Slashdot Mirror


Mark Zuckerberg Confronts 'Hate Speech' In Germany And At Facebook (csmonitor.com)

Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg announced on Friday in Berlin that he recognized that Facebook needs to crack down more on "hate speech" against migrants. In September, Facebook announced that it would work with the German Justice Ministry to crack down on anti-migrant posts. Under German law, social media users who incite hatred or violence against an ethnic or religious group can be punished by up to three years in jail. "If people, using their own name, incite hatred against other people, not only the government has to act, but also Facebook should do something against those statements," German Chancellor Angela Merkel told the Rheinische Post. Facebook has been in discussions about privacy and hate speech with Germany for months. Last summer, it announced that it would conform to Germany's strict hate speech laws and attempt to take down racist posts within a day.

22 of 347 comments (clear)

  1. Slippery Slope by PeteJanda · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Dear Mark Z. - Please define "hate speech" and how you and / or Angela M.'s legions of government bureaucrats plan on not trampling all over legitimate free speech (e.g., "I disagree with Germany's immigration policy because it takes an unrealistic stance on available resources, and I want the immigrants to go home,").

    1. Re:Slippery Slope by Dutchmaan · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I would say cut your statement in half... you don't NEED to say "I want the immigrants to go home."

      If your issue is with resources, address the possible causes and solutions. You've already come to a conclusion (which is wanting immigrants to leave), and you just want a validated excuse to have achieve that end.

      See what you're doing?

      Some people are more subtle about their distaste for different races and cultures, some are more overt (sometimes it spills over into actual hate speech).. you're already ON the slippery slope, and you're sliding in the wrong direction.

    2. Re:Slippery Slope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      How about this for "hate" speech: "I want to live in an all white country."

      It's presumably okay for NON-whites to say this, since the very fact that millions of them move to white countries every YEAR, uninvited by the people of those countries, proves they would rather live among white people than stay in their own countries.

      How in the name of all that's decent have we reached the stage, in just fifty years of Jewish control of the media, where a white person who says "I want to live in an all white country" is regarded by even SOME white people, as being in the wrong?

      Zuckerberg is a JEW, need I say more? The very term "hate speech" is a JEWISH invention, which ONLY came into 'popular' parlance because the JEWISH media has repeated this phrase tens of thousands of times, to their 'cattle' (goyim).

    3. Re:Slippery Slope by myowntrueself · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Dear Mark Z. - Please define "hate speech" and how you and / or Angela M.'s legions of government bureaucrats plan on not trampling all over legitimate free speech (e.g., "I disagree with Germany's immigration policy because it takes an unrealistic stance on available resources, and I want the immigrants to go home,").

      These days the word 'hate' is being used in a massively exaggerated way, as is 'phobia'.

      'hate' and 'phobia' are used to describe everything from disapproval through dislike and actual hate.

      Eg 'homophobe' is used to describe people who, rather than fearing homosexuals, disapprove of it on moral grounds. These people do not fear homosexuals.

      People who disapprove of mass immigration are described as 'race-haters'. These people do not hate people of other races.

      This dilutes the value of the words 'hate' and 'phobia' so much that the abuse of these terms will have the reverse effect that their users would want.

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    4. Re:Slippery Slope by starless · · Score: 4, Insightful

      These days the word 'hate' is being used in a massively exaggerated way, as is 'phobia'.

      'hate' and 'phobia' are used to describe everything from disapproval through dislike and actual hate.

      Eg 'homophobe' is used to describe people who, rather than fearing homosexuals, disapprove of it on moral grounds. These people do not fear homosexuals.

      And calling molecules "hydrophobic" is similarly wrong.
      They don't hate water, there is simply "an absence of attraction".
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      So why do those politically correct SJW chemists have to bring hate into it?

    5. Re:Slippery Slope by Dutchmaan · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "The problem is that these men want welfare(like they had in Syria)"

      Really..I'll bet you ANYTHING you don't even know how the Syrian government worked. You're just slapping a "wanting welfare" label onto an ethnic group you dislike so that you can validate your desire for ethnic cleansing.

      "The problem with Muslims in Europe is that they think the world revolves around them and that they should be treated as kings"

      As opposed to say, YOU... who sit in your ivory tower turning away people who genuinely need the help because you're scared that what they are trying to escape from will land at YOUR door. You want THEM to go back and fight a shitty war so that YOU can feel safe in your chair at home. You should be ashamed of yourself.

    6. Re:Slippery Slope by reboot246 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Meanwhile it's okay with Zuckerberg and Merkel (and others of their ilk) that the immigrants can hate Europeans as much as they want. Both of them are too damned stupid to see what is actually happening. Either that or they're evil. I can believe either case.

    7. Re:Slippery Slope by PeteJanda · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Dutch - A few things you should consider processing through that sanctimonious noggin of yours: 1. The quoted text is meant to be an example of content that could be caught up in Facebook's filter, despite its being fair / appropriate discourse on the subject. 2. Replace "Middle Eastern immigrants" with "polka-dotted spaghetti monster immigrants", and the core issue would still be the same: too few resources in terms of housing, law enforcement and social resources are creating a nightmare for the indigenous population. If you want to fund and house millions of people, be my guest. But don't expect everyone to share your brave altruism, and pretty-please-with-sugar-on-top don't try to force your altruism on everyone. 3. People are waking up to being silenced by accusations of racism, phobia, etc.and, candidly, are ceasing to care. You and your ilk have been carpet bombing the world with such (typically mindless) ad hominem attacks, and the efficacy of the attacks has waned. Go shovel that sht elsewhere.

    8. Re:Slippery Slope by ruir · · Score: 2, Insightful

      While ironic or not, I also share his sentiments; and to further add to the question: the problem of that people is not the magical/cursed land where they live, but their culture. They cannot fled from themselves. Opening the floodgates here just means Europe will become another middle east. The system they pretend to mooch on is also supposed to work because people basically lend/pooled money to it in order to support themselves in illness and old age, and has simply not the resources to be (ab)used and leaking money in large scale to people who never invested a cent on it. Lets be realistic, it is called social support, not "free money from baby Jesus".

    9. Re:Slippery Slope by Barsteward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      if you are critical of a whole sector of a society because just they are born "jews" or "muslims" or "black" etc then you are not being critical, you are either being xenophobic or racist but definitely a bigot - you cannot tarnish a whole race based on the actions of a few. You can be critical of individuals or a sect like ISIS or groups like the KKK but not all muslims or all white people.

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
    10. Re: Slippery Slope by MoarSauce123 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I spent decades living in Germany and met many of integrated Muslims, several of those who even celebrate Christmas just so that they fit in although they still have their other religious believes. So what if they are called Mohammed or Mesut or Cenk or Mustafa or whatever else name their parents gave them. It is just a name. And "large portions of female children are in the "system" " is flatout wrong. Or do you have any convincing data to support that claim? The rest of your comment is just prejudice and hate speech, not worth commenting on.

    11. Re:Slippery Slope by david_thornley · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Islam is a religion that promotes peace. Like all religions some of its practitioners do not live up to the religious ideals, and Islam is having a real problem with that. (So does Christianity, for that matter, but in different ways.)

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  2. And who decides what hate speech is? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Apparently, "I don't want criminals running around assulting women" is hate speech. Screw you Cuckerberg.

    1. Re:And who decides what hate speech is? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Meanwhile, in Islamic countries, if you're an atheist, you're lucky you don't get stoned.

      But in Europe, we're inviting millions of Islamics, and counter to a thousand years of History and common sense, we expect 3rd world people to become 1st worlders overnight and have our values.... and our birthrate is low low low (around 1.1 or less, historical replacement rate was 4 babies) and theirs is high.

      Only "hate speechers" see the writing on the wall. Everyone is living a fantasy expecting these peopel to actually firm the foundation for the pyramid scheme that is our social security system....

    2. Re:And who decides what hate speech is? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Some of the women that have been raped have apologized, so they obviously disagree with you. They recognize that the rape was the fault of society and not the victims that committed it.

      9 out of 10 Women Raped by Muslims eventually understand that it was in fact their own fault that they were Raped because they were white and not wearing burkas.

      They also learn to be grateful that they were only raped and not stoned as they should have been.

      The remaining 1 out of 10 women are the ungrateful 9 year old wives of the rapists, who having only recently been sold into slavery by their Muslim parents aren't yet fully hip to the rules and their righteousness.

    3. Re:And who decides what hate speech is? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Yup, you are a 'hate speecher' if you call it writing on the wall, because your premise is based on the fact that Muslims are inferior to white people. Why else would you be so worried about them *gasp* having children and getting jobs in the west.

      Muslims ARE inferior to RATIONAL people of any ethnicity, as are people of any religion. Do you dispute that?

    4. Re:And who decides what hate speech is? by basecastula+ · · Score: 2, Insightful

      But in WESTERN Europe, we're inviting millions of Islamics, and counter to a thousand years of History and common sense, we expect 3rd world people to become 1st worlders overnight and have our values.... and our birthrate is low low low (around 1.1 or less, historical replacement rate was 4 babies) and theirs is high.

      FTFY. I'm Hungarian you insensitive clod! At least my current government isn't merrily going along with the NWO drum beat.

      Wow. The crazies really have come out on this story. I would love a little breakdown of all the anonymous cowards who post on stories compared to the signed in, usually rational folk.

  3. Zuck - Another Hypocritcal Genocidalist by BECoole · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Even the UN recognizes that what Zuckerberg is trying to sell is the genocide of Europe (Article 2 of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide).

    He's just another condescending Pharisee screwing the people while trying to look morally superior.

  4. We know what this really means by PapayaSF · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If you say: "Kill gays," it's hate speech, granted. But if you say: "It's a bad idea to let millions of Muslims into Europe, because their holy book instructs them to kill gays," somehow that is "hate speech" against Muslims. Even more idiotically, it's considered "racism" even though Islam is a religion and not a race.

    The crackdown on "incorrect" thoughts is reaching absurdities. Criticize feminism on Twitter, and you'll get banned. They'll even suppress the protest hashtag #FreeStacy by disabling autocomplete for it. But somehow the hashtag #KillAllWhiteMen is nothing for the "Trust and Safety Council" to be concerned about.

    A 15-year-old student in the UK visited the UKIP website in class. His teachers then reported him to the police, who interrogated him for hours.

    If that isn't enough to frighten you, here's some research about how easily Google could game elections by skewing search results in favor of one candidate or another, and how Facebook could do the same with targeted ads and by deciding what shows up on your wall. And the leadership of both companies are Hillary fans. That doesn't mean that they'll do it, but they have the motive, means, and opportunity to do so. And how would we know if they had?

    --
    Q: What does the "B." in Benoit B. Mandelbrot stand for? A: Benoit B. Mandelbrot
    1. Re:We know what this really means by PapayaSF · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Thank $diety, the younger generation of Americans brought up in a Muslim have a more balanced view of their religion.

      One hopes, but the opposite seems to have happened in France, for example. The Muslims who immigrated in the '50s and '60s caused few problems, AFAIK. It's their grandkids who are burning cars and supporting ISIS. Assimilation there is not working as it's supposed to.

      --
      Q: What does the "B." in Benoit B. Mandelbrot stand for? A: Benoit B. Mandelbrot
  5. Resources by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    If your issue is with resources, address the possible causes and solutions.

    Resource: Unraped women.

    Cause for diminishment: Too many immigrants be a-rapin'

    Solution: Reduce the influx of immigrants from cultures that encourage rape until you can discern how to reduce the Rate of Rapin' (ROR).

  6. Re:Why do you have to be a Neo-Nazi sympathizer... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It didn't take centuries to call Christians to arms. The Christians have been constantly fighting Muslim invaders, but they were on the losing side for many centuries. Spain was completely Muslim, France was on its way to become Muslim too if it weren't for a lucky victory of Charles Martel. Italy was invaded, Rome was sacked. The Southern tip of Italy and Sicilia was Muslim territory for a few centuries. Italy was only made Muslim free in the 11th century, and only after the Muslims were kicked out of Italy, the crusades to the east started.

    The Pope would really never call for a crusade to Levant when Rome was sacked. He would also not call for a crusade to Levant when North Western Europe is still fighting off their own Muslim invasions. He would also not call for a crusade to Levant when an important part of Italy is still a caliphate.

    By thy way, the Muslims never stopped attacking European countries. They have been invading until the 18th/19th century. Even the US of A was attacked by Muslim pirates. It was just the collapse of the once mighty empire of the Ottomans that ended Islamic aspirations on European land. But slowly they are rebuilding their ideology. IS is just a symptom of a larger sentiment that Islam should rule the world.

    What bothers me a lot is that the current political correct think that moderate Islam is the biggest enemy for radical Islam. But for 1400 years the vast majority of Muslims have been moderate. Yet radical Islam has been fighting, invading, killing, terrorizing people for 1400 years. If moderate Islam was really the weapon against radicalization, than their wouldn't have been radical Islam anymore.
     
    Radical Christianity was countered by radical anti Christianity. The use of free speech to criticize the Christianity made way for the current left political elite. But this left political elite is now restricting free speech to protect radical Islam. They keep on calling everyone who doesn't agree with importing lots of people racist and xenophobe, until those who do not agree just accept that they are racist and side with the real racist, fascist right wing parties. Extreme political correctness leads to reactionary extremism. Free speech also includes the right to feel insulted, but not the right to physically hurt someone who insulted you. Because Muslims don't respect this type of Free speech, many artists are self censoring. Those who dare to criticize Islam through some form of art will have problems with radical Muslims (just look at the many examples in the last decades).