we all get alone?

Hatred is simply human nature.

 

3 minutes ago, Speed Weed said:

This is why God abandoned us

Can't be abandoned by something that would have never cared if it even existed.

[Speed Weed]

1 minute ago, Drak3 said:

Hatred is simply human nature.

  

Can't be abandoned by something that would have never cared if it even existed.

Some people believe in God, and some don't. But at the end of the day, we must overcome hatred because this shit is fucking stupid in the name of hatred. 

[Drak3]

Just now, Speed Weed said:

we must overcome hatred

Humans are permanently and irreversibly hardwired to hate and fear. The only way humans can overcome hatred is to drive ourselves, or be driven, to extinction.