Slashdot Mirror
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.)
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.
>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"?
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?
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.)
The whole point of Reuters is for others to copy and paste the stories.
Defacebook
Table-ized A.I.
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.
Jan
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.
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.
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?
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.
an angry bunch.
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.
'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.
So a little graffiti and it's world war III for you. Overreact much?
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.
> 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?
"News for Nerds. Stuff that Matters."
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.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
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.
Jan
I think Facebook posts would totally work for that.
Thats what makes it ironic.
This perpetual motion machine Lisa made is a joke, it just keeps getting faster and faster. - Homer
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"?
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?
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.
So, they were hamburglars?
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.
Jan
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.
Jan
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.
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.
Jan
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.