Vandals Deface Facebook's Hamburg Offices (google.com)

Reuters reports that 15 to 20 vandals dressed in black this weekend defaced Facebook's Hamburg offices, spray-painting "Facebook dislike" on a wall, and causing some minor property damage. From the story: "A Facebook spokesman said nobody was injured in the incident. He said he could not immediately comment on the possible motive for the act of vandalism. The European head of Facebook is under investigation in Germany over the social network's alleged failure to remove racist hate speech. The investigation was announced last month as German politicians and celebrities voiced concern about the rise of anti-foreigner comments in German on Facebook and other social media as the country struggles to cope with a refugee influx. (The Guardian has a nearly identical story, but a better photo.)

Comments

Well that's good to hear

[Anonymous Coward]

A Facebook spokesman said nobody was injured in the incident.

Any sane person sees where this kind of comment comes from. It's a unilateral attempt to escalate the severity of what actually happened. All they did was break some windows and throw some paint, let's not make this a case of "domestic terrorism" etc.

Re: Well that's good to hear

[fj3k]

If it was just the paint, sure. But with the window breaking there was a possibility of minor cuts and bruises!

Re:Well that's good to hear

[Anonymous Coward]

You'd find a flaw with their statement no matter what they said, so shut your cock holster.

Re:Well that's good to hear

[Anonymous Coward]

Because there is one, or where are you getting at?

Toilet

[Anonymous Coward]

Give me something to read on the toilet arse wipes.

Re:Toilet

[U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M]

I think Facebook posts would totally work for that.

What's not to dislike?

[Anonymous Coward]

They say "said he could not immediately comment on the possible motive for the act of vandalism", but I'm getting clear signals that this group simply dislike Facebook. Quite possibly this rage comes from an inability to mark anything on the side, including the site as a whole, as being disliked.

Re: What's not to dislike?

[Anonymous Coward]

Or how about the fact that it's a crime to say racist things or even question history if it concerns non Germans in Germany?

Sure it's shitty judge people without knowing them, but seems a bit stupid to punish someone for voicing an opinion or having a preference against people coming into their country against their will especially in light of their country being invaded by economic migrants while popular media couches them as 'Syrian refugees'. (Sorry, but if you're comfortable enough to say 'no Hungary Germany yes' you're not actually fleeing a war zone.)

Re: What's not to dislike?

[tempmpi]

It's not a crime in Germany to say racist things. However claiming that the holocaust never happened is a crime, as well as some extreme forms of hate speech. Voicing an opinion against people migrating to Germany is perfectly legal and is done all the time by various people on German TV stations or newspapers. But it is not legal to call on people to kill migrants or to claim that all migrants are human waste and therefore do not deserve humane treatment. I think that is perfectly fine and is not restricting valuable opinions in any way.

Re:What's not to dislike?

[umghhh]

There is no much resentment against FB in Germany. There is quite heated atmosphere around the discarding borders and what it has caused - people are threatened and attacked by both right wing nuts as well as left wing nuts. The press usually describe all as right wing aggression (as in Dresden on 13.12.2015 - where titles read "riots at neonazi demo" were in fact a group bigger that those that demonstrated attacked police and caused major mayhem in the city) or does not at all which indirectly shows who we may suspect. FB refused to delete some posts claiming free speech - something that is not appreciated at all in Germany these days. No wonder they are attacked by the black flag brigade and this is tolerated by media. OC that is what I think and not what police knows. Weknow however how instrumental German security apparatus is: NSU (neonazi terrorists that killed many people in Germany) trial is going on and we know now that NSU activity could have been hindered and lives saved if not for cover from security services (Verfassungschutz mostly). That they may cover the other side at least in media seems entirely plausible.
Interesting times, we have now.

Re: What's not to dislike?

[Anonymous Coward]

However claiming that the holocaust never happened is a crime

This has always bothered me. How can denying historical facts be *illegal*? That's an extreme form of thoughtcrime.

I think that is perfectly fine and is not restricting valuable opinions in any way

Now there is your problem right there. Who gets to define what is "valuable" and what is not? How is this any different from the past Germany is trying to distance itself from?

Re: What's not to dislike?

[Anonymous Coward]

The State defines what is valuable and what is not, and which opinion might be expressed or repressed. Watch your words, citizen. You do value your position in society, don't you? We're watching.

Re: What's not to dislike?

[Anonymous Coward]

However claiming that the holocaust never happened is a crime

This has always bothered me. How can denying historical facts be *illegal*? That's an extreme form of thoughtcrime.

Nope, it's protection of the innocent(*). As long as the innocent are protected from losing their money to people who lie to them by throwing those liars in jail, so should they be protected in the same way from giving them political power or going to jail themselves for acting violently against the people lied about.
(*) or the stupid, if you like that better.

Re: What's not to dislike?

[tempmpi]

This has always bothered me. How can denying historical facts be *illegal*? That's an extreme form of thoughtcrime.

It is not a thought crime, as long as you only think that the holocaust never happend it is legal, but once you start telling people it is illegal. Telling people that the holocaust never happened is causing real damage by inviting violence against minorities and could cause Jews and other minorities targeted in the holocaust to leave Germany.

Now there is your problem right there. Who gets to define what is "valuable" and what is not? How is this any different from the past Germany is trying to distance itself from?

This was my personable opinion on valuable. Do you personally think that this kind of hatespeech is valuable? Or do you just think that is hard to define valuable?

The good news is that it is not really required to define valuable precisely. If it is unclear, if a piece of speech is valuable or not, then it should be legal. But if something is clearly not valuable and could cause harm to the society, then it is fine to make it illegal.

Also think about it from a different perspective: These extreme forms of hate speech could only be a valuable contribution to the society, if unchangeable parts of the constitution that guarantee human rights are wrong. The constitution does not allow to kill people just because they are migrants. If want to claim that extreme hatespeech might be a valuable contribution to the society, then having a constitution that guarantees certain rights to everyone, would be a problem, because it prevents the implementation of what is proposed the hatespeech.

Re: What's not to dislike?

[Anonymous Coward]

for starters it's different in the kind of values between the germany now and the germany of the past. if we value the past as "bad" then that's an orientation point for "good" behavior and informs the decision of what's good and bad.

you're on a slippery slope here - freedom of speech and freedom of verbal violence are not the same. it's not only sticks and stones that hurt people, it's the words that conjure the sticks and stones. see also: germany's past.

Re: What's not to dislike?

[Anonymous Coward]

What are the words that conjure sticks and stones? "Accio sticks and stones"? LOL. Get off your high hippogriff, Harry Fucking Potter.

Re: What's not to dislike?

[fazig]

As a German, it bothers me as well, that something like that is illegal. But I'll have to thank the Allied forces for that remnant in our laws. It once served the task to get rid of the remaining Nazis after the war had ended and the rebuilding began. But today, it's mostly censorship. Especially since there are hardly any holocaust survivors left, that could be deeply hurt or offended by such a denial. After all, we don't live forever.
In my opinion, if someone wants to present their ignorance and stupidity to the world by denying the holocaust, let them.

However, when it comes to hate speech, things are different. In hate speech, people declare their intent to take violent actions against other people, with the intend to cause harm or death.

This is not protected by freedom of speech. You're not free to make death threats, whether you're joking or not.

Re: What's not to dislike?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not just "denying" the holocaust. If you claim (with or without a detailed argument) that the number of people killed was, in fact, 5% smaller than the official number, then you can go to prison.

Re: What's not to dislike?

[k2r]

> If you claim (with or without a detailed argument) that the number of people killed was, in fact, 5% smaller than the official number, then you can go to prison.

Source?
Or are you a liar?

Re: What's not to dislike?

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you personally think that this kind of hatespeech is valuable?

Frankly, I do not find things like forced religious views valuable, often I find them even offensive. Do I want to make them illegal? Of course not. Otherwise it would be a competition of who's the most offended one.

But if something is clearly not valuable and could cause harm to the society, then it is fine to make it illegal.

Based on what I just said, you probably know where this is going. Let's make religions illegal! They cause harm to society (Islam is oppressing women, for example, and Christianity has historically had similar traits and still has) and as such are clearly not valuable.

No?

Re: What's not to dislike?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not sure if your comment was genius or mediocre.
The only thing I know is I got a headache by trying to understand it.

Re: What's not to dislike?

[tempmpi]

Based on what I just said, you probably know where this is going. Let's make religions illegal! They cause harm to society (Islam is oppressing women, for example, and Christianity has historically had similar traits and still has) and as such are clearly not valuable.

No?

No, because causing harm is not enough to show that something is clearly not valuable. All sorts of things are causing harm. Many people are dying every year in traffic accidents, still we are not banning cars. And many people are dying in hospitals because of malpractice, still we are not closing all hospitals. You cannot look at harm alone, but need to look at benefits as well. The benefits of hospitals and cars are quite clear.

You look will find completely different assessments of harms and benefits of religion. It is completely unclear, if religions add something valuable to the society or if they are cause harm. Especially because religions concern topics where the same thing is perceived as harm by some people and as a benefit by others, e.g.: some people will consider staying virgin until marriage to be beneficial, others will consider it harmful. So how would you tell if it is harmful or beneficial?

The constitution does not say anything about extramarital sex. If religions are causing more benefits than harms is a completely unclear question and differs a lot based on personal viewpoint. However the German constitution has a clear stance on human dignity. Stuff such as killing humans just because they are migrants is always unacceptable from the viewpoint of the constitution.

Re: What's not to dislike?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, because causing harm is not enough to show that something is clearly not valuable.

And on the contrary, something that you deem is "only causing harm" should always be made illegal? Or do you cherry pick the most unpleasant ones or whatever is on the agenda at a given time?

Stuff such as killing humans just because they are migrants is always unacceptable from the viewpoint of the constitution.

Wooosh! I think the gravity of this strange example is a clear indicator you're starting to realize the slippery slope you just entered.

It takes balls of steel to protect true freedom of speech and thought. There are so many ugly strings attached to it and the amount of horizontal censorship we have today is immense. But without freedom of speech and though we are absolutely nothing, we are a society where the Thought Police guides us through life.

Re: What's not to dislike?

[Anonymous Coward]

We're not talking about *saying* something forbidden, we're talking about *thinking* something forbidden. Libel is one thing, thoughtcrime is a whole other issue.

Re: What's not to dislike?

[Grishnakh]

some people will consider staying virgin until marriage to be beneficial, others will consider it harmful. So how would you tell if it is harmful or beneficial?

Some people find it beneficial to commit genocide. Their religion tells them they should commit genocide, so for them it's beneficial. Who are you to disagree?

Every harmful-vs-beneficial analysis is based on certain cultural assumptions. You can't pick and choose. Many people have a culture+religion which says genocide of certain groups is OK, so if you ban "hate speech" but don't ban the religion itself, you're being inconsistent. If you're going to make the religion legal, then you have to allow all the hate speech that is part-and-parcel of the religion.

Re: What's not to dislike?

[tempmpi]

Every harmful-vs-beneficial analysis is based on certain cultural assumptions.

Sure, but a small subset of these cultural assumptions is part of the German constitution. This small subset is big enough to allow the classification of certain kinds of hatespeech as very harmful and not beneficial.

Many people have a culture+religion which says genocide of certain groups is OK, so if you ban "hate speech" but don't ban the religion itself, you're being inconsistent.

If a religion cannot exist without extreme hate speech then it is banned. Just like a religion that mandates ritual killings of other humans is banned. However, almost all religions come in many different flavors. If only some flavors mandate illegal things you cannot ban the other flavors of the religions, that are within the bounds of the laws.

Re: What's not to dislike?

[tempmpi]

Wooosh! I think the gravity of this strange example is a clear indicator you're starting to realize the slippery slope you just entered.

This is a slippery slope, sure. But that slope is slippery just means you need to be very careful, not that you are guaranteed to slip if you step on the slope. Also notice that the US also ban some types of speech: libel, national security, copyright, trade secrets, obscenity.

Re: What's not to dislike?

[Anonymous Coward]

This has always bothered me. How can denying historical facts be *illegal*? That's an extreme form of thoughtcrime.

It isnt *any* form of "thoughtcrime"...unless of course your definition of "thoughtcrime" is completely incorrect.

Re: What's not to dislike?

[Grishnakh]

If a religion cannot exist without extreme hate speech then it is banned. Just like a religion that mandates ritual killings of other humans is banned. However, almost all religions come in many different flavors. If only some flavors mandate illegal things you cannot ban the other flavors of the religions, that are within the bounds of the laws.

Both Islam and Christianity (and Judaism too, since they share the Old Testament with the Christians) advocate genocide and violence in their holy books. Why aren't they banned?

Sounds to me like you're picking and choosing.

Re: What's not to dislike?

[Anonymous Coward]

What about denying climate change? Why isn't it illegal even though it's causing real damage and deaths?

(Hint: science corrects itself)

Re: What's not to dislike?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well it most certainly fits the description of a thoughtcrime:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thoughtcrime

Re: What's not to dislike?

[tempmpi]

Both Islam and Christianity (and Judaism too, since they share the Old Testament with the Christians) advocate genocide and violence in their holy books. Why aren't they banned?

No, they don't. They describe genocides and mass killings in their holy books but no mainstream flavor of Christianity, e.g.: Lutheran Protestants or Roman Catholics understands these parts as advocating another genocide. They are not saying something such as "Let's finish the job and kill the remaining Canaanites." You cannot just take these holy texts, use your own interpretation and then based on your own interpretation decide to ban them, even through the meaning of the text as understood by the adherents of a religion is completely different. Interpretation matters a lot for holy books. Mainstream versions of these religions interpret their holy books in a way that is not advocating genocides.

Re: What's not to dislike?

[Grishnakh]

Oh BS. There's a famous part of the Bible where Yahweh specifically tells the Israelites to go murder some other tribe. Evangelicals point to that verse all the time.

Re: What's not to dislike?

[Anonymous Coward]

Both Islam and Christianity (and Judaism too, since they share the Old Testament with the Christians) advocate genocide and violence in their holy books. Why aren't they banned?

No, they don't. They describe genocides and mass killings in their holy books but no mainstream flavor of Christianity, e.g.: Lutheran Protestants or Roman Catholics understands these parts as advocating another genocide. They are not saying something such as "Let's finish the job and kill the remaining Canaanites." You cannot just take these holy texts, use your own interpretation and then based on your own interpretation decide to ban them, even through the meaning of the text as understood by the adherents of a religion is completely different. Interpretation matters a lot for holy books. Mainstream versions of these religions interpret their holy books in a way that is not advocating genocides.

You are right: instead they wait for some new guy to show up, do a few magic tricks and then tell them GOD send him to tell them it's time for another genocide, for he saith so [theatre thunder, bush to the right burns up in flames].

Re: What's not to dislike?

[Anonymous Coward]

Saying something to someone causes no damage. Each individual makes their own choices and performs their own actions. Stop trying to find scapegoats and start accepting responsibility for yourself.

Re: What's not to dislike?

[Anonymous Coward]

Haha, you're so full of shit and don't even know it :-D

Re: What's not to dislike?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because the Jews lobbied for it, that's why. You'll notice that Germany's and Israel's laws on this only cover the holocaust the Nazis were involved in. Other holocausts (holodomor, Khmer Rouge, etc) are fair game to deny all you want.

So, the answer to your "who gets to define what is valuable and what is not", is: Those with political power.

Re: What's not to dislike?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's obvious you don't want to be informed, otherwise you would have googled this yourself instead of not-so-subtly accusing the parent poster of being a liar.

130 Incitement to hatred

(...)

(3) Whosoever publicly or in a meeting approves of, denies or downplays an act committed under the rule of National Socialism of the kind indicated in section 6 (1) of the Code of International Criminal Law, in a manner capable of disturbing the public peace shall be liable to imprisonment not exceeding five years or a fine.

Re: What's not to dislike?

[Anonymous Coward]

BOOOOOOM, OWNED!

Didn't make it into the news here...

[Anonymous Coward]

.. or did it happen some time ago. Might go on a stroll during lunch hours to make sure.

Freedom of Speech

[Anonymous Coward]

>politicians and celebrities voiced concern about the rise of anti-foreigner comments in German on Facebook
And why can't people voice their concerns over their governments giving away their tax money to middle class "refugees"?

Re:Freedom of Speech

[bentcd]

And why can't people voice their concerns over their governments giving away their tax money to middle class "refugees"?

This is Europe, and Europe doesn't have the sort of unrestricted free speech that the US does. All European "free speech" laws that I've seen (which is far from all of them, I will admit) are along the lines of "speech is free so long as it's not objectionable". And I'm guessing the speech in question has been found objectionable by the people who decide such things.

Now, it's not sufficiently bad here that govt can get away with saying something like "we object to you criticizing us go to jail", but, if it can be rephrased as "hate speech go to jail" or "supporting terrorists go to jail" (or in Germany, "go to jail you nazi") then you're screwed.

Re: Freedom of Speech

[Anonymous Coward]

Which is as it should be. People must learn to behave and to follow their Government. We can only make the great ideal of Europe work if everybody understands and accepts that what they need in life is not freedom. Freedom does not pay bills. Freedom does not make anyone happy. You can't eat freedom. You need purpose, and guidance, and only the higher institutions of the EU can provide that. One Europe, one thought, one voice!

Re:Freedom of Speech

[Anonymous Coward]

... the speech in question has been found objectionable by the people who decide such things.

Not emphasized enough.

Re: Freedom of Speech

[Anonymous Coward]

War is peace!
Diversity is strength!

Re:Freedom of Speech

[Anonymous Coward]

Parent is not insightful at all.
Voicing far-right, antisocial disconcern like "I think those are no refugees at all, we should not waste any Euro on those ticks." is perfectly legal.

Yet, if parent voices "concerns" like "Those refugees should be killed and burned in Ausschwitz" on facebook I'm perfectly fine with this being a criminal offence in my country.
Since Facebook-core is a US Company and suggesting murder does not involve showing titties or penises or biting a pop-tart in the form of a gun Facebook on the other hand seems to be perfectly fine with hosting an serving content like this while doing business in my country.

As a German taxpayer myself (of a sum that _feels_ enormous) I fscking expect my taxes to cover care for the needy. Especially since my country has been earning a lot of money by producing weapons and been spending billions on failed projects and saving bonuses for banksters.
I am however extremely annoyed how ineffectively helping the refugees is handled.

Re:Freedom of Speech

[DigiShaman]

When we speak, we don't invoke speech as "free/dom" unless the content is knowingly objectionable in the first place; because that's the entire point! For European nations to block objectionable speech and still call it "free/dom" is Newspeak.

Re:Freedom of Speech

[bentcd]

You must realize that the language used in the US Constitution is very exceptional in international terms. It affirms a non-restricted freedom of speech in a way that cannot be misunderstood: the only real way to subvert it is if you can get away with completely changing the meaning of the words used in it. This is a very strong barrier to tyranny. Don't make the mistake of assuming that there are any other nations in the world that enjoy this same level of protection.

The language used in European freedom of speech laws, as an example, comes with qualifications and exceptions built-in. Consequently the seed of tyranny is also built into these laws. They can never be understood to be any sort of guarantee of actual free speech but need to be seen as a (strong) statement of intent more than anything.

(This is one of the reasons I personally am completely indifferent to the whole EU project: they only serve more of the same tripe that is already in place. Had the EU proposed an actual strong freedoms-centric constitution it would have been different, but they didn't.)

Re:Freedom of Speech

[Anonymous Coward]

Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms would be stronger than the first amendment (And, indeed, for someone who has been arrested, affords them more freedom--for example, in Canada officers are required to tell you *why* they arrested you). However, there's this pesky section that allows provinces to opt out of it and silly judges that twisted it to mean it's ok to ignore if it's for the "good of the people" (That's why hate speech is illegal in Canada, tortured interpretation). Nobody thought the provincial exception would get used, but then Quebec turned crazy and decided that freedom of speech is less important than making sure street meat carts don't offer "Le Hot Dog" (I'm guessing it's called "Chien Chaud" but sweaty dogs don't make for appetizing advertising).

That same charter actually protects some bonus things the US constitution didn't forsee, such as freedom of conscience (This is why you don't have to participate in the census--seriously. And why Trudeau's laws on this will be struck down once again. It also prevents conscription.), freedom of peaceful assembly (No free speech cages here, and attempts to prevent free speech at the G20 summit have caused so many lawsuits I don't expect it will ever happen again), and freedom of association (No kicking someone out of the country for being a Mennonite, for example).

At least some other countries are trying! :D

Re:Freedom of Speech

[hackertourist]

middle class "refugees"

Knock if off with the scare quotes. The Syrians fleeing here may be middle class, they've also seen their country turn into a hellhole. Their being middle class was no defence against that. Wouldn't you flee in those circumstances?

Re:Freedom of Speech

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

That you think yourself wise enough to censor others *is* the problem.

Re:Freedom of Speech

[U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M]

Nobody thought the provincial exception would get used, but then Quebec turned crazy and decided that freedom of speech is less important than making sure street meat carts don't offer "Le Hot Dog" (I'm guessing it's called "Chien Chaud" but sweaty dogs don't make for appetizing advertising).

To be more precise, it's l'Office québécois de la langue française which turned crazy.

Re:Freedom of Speech

[GroeFaZ]

Unrestricted free speech in the US? SInce when? Seems worth checking out. Regressive govt's in Europe always get on my case when I tweet stuff like "going to shoot up work tomorrow", "going to teach these refugees a lesson - get your bomb dogs!", or something. The USA would never send a SWAT team to me for that. It's only speech, after all!

Re:Freedom of Speech

[Anonymous Coward]

As a German taxpayer myself (of a sum that _feels_ enormous) I fscking expect my taxes to cover care for the needy... I am however extremely annoyed how ineffectively helping the refugees is handled.

You do realize that the amount you paid took care of some of them. If you want to allow all the refuges into your country AND you want to treat them all like humans you should be prepared for a tax hike. Feeding, clothing, caring and educating 1 million refuges ain't cheap. But you guys did invite all of them.

Re:Freedom of Speech

[ceoyoyo]

The first amendment of the US constitution only mentions "freedom of speech." It's just as ambiguous as anything else about what freedom of speech actually means. Even in the US, freedom of speech is restricted, in ways that are very similar to elsewhere, including Germany. The US supreme court has spend a good deal of time picking and choosing what speech is protected and what isn't.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re: Freedom of Speech

[Anonymous Coward]

War is peace! Diversity is strength!

American GIs rape our women! Kill every GI you see! [LIKE]

Re:Freedom of Speech

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean all the combat-age males that are considered "refugees", which comprise 72% of the people running to Europe?

Not sure who to blame here... Europe brought this upon themselves by not lifting a finger when Assad was using chemical weapons, not to mention ignoring Daesh's threat to them until the enemy brought the war to the homefront.

Re:Freedom of Speech

[Anonymous Coward]

middle class "refugees"

Knock if off with the scare quotes. The Syrians fleeing here may be middle class, they've also seen their country turn into a hellhole. Their being middle class was no defence against that. Wouldn't you flee in those circumstances?

The American middle class flees as soon as somebody moves in next door who "lowers the property value" - IOW niggers, spics, kikes etc.

Re: Freedom of Speech

[Anonymous Coward]

They must be Republican GIs. They hate us so much. They rape everyone they see. They see.

Re:Freedom of Speech

[Anonymous Coward]

This, exactly. Questioning your government spending money on economic migrants posing as refugees is legitimate -- "NO HUNGARY GERMANY YES"? If you're fleeing from a warzone and still have the ability to choose chant in frustration over lack of your first pick of where you stop despite other nations knowingly and graciously choosing to ignore part of their laws to help you, then you're not a 'refugee' -- you're a migrant, and an arrogant one at that. And that's fair to point out.

Re:Freedom of Speech

[Anonymous Coward]

This, exactly. Questioning your government spending money on economic migrants posing as refugees is legitimate -- "NO HUNGARY GERMANY YES"? If you're fleeing from a warzone and still have the ability to choose

Why would they want to stay in one of the worst dictatorships of Europe, close to rival Assad's Syria? People are already fleeing Hungary, why should the poor Syrians be forced to remain there, cramped into concentration camps with the Gypsies? http://www.thestar.com/news/wo...

True Purpose?

[ohnocitizen]

Was this related to the investigation? A negative critique of social media and/or Facebook in general? Or a burning plea from users for a dislike feature?

Re:True Purpose?

[Anonymous Coward]

It was most likely revenge for Facebook changing the webpage layout.

Re: True Purpose?

[Anonymous Coward]

More likely a response to the recent promuslim stance

nearly identical story

[Anonymous Coward]

The whole point of Reuters is for others to copy and paste the stories.

Zuckerberg the coward HELPS nazis on Facebook.

[BeCre8iv]

He has a banhammer for anyone who wont produce their papers, yet blatant hate speech and proud nazi orgs like Britain Furst are welcome to spill their bile on FB.

The same Brit Nazis have been known to intimidate critics that they can identify and report the ones they cant. So Zuckerberg can do their work for them.

Europe needs strong antifascist movements, now more than ever.

Re:Zuckerberg the coward HELPS nazis on Facebook.

[Anonymous Coward]

Seen around the web:

'Hate' is the only term you have for my right to exist, to my nation and my future. You can't imagine anything else but hate.

Re:Zuckerberg the coward HELPS nazis on Facebook.

[BeCre8iv]

If you feel you cant 'exist' without persecuting or removing minorities from your community. Hate just about covers it.

Re:Zuckerberg the coward HELPS nazis on Facebook.

[Anonymous Coward]

Er, you have a right to exist, champ, and it's only "your" nation in the sense you fell out of a vagina in its jurisdiction - congratulations.

Re:Zuckerberg the coward HELPS nazis on Facebook.

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry friend, the concept of an anchor baby isn't universal, it does not apply to several European countries. Lie on your asylum application, use fake/forged ID papers? Anchor baby isn't going to save you, you're out.

Re:Zuckerberg the coward HELPS nazis on Facebook.

[DrXym]

Facebook has an extensive AUP. I don't see why they should have any problem whatsoever taking down any account which violates it. I assume they don't because the people who maintain the accounts are careful to avoid overtly violating it.

Re:Zuckerberg the coward HELPS nazis on Facebook.

[DrXym]

'Hate' is the only term you have for my right to exist, to my nation and my future. You can't imagine anything else but hate.

I bet that sentence resonates strongly with sad angry losers who've failed at life and need somebody to blame other than themselves. Ironically it's not far removed from the kind of dribble that jihadist groups also use to recruit new members.

Re:Zuckerberg the coward HELPS nazis on Facebook.

[Anonymous Coward]

FYI, Zuckerberg is a jewish last name, I am 99% sure he is jewish.

Re:Zuckerberg the coward HELPS nazis on Facebook.

[BeCre8iv]

Thats what makes it ironic.

Re:Zuckerberg the coward HELPS nazis on Facebook.

[moeinvt]

People have been forming societies on the basis of the geography in which their parents procreated for 1000s of years. Those geographies, despite being somewhat arbitrary, have also been associated with a particular cultural and "national" identity. The people within those boundaries have also typically taken up arms to defend themselves against others seeking to invade their territory.
Are you mocking the idea that someone who emerged from their mother's vagina in Italy identifies as "Italian" and might have the audacity to think that they have collective ownership of the nation called "Italy"?

Re:Zuckerberg the coward HELPS nazis on Facebook.

[ComputerGeek01]

He has, on several occasions, mentioned that he was raised Jewish. He seems to intentionally avoid divulging whether or not he still practices the religion though, or else I've just never seen evidence of it one way or the other.

What people don't seem to understand, or else they intentionally neglect, about him and Facebook is that he doesn't get paid per "Like" or per "Share"; he gets paid per hit just like any other advertiser. (This by the way is why he looks like an incompetent dill weed when it comes to cracking down on scams). Because "Save the whales" pays the same as "Neo-Nazis-R-Us" and just as well as "Check out this latest pyramid scam". If at the end of the day, 'Projected_Ad_Revenue' > 'Potential_Lawsuit' then the post stays. Or do you idiots honestly think it's just a coincidence that there is a certain level of favoritism toward the posts made in English?

Re:Zuckerberg the coward HELPS nazis on Facebook.

[Anonymous Coward]

Like in South Africa?

Just Ignore the Problem

[Anonymous Coward]

So what if Germans are complaining about minority ethnic groups? What could possibly go wrong?

If only there was a

[Anonymous Coward]

Like button for this

What is it with the Germans?

[Vinegar Joe]

They're always burning or smashing up something..........the next several years are going to be real entertaining.

Re:What is it with the Germans?

[h33t l4x0r]

So a little graffiti and it's world war III for you. Overreact much?

Re:What is it with the Germans?

[Anonymous Coward]

He's not overreacting as much as you can't read. Germans are volatile assholes. Just as Lennart Poettering loves to destroy Linux, the German people love destruction. It runs deep in their blood. The US really should have dropped a few a-bombs on Germany, totally nuked the population, then repopulate the area with immigrants from surrounding countries.

Re:What is it with the Germans?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's why Germany has invaded iraq and created ISIS. Drop a nuke !!!

Gotta say it

[Tablizer]

Defacebook

Re:Gotta say it

[Anonymous Coward]

That's just what they used to call it in the ghetto before they dropped the "the" from "The Face Book."

Re:Gotta say it

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

Defacebook

Facebookburning

Re:Gotta say it

[Anonymous Coward]

Personally I was expecting better execution of this defacement than a crappy scrawled message.

You know... there were 15+ people involved, and they couldn't even manage a pixelated 'thumbs down' stencil?

Re:Gotta say it

[Shalhav]

Defacebook

Facebookburning

FacePalmBook

Anonymous

[Anonymous Coward]

CLICKBAIT........ Fucking useless news.... \. is seriously pissing me off with shitty posts like these....

i can't believe

[Anonymous Coward]

These f###s trusted a doorlock to protect their precious data

Which party to scorn here?

[fnj]

Farcebook for being a shit in general, racist people, or a country with a bug up its oh-so-righteous ass about expressing negative opinions/outlooks? All of the above? Everybody in the world?

So hard to decide.

Re:Which party to scorn here?

[Anonymous Coward]

Where are the racists? Being against the cultural suicide of one's country, being critical of the flood of economic migrants and the democratic leaders who're fine with letting them in unchecked, being against sharia-ruled enclaves enforced by gangs of muslim fundamentalists aren't racist, no matter how much you'll try to will it into existance.

Re:Which party to scorn here?

[jandersen]

Farcebook for being a shit in general, racist people, or a country with a bug up its oh-so-righteous ass about expressing negative opinions/outlooks? All of the above? Everybody in the world?

Expressing negative opinions is all part of what makes democracy work - but there is a big difference between expressing opinions and being destructive. Vandalism, apart from harming somebody's property, is also a way to intimidate people, and intimidation has no place in any debate. At least not any debate that wants to achieve a fair and balanced compromise.

That said, graffiti isn't always bad; and it's hardly ever dangerous. Personally, I like graffiti, at least when it is well made; there are some very clever people out there, who express themselves that way.

The Leftists' hate

[Anonymous Coward]

an angry bunch.

They'll be given medals right?

[Anonymous Coward]

Anything that nudges people towards getting their noses out of facebook is laudable, not a crime.

Re:They'll be given medals right?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah Mr Dzershinsky, we know. Your ilk only kills for "a better world".

German efficiency

[Anonymous Coward]

20 people just to spray an exterior wall and break some glass, what happened to blitzkrieg?
They should have destroyed everything.

Re: German efficiency

[Anonymous Coward]

This. Germans today so disappoint me. There was a time where they would have killed everyone inside and then horribly desecrated their corpses. Whatever happened to the Master Race?

Re: German efficiency

[Anonymous Coward]

Boy, you really should stop viewing stupid Hollywood movies and those mainstream propaganda channels.

Is slashdot a tech site, or a media site?

[Anonymous Coward]

Much like the question for Yahoo. Why are we talking about nontech issues, for a tech company? Especially when the motive is very nontech.

I want to hear about ROBOT uprisings, not HUMAN uprisings on slashdot.

Vandals don't exist anymore

[Anonymous Coward]

Vandals? Really? At least it wasn't the goths.

News for nerds, eh?

[WD]

"News for Nerds. Stuff that Matters."

Re:News for nerds, eh?

[Anonymous Coward]

I always liked--"New for Nerds. Stuff that Matters. To people who don't."

Re:News for nerds, eh?

[Anonymous Coward]

you musnt be a Nerd, better hand in your card noob

What does "racist hate speech" mean?

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, you mean white people simply wanting to live around their own kind.

Which for some strange reason is no longer allowed?

Why?

Why aren't you calling for Africans to be prevented from simply living around their own kind? Or Indians? Or Chinese?
It's because they have nothing that any other race wants to TAKE from them, that's why.

"The denial of free speech is the first act of tyranny."

Why are the Left so terrified of open debate?

Vandals?

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought the Vandals left Germania in the 5th century.

Facebook should not remove hate speech.

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

There is hate. And there is hate speech. Banning it only drives it underground. Better to allow such haters to speak freely and openly so that we get an idea of how many such people there are. And we can develop ways to talk to them and try to convince the errors in their way. But we will not be able remove all hate and all haters. Some low level of hate has to be tolerated.

Having said that, I wish Facebook would stand for free speech in all spheres. Not just racist speech. If some misguided group decides to offend some religion by depicting their deities in bad light, or even merely depicting their deity itself is considered offensive, Facebook should defend that too, to be consistent.

Re:Facebook should not remove hate speech.

[mlts]

The Streisand Effect shows what happens when speech is banned. What happens is that it may now show up on the primary media outlets... but it doesn't take much to make a website, and if pressed, it isn't too difficult to create a .onion based website, locate the site offshore.

What happens then, once the extreme speech can't be debunked by relatively sane people, it only will get worse, well past the talk radio stage.

Instead of bans, I've wondered about a flagging system, where obvious hate speech, instead of being automatically banned, would be hidden, replaced with a placeholder, similar to how various websites hide troll posts, but allow them to be clicked on if the user does want to read them. However, who is the judge of what is marked and what isn't?

Maybe it might be good to lead into a reputation system, where if you respect a friend's opinion, how they mark a topic is how the system will show/flag things you may agree or disagree with, while someone you don't know may flag a lot of stuff as bad, but because you don't care about their opinion, it doesn't affect your results.

Of course, there is a hard threshold somewhere. A bong threat isn't free speech, but where does one draw the line between something that the system flags as "get the LEOs in on this NOW" versus someone just trash talking?

Clearly an act of terrorism!

[Anonymous Coward]

This is clearly an act of terrorism, which is a crime motivated by the desire to cause political change.

Charge them with terrorism and throw them in Gitmo indefinitely without representation or a trial!

Sincerely,

George W. Bush

Only Tepublicans...

[Anonymous Coward]

are stupid enough to believe in free speech.

Re: Only Tepublicans...

[Anonymous Coward]

You must protect those without a voice.

Re: Only Tepublicans...

[Anonymous Coward]

And Republicans don't care about the powerless.

Re: Only Tepublicans...

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly. We must limit what those white powerful people can say or the Nazis will rage over again.

Re: Only Tepublicans...

[Anonymous Coward]

Without limits you end up with people like Trump.

Re: Only Tepublicans...

[Anonymous Coward]

They don't want reasonable limits because they are not reasonable people.

Hamburg?

[B33rNinj4]

So, they were hamburglars?