It's also interesting that Human Rights Watch has come out against the German law: https://www.hrw.org/news/2018/02/14/germany-flawed-social-me...
Which is weird, because they are already censoring you considering there is a long range of things you can’t share in their platform, such as pictures of you breastfeeding your baby.
I’m not sure why breastfeeding is considered worse than hate speech at Facebook but apparently it is. Please note that while I mentioned the swastika, I didn’t mean to imply that Facebook is only cool with alt-right nonsense, the truth is that you can share all sorts of radical hatred from any political standpoint and Facebook is completely fine with it.
I get the free speech argument though, but the truth is that you’re always on someone’s platform and most of them wouldn’t be cool with your crazy. I mean, you’d get thrown out of a public park if you started making Facebook styled hate comments at random strangers.
Where I live (Görlitzer Park), those kinds of signs are literally everywhere -- only they're the leftwing equivalent, calling for bloody revolution, for the rich to be booted from their homes, racists and xenophobes to be punched, etc. I'm actually pretty relaxed about it -- a bunch of 20 year olds who get their kicks spray painting while drinking copious amounts of booze? Big deal.
And to offer another perspective on the recent emotional concern expressed so histrioniocally by a, politically speaking, suspiciously homogeneous crowd: Last year there was a huge, state financed charity billboard celebrating the life of... Fidel Castro. It was a collab between our Green local govt and the Cuban tourist ministry IIRC. Castro... who was responsible for how many deaths, 50,000? 100K?
By way of comparison, Pinochet had (according to Wikipedia) 10-30K on his account. I guarantee you there were no billboards of him around. Do I need to mention the recent merry festivities surrounding Karl Marx 200th birthday -- ceremony lead by Jean-Claude Juncker? Lest I have my words twisted against: I don't desire either of the these men to be displayed on taxpayer financed billboards!
The point that I'm trying to make is that this kind of legislation, and the so-called journalism and commentary surrounding it, don't fool anyone who's even the slightest bit (like me) conservative. We see right through these tendentiously applied, faux histrionic ("oh pity the poor soul who has endure watching -- and then deleting -- horribly vicious, hate-filled posts") outbursts whose real purpose is totally obvious. Namely to leverage dominance in various domains (journalism, charity, education, civil service) to usurp the electoral beating the left taken in any number of countries over the past two years. A beating meted out by a population who sees through the phony social concern, and sees the manifest and seething hypocrisy, the coziness of those who are insanely rich and the charity, journalistic, and civil service complexes.
In this battle any means to push back against at the barbarians at the gate are deemed appropriate. And so we are treated to the pathetic spectacle of those screeching about the deleterious, democracy damaging impact of fake news happily engaging in its production if it suits their side, the so-called defenders of liberty and free speech engaging in a rampage of censorship, bullying, "calling out", etc. of anyone who has an even slightly different opinion.
Now, don't get me wrong, I understand that those forces have no intention of trying to convince me. That is definitely not the goal, for if it were, the path that's being taken would certainly be recognized as wholly counterproductive. No, the real goal is to set boundaries, to wear out, tire, and demoralize the enemy. In other words, this is a propaganda war, exactly as e.g. Jacques Ellul described it. The very focus on such emotively charged terms as "love" (what we're about) and "hate speech" (what they do) makes this patently obvious.
To finalize, my feeling is that the forces I've described are winning, and I actually think they'll prevail in the battle. The propaganda war won't make any friends, but I believe it will succeed in its purpose, which is to wear out and dissipate the forces currently arrayed against it.
Final note: this is just an opinion. It's a strong one, yes. But I really love being proven wrong, so I'm really happy for the many highly intelligent and well-informed HNers to tear my argument apart. Have fun :)
We’ve always had people who called vaccines dangerous against better evidence, but platforms like facebook, allowed these people to construct their own realities, and as a result people are now dying from diseases that have been extinct for more than 50 years.
As I’ve said, there have always been village idiots, but social media marks the first time in human history, that we’ve actually had to take them seriously.
What do I make of these two comments? How I read them is as follows: you're so utterly sure of your position -- because you're likely inclined to believe it, and because you've been bombarded with messages confirming it ("the others are stupid") -- that you're quite literally failing to engage your brain. Instead, you're making lazy, emotive arguments.
So thanks for proving my point: the claims that one should consider so-and-so's feelings, the supposed humanism. That's just BS, isn't it?
On parts of Facebook the value of a professor in medicine counts for less than the experiences of an average soccer mom, and you’re seriously telling me to accept that as a new norm because it might hurt someone’s feelings if I didn’t? Right.
Ellul has a passage in which ancient Chinese poetry is "analyzed" by communist party members. This was served in classrooms of course. And the analysis was manifestly ridiculous. Anyone who reads it can't help but chuckle at the ham-fisted attempt to suggest that a poem about the sky, actually was referring to the glorious peoples revolution.
But: read that every day, hear in class every year, hear 1000 messages that confirm and reinforce this crazy, idiotic, message, and you can't help but be affected by it.
That is the nature of propaganda. In it's essence, it is a demonstration, an exercise of power. There is nothing subtle about it, and only part of it is covert.
```In on article in Pruula in May 1957. the Chinese writer Mao Dun wrote that the ancient poets of Chma used the following words to express the striving of the people toward a better life: The Bowers perfume the air. the moon shines, man has a long life " And he added: “Allow me to give a new explanation of these poetic terms The flowers perfume the air — this means that the flowers of the art of socialist realism are incomparably beautiful The moon shines — this means that the sputnik has opened a new era In the conquest of space Man has a long life — this means that the grout Soviet Union will live tens and tens of thousands of years “
When one reads this ouce, one smiles If one reads i* a thousand times, and no longer reads anything else, one must undergo a change. And we must reflect on the transformation of perspective already suffered by a whole society in which texts like this I pub- lished by the thousands) can be distributed and taken seriously not only by the authorities but by the intellectuals This complete change of perspective of the Weltanschauung is the primary totali- tarian element of propaganda.
```
The authentic protest is almost always met with violence, either directly from the state or with the state allowing or aiding in its administration.
I think, at its core, the message of the state sanctioned protest/counter-protest is essentially "these people can be unleashed on you and you will have no recourse".
You can tell those regimes didn't actually believe in socialism, by how they oppressed the poor, the weak and those who were different (religiously, sexually and so on).
I think this is far harder to implement than people assume. We still have many things in life that are non-fungible, the most obvious of which is probably housing location.
NetzDG only regulates how platforms that get a lot of complaints about content that is already illegal under existing criminal code have to handle and report those complaints.
It has been deemed unconstitutional by many experts - and whether it holds up against those claims will have to be decided in the supreme court.
That Arvato, the company running the content-checking centers, is a subsidiary of Bertelsmann isn't helping either: Criticism of the government that gets deleted on Facebook by a pro-government company like Bertelsmann comes with a certain stench.
As comes the fact that the NYT somehow forgets to mention this affiliation and somehow manages it to intertwine this with the "right cause" of post-war Germany's approach to limit free-speech for Nazism.
http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1993/0082/latest/D...
"It shall be unlawful for any person to publish or distribute written matter which is threatening, abusive, or insulting, or to broadcast by means of radio or television or other electronic communication words which are threatening, abusive, or insulting"
http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1993/0082/latest/D...
which references the previously mentioned section. But also followed up by
http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1993/0082/latest/D...
"No prosecution for an offence against section 131 shall be instituted without the consent of the Attorney-General."
Nazi whatever aside, these are border officers..
You don't mess with them, period, unless you're into body cavity searches and the like..
I used to have a nazi symbol on my car just to rile people up. Once a neighbor called the police who were completely reasonable and asked me to please not park so close to his house because it's making him angry.
No healthy person does this "just to rile people up."
This is profoundly fucked behavior, and in a sane society it does, and should, lead to ostracizing. Actions have consequences.
Bonus Points if you put a Hammer and Sickle right next to them. Creepy Thought-controll-freaks of all nations united- in outrage. My man.
I would expect czech police there to be more "nah, above my paygrade" when it comes to foreigners than German customs officers.
And you're right, the police would likely just roll their eyes and move on. I think anything nazi-related is taken much more seriously in Germany than anything socialist/communist related is here (there's even still an actual communist party which iirc gets regular single-digit share of electoral votes).
Completely relinquishing the ability to judge things on their actual context in favor of the unthinking punitive application of absolutist principles is the beating heart of every anti-human ideology.
Putting Nazi shit on things you own is a sign of tribal identity and that tribe exists to break our norms and kill us once they have the chance. On one's own head be it. This may catch up some dipshits who want to offend people. But...y'know? That's OK. Don't be that dipshit. Don't play with Nazi shit.
Point is, he's not a victim, he's a criminal and has received his well-deserved punishment.
> you've been reading more news stories than him.
When you go to another country, it is your responsibility to follow their laws. Ignorantia legis non excusat.
>I grew up trusting authorities and them always being reasonable and I would never have imagined Germany was such a bizarrely brutal place.
"Brutal". In all fairness, compared to US prisons, German prisons must feel like holiday resorts... As a German citizen, I trust my authorities to uphold the laws.
> I used to have a nazi symbol on my car just to rile people up.
No. You had Nazi symbolism on your car because you are likely someone who agrees with the ideology. This also reflects in the kind of people you hang around with.
> Once a neighbor called the police who were completely reasonable and asked me to please not park so close to his house because it's making him angry.
And in Germany, you would have gotten jail time (§ 86a StGB), have your car confiscated and likely destroyed, and probably would have lost your driving license because you have demonstrated that you lack the adequate character to safely operate a vehicle.
And I would have been ok with that.
Are you actually in support of rule of law no matter what, or is it just this law you like? For example, are you OK with China executing Falun Gong members? Are you OK with ISIS killing gay people (it's the law of Islam!)? Are you OK with slavery as long as it's legal? Or are you just angry about Nazis especially out of all the other horrible groups in history for some reason? What about the Romans? They were pretty brutal - do you want to destroy the property of people who write roman numerals and write Latin phrases on things? Your extreme reaction doesn't make sense to me.
> lack the adequate character to safely operate a vehicle
It has nothing to do with safety. I grew up playing Wolfenstein 3D and watching the History channel. Nazi symbols were completely normal and everywhere. It was in no sense a crime or an indication that you're so mentally ill that you're going to crash your car.
> No. You had Nazi symbolism on your car because you are likely someone who agrees with the ideology. This also reflects in the kind of people you hang around with.
Please don't make personal judgments. I explained my reason.
That doesn't mean the law is okay but the country is fully free to punish you as they see fit.
> Nazi symbols were completely normal and everywhere.
Not here. Outside of certain exceptions, don't go waving around Nazi symbols in the country that to this day regrets this part of history.
You obviously should have paid a lot more attention, then.
Can it with the whataboutism, it's not helping you.
If you visit a country, you respect its laws and customs. You don't go around breaking them because you disagree with them. Leave it to the residents of that country to change their laws if needed, don't be an invading asshole.
Let me speak it out for you again:
It doesn't matter. Ignorance does not protect against punishment.
Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences.
Your friend must have been completely and utterly ignorant of fundamental history. That's not something to be proud of.
I wasn't using whataboutism. I was showing an inconsistency in the commenter's general claim. Do you also really believe gays are being assholes if they have sex in Saudi Arabia? That they should show respect to the culture that has a deep shame about homosexuals?
>"Do you also really believe gays are being assholes if they have sex in Saudi Arabia? That they should show respect to the culture that has a deep shame about homosexuals?"
More whataboutism. No, I don't think they're assholes, I think they're idiots. Going to a notoriously anti-gay country, with a death penalty for homosexuality, and then completely flouting those laws? Yeah, that's a really bad idea.
Here, I'm trying to tease out the meaning from you and a grandparent's posts that seem to ridicule anyone breaking any law, no matter how unjust the law might be. Your particular disrespect seems to be focused on foreigners visiting a country, which seems kind of arbitrary but you've done such a poor job explaining what's behind your judgments that I don't think there's much there besides the desire for violence against anyone who, even unknowingly, offends you. You've also been offensive to me in this thread (feeling free to because I don't have the power to punish you?) and say that you would insult the victims of anti-gay laws. It's clear now that you're a hate filled person so I don't want to know what you really mean anymore.
The simple truth is, if you go visit a country, you do a bit of preparation before you go. That includes any local laws and customs that may differ from those in your home country, in order to avoid trouble.
You wouldn't try to bring a pocket knife on a flight, would you? Like me, you probably disagree with the security theater that has been put in place, but that does not mean you get to plead innocence because of ignorance, or because you disagree with the rules.
Once again: ignorance does not confer immunity from the law, no matter how unjust the law is.
That doesn't matter in this context. When you visit a country, you respect their laws, no matter how unjust they may be.
However, you will find very few people who would agree with you that it is unjust for someone to face consequences for directly and provocatively insulting a policeman with his country's greatest shame in recorded history.
>"locked up for 3 months for making a friendly joke"
Shouting "heil Hitler!" at a German -- especially if it's an authority figure -- is not "a friendly joke". It's a grave insult. If you do not understand why that is, I would suggest you spend a little time researching 20th century history.
Your example with the tree cutter is false equivalence. In his case, it would be a tragedy, which could have been prevented through the use of specialized knowledge. Maybe he didn't know, maybe he was forgetful, maybe he was simply negligent.
If you wanted to make the cases more equivalent, a better example would if he climbed to the top of a very tall tree, and then sawed over the branch he was sitting on. Clearly stupid and with absolutely no common sense.
> I used to have a nazi symbol on my car just to rile people up
You can't then complain that people get riled up. It was your intention to provoke them; they were provoked; and now you suffer the consequences for provoking them.
If you don't wish to suffer those consequences you have the freedom to not behave like a fucking idiot.
This is universally known as insensitive behaviour and no amount of "muh free speech" is gonna save you from being charged with a hate crime.
When you go to a country, at the very least make the effort not to offend officials with the worst part of that country's history. Otherwise you're not just gonna be seen as a total (criminal) twat but also a lazy one at that.
You subscribe to the might-makes-right mindset by demanding respect for people who have the power to punish you. That's practical, but not morally very solid since it implies less politeness to weaker people.
Some would argue the 30 years war was worse than the Nazis. It killed more people than the holocaust, and at a time when the population was much smaller.
I totally oppose physical violence against people for saying insults. That's terrible to me. For exactly this reason - innocent people not trying to hurt anybody end up getting punished because they're misunderstood. The swastika really doesn't mean the same thing to people everywhere in the world. Not everyone shares the Germans' violent anger at people who remind them of their past.
But still fuck you for comparing an instance of senseless mass-murder/genocide with a religious war spanning 30 years and involving most of central europe ~400 years ago, at a time where the slightest wound may have condemned one to die, notwithstanding the quite "good" chance to starve or die from plague as back then hygiene wasn't really that important to the people.
And I would have been ok with that."
And no german would see the irony in this...
This is something we are learning in the UK as sweeping powers "necessary to implement Brexit" are getting pushed through Parliament. Only so very principled MPs are preventing really sweeping executive powers being granted - they are referred to as Henry VIII laws to give an idea how retrograde we are getting
It is cutting extremely deep into their greatest national shame, one of the worst parts of any nation's legacy and all of human history.
Imagine going up to a Russian border guard and going "hail, comrade Stalin!". It's that bad, or worse.
I hope he learned an extremely valuable lesson.
A better example would be going "hey boy, get back to pickin' cotton!" to a black border guard in the US.
They do try to wrap it in nationalism and appeals to history ("back when the motherland was strong!"), but it's transparently about enforcing the oligarchy.
He was objectively the greatest leader in the history of their country/union, with a massively powerful cult of personality. To paraphrase from a popular series of books, "after all, [he] did great things – terrible, yes, but great."
While the Russians might even, to some degree, like the idea, it does not make it right.
Still, the scale of the two issues - prosecutions vs platform censorship basically implies that most of the things being censored do not rise to that level of illegality.
* The illegal content can be removed quickly, without tying up resources in the prosecution of minor offenders. Prosecution can focus on the worst of them.
* The platforms get to play the role of a neutral party and are not themselves being responsible for distributing the illegal content.
Given the increased centralization on the Internet to a few of these platforms, this allows for efficient implementation of the law.
This is quite similar to the development of copyright law (in the US). The DMCA grants platforms immunity by actively taking part in the removal of illegal content when requested. I haven't checked the numbers, but I expect that here also the number of DMCA takedowns greatly outnumbers the copyright violation law suits (which would be kept for the worst offenders)