Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Germany Acts to Tame Facebook, Learning from Its Own History of Hate

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 229 posts

Re: Germany Acts to Tame Facebook, Learning from Its Own History of Hate

#181

Post by Fins »

KozmoNau7 wrote: post #169
Fins wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, the difference is that being a (neo)Nazi is, rightly, illegal in Germany. Being a Communist (or even a Stalinist) is perfectly acceptable, and even encouraged from the top, in Russia.

Not exactly. What is strongly encouraged is supporting Putin's cult of personality. And Russia (especially Moscow) is more along the lines of crony capitalism these days. They do try to wrap it in nationalism and appeals to history ("back when the motherland was strong!"), but it's transparently about enforcing the oligarchy.

There's quite a bit of rehabilitation of Stalin going on, and a lot of "and if somebody was executed, well they were the enemy and deserved it". Reading Russian forums can be quite "entertaining" in a way lately.

Re: Germany Acts to Tame Facebook, Learning from Its Own History of Hate

#182

Post by jk2323 »

KozmoNau7 wrote: post #176
jk2323 wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Your obvious bias is severely clouding your judgment. Merkel is solidly centre to centre-right. The only reason she seems "left" to you, is because she doesn't support the frothing-at-the-mouth rabid nationalism that AfD espouse.

"Merkel is solidly centre to centre-right. "

Cough, cough. Look, I gave REASONS why I think she is extremely left wing. Pointing out that she is leading the conservative party is not enough to counter my point.

What in her politics is conservative, right, or liberal?

(I would consider "marriage for all" liberal but in the end marriage should be not the business of the government)

What does the AfD stand for? Basically AfD is CDU before Merkel.

Re: Germany Acts to Tame Facebook, Learning from Its Own History of Hate

#183

Post by detaro »

jk2323 wrote: post #182
KozmoNau7 wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your obvious bias is severely clouding your judgment. Merkel is solidly centre to centre-right. The only reason she seems "left" to you, is because she doesn't support the frothing-at-the-mouth rabid nationalism that AfD espouse.

"Merkel is solidly centre to centre-right. " Cough, cough. Look, I gave REASONS why I think she is extremely left wing. Pointing out that she is leading the conservative party is not enough to counter my point. What in her politics is conservative, right, or liberal? (I would consider "marriage for all" liberal but in the end marriage should be not the business of the government) What does the AfD stand for? Basicall…

End of nuclear energy: decided and tied town by her predecessor governments, stopped by Merkel to be nice to big energy companies, likely against the wishes of the majority of the population, re-introduced by Merkel after public backlash after Fukushima happened a few months later.

Marriage for all: Was forced into parliament by the opposition parties, as common for such decisions way to vote left to individual MPs. Merkel personally voted against it.

Energy revolution isn't really a clearly left-wing policy (especially not after surrounding industries have been created), but also is merely a continuation of a previous path, with Merkels governments weakening some policies.

There's lots of possible criticism of Merkel's policies, but "left wing" really isn't it.

Re: Germany Acts to Tame Facebook, Learning from Its Own History of Hate

#184

Post by jk2323 »

detaro wrote: post #183
jk2323 wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Merkel is solidly centre to centre-right. " Cough, cough. Look, I gave REASONS why I think she is extremely left wing. Pointing out that she is leading the conservative party is not enough to counter my point. What in her politics is conservative, right, or liberal? (I would consider "marriage for all" liberal but in the end marriage should be not the business of the government) What does the AfD stand for? Basicall…

End of nuclear energy: decided and tied town by her predecessor governments, stopped by Merkel to be nice to big energy companies, likely against the wishes of the majority of the population, re-introduced by Merkel after public backlash after Fukushima happened a few months later. Marriage for all: Was forced into parliament by the opposition parties, as common for such decisions way to vote left to individual MPs.…

"Merkel personally voted against it."

Hey man, Hitler may have voted against raiding Russia but it is the outcome the counts. Fact is, that Merkel's politics is a left wing come true. Proven by the support of people like Fisher and Campino, who claimed to have voted "green" his whole life.

https://rp-online.de/kultur/musik/toten-hosen-saenger-campin...

Re: Germany Acts to Tame Facebook, Learning from Its Own History of Hate

#185

Post by js8 »

KozmoNau7 wrote: post #175
js8 wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Standing up in public and calling for violence and persecution against people is an act, not a thought." I don't understand why our reaction to that should be also violent, why cannot we, as you write, "swiftly and decisively", collectively ignore that act. On one hand, you deny that society has moral agency, because you think that this is not an alternative. On the other hand, you want the society to act, as if it…

Because such public speeches lead directly to violence against minorities. This has been shown again and again throughout human history. If we do not act and do not speak out against them or even attack them, we are tacitly saying "well, they might have a point", and that leads to unacceptable acceptance of intolerant acts.

> Because such public speeches lead directly to violence against minorities.

What do you mean by "lead"? Do you consider the people who cause such violence as being not responsible for their own actions?

Let's take an example. A person A says that there should be violence against person C. Then, person B commits violence against person C.

I totally agree that society should persecute person B, but I don't see why persecute (with violence) the person A. Person B is morally responsible for their own action (we don't absolve people of murder even if someone suggests to them that they should murder someone). And I also agree that we should speak out against A's suggestion of violence.

So you can see, I am not advocating tacit tolerance of any intolerant acts, and yet disagree with your suggestion of persecution of person A (actually, not in all situations, but I disagree with it in general).

Re: Germany Acts to Tame Facebook, Learning from Its Own History of Hate

#186

Post by KozmoNau7 »

js8 wrote: post #185
KozmoNau7 wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because such public speeches lead directly to violence against minorities. This has been shown again and again throughout human history. If we do not act and do not speak out against them or even attack them, we are tacitly saying "well, they might have a point", and that leads to unacceptable acceptance of intolerant acts.

> Because such public speeches lead directly to violence against minorities. What do you mean by "lead"? Do you consider the people who cause such violence as being not responsible for their own actions? Let's take an example. A person A says that there should be violence against person C. Then, person B commits violence against person C. I totally agree that society should persecute person B, but I don't see why per…

If person A can be determined (with a high degree of certainty) to have incited the actions of person B, preferably in a court of law, then yes they are also responsible, even more so if they directly commanded person B to commit acts of violence on person C.

Also, if a person directly calls to action against specific groups (eg. "we must throw out all immigrants right now! The police and courts are useless, we have to act!"), that should also be dealt with, rather harshly.

Like I've said before, freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences. You can say exactly what you want, and neither the government nor anyone else can legally stop you from doing so. But they can very much hold you accountable for the consequences of what you say, and the manner in which you said it (eg. publicly, to a large crowd of angry people).

Re: Germany Acts to Tame Facebook, Learning from Its Own History of Hate

#187

Post by KozmoNau7 »

Fins wrote: post #180
KozmoNau7 wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because such public speeches lead directly to violence against minorities. This has been shown again and again throughout human history. If we do not act and do not speak out against them or even attack them, we are tacitly saying "well, they might have a point", and that leads to unacceptable acceptance of intolerant acts.

So you do agree then, that if I find your intolerance of possibly perfectly fine (after all, why should your judgement of what is acceptable and what is not be any more valid than mine, his, hers, or that guy-over-there's) and at the very least in the US legal and specifically protected, I would have every right to take you out? Not to godwin this, but historical parallels for your approach here do point very much at…

Read what I wrote. I am 100% for free speech, it is one of the most important aspects of any free society.

However, freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences. If you make public speeches calling for the violent persecution of immigrants, there will be consequences for you. Yes, even in the US.

Re: Germany Acts to Tame Facebook, Learning from Its Own History of Hate

#188

Post by jk2323 »

detaro wrote: post #183
jk2323 wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Merkel is solidly centre to centre-right. " Cough, cough. Look, I gave REASONS why I think she is extremely left wing. Pointing out that she is leading the conservative party is not enough to counter my point. What in her politics is conservative, right, or liberal? (I would consider "marriage for all" liberal but in the end marriage should be not the business of the government) What does the AfD stand for? Basicall…

End of nuclear energy: decided and tied town by her predecessor governments, stopped by Merkel to be nice to big energy companies, likely against the wishes of the majority of the population, re-introduced by Merkel after public backlash after Fukushima happened a few months later. Marriage for all: Was forced into parliament by the opposition parties, as common for such decisions way to vote left to individual MPs.…

"Der Linke schreit, daß die Freiheit untergeht, wenn seine Opfer es ablehnen, ihre eigene Ermordung zu finanzieren." Gomez DaVila

Re: Germany Acts to Tame Facebook, Learning from Its Own History of Hate

#189

Post by detaro »

jk2323 wrote: post #184
detaro wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

End of nuclear energy: decided and tied town by her predecessor governments, stopped by Merkel to be nice to big energy companies, likely against the wishes of the majority of the population, re-introduced by Merkel after public backlash after Fukushima happened a few months later. Marriage for all: Was forced into parliament by the opposition parties, as common for such decisions way to vote left to individual MPs.…

"Merkel personally voted against it." Hey man, Hitler may have voted against raiding Russia but it is the outcome the counts. Fact is, that Merkel's politics is a left wing come true. Proven by the support of people like Fisher and Campino, who claimed to have voted "green" his whole life. https://rp-online.de/kultur/musik/toten-hosen-saenger-campin...

It's funny then that the left-wing parties disagree with so much of Merkels policy then, especially in the core areas of left-wing politics. Reforming Hartz4 and the pension system, that'd be a left-wing dream. A left-wing dream certainly isn't a government with Horst Seehofer responsible for the interior and "Heimat", or Jens Spahn for Health.

Not all they do is clear right-wing (how could it be in a coalition with a center-left party?), but little is clear left-wing. Not the worst from a left-wing perspective, as you can tell by the conflicts in her party and the AfD, and the fact that the SPD got in again after much hand-wringing, but that's about it.

This ongoing coalition is of course a problem, since both parties are forced into compromises, which makes it hard to sell themselves as big successes to their voters.

Partially you seem to apply US standards for whats left- and right-wing policies to a country with a fairly different political landscape, e.g. with the examples you first cited as being clearly left-wing dreams, many of which are fairly mainstream positions in Germany.

Re: Germany Acts to Tame Facebook, Learning from Its Own History of Hate

#190

Post by Fins »

KozmoNau7 wrote: post #187
Fins wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you do agree then, that if I find your intolerance of possibly perfectly fine (after all, why should your judgement of what is acceptable and what is not be any more valid than mine, his, hers, or that guy-over-there's) and at the very least in the US legal and specifically protected, I would have every right to take you out? Not to godwin this, but historical parallels for your approach here do point very much at…

Read what I wrote. I am 100% for free speech, it is one of the most important aspects of any free society. However, freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences. If you make public speeches calling for the violent persecution of immigrants, there will be consequences for you. Yes, even in the US.

But that's not the question. The question is who decides, and how, what speech should have (negative) consequences. If I am reading you correctly, you are saying that you will provide consequences to those who you deem to be calling for something you do not agree with.

Another one of the most important aspect of the free society is the rule of law. Not vigilante justice.

Post reply on HN