this post was submitted on 10 Jan 2025
611 points (95.3% liked)
Technology
60359 readers
5431 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Nobody has a problem censoring hateful and harmful content, so long as they're the ones that get to decide what that means.
Nobody has a problem with getting a malignant tumor removed, so long as they're the ones who decide whether they believe the diagnosis or not.
I have a problem with idea of gov sayimg what goes. Whatever gov. If it's your site - whatever goes, goes. You set the rules. Sheesh.
But I admit I am nos so sure when it comes to giants like FB or X. If they were like that from the get go, sure, but sudden switch is iffy as hell.
"iffy" isn't the same as "illegal." They can change their policies whenever they want, provided that doesn't violate any contracts, express or implied, with their customers. If they do violate a contract, they need to make fair restitution as per whatever the enforceable terms of the agreement are.
Contracts are only meaningful between parties with more or less equal power. When the power asymmetry is extreme, contracts are just a form of coercion. Consider the case of binding arbitration clauses.
I 100% agree, and there's a very good chance those binding arbitration agreements will be thrown out by a court. In law, there's a concept of equal compensation, and if a contract heavily favors one party over another, it is treated as null and void.
For example, at my last job, I pissed off my boss for standing up for myself, but my boss knew I was indespensible, so he transitioned me to a full remote contractor from a salary position. My job was the same, and I was expected to join regular team meetings, but I no longer had my benefits. Anyway, when COVID happened, they "eliminated my position" (probably cost cutting), so I applied for unemployment. It's not available for contract employees, but they said it would be if I was a de-facto employee (I think that's the right term). They investigated, my employer fought it, and they determined that I was, in fact, a de-facto employee because of how I and they saw the agreement. In other words, our contract was voided because it was one-sided and only benefitted the company, and they were forced to backpay my unemployment.
That said, many people don't realize that and are "chilled" (pretty sure that's the legal term) from taking action about it.
I believe we should change contract law to actively push back on this. Contracts should be as simple as possible, understandable by someone with an 8th grade education, and only include terms necessary to provide the service. I shouldn't have to scroll through 30 pages of technical jargon to find out if my rights are being violated, that's unreasonable and should invalidate the entire contract.
Misinformation and violent rhetoric about minorities is hate. It has no place in society and allowing it achieves nothing expect the proliferation of bigotry.
Sure, but should it be illegal? Unless it's causing direct harm, I think the answer is no, regardless of how disgusting and hurtful it is.
For example, I can stand on the corner with a sign saying something disgusting like, "all Jews must die" or "all GOP members must die," and as long as it's not seen as an actual, credible threat, it's not and shouldn't be illegal. Should we, as a society, tolerate it? No, I fully expect people to confront me about it, I expect to lose friends, and I also expect businesses to choose to not serve me due to my speech. However, I also don't think there should be any legal opposition.
The same is true for platforms, they should absolutely be allowed to tolerate or moderate speech however they choose. That's their right as the platform owner, and it's a violation of free speech to restrict that right. However, people also have the right to leave platforms they disagree with, other entities have the right to not boost that content, etc. That's how free speech works, you have the freedom to say whatever you want, and others have the right to ignore you and not let you onto their platforms.
Okay, but are Jewish people supposed to just accept that you're walking around calling for the mass murder of their communities?
Weimar Germany was a society that was governed on this principle of a "marketplace of ideas" where "unacceptable evil beliefs will naturally be rejected", so is the modern united states. You can see two pretty clear examples of how this does not work and just allows fascists to promote their view points.
Say in you're example you're not just some guy on the street corner. Say you're a media executive. Say you're a politician. Say you're a billionaire. Is it still permissible? Say you make a new political party called the "kill all the jews" party, and you make friends with all the major media executives to promote your views non-stop all day every day on the air. Is it still permissible? Say you buy out social media websites, and make it against the TOS for those websites to say anything denouncing of the "kill all the jews" party. Then you flood those websites with indoctrination material and fabricated news stories. Is it still permissible?
Hate speech can and should be faced with legal prosecution. You should face legal repercussions for calling for all Jewish people to be murdered. Freedom of speech should not protect violent bigotry. The goal of government should be to provide the greatest quality of life for all. That is incompatible with allowing people to spread violent hate speech and indotrinate others into violent bigotry. This mistake has been made time and again. Fascists are the ones who fight the absolute hardest for "freedom to say nazi shit". Because of course they want it to be legal for them to do that, they're nazis. Protecting them from legal consequences for being Nazis literally only benefits Nazis.
And it's not just calling for mass murder, but providing the framework to organize it. There's a point where a threat becomes specific and actionable, and at that point, it's not protected speech any more, it's incitement. the problem is that the courts have so far failed to recognize that the technique of stochastic terrorism is actionable, just as a more traditional threat is.
Yep, it's going to be cold comfort for the absolutists when they're being mass-murdered. This is not genteel debate we're talking about, it's crimes against humanity, and I'm quite willing to sacrifice a few absolutist principles to prevent even more of such crimes being committed.
I’m looking forward to whenever someone decides that your beliefs are “hate speech” and suddenly you’ll be the one supporting free speech.
Fascism isn't the only form of authoritarianism, and authoritarianism in general wants to control speech. If you can frame your opponents' speech as "hate speech," you can use the law to silence them, even if their speech has no chance of actually causing any harm. If becomes a political tool to maintain power.
The examples I gave are fairly extreme and most would consider them hate speech, but as soon as we allow silencing people over hate speech, we open the door to abuse for political purposes. The charges don't even need to stick, you just need to tie someone up in the courts so they can't properly campaign.
Look at less free countries like Venezuela or Russia, they go after speech first (e.g. journalists). That alone should give you serious pause when you hear any attempt to regulate speech.
We don't have to, there's no rule saying either we have Nazis or no one can say anything. I don't agree that "saying nazi stuff" is nebulous enough that it could be construed to mean "saying not nazi stuff".
I also don't feel you adequately responded to my pointing out that protecting the rights of Nazis to be Nazis only benefits Nazis at the expense of literally everyone else and allowing Nazis to make political parties and manipulate society.
Your society has fundamentally failed to protect the rights of its citizens if Nazis can exist within it. They should face legal action for their views.
Allowing Nazis to say Nazi stuff doesn't in any way limit your ability to say anti-Nazi stuff. Banning Nazi stuff enables law enforcement and courts to determine how broadly to interpret that. If Nazi simps (or actual Nazis) get into power, maybe they'll decide your speech counts as "Nazi stuff."
I strongly disagree. They should face social ostracization and be rejected by the public because their views carry no weight.
If Nazis exist in your society but only at the fringes because people have rejected their ideas, you've won. If the only way you can defeat dangerous ideas is by getting the "right people" in power to create laws, you're on very dangerous ground.
Yeah, it's quite the marketplace of ideas when some asshole is out in the street hitting you in the head with a lead pipe.
And excluding from power those who should never hold it seems an an entirely reasonable feature of a legitimate polity.
That's obviously assault and should be prosecuted regardless of the content of the victim's speech (i.e. even if he deserved it). I'd probably offer to help the aggressor post bond though if the victim was spouting Nazi nonsense.
Exactly, and that's why voting is so important, as well as party norms. Parties are our first line of defense, primary elections are the second, and general elections are the third. If a wacko gets in power, we also have impeachment and other similar checks.
If all of those break down, I guess we need to resort to revolution if the person in power is dangerous enough, because the system obviously can't be rescued.
Nazis will limit my speech if they get into power one way or the other, what are you talking about lol. If they get into power they will literally kill me, that's their stated goal.
Okay, well, in FreeSpeechAbsolutismLand the nazis will now run around convincing everyone that being a Nazi is totally cool and you should do it too, fast forward and congratulations Hitler just got elected because the Nazis bought out the major media organizations and indoctrinated everyone into Nazism. Now, let's review. Is there anywhere along the way that the government could have done something to prevent Nazis from taking over the country?
Like, come on, this is so ridiculous. You've been so convinced by conservatism that restricting the right to say literally anything immediately turns your country into Soviet Russia that you're here protecting Nazis. It's just foolish. You're acting like it's absolutely impossible to have any laws at all because inevitably they will be misinterpreted to their extreme. It's like "should murder be illegal because what if people in power decide fetuses count as people and are therefore murder-able" like no we can actually restrict specific things. I don't see many people advocating the legalization of murder so as to prevent abortion rights from being restricted by advocates of fetal personhood.
Yes:
Adding more laws that we're not going to enforce fairly isn't going to help, and will probably make it worse.
I'm sorry, when did I ever give the impression that I'm a conservative? I'm about as liberal as they come, in the apparently old fashioned definition of the term that prioritizes individual rights.
For president, I have voted Republican once (McCain), Libertarian once (Gary Johnson; I hated Clinton and Trump near equally), and Democrat once (Biden). I abstained in 2012 because I had recently moved and didn't feel comfortable enough with local politics to vote (and I didn't know if I'd stay), and the Presidential candidate was a near guarantee in my new state (Mitt Romney in Utah, no way he loses there).
I'm a left leaning libertarian, and depending on who you ask, I'm simultaneously a dirty commie, a fascist, or an anarchist, none of which remotely describe me. I am in favor of liberalizing all parts of society and helping the poor. I believe firmly that the ends do not justify the means, and will spend a lot of effort looking for solutions to problems that don't violate my principles.
Hitler was elected my guy. There's no evidence that his electoral victory in 1933 was in any way tampered with. He was democratically elected. He ran on a campaign of ending democracy. Same deal as Trump pretty well. He also served prison time. He was punished by the law. That didn't stop the people for voting for him to end democracy. He campaigned on genocidal authoritarian fascism. He bought media companies and proliferated fascist ideology over radio and newspaper. He had movies made to promote fascism. But he broke no laws doing any of that. He was elected.
You are essentially saying that the government of Weimar Germany did nothing wrong. They prosecuted him legally for crimes he committed during an insurrection attempt. Then when he was free he ran about talking about how great fascism is and how awful the jews are and how great it'd be if he got elected cause he'd take all the jews out of the government and the schools and the media. All of those were actual campaign points of his. People readily voted for it. They practically worshiped him before he was even elected.
Nazis don't deserve fairness. Nazis should be met with a fist. They advocate the destruction of liberty and crimes against humanity. They indoctrinate others into genocidal bigotry. Tolerating their presence at all is unacceptable, and they should be forcefully removed from society by legal frameworks.
I also never said you were a conservative but that you were convinced by conservatism. Liberalism is also not a left-wing ideology. Individual rights is mostly a buzzword for unfettered and unrestricted capitalism. Elon Musk loves talking about individual rights and freedom of speech from his billionaire fascist pulpit where he silences anyone arguing against him lol.
Ironically this conversation always comes up in conversation about how "we really need to let Nazis speak you guys. No don't silence them it'll hurt democracy's feelings :( yes they're convincing everyone to kill the minorities but no no no we need to let them talk, yes i know they recruit regardless of whether we tell anyone their fascists because their entire ideology is based on non-falsifiable conspiracies about minorities secretly controlling the world but no it's okee we just need to let them talk and everyone will reject them im sure" aaaaaaaaaaand fascists have taken over your country. The same way they did in the 30s. And the 20s. The same way they have time and again over and over and over, proving without any shadow of a doubt that history will endlessly repeat itself specifically because everyone seems hellbent on refusing to learn from it.
Yeah you're a liberal. You're not a leftist or a progressive. I'm an anarchist, ironically as you listed that there lol Nazis can get bent, and the government should've had them all sentenced to life in prison without outside contact. If, you know, the government actually cared at all about preventing a fascist uprising. Kinda too late now, there's probably a good 10 million totally indoctrinated american fascists, at least.
He absolutely was, and no hate speech law would've stopped that because his speech was popular at the time. Don't forget that.
Not the same at all.
They do, under the law.
This is also true. And you have my blessing to punch the next Nazi you see.
That really depends on your definition of left vs right.
The original definition was based on the seating arrangements in the French National Assembly, with those on the left espousing liberalism (revolution, democracy, and secularisation, all liberal concepts) and those on the right preferring the monarchy.
I personally prefer the two axis "political compass" with economic policy on the left (socialism) vs right (laissez faire capitalism), and government authority on the top (authoritarian) vs bottom (libertarian). US politics is in the top right quadrant, I'd place classical liberalism in the bottom center-right, and I believe I straddle the left/right line in the bottom third.
And he wouldn't know what those are even if they hit him in the face. All he seems to care about is the same thing as Trump does: seeing his name everywhere. He sort of hitched his wagon to the left when it was convenient getting Tesla visibility, and now he's hitching to the right now that he'd like to keep out Chinese competition and get his Tesla compensation package approved.
He doesn't care about individual rights, he only cares about himself. At least that's the Musk I see.
We need to let everyone speak, but we don't need to give them a platform. I like this quote:
Let them out themselves, and move on with your day.
Exactly. Thanks for recognizing the difference.
I don't see how this can possibly follow. An anarchist wouldn't support the institution of prison, at least not one run by a central authority. Anarchists reject the idea of a monopoly on force.
I doubt it, but even if true, that's <3% of the total population. It looks like >7% of the population identify as LGBT, so why fear a group that's half the size?
Well because 10 million people is more than enough to commit crimes against humanity on a frankly ungodly scale. You can commit genocide with those numbers.
I'm an anarchist, so ideally I'd advocate no government whatsoever in which case we could... shall we say do away with the nazis the way God intended. But we don't, do we. We live in a society with prisons that currently house millions of people who shouldn't be there. Nazis should be there, or dead. Either is fine but the least we could do is lock them up and prevent them from interacting with other humans.
Barrack Obama did nothing to prevent fascism. He was an American imperialist who was directly involved in the mass murder of innocent people in the middle east. I also just honestly love that you defended my strawman version of your arguments, genuinely incredible.
Saying that you're not a progressive is as good as saying you don't really care if Nazis take over again. You're not invested in it enough to actually try and change anything.
You also ignored 90% of what I had to say about Hitler. I guess because you have no legitimate response to that? Do you believe that Hitler just came along to find a Germany that was already genocidally bigoted towards queer people and jews? If so you were given a seriously poor education. Germany was arguably the most liberal country in the world leading up to his rise to power. Your failure to understand that Trump played into the exact same political strategies that Hitler did belies your poor understanding of how Hitler came to be democratically elected. The world was not that dramatically different from today. People relied on mass media in much the same ways they do today, just at the time that was print and air waves. Radio stories and misinformation can be broadcast on the same day they happen though, much like social media stories can today. The media is and has always been inherently intertwined with fascism. It's how you can indoctrinate someone into genocidal bigotry. Tell them everyone is lying to them and secretly jews control everything, and make it so that's all they hear all the time from birth, and you have created a mass indoctrination machine and predisposed all those people towards genocidal violence.
Preach!
Not sure I agree with your next statement which smacks of genocide, but I guess I'd need to see your definition first (with specific examples). That'll likely get both of us on a list, so perhaps leave it at that.
In fact, he arguably made things worse. But the man has some good quotes, even if he didn't seem to live them.
I'll defend good arguments, regardless of the source or original intent. I'm not here to win an argument, I'm here to discuss ideas, and ideas don't take sides.
Non-sequitur much?
My post was long enough, so I cut some corners. I don't really see the point in rehashing the pre-WW2 German political and social situation.
I think he succeeded because Germany was already primed for it. The people were destitute, desperate, and felt wronged, and Hitler channeled and focused that into a single, tangible enemy.
Socialists use "capitalists," US conservatives use "woke," and progressives use "hate speech," though none seem nearly as effective as Hitler's marketing, unless conditions are right. Lenin and Stalin succeeded because everyone hated the Tsar, but Trump succeeded because Democrats completely dropped the ball despite largely missing why people were pissed (and it's not because of LGBT folk, it's because stuff is expensive). The options in 2024 were more of the same or Trump's promise to grow our way out. The former was probably the better deal, but the latter sounds better on paper.
Hitler won because he tapped into a common frustration (poverty and anger at reparations), and was able to redirect it at a latent concern that he could alleviate. People like simple solutions like "it's their fault, if we take them out, our problems will be fixed." Look at the messaging here on Lemmy, "eat the rich," "Luigi was right," etc. It's the same kind of redirection Hitler and Lenin used to get power.
Trump kind of had that in 2016 with "drain the swamp" (people hate corrupt politicians), but he failed to deliver. He didn't seem to find that same mark this time, but Harris fumbled so hard (said she wouldn't have changed anything about Biden's term) that he was able to win. People here like to blame Twitter/X, but I really don't think that was a significant contributor.
the law shouldn't dictate this because that would require rigid definitions of misinformation and minorities. are Nazis minorities? What about Israelis? Or Palestinians?
is spreading a rumor misinformation? What if it is later found out to be true?
Fascist speech is not hard to point out. Advocating for the removal of the human rights of minority groups should result in legal punishment. Advocating for violence against minorities should result in legal punishment.
No one is born a Nazi. You should not be able to exist in society as a Nazi. You should face legal action for being a Nazi. We hung people at Nuremberg over this. We have already long since had established definitions of what inciting genocide is, of what spreading fascism is.
What is tiring about this conversation is that you have to balance real historically documented dangers of tolerating fascists, versus the theoretical dangers of whatever some internet person thinks might happen in an imaginary future.
I mean, it's a tough call, right? "Regulating food sounds nice in theory but what if it gives some future government the power to ban pizza haha gotcha".
the main problem I have with the government doing this is that they would be the ones to define who the minoritys are. If I remember correctly the US consider veterans to be a protected class, what if a government decided to extend minority status to those that themselves (as part of their "culture") codified intolerance to existing protected minorities (such as certain religions with respect to homosexuality)?
I mean I'm not advocating for that though. I don't think it's impossible to restrict specifically fascist rhetoric. I don't think it's impossible to make it illegal to advocate for genocide of racial and gender minorities.
if the (US and many others) governments weren't run by fascists I might agree, but I know that politics change and facist, homophobic, racists are always going to have a chance to be elected in a democratic (republic) system.
If this is already true then how does making it illegal to be a Nazi change that? If Nazis will already get into power (and then restrict non-nazi or anti-nazi speech), then what exactly is the risk of making it illegal to espouse Nazi ideology?