Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
Here are the comments highlighted in Lückenrath's linked post:

  1. From a group account named "Against Asylum Seekers in Germany": "With a hole in the back of the head, some people would at least be useful as nest boxes."

  2. From someone called Karsten Kiens: "I just say, damn pack of vermins... we should open the [concentration] camps again, it is time... this is our country"

  3. From someone called Torsten Hädicke [grammatical errors not translated]: "Here in the Passau Corner it's very bad. They arrive like flies, I also heard, and then they walk along road B12. Police can't control that any more, hence my appeal: 'clean roads in Germany', is what truck drivers should keep in mind!"

IOW, outright calls for murder are okay with Facebook's "community standards".

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Tue Aug 11th, 2015 at 10:49:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Why on earth do national governments not insist on FB taking down hate speech which is in infraction of national legislation?

As far as I know, FB is not sovereign territory; and even Google can be forced to take down stuff.

It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II

by eurogreen on Tue Aug 11th, 2015 at 02:56:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Indeed. There are laws against hate speech, calls for murder and the like. These laws need to be enforced. We should be wary of supporting Facebook's position that it has the right to set "community standards" and that's that. That only leads to standards that demand the censorship of photos of cup cakes. I want to see democratically adopted law applied.
by Katrin on Tue Aug 11th, 2015 at 04:13:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Here the goal should not just be to keep racists from expressing their views in public, but to keep them from banding together on some pages (like in that closed Facebook group 'warning' each other of foreign-looking people). What do you think is more effective: forcing corporations (by law of citizen action) to employ moderators to find and suspend such formations, or more direct action (state employees telling the company to suspend specific pages as done in other issues)?

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Wed Aug 12th, 2015 at 10:36:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]
You won't get proper law enforcement without massive citizen protests; Fjallström below explains why. So what needs to be done is protests against facebook etc. AND against prosecutors not doing their jobs. Corporations ARE already under the obligation to take reasonable measures against hate speech and the like. And as you say: it works more or less.
by Katrin on Wed Aug 12th, 2015 at 01:46:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]
There is a whole flood of articles on the subject of on-line anti-refugee hate speech now. Here are two relevant to our earlier discussion:

  • Süddeutsche lists cases when on-line hate-mongers were successfully sued or when they lost their appeal against being fired by their employers.
  • In an op-ed on Spiegel Online, a journalist tells his story with an abusive emailer who used his company email address, who was fired after his complaint (though he got that information half a year later).


*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Thu Aug 27th, 2015 at 11:36:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]
That's the pressure we need. I've seen a call on Twitter not to waste time with Facebook's "report" button, but to contact the companies whose ads are visible where hate speech appears. That might work even better.

I expect that Facebook will react sooner or later, but only in those countries where pressure is strong, and probably only as long as there is pressure.

by Katrin on Thu Aug 27th, 2015 at 02:31:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The position (real, not official) of Swedish police and prosecutors when it comes to murder threats online is that you can't investigate because the suspects might admit it (article in Swedish) and then they would have to go to trial. Which costs money.

Essentially the government has given up enforcing laws regarding slander, threats and hate speach online. They casually blame it on american corporations, but in reality it is just not a priority.

The police task force for online crimes are busy catching villains who watch movies without paying for it.

by fjallstrom on Wed Aug 12th, 2015 at 05:50:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Simply an enforcement Problem. very low priority.

Legally speech online is not different from speech elsewhere.

by IM on Wed Aug 12th, 2015 at 06:06:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]
A few high profile prosecutions followed by exemplary sentences could make that problem go away very quickly, or at least reduce it dramatically - if there was a will to do so...

Index of Frank's Diaries
by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Wed Aug 12th, 2015 at 08:23:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series