A Symbol Neo-Nazis Use to Target Jews Online | Hacker News Reader

A Symbol Neo-Nazis Use to Target Jews Online

mic.com

78 pointscjlm88 comments

Please excuse my naïveté, and I do not share the opinions of the neo-nazis, but isn't it part of free speech to able to use these symbols and to be prejudiced?

Edit: My follow-up question: Why then is it Twitter's responsibility to censor such speech?

Well yeah, the government can't arrest you for it. But that doesn't mean anyone has to listen to you or let you be a part of their community.

True, but I think (and this is an assumption) that most people would prefer their communications platforms - Twitter, FB messegner, Apple iMessage, etc, support free speech.

What good is a communication platform if you can't communicate certain expressions on it?

I agree with your overall point tho - we should let the free market determine this what communication companies ultimately do.

Sure! It also happens to be free speech to write articles which highlight such examples of public prejudice for a larger audience.

It's surely free speech to write articles suggesting free speech be curtailed. It's also free speech to disagree with censorship. What's your point?

(GP didn't seem to be expressing an issue with the article having been written, but with the article's suggestion that Twitter (and other media) need to do more to censor hate speech. In that context this comment is non sequitur.)

Free speech and Twitter are unrelated concepts. Twitter has no responsibility to enforce free speech and can do whatever the hell it wants, although it can be subject to user backlash.

Nobody is disputing that Twitter can do whatever it wants, in fact that's exactly the point that (GG)GP is making - why should Twitter have a responsibility to anyone to do anything about hate speech on its site?

The author of the linked article argues that Twitter has a responsibility to censor hate speech, which GP disputed, because Twitter can do whatever the hell it wants. You're arguing that Twitter does not have a responsibility to not censor hate speech, which nobody disputed, because Twitter can do whatever the hell it wants.

You're arguing with the wind again.

edit: typos, phrasing

I'm not sure it's twitter's responsibility. That's up to twitter, though I would appreciate it if they would clearly mark their position on these sorts of things.

If you'd read the article, you would have seen that they have - https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/may/31/facebook-...

There's a difference between free speech and harassment. It's perfectly legal to use the echo in a Tweet. What's not legal (or at least isn't allowed on most social media platforms) is using the echo to call people to harass and threat a specific person.

For example, it's legal to say/tweet "Bob Smith is a little bitch"

It's not legal to send Bob Smith 50 messages telling him he's a little bitch and threatening to murder his family

    > What's not... allowed... is using the echo to call people to harass and threat a specific person.

Wouldn't the layman interpret all 'echo's as a call to action? Do you hold one user accountable for drawing attention to a user who is now receiving messages from third parties?

> Do you hold one user accountable for drawing attention to a user who is now receiving messages from third parties

Inciting violence against a person makes you responsible for the violence that follows; let's not pretend this is something different - it's not.

Internet messages are violence now?

s/violence/harassment/

Intimidation, threat of harm, and incitement are generally illegal whether they're on the Internet, in a letter, or delivered in person.

You might want to re-read your dictionary. Violence has included non-physical force for very many years, very much longer than the Internet has been in existence.

http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/youthviolence/definiti...

> Interpersonal violence is defined as "the intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against another person or against a group or community that results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment, or deprivation."

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/16

> The term “crime of violence” means—

> (a) an offense that has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person or property of another, or

Threats of violence are by definition violence.

Threats that might seem credible are a far cry from saying bad things about someone, to them or to someone else.

You don't seem to understand that threats of violence are what we're talking about. Do you really not understand that saying you're going to rape someone is a threat of violence?

The article says:

> Other Jewish writers have faced more serious attacks: death threats, anti-Semitic cartoons, images of concentration camp ovens and executed Jews, threatening emails, even home phone calls.

> Michael received [...] Trolls threatened him: "'When the time comes, the Jews are going to be in trouble, lined up,'" Michael recalls. "That kind of tone. Random shit by people thinking it's funny Jews were being targeted."

you've certainly mentioned some strong examples. However, it's not the same as real violence.

think of these two statements, jokes whatever you want to call it.

"what do you call a hundred thousand lawyers at the bottom of the ocean? A good start" A joke we've all heard.

Now, same joke 'What do you call a hundred thousand Jews at the bottom of the ocean? A good start.

Now which one is hate speech? Both? None? Should history be the only basis for whether jokes are permitted or not? What about who delivers it and why?

I'm not asking you to really answer me here, but it's worth thinking about. And I think platforms banning language simply will get it wrong. Human mods will get it wrong, computer mods will get it wrong.

Again, I'm going to go to the platforms where speech is allowed because of the nuance of humor, of conversation. And especially where personal experience is valid even when it appears biased or hateful.

Neither of those are the dictionary though, the definition on Merriam Webster says it's

>behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something.

Oxford and dictionary.com have similar definitions

Both of your definitions seem to me like cherry picked overly broad legal definitions especially since they are both from legal sites and not dictionaries and one is on a page titled "Youth Violence"

Threatening a person, and marking them as the target for a mob harms someone. Harming people is violence

if twitter clamps down on this, it creates an unwelcoming place for the neonazis. if it does not, it creates an unwelcoming place for their targets. twitter has to pick one; doing nothing is not a neutral action.

I can't imagine the neonazi crowd is large or profitable compared to everyone else.

One of the things I love abt HN is the difference of opinions. You can have a post that tells you all the great things abt A, then in the comments you hear why A is bad, but also there is C.

It is sad that internet trolls exist, but at the same time the internet is amazing bc trolls exist, or that they can exist. The ability for everyone to communicate freely brings out the best in humanity, but also the worst.

The same power that allows GitHub and Wikipedia to exist, and that ends oppressive government regimes in the world is the same power that allows neo-nazis to have the world hear their hate speech.

>HN has diversity of opinions

Keep telling yourself that, HN is an echo chamber. Diversity of opinion is shunned. Anything that does not fit the SJW narrative will be down voted to death like this very comment.

Arguably, SJ-related topics get their share of downvotes too.

But yeah, I agree with you on the fact that HN is mostly an echo chamber. I'm just less sure that we're hearing the same echo. :)

It doesn't matter if you think it's your responsibility or not. A fundamental rule of the Internet is that spam and abuse make everything suck.

Therefore all large Internet sites (and some small ones) have to moderate or police it one way or another. Even if they started out fairly libertarian, eventually they'll get dragged in, or else they'll lose users.

(4chan is the closest thing to an exception, and even they have rules. Most websites don't want to be 4chan.)

That is so interesting. I wonder if there is a way you could model that over time / give a rating. You could have a large list or controversial words (prob better would be doing NLP phrases) and look at all content of a site has over time, and get a count of how much "controversial content" it contains.

To get the list of what is controversial you could look at the content guidelines from top sites around the world and compile a list.

Twitter presumably sees value in people having conversations, and doesn't see value in thousands of racists sending millions of death threats.

It's hard to sell ads against "I'm going to rape you and your children kike bitch".

It's Twitter's responsibility out of their commitment to the welfare of community. Abuse and harassment should not be tolerated in any community to guarantee healthy atmosphere and smooth exchange of information and constructive communication for all participants.

Let's make this point loud and clear, there's a huge difference between criticizing Israel, Netanyahu, or even Zionism but attacking Jews solely for being Jews, this shouldn't be tolerated at all.

I get your point that the Free Speech absolutists may find these social networks unwelcoming when they start censoring or moderating this kind of content on their platforms but on the other hand Anti-Abuse absolutists would welcome this immensely and ask even for more.

So, in the end it's Twitter's call to make and pick which audience they should prioritize and set of policy goals they should pursue.

I also I can't hide to comment on the irony that this opinion is coming from an HN veteran here when you know well how HN is run - Not that I disagree with the moderation policy, on the contrary :) - and how it doesn't represent the pinnacle of Free Speech as a platform on the internet.

So what's the difference between hate speech and clever razzing on people? Not really anything actually. Criticizing somebody for being the stereotype isn't a bad thing in a culture necessarily either. People familiar with one another can criticize each other using the exact same words, but then a stranger pops in and it's time to light torches and throw him over a cliff.

This is all bad news. A general platform for everyone should really be as open as possible. Also a really important point, there's no more corrupt law making entity than the EU. These are a small group of people not consulting the associated countries one bit. So a pet project suddenly gets Twitter turned into a sissy nightmare.

> People familiar with one another can criticize each other using the exact same words, but then a stranger pops in and it's time to light torches and throw him over a cliff

I somehow doubt the guy who sent the auschwitz pictures was doing so in playful jest, hoping to make the recipient laugh. You can say mean things to a stranger with a smile or with anger, and that hints at very different intentions. Basic social cues.

It's funny you should mention a photo example. Because I've actually seen many times where a terrible photo was used as humor, and it was funny. Dark humor doesn't mean hate speech. All the examples there, I can think of moments where it can work in a context of humor, depending on the delivery, the sender. The culture of the people doing the sharing. All things.

Twitter is not obligated to provide users with free speech.

Would it be free speech to write "go kill person x"? I think it isn't? So if the brackets are code for something illegal, why would it be legal to use them? (I'm not saying they should be illegal, as I am not 100% sure what they mean, but perhaps it should be investigated).

A guy I went to high school with used to take a pause and say "Jewish" loudly after any Jewish name he'd read/say.

Seriously. Fucking Catholic school.

That was tolerated?

Not by me, but yeah, barely. Let's just say a lot of kids from Far Rockaway & Breezy Point went to my high school.

I'm sure he's grown up some -- I don't imagine you can last long at acting (not that he's very successful) as an anti-Semite in NY.

Here's a shining example of what that area of New York has to offer and an event some of my classmates were present for: http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/news/outrage-racist-para...

I imagined this with the voice of Wallace Shawn from Heaven Help Us for some reason.

Definitely spot on pick for the inflection, but not the tone.

Didn't ((())) use to mean "hugs" in 90s IM slang? How sweet of them.

Sweet until you're hugged by internet tough-guy white supremacists.

Something like that does sound familiar, yes. Was it (((hugs))) ?

I wonder if there's a way to counter/reclaim this -- put your own name in ((()))?

Seriously, are they flocking to tweets based off white nationalists they follow or are they searching for anything with "((("? Either way, I'm curious if there's a way to just make it irrelevant.

Seemed to me like it was only spreading through already established circles because of the lack of ability to search for it. Racists in those circles saw someone tweet with that punctuation and just ganged on the person mentioned in the tweet, knowing they were Jewish without it being directly stated.

It's clearly a hug. Has been for decades. Just start reading it that way.

Do we have to be Jewish to do so? My background is Scotch-Irish hill folk, but my given name is (((Jesse))) so that should work?

"Scots-Irish" is also code for "Jewish" in some internet circles believe it or not.

The racism of unhinged racists is also unhinged? I'm shocked.

Start coding in lisp

I'm on to you. You're part of the Lispish Conspiracy.

When I first saw the ((( ))) meme, it was being used something along the lines of (((triggered))), and I thought it was shorthand for a trigger warning.

Unfortunate to learn how it's used; I thought it was really clever at the time.

Holy shit, I am constantly amazed that people like this know how to use computers. Can we bring the internet back to being a technocratic meritocracy with only people who share my biases and opinions, please?

Do you assume that coders can't be racist?

Some one makes and manages their websites heck white supremacists and other extremist groups were one of the earliest adopters of the Internet because it was a media that allowed them to speak freely.

You can't say kikes and niggers on TV you can't even say it on licensed radio but on the internet you can call for all the gassing and cross burning you want.

It was sarcastic.

It occurs to me that the correct "punishment" for a hate crime is to force the person to live in a loving, caring community of the hated group until one day they break down and cry and want to hug and apologize to everyone in the community.

EDIT: "I'm so sorry, I've been such a schmuck," the ex-neonazi tearfully confesses as his pretty Jewish girlfriend hugs him and kisses him on the cheek.

as outlandish as this sounds, I could see it totally working

So, what would happen if say, trolls read this and started using the symbol around every random username in sight? Because that's exactly what some people are gonna do after reading articles like this, and it makes me wonder what the crossfire would inevitably look like.

Wouldn't this make a really easy target for the likes of 4chan?

The Venn diagram of the AltRight and 4chan's /pol/ board (the only board that would care about ((()))) is a circle inside of a circle so I don't think it will make any difference.

A () inside of a () inside of a ()?

You mean ((()))?

The only problem after this is somebody who gets criticized then pulls the race/ethnic/religion card and suddenly we're all supposed to then set our sights on ruining the life a person being critical, for whatever reason, subjectively insulting or not. Then again who would EVER hide behind their so called protected class, play victim to hurt others. Oh wait, It only happens every day.

We even see it on here. Mods have a hard job, BUT they also are subjective when it comes to who they claim is ranting off topic vs those making profound points.

The founding fathers knew all of this quite well, which is why we have "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech"

Private companies can do all they want to make a safe space, but then we usher in the era of the whirlpool of 'hurt feelings' == physical violence. Which really just weakens people, it robs them of their own capability. And as a result of this safe spaces are really just illusions. By trying to cleanse they actually become impure.

Oh well. I'll be for whatever platform supplants the draconian ones. It will be the selling points.

> but then we usher in the era of the whirlpool of 'hurt feelings' == physical violence

Give me your work email address and I'll send you 800 death threats, including pictures of your family and where they work / go to school, and pictures of you arriving at or leaving your workplace, and then you can talk about whether the discussion is actually about "hurt feelings = violence", or if it's actually about the profound impact on your life some pathologic arsehole can have.

Since you mention US constitution: this concept -- that actions can cause harm even if they don't include physically hitting you -- has been written into US law, and has resisted first amendment challenges.

> I'll be for whatever platform supplants the draconian ones.

Yet you're still here, a place that (you said) is even more restrictive than twitter?

<Neo-Nazis, anti-Semites and white nationalists have begun using three sets of parentheses... "Hello ((Weisman))" it began after Weisman tweeted a Washington Post article...>

Apparently, neither the alleged practitioners nor the media can differentiate three from two.

I've actually not heard about this. It's a shame "alt-right" became synonymous with bigot, white nationalist, etc.

The underlying political philosophy is sound, but for some reason the crowd it attracts are essentially losers (in a very specific economic sense).

Don't let the media get away with this. They're trying to pigeon-hole a whole movement based on a small and loud minority. You rarely see this same treatment of the left and the violent radical-left protesters that are a permanent fixture at big Western events like G8 summits, party conventions, etc. Or the massive web of leftist voices, on tumblr, Gawker, and even in columns of "respectable" papers, that constantly make terrible sweeping generalizations about men and white people.

Does this mean that I can use this to call upon a band of strangers to bully (or whatever it is they do) someone of my choosing?

This article focuses a lot on how to search twitter for the echo which probably won't help reduce harassment.

BTW, does this mean that (((Jesus))) must be wrapped accordingly, too?

Lisp is anti-semitic.

Who knew?

Secret? I don't think it's secret anymore. I follow lots of white nationalists and I have seen it for months already. This one was particularly funny, although I don't know if it's fake or not. https://i.imgur.com/A6aJYs7.png

What's also funny is how the article insists on ((())) being designed and engineered by evil masterminds to be unsearchable, when it's just incidental.

> I follow lots of white nationalists

Why?

I like that he deleted his comment that said "I am a white nationalist".

I did, because people here can get pretty salty and I didn't want to "bite the bait", but yes, now that you insist, I am one, and I am not ashamed of it.

"people here can get pretty salty when I admit I am a white nationalist" is probably the most positive thing I've heard anyone say about HN in years.

I call it the San Francisco bubble. Fortunately, it's just a bubble. ;P

Weird, I call it "the civilised world bubble".

But yeah, I know, silent majority and all that, right? There are dozens of you. Dozens!

I'm not in San Francisco, not in California, not part of the startup scene, and I'm white, but yet I am proud to be part of that "bubble". But I agree with untog, it's the civilized world bubble. It's the white nationalists that are part of a (shrinking) bubble.

TL;DR: The country is not with you, unlinker. Even the whites aren't with you.

Why are you a white nationalist? Do you think badly of people who aren't white or that such people should be treated differently? If so why?

I'm neither white nor a white nationalist, but the way I understand it is that white nationalism seeks to preserve an arbitrary trait known as "whiteness".

In other words, they feel that the white "race" as a whole is being genocided because of race mixing. Some feel that there is an international conspiracy of Jews orchestrating this white genocide. If you try to disagree with them, they will reply that you are either a shill or "JIDF" which stands for "Jewish Internet Defense Force". It's not a very homogenous group though, so I try not to generalize them and keep an open mind. Empirically, I will say that there are studies showing working class (blue collar) white youths are worse off economically than black youths, which could explain the rise of this political philosophy.

As I understand it it's not even purely race mixing that's a problem but race replacing. I wish every white nationalist would get their DNA sampled so they can see how pure they really are, even just among white people! But anyway broadly-white-peoples are breeding below replacement rates while broadly-(Africans|Mexicans|Arab|Turkish) ethnic groups are not. As a refugee/immigrant to Germany laid it out at some protest, Germany will become a majority-Muslim ethnically-Arab country within some number of decades just from sheer population growth of one group over the other, and what will remain will not be Germany even if it still calls itself such. A white nationalist then is just a person who doesn't want this to happen to their white country. Of course there are the more insane white nationalists who see Jews everywhere and so on, but nationalism is a spectrum you know? Japan for instance remains pretty xenophobic but they can maintain that without also being outright hostile towards Chinese, so the hostility towards Chinese has been going down.

If this was 1916 instead of 2016 I think the basic white nationalists would have a stronger case. This isn't a CURRENT_YEAR remark, but just a remark that timescales involving even 40+ years are ridiculously difficult to predict right now because technology overwhelms classic human nature, so when the impact of these things won't be felt for that far off in the classic human history case of technology remaining the same it's not very fruitful to dwell on it in the current reality of technology changing rapidly. That isn't to say they don't have any case at all but a lot of it is too little too late. They want to move to be more like Japan when they should really be satisfied with something more like Singapore. Not importing millions of foreigners permanently would also not be a bad idea but again, a bit too little too late.

So, this is one of the things that's so disturbing about Trump's rise. It is causing people with repugnant, undemocratic, ideals to feel empowered to be much more open about their beliefs, and more likely to take public action in support of them.

There's always been an attempt to normalize hate speech as mere difference of opinion, but now that a popular national politician has tacitly endorsed the extremist arm of the American right, things are getting frightening.

Reasonable Republicans and conservatives, of which there are many in tech, should be particularly concerned about this shift.

What type of white? Slavic is different from Anglo-Saxon is different from Germanic is etc., not too long ago all the various white groups in American had their own gangs and gang wars because "white" as a broad term wasn't good enough. Do you think that because of the threats of Mexican-Americans and African-Americans (do you also have any issues with the over-representation of Asians of various types in tech?) it now makes sense to band "broadly European" peoples together in reaction, or is it something else?

I... don't really see why what you attached is funny? Not because of the offensive topic but just because... there's no humour there?

Because he's a white nationalist and he admitted down below and he's proud of it.

News to me. I suppose we live in different bubbles.

>What's also funny is how the article insists on ((())) being designed and engineered by evil masterminds to be unsearchable

From the article:

>Whether they know it or not, Neo-Nazis on Twitter have discovered a brilliant loophole — a code that's difficult to filter

Typical white nationalist, not bothering with the details.

The only commentable thing in this blatant clickbait is that yianopoulos had his verified sign taken back (!) for non-hate speech, an act for which he has protested vehemently.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com