Support NeoGAF

[Kinitari]

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).

Saying that because NeoGAF seems to be moderated well, that something like Facebook or Twitter can adopt the same model doesn't make sense to me. Software scales pretty well, people don't. It would be even easier to moderate NeoGAF if 1/4th the people used it, and they all came from the same city.

Additionally - the challenges that come from moderating NeoGAF are different from the ones that Facebook would face. NeoGAF is very prescriptive about what is and isn't kosher on the site, and when moderators make unilateral decisions on who to ban and for what, there is minimal drama.

Let's say you try to apply the same system to Facebook. Facebook decides to create a moderation team that bans people who say disagreeable things (we'll get back to those in a second). You'd first need a very large team - huge. And they would all have to be very well versed regarding what would and wouldn't be allowed. Images are easy enough - if someone posts a picture of a dead person, most humans can recognize that and remove said post and/or poster from the platform. But what about speech? What if someone talks about death and dismemberment in too much rich detail, and one of the rules is 'no gore'. What if someone else talks about a surgery that went wrong? That's already complicated, and someone being banned for the wrong thing would result in severe backlash here, so checks and balances would need to be placed.

Then we get into region specific cultural differences - Let's say one rule is 'no nudity'. Obviously some cultures would agree with this, others would not. Fine - Facebook now splits their moderation team by region, employing locals from each region - probably having to open up a few more offices here or there. So now posts from certain countries have different moderation rules - seems good enough, right?

But wait hold up - one country, let's just be random and say Ethiopia, approaches facebook and says "hey, we don't like having our citizens see any nudity at all on Facebook - and while we now have a local moderation team, people from Ethiopia can still see and comment on nudity from post coming out of Germany. You need to apply our standards universally or block our users from communicating with these posts/countries". Facebook doesn't want to apply the standard universally, so instead they decide to try and make it so justs the posts that are offensive are invisible to people in different countries - getting past how basically impossible that is, this whole moderation thing starts to get SERIOUSLY unwieldy.

If Facebook decides to adopt the German standard of hate speech and apply it Globally, odds are they are going to run afoul of a whole bunch of other users and groups.

 

[PdotMichael]

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.

That are nice state governments . Oh wait!

 

[zou]

That are nice state governments . Oh wait!

So there's no legislative branch in Germany?

 

[PdotMichael]

So there's no legislative branch in Germany?

Can you please stop moving goalposts.

 

[Familienoberhauptvogel]

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

The GOP could be considered extremist from our perspective.

 

[Setsu00]

So there's no legislative branch in Germany?

You might want to know that the NPD is no longer represented in any parliament as of September 2016. You also ignore that the AfD is outnumbered by the other parties by at least 76% and the other parties are pretty much unified in their disdain for the AfD.

 

[Erevador]

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).

So much to respond to here... NeoGAF is a comparatively small enthusiast site for gamers. Facebook and Twitter are the most popular speech platforms in the world. There things are not comparable.

I disagree entirely with your contention about speech, and I think it is dangerous. The regimes you're likely thinking of from "your past" are almost certain to be regimes that strongly restricted ideas and limited the public square of opinion (Nazi Germany, fascist Italy). There are many (myself included) who feel that the best way to combat bad ideas is a free and open debate in which people are allowed to say what they mean, and the truth is allowed to will out as the debate wears on, in public, and uncensored, without fear of legal reprisal. The only dangerous speech is speech that directly advocates dangerous acts. Ideas must not be outlawed, they must be examined.

Many in Europe have attempted to regulate and control the dialogue about migration. This attempt has been an unmitigated and explosive disaster. Attempting to suppress public opinion will lead to that opinion bursting out in unexpected and intense ways. The dishonesty from government about some of these issues has begat a serious distrust of the authorities, and fueled the rise of extremist parties, and yet many argue that the solution is an even more restrictive attitude on the part of government towards speech. This paternalistic attitude, that government knows best what you should think, is increasingly unpopular with many Europeans.

The mainstream debate must expand to accept the reality of public opinion on these topics and try and deal with them in an open and honest way.

If the mainstream fails to do so, there will be disaster.

 

[ElTorro]

So much to respond to here... NeoGAF is a comparatively small enthusiast site for gamers. Facebook and Twitter are the most popular speech platforms in the world. There things are not comparable.

I disagree entirely with your contention about speech, and I think it is dangerous. The regimes you're likely thinking of from "your past" are almost certain to be regimes that strongly restricted ideas and limited the public square of opinion (Nazi Germany, fascist Italy). There are many (myself included) who feel that the best way to combat bad ideas is a free and open debate in which people are allowed to say what they mean, and the truth is allowed to will out as the debate wears on, in public, and uncensored, without fear of legal reprisal. The only dangerous speech is speech that directly advocates dangerous acts. Ideas must not be outlawed, they must be examined.

Many in Europe have attempted to regulate and control the dialogue about migration. This attempt has been an unmitigated and explosive disaster. Attempting to suppress public opinion will lead to that opinion bursting out in unexpected and intense ways. The dishonesty from government about some of these issues has begat a serious distrust of the authorities, and fueled the rise of extremist parties, and yet many argue that the solution is an even more restrictive attitude on the part of government towards speech. This paternalistic attitude, that government knows best what you should think, is increasingly unpopular with many Europeans.

The mainstream debate must expand to accept the reality of public opinion on these topics and try and deal with them in an open and honest way.

If the mainstream fails to do so, there will be disaster.

Good post, especially the bolded part.

A liberal society has to be able to bear and deconstruct bad ideas through speech and satire, not through compulsion. Otherwise, it is doomed anyway in the long run.

 

[Siegcram]

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

A party literally nobody wants to work with doesn't strike me as "acceptable".

There is certainly a rise of xenophobic sentiment in Germany due to refugees,but right wing extremists are far from any political power. Something they themselves acknowledge. They want to sabotage, not rule.

 

[CTLance]

Let's try it like this:

Facebook’s mission has always been to make the world more open and connected. We seek to provide a platform where people can share and surface content, messages and ideas freely, while still respecting the rights of others. When people can engage in meaningful conversations and exchanges with their friends, family and communities online, amazingly positive things can happen.

To facilitate this goal, we also work hard to make our platform a safe and respectful place for sharing and connection. This requires us to make difficult decisions and balance concerns about free expression and community respect. We prohibit content deemed to be directly harmful, but allow content that is offensive or controversial. We define harmful content as anything organizing real world violence, theft, or property destruction, or that directly inflicts emotional distress on a specific private individual (e.g. bullying). A list of prohibited categories of content can be found in our Community Standards at www.facebook.com/communitystandards.

In addition, our Statement of Rights and Responsibilities (www.facebook.com/legal/terms) prohibits “hate speech.” While there is no universally accepted definition of hate speech, as a platform we define the term to mean direct and serious attacks on any protected category of people based on their race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sex, gender, sexual orientation, disability or disease.
(etc)

All German officials are saying is that Facebook should enforce their TOS consistently and fairly. And that there have been times where that hasn't happened, and that they are thinking about adding incentives because, coincidentally, the TOS and German law pretty much align in that area, and not enforcing either with any kind of reliability and fairness will only lead to strife. Which isn't in the interest of both parties.

 

[scamander]

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.

You have, apparently, no idea about the public opinion of the German people, because "Let's burn the local refugee shelter in xyz" isn't that.

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?

The government doesn't have the power to delete anything. Separation of power is a thing in Germany. There are also long-established and working laws regarding hate speech.

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.

Hypothetical scenarios turn into slippery slope arguments, when they are based on literally nothing and the one making them doesn't know shit about the political system they are judging.

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

1. We don't have and neo-nazi or extremist party in any government.
2. The AFD is still left of the GOP and probably wouldn't be considered extremist in the US.
3. The amount of disgusting and hateful shit one of the US Presidential candidates is constantly spreading for years far outweighs anything even the craziest shitheads from the AFD have said yet. And that's a still relatively small opposition party, which is condemned by anyone not voting for them.

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

It's not.

Good post, especially the bolded part.

A liberal society has to be able to bear and deconstruct bad ideas through speech and satire, not through compulsion. Otherwise, it is doomed anyway in the long run.

And look how gorgeous that's working for the US.

 

[Erevador]

You have, apparently, no idea about the public opinion of the German people, because "Let's burn the local refugee shelter in xyz" isn't that.

The government doesn't have the power to delete anything. Separation of power is a thing in Germany. There are also long-established and working laws regarding hate speech.

Hypothetical scenarios turn into slippery slope arguments, when they are based on literally nothing and the one making them doesn't know shit about the political system they are judging.

1. We don't have and neo-nazi or extremist party in any government.
2. The AFD is still left of the GOP and probably wouldn't be considered extremist in the US.
3. The amount of disgusting and hateful shit one of the US Presidential candidates is constantly spreading for years far outweighs anything even the craziest shitheads from the AFD have said yet. And that's a still relatively small opposition party, which is condemned by anyone not voting for them.

What a fantastic beast of a post this is. Where to begin...

First of all, the speech you imagined I was defending was exactly the kind of speech that I was clear in my post SHOULD be restricted by law, namely that which specifically incites real world violence. Your contention that I know nothing about German public opinion is simply wrong. The German public is strongly (and increasingly) skeptical of immigration from outside the EU. They tell us this every time an opinion poll is done. This is a wider reality in all of Europe. Immigration in general, and immigration from Islamic countries in particular, is very unpopular. To argue that's untrue is to be in complete denial of the facts.

As the gulf between the government stance and the mood of the people continues to widen, the blowback against any attempt to restrict expression of that mood will increase.

You also write...

And look how gorgeous that's working for the US.

Trump is satirized and critiqued everyday thanks to the legal pre-eminence of the free press and unrestricted freedom of expression (which he is, not incidentally, quite hostile to himself). The result of this is that his poll numbers are in rapid decline and he will lose. His supporters are free to write nasty things about Mexicans on Facebook, and people in the press and in the public square can write and speak about why they're misguided to do so. Freedom of speech respects your right to say what you want and make your case. I firmly believe that when you take the long view, it leads to the better result long term.

Restricting speech doesn't kill the idea you're opposed to it, it simply forces it underground where it will fester and grow in intensity.

 

[Snowman Prophet of Doom]

Trump's going to lose very, very badly, so it seems to me the US's system is working just fine. The idea that "learning from history" has to be done at the business end of a government's monopoly on coercive violence is laughable.

 

[purdobol]

There's some weird economic battle going on between USA and EU right now. Don't know who struck first, but it basically goes like this:
USA: Oh you fined Apple for avoiding taxes? Fine want to play that game? Here you go we're going to fine Deutsche Bank.
EU: Oh yeah? We're going to force Facebook to stop collecting data of our citizens. How about that?
USA: VW cheated on emissions tests. Fine them!
EU: Oh you! We're going to take closer look at Google, MCDonald's and all other US corporations operating in here. When we find something there's gonna be fines. Big ones yay?!

Not necessarily in that order, but you get the idea.

 

[CTLance]

Oh for fucks sake. The content that Germany wishes to enforce moderation upon is already more than covered by the TOS of any of the affected SNS. If anything, German law is far more defined and narrow on what content is deemed unacceptable, with the possible exception of anything even remotely alluding to holocaust denial, which is a completely toxic issue which will have all participating parties nuked from orbit with extreme prejudice.

Nothing would change, except that Facebook et al would be bound by their own TOS. Any and all offending posts would need to be reliably cleansed, consistently across the board, or those companies would be fined. That is the only new addition to all of this. Right now the companies just willy hilly sometimes do and sometimes don't apply their own TOS, with no consistency or accountability. Which is the item that Germany has an issue with, since for us it's actually a matter of law and order.

So again, nothing changes. All the filtering, censoring and obstruction of freedom of speech has already happened.

 

[ElTorro]

And look how gorgeous that's working for the US.

And do you really think that banning all Trumpisms from internet platforms would change anything? There is no alternative.

 

[ClosingADoor]

There's some weird economic battle going on between USA and EU right now. Don't know who struck first, but it basically goes like this:
USA: Oh you fined Apple for avoiding taxes? Fine want to play that game? Here you go we're going to fine Deutsche Bank.
EU: Oh yeah? We're going to force Facebook to stop collecting data of our citizens. How about that?
USA: VW cheated on emissions tests. Fine them!
EU: Oh you! We're going to take closer look at Google, MCDonald's and all other US corporations operating in here. When we find something there's gonna be fines. Big ones yay?!

Not necessarily in that order, but you get the idea.

Sounds good to me. Fuck big corporations breaking the rules. But I don't think Germany going around fining Facebook for this will do much good. And the way they talk about it is strange. In any other hate speech case, there is a court ruling first. How can that happen within a week of reporting it? If anything, Facebook should hand over the info of the person and then Germany can sue the people making those comments themselves.

 

[Irminsul]

And do you really think that banning all Trumpisms from internet platforms would change anything? There is no alternative.

Well, the question is whether it would actually get any worse if you did so. Also, it's not "Internet", they are all free to host their own website and blast their stuff into the world. Facebook and Twitter don't have to hand them a megaphone.

 

[ElTorro]

Well, the question is whether it would actually get any worse if you did so. Also, it's not "Internet", they are all free to host their own website and blast their stuff into the world. Facebook and Twitter don't have to hand them a megaphone.

In this thread it is not about whether Facebook or Twitter have to hand them a megaphone, it's about whether government should have the authority to tell Facebook and Twitter that they are not allowed to.

 

[PdotMichael]

Trump's going to lose very, very badly, so it seems to me the US's system is working just fine. The idea that "learning from history" has to be done at the business end of a government's monopoly on coercive violence is laughable.

The republicans own the Senate and House. Not sure what is working here exactly.

 

[scamander]

What a fantastic beast of a post this is. Where to begin...

First of all, the speech you imagined I was defending was exactly the kind of speech that I was clear in my post SHOULD be restricted by law, namely that which specifically incites real world violence.

Than why did you act like this was some plot by the German government to censor free speech to control public opinion? This is only about exactly those kind of comments that are already violating German hate speech laws.

Your contention that I know nothing about German public opinion is simply wrong. The German public is strongly (and increasingly) skeptical of immigration from outside the EU. They tell us this every time an opinion poll is done. This is a wider reality in all of Europe. Immigration in general, and immigration from Islamic countries in particular, is very unpopular. To argue that's untrue is to be in complete denial of the facts.

What's your source then? Because last I checked only 28% of the people surveyed deem a complete and fundamental course correction of Merkel's refugee policy necessary. Which is, you know, a minority. Even more interesting is the fact, that 55% want the current coalition between SPD and Union to continue after the next Federal election, while 67% said they wouldn't vote for AFD no matter what.

As the gulf between the government stance and the mood of the people continues to widen, the blowback against any attempt to restrict expression of that mood will increase.

Again, you have no idea about the general mood of the German people. I have no idea what your news source for all this is, but they are fishing at the right edge of society. This is in no way representative of the electorate as a whole.

Trump is satirized and critiqued everyday thanks to the legal pre-eminence of the free press and unrestricted freedom of expression (which he is, not incidentally, quite hostile to himself). The result of this is that his poll numbers are in rapid decline and he will lose.

Are you implying the problems with the GOP started with Trump? Cute.

 

[Easy_D]

Good guy Germany

They expect them to obey the local law. Facebook will no doubt claim that they only have to follow Irish law.

With Brexit, will they even have that excuse? Provide service within EU, follow EU laws, provide service within specific countries, follow their laws.

 

[scamander]

With Brexit, will they even have that excuse? Provide service within EU, follow EU laws, provide service within specific countries, follow their laws.

They are talking about the Republic of Ireland, not Northern Ireland. The Republic of Ireland is an independent country and won't leave the EU.

 

[CTLance]

Edit: whoops, double post due to timeout. Sorry.

 

[CTLance]

In this thread it is not about whether Facebook or Twitter have to hand them a megaphone, it's about whether government should have the authority to tell Facebook and Twitter that they are not allowed to.

Naw, it's not even that.

It's about whether Facebook and Co should be held responsible for enforcing their own freaking TOS, because that's what this amounts to. The Terms of Service for most, if not all, social networks cover even more or at the very least the exact same as German law, and not by coincidence. So when people use Facebook etc reporting facilities, Germany expects those services to actually do what they claim they are doing, because by coincidence or not, for us it's serious business enshrined by laws.

Which, apparently, is a pipe dream - those services have not done well in enforcing their own freaking rules, and due to the overlap, German law. And then, when they're called out for it, they've been uncooperative. So that shit just doesn't fly, no matter how you dice it.

It'd be another thing if the big SNS had a TOS that basically went "free speech motherfuckers, say whatever you want" and then would have to fear those fines. However, by merely using those popular services you are already agreeing to be bound by a far wider reaching, less well-defined and terribly enforced set of rules.

Again, nothing changes, really. SNS moderators get motivated to work more consistently. That's all.

 

[Jisgsaw]

I swear,m you americans really have a wierd stance on "free speach".

The German public is strongly (and increasingly) skeptical of immigration from outside the EU. They tell us this every time an opinion poll is done. This is a wider reality in all of Europe. Immigration in general, and immigration from Islamic countries in particular, is very unpopular. To argue that's untrue is to be in complete denial of the facts.

Restricting speech doesn't kill the idea you're opposed to it, it simply forces it underground where it will fester and grow in intensity.

I fail to see the relevance of this in this thread.
Absolutely no one, and no german law, prevents people to voice their concern against immigration. Everybody is entitled to criticise Merkel's stance, and they do so often enough.

 

[PdotMichael]

The AFD still exists so it showcase you can voice questionable opinions outside of the mainstream and etablished parties in Germany.

What the hell are people arguing about here?

 

[Fantastapotamus]

In this thread it is not about whether Facebook or Twitter have to hand them a megaphone, it's about whether government should have the authority to tell Facebook and Twitter that they are not allowed to.

What? Of course! They already have that authority. Do you think companies exist in some lawless subspace where they can just do whatever they want? Germany doesn't even want to force their laws onto Facebook, they want Facebook to get it's shit together and start deleting posts that are against Facebook's own TOS

The AFD still exists so it showcase you can voice questionable opinions outside of the mainstream and etablished parties in Germany.

What the hell are people arguing about here?

People don't understand that this isn't Angela Merkel going around Facebook, putting censor bars over everything she doesn't like.

 

[SolidChamp]

Facebook won't even clean it's own house. What do they expect?

Yep. They fucking suck when it comes to that.

 

[ElTorro]

It's about whether Facebook and Co should be held responsible for enforcing their own freaking TOS, because that's what this amounts to. The Terms of Service for most, if not all, social networks cover even more or at the very least the exact same as German law, and not by coincidence. So when people use Facebook etc reporting facilities, Germany expects those services to actually do what they claim they are doing, because by coincidence or not, for us it's serious business enshrined by laws.

It is not about that. I have no idea what the argument behind pointing out the contents of Facebook's TOS is supposed to be. It is completely irrelevant to the discussion about what government in general should be allowed to enforce. Do you think that as soon as some platform writes down a code of conduct, that the platform is legally obliged to enforce it? It is not the government's job to tell platforms to enforce their own rules. Its job is to enforce the law. If a platform's rules and the law overlap, so what?

What? Of course! They already have that authority. Do you think companies exist in some lawless subspace where they can just do whatever they want? Germany doesn't even want to force their laws onto Facebook, they want Facebook to get it's shit together and start deleting posts that are against Facebook's own TOS

I was talking about the purpose of banning "Trumpisms", which I used as a much more general term than hate speech. You are arguing as if I had defended a platform's right to tolerate illegal hate speech, which I did not. My actual point is that a society in general has to be able to bear shitty opinions (like the political platform of the AfD) without resorting to state intervention, as long as they are expressions of opinion and not calls for illegal action.

As I have written earlier, the discussions in this thread are rather difficult and pointless, as long as we don't define clearly what we mean by hate speech. Is it, for instance, illegal hate speech to say that immigrants from the Middle East are incapable of integrating and don't belong into German society? This is clearly a reductionist, stupid statement that I reject, but should it be illegal to post something like this?

 

[Irminsul]

I was talking about the purpose of banning "Trumpisms", which I used as a much more general term than hate speech. You are arguing as if I had defended a platform's right to tolerate illegal hate speech, which I did not. My actual point is that a society in general has to be able to bear shitty opinions (like the political platform of the AfD) without resorting to state intervention, as long as they are expressions of opinion and not calls for illegal action.

As I have written earlier, the discussions in this thread are rather difficult and pointless, as long as we don't define clearly what we mean by hate speech. Is it, for instance, illegal hate speech to say that immigrants from the Middle East are incapable of integrating and don't belong into German society? This is clearly a reductionist, stupid statement that I reject, but should it be illegal to post something like this?

But what else but illegal hate speech would government officials be able to enforce? Or put differently: on what basis would they even enforce stuff that wouldn't stand in front of a court? So the discussion can't be about “Trumpisms” as you call them, because banning them would be unenforceable anyway.

Also, I don't really like the apparent reduction to political hate speech. The last time this was discussed, online bullying was a big part of it.

 

[Matt]

The republicans own the Senate and House. Not sure what is working here exactly.

So, the problem with freedom of speech is that it allows political parties you disagree with to be successful?

 

[entremet]

So much to respond to here... NeoGAF is a comparatively small enthusiast site for gamers. Facebook and Twitter are the most popular speech platforms in the world. There things are not comparable.

I disagree entirely with your contention about speech, and I think it is dangerous. The regimes you're likely thinking of from "your past" are almost certain to be regimes that strongly restricted ideas and limited the public square of opinion (Nazi Germany, fascist Italy). There are many (myself included) who feel that the best way to combat bad ideas is a free and open debate in which people are allowed to say what they mean, and the truth is allowed to will out as the debate wears on, in public, and uncensored, without fear of legal reprisal. The only dangerous speech is speech that directly advocates dangerous acts. Ideas must not be outlawed, they must be examined.

Many in Europe have attempted to regulate and control the dialogue about migration. This attempt has been an unmitigated and explosive disaster. Attempting to suppress public opinion will lead to that opinion bursting out in unexpected and intense ways. The dishonesty from government about some of these issues has begat a serious distrust of the authorities, and fueled the rise of extremist parties, and yet many argue that the solution is an even more restrictive attitude on the part of government towards speech. This paternalistic attitude, that government knows best what you should think, is increasingly unpopular with many Europeans.

The mainstream debate must expand to accept the reality of public opinion on these topics and try and deal with them in an open and honest way.

If the mainstream fails to do so, there will be disaster.

Thank you.

I really don't understand people always bring up this forum when comparing it to Twitter/Facebook and even Reddit.

They're completely different beasts. It's frankly a stupid and asinine comparison. Active posting userbase on this forum is tiny compared to those platforms and we still have a huge amount of mods and closed memberships just to deal with it.

 

[ZackieChan]

These threads always basically boil down to whether hateful ideas (non-incitement, as we all agree on that) should be allowed or should be made illegal. As an American, it baffles me that you can legislate the utterance of an idea that isn't directly harming others. It scares me because even we have had it abused in the past, and have learned our lesson from that. So much that this freedom of speech is part of our national consciousness. It is a vitally important pillar of our country, which is why we really don't understand why European countries would allow such laws. To us, the government has no business telling me what I can and cannot say, with certain limits.

And while I don't agree with most of what the average Trump supporter or Republican says, I certainly believe in their right to say it. The Holocaust denial laws in particular seem egregious to us here, as I'm sure other Americans would agree. Some here say there is no value in such speech, but that's neither my place nor the government's place to decide. The marketplace of ideas is where such speech goes to whither and die.

 

[EloKa]

These threads always basically boil down to whether hateful ideas (non-incitement, as we all agree on that) should be allowed or should be made illegal. As an American, it baffles me that you can legislate the utterance of an idea that isn't directly harming others.

These threads always boil down to the point that US americans have a totally different understand of the term "hate speech" but somehow try to force their understanding on ours, in this case the german definition of that term.

My definition of hate speech is basically "speech that either directly harm others or are intended to cause immediate and direct harm". Sending posts in Facebook and call to kill specific people should be forbidden and Facebook should have to follow to german law in this case for of data which appears for / comes from german users. All those posts talking about "do not prohibit ideas or political parties" have absolutely nothing to do with this matter but somehow those posts appear every single thread.

 

[CTLance]

These threads always basically boil down to whether hateful ideas (non-incitement, as we all agree on that) should be allowed or should be made illegal. As an American, it baffles me that you can legislate the utterance of an idea that isn't directly harming others. It scares me because even we have had it abused in the past, and have learned our lesson from that. So much that this freedom of speech is part of our national consciousness. It is a vitally important pillar of our country, which is why we really don't understand why European countries would allow such laws. To us, the government has no business telling me what I can and cannot say, with certain limits.

And that is where the problem lies.

We Germans have an incredibly detailed law about these limits. They are immobile, exhaustingly defined, and EU law (Court of Human Rights) has added a sliding scale of sorts to help protect and identify free speech.

In a rather curious twist of fate, all of this is done in order to ensure the basic human rights of every single German citizen - which are afforded to them under our constitution. They basically have an unalienable right to live a peaceful life without getting bothered by assholes.

In Germany, Volksverhetzung ("incitement of popular hatred") is a punishable offense under Section 130 of the Strafgesetzbuch (Germany's criminal code) and can lead to up to five years imprisonment. Section 130 makes it a crime to publicly incite hatred against parts of the population or to call for violent or arbitrary measures against them or to insult, maliciously slur or defame them in a manner violating their (constitutionally protected) human dignity. Thus for instance it is illegal to publicly call certain ethnic groups "maggots" or "freeloaders". Volksverhetzung is punishable in Germany even if committed abroad and even if committed by non-German citizens, if only the incitement of hatred takes effect within German territory, e.g., the seditious sentiment was expressed in German writing or speech and made accessible in Germany (German criminal code's Principle of Ubiquity, Section 9 §1 Alt. 3 and 4 of the Strafgesetzbuch).

You also mention a national consciousness, and like it or not, that's also where the same applies.

Many of these parts of our legislature, governmental structures and core tenets of our constitution were hammered into us by the Allies after the war and readily accepted for obvious reasons. We fucked up twice in a row, and millions died miserable deaths due to that, so we clearly needed a strong, clearly defined line in the sand with a blinking "do not cross this, ever" sign. The new post-war Germany was built from the ground up with safeguards and specific countermeasures against the previous failures.

And that is where we are today. Those laws (and our federal structure and so on and so forth) are a huge part of what define us, they allow us to look forward instead of crumble under the resentment, guilt and pain our forefathers have amassed. Without them, we would have been paralysed after the war or consumed by the inevitable pendulum swing backwards when we regained wealth and happiness decades later, when all the Nazi elites crawled out from under their rocks and fake identities. They allowed us to weather domestic terrorism and to rejoin our brethren in the east, against all odds and at huge cost. A process which is still ongoing, I might add, and which is painfully slow at that.

Cheeky TLDR: As the saying goes, if you don't like it, go home. ;-P
Plenty of space outside of Germany, and many EU countries aren't half as sullen as we are on the subject. We are just special in that regard, and to be frank I even find it a tiny bit offensive to tell Germany of all countries to loosen up on the issue and don't be so serious all the time. Nope. Can't do it. We are Germany. This is what we do.

Oh and of course it's also just another turn in the age old back and forth between EU and US and a politically motivated voter grab on behalf of the guys that proposed it, plus a whole load of other things. But it's also obvious why Germany cannot back down from this quite that easily.

 

[Snowman Prophet of Doom]

The republicans own the Senate and House. Not sure what is working here exactly.

Uh, not sure what this has to do with anything. Trump is the one running on bullshit and thinly-veiled white nationalism, and he's losing big league. System works.

 

[Tarydax]

Uh, not sure what this has to do with anything. Trump is the one running on bullshit and thinly-veiled white nationalism, and he's losing big league. System works.

That's actually what the bulk of the Republican Party has been doing since 1964. The only difference between Donald Trump and Mitt Romney or Paul Ryan is that the latter two use racist dogwhistles and Randian language like "urban non-contributors," "welfare queens," and "47%." The Republican Party is also home to blatant racists like Paul LePage and Jeff Sessions and neo-Confederates like Ron Paul.

Trump's white nationalism isn't thinly-veiled in any way, shape, or form, and he still has a minimum 40% floor of support. Saying that the system works and holding up the same Republican Party that nominated a racist fascist like Trump as an example of the system working doesn't make any sense. If Republican leadership refused to endorse him from the start, you might be right, but Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell are sticking by Trump even after everything he's done. There's no nominee they wouldn't support - aside from a liberal or a moderate.

 

[Snowman Prophet of Doom]

That's actually what the bulk of the Republican Party has been doing since 1964. The only difference between Donald Trump and Mitt Romney or Paul Ryan is that the latter two use racist dogwhistles and Randian language like "urban non-contributors," "welfare queens," and "47%." The Republican Party is also home to blatant racists like Paul LePage and Jeff Sessions and neo-Confederates like Ron Paul.

Trump's white nationalism isn't thinly-veiled in any way, shape, or form, and he still has a minimum 40% floor of support. Saying that the system works and holding up the same Republican Party that nominated a racist fascist like Trump as an example of the system working doesn't make any sense. If Republican leadership refused to endorse him from the start, you might be right, but Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell are sticking by Trump even after everything he's done.

The conversation was about whether or not hate speech needed to be outlawed, not whether or not the GOP is a shitty party, breh. Gerrymandering and voter suppression wouldn't be affected at all by anti-hate speech laws, and the GOP rocketed into power by dancing around hate speech. But the guy actually running almost openly on racism is getting the snot kicked out of him. a.k.a. the system of dealing with shitty beliefs interpersonally and with opposing speech is currently working.

 

[Joni]

The conversation was about whether or not hate speech needed to be outlawed, not whether or not the GOP is a shitty party, breh. Gerrymandering and voter suppression wouldn't be affected at all by anti-hate speech laws, and the GOP rocketed into power by dancing around hate speech. But the guy actually running almost openly on racism is getting the snot kicked out of him. a.k.a. the system of dealing with shitty beliefs interpersonally and with opposing speech is currently working.

The shitty system of first past the post is making sure the shitty dude doesn't get elected. In a system like Germany's he would have 40% of the parliament being a huge party. By America's FPTP system, the German right-wing parties wouldn't have a seat.

 

[WorriedCitizen]

This whole thing is only on the surface about hate speech. There are laws against hate speech already and it is the responsibilty of the state to prosecute such cases. It's not the job of private entities nor is it even legal for them to become presecutor, judge and jury as one.

What the justice minister Maas tries to accomplish is to place a trojan horse inside social media with the intend of curb stomping political dissent. Just think about the consequences of a 50.000 Euro fine per comment that doesn't get erased. It would mean that facebook will delete any comment that is even remotely controversial or contains a trigger word regardless of context just to be on the safe side. And that in climate of public discourse where the layman definition of hate speech has already been watered to mean "any opinion that i don't like".

 

[Frankfurter]

This whole thing is only on the surface about hate speech. There are laws against hate speech already and it is the responsibilty of the state to prosecute such cases. It's not the job of private entities nor is it even legal for them to become presecutor, judge and jury as one.

What the justice minister Maas tries to accomplish is to place a trojan horse inside social media with the intend of curb stomping political dissent. Just think about the consequences of a 50.000 Euro fine per comment that doesn't get erased. It would mean that facebook will delete any comment that is even remotely controversial or contains a trigger word regardless of context just to be on the safe side. And that in climate of public discourse where the layman definition of hate speech has already been watered to mean "any opinion that i don't like".

Yeah sure, lol.