7 ms·

There are literally nazis promoting themselves on twitter without censorship, so I disagree with your claim.

TheSpiceIsLife 9y ago
So now we can debate whether they (Nazis, or whoever) should be allowed to use a platform, allowing themselves to be identified and dealt with by the law. In that regard there is no global consensus. And arguments for and against can be quite compelling. We know that attempting to suppress ideas can have unintended consequences.
- bad_user 9y ago
  I am against censorship, however as an European I agree with our country's constitution that says freedom of speech is granted only as far as hate speech isn't involved. Of course who should have the power to identify hate speech and censor content and what the definition of hate speech is, that's debatable. However a platform like Twitter is also private property, another right protected by the constitution and people don't necessarily have free speech rights on somebody else's property. As for the compelling arguments about letting Nazis speak in order to identify them: 1. read some German newspapers just before 1933 – the same arguments against censorship have been used then as well, nothing new 2. if you want to see actual antisemitism, some literal Nazis, go to https://gab.ai https://gab.ai — nothing on Twitter is as bad as what goes on in there and the moderates that are against censoring such opinions usually don't realize how bad they can get or their reach Again, I'm very much pro free speech. But free speech is not my religion and it needs to be balanced against the other rights that we have as well, like property rights, or the right to feel safe and to be treated fairly and respectfully.
  - TheSpiceIsLife 9y ago
    For what it's worth, I thoroughly agree with you.
  - arca_vorago 9y ago
    That's because your governments constitution is viciously flawed compared to Americas, in which a system was established on the idea that we have rights independent of government and the government is only there to protect those rights, and may not infringe those rights. The argument isn't let any particular $hatedgroupofthemoment speak... the argument is that you have no right to presume yourself or anyone else to have the power to silence them in the first place. This is something even Christopher Hitchens talked openly about, and part of the reason he became a citizen. America's form of constitutional democratic republic, while in some disarray at the moment, is quite a unique accomplishment in the annals of history. It's what I consider the non-jingoistic and true basis of American exceptionalism, a term too often used in bandwagon derision. For good reading on the subject, try this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_in_the_United_Stat...
    - TheSpiceIsLife 9y ago
      I honestly think your comment would be much stronger if it didn't start with the viciously flawed comparison. It was emotionally difficult for me to get past that first sentence. I otherwise agree the US Constitution, in theory is, potential, exceptionally powerful.
      - arca_vorago 9y ago
        You are right but by the time I started dwelling on it was too late to edit. Sorry, that's something I'm working on (being less abrasive).
  - arkh 9y ago
    Freedom of speech is an absolute. You have it or you do not. The moment you start restricting it you don't have any. I'm from France and there is no freedom of speech here. If you think laws made to fight against "hate speech" will stay in their current form you forget about what happened with special anti-terrorist laws. They always get applied to more and more things. What is accepted speech today can be hate speech tomorrow. Remember: the power we let good government get will also be available to shitty government later.
    - guywaffle 9y ago
      Yes, but Twitter isn’t the government so they can’t deny someone their freedom of speech. Only the government can do that
  - nodesocket 9y ago
    > says freedom of speech is granted only as far as hate speech isn't involved. I see this all the time on HN, mostly Europeans. This is false. US freedom of speech is universal, including Nazi or hate. There is no such clause that prohibits hate speech. That's Europe's thing.
    - bad_user 9y ago
      I specified that I'm an European in that same sentence, so that's a straw man.
      - nodesocket 9y ago
        Sorry, I missread. That’s my bad. You are right, you did say you are European. Apologize.
gaius 9y ago
There are literally nazis promoting themselves on twitter without censorship There's all kinds of genocide being promoted on Twitter, and the so-called Nazis are literally the only ones being censored. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander says I. Either Twitter - a for profit entity - is a common carrier or they impose editorial standards, they can't be allowed to get away with playing both sides as it suits them. And by "suits them" I mean, sells the most ads.
- aaronbrethorst 9y ago
  Rose McGowan would disagree with your assertion.
- ajuc 9y ago
  > and the so-called Nazis are literally the only ones being censored False. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_of_Twitter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_of_Twitter
- localhost3000 9y ago
  “So-called nazis”, huh?
  - stale2002 9y ago
    The group of people who literally self identify as Nazis is a very very small group. The group of people that get accused of being Nazis can span all the way up into the hundreds of millions (Ex: Many people call Trump a fascist, and therefore his X million supports would be fascist under these accusations)
    - ajuc 9y ago
      Self-identification isn't the one true criterium. See "I'm not racist but ...".
      - stale2002 9y ago
patrickg_zill 9y ago
How do you know this to be the case?
pls2halp 9y ago
What about the literal communists? There’s just as many of those.
- koonsolo 9y ago
  I don't understand why you are getting downvoted. Stalin killed millions of soviets. All central and eastern european countries can testify how terrible it was when communists invanded their countries and took everything from them, including all posessions and freedom. When my mother in law (who always lived in Slovakia) was in Belgium, we saw a guy with a soviet hammer and sickle t-shirt. She was shocked why anyone would freely wear something like that. I'm pretty sure the guy just thought it was cool. So my question to the downvoters: why are nazi's bad and communists not?
  - maccard 9y ago
    Nazism [0] is broadly defined as fascism with: > Usually characterized as a form of fascism that incorporates scientific racism and antisemitism Communism [1] is broadly defined as > which is a socioeconomic order structured upon the common ownership of the means of production The issue that people have with Nazis is mostly the systematic racism. A better comparison is fascism to communism, which is a broader political term. It’s thrown around in an insulting way just as communism is, but without the same intent. If you compare a modern day Marxist to a modern day Nazi it would be a better comparison [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism
    - koonsolo 9y ago
      > If you compare a modern day Marxist to a modern day Nazi it would be a better comparison I fail to see the difference. One wants to take away the freedom of all (except the party members), while the other the freedom of some. Mao and Stalin were responsible for about 75mil deaths, Hitler 17mil. Defending either seems very wrong to me. So either you censor both, or you censor none. And for my personal opinion, I would censor none, because I believe in freedom of speech. Neither one of the 2 ideologies above had freedom of speech. And I believe that's why all the Marxists think it's OK to censor Nazi's, but not themselves.
dmichulke 9y ago
So "promoting themselves" is an action that should only allowed to a subset of people? If so to whom and how to you identify those people?
- ajuc 9y ago
  It's not "who", it's "what". Instigating violence is forbidden for one example. Defamation too. Nazism is based on belief that some ethnicities are to be blamed for all evil in the world (defamation), and proposes to deal with that by one ethnicity exterminating or enslaving the others (instigation of violence). Does it really surprise you it's forbidden in many countries, and many websites doesn't want to have it promoted on their property? And additionally - twitter is a private website. It's not censorship, when a newspaper chooses who can write articles for them. Make your own newspaper if you disagree.
  - dmichulke 9y ago
    > Instigating violence is forbidden For good reason! But I don't get why you criticize the fact that there are > nazis promoting themselves on twitter What I'm trying to say here is that you should criticize if they do something bad (violence, threat of violence, ...) but not when they promote themselves (which is totally legal).
    - ajuc 9y ago
      Promoting nazism is promoting violence.
nostromo123 9y ago
There are also uncensored calls for "killing all whites", instituting sharia, and murdering gays. Your point is?
sctb 9y ago
Could you please not take us straight into ideological hell? These inescapably repetitive flamewars aren't a real discussion, they're just teeth-gnashing. > Eschew flamebait. Don't introduce flamewar topics unless you have something genuinely new to say. Avoid unrelated controversies and generic tangents. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

So now we can debate whether they (Nazis, or whoever) should be allowed to use a platform, allowing themselves to be identified and dealt with by the law. In that regard there is no global consensus. And arguments for and against can be quite compelling. We know that attempting to suppress ideas can have unintended consequences.

bad_user 9y ago
I am against censorship, however as an European I agree with our country's constitution that says freedom of speech is granted only as far as hate speech isn't involved. Of course who should have the power to identify hate speech and censor content and what the definition of hate speech is, that's debatable. However a platform like Twitter is also private property, another right protected by the constitution and people don't necessarily have free speech rights on somebody else's property. As for the compelling arguments about letting Nazis speak in order to identify them: 1. read some German newspapers just before 1933 – the same arguments against censorship have been used then as well, nothing new 2. if you want to see actual antisemitism, some literal Nazis, go to https://gab.ai https://gab.ai — nothing on Twitter is as bad as what goes on in there and the moderates that are against censoring such opinions usually don't realize how bad they can get or their reach Again, I'm very much pro free speech. But free speech is not my religion and it needs to be balanced against the other rights that we have as well, like property rights, or the right to feel safe and to be treated fairly and respectfully.
- TheSpiceIsLife 9y ago
  For what it's worth, I thoroughly agree with you.
- arca_vorago 9y ago
  That's because your governments constitution is viciously flawed compared to Americas, in which a system was established on the idea that we have rights independent of government and the government is only there to protect those rights, and may not infringe those rights. The argument isn't let any particular $hatedgroupofthemoment speak... the argument is that you have no right to presume yourself or anyone else to have the power to silence them in the first place. This is something even Christopher Hitchens talked openly about, and part of the reason he became a citizen. America's form of constitutional democratic republic, while in some disarray at the moment, is quite a unique accomplishment in the annals of history. It's what I consider the non-jingoistic and true basis of American exceptionalism, a term too often used in bandwagon derision. For good reading on the subject, try this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_in_the_United_Stat...
  - TheSpiceIsLife 9y ago
    I honestly think your comment would be much stronger if it didn't start with the viciously flawed comparison. It was emotionally difficult for me to get past that first sentence. I otherwise agree the US Constitution, in theory is, potential, exceptionally powerful.
    - arca_vorago 9y ago
      You are right but by the time I started dwelling on it was too late to edit. Sorry, that's something I'm working on (being less abrasive).
- arkh 9y ago
  Freedom of speech is an absolute. You have it or you do not. The moment you start restricting it you don't have any. I'm from France and there is no freedom of speech here. If you think laws made to fight against "hate speech" will stay in their current form you forget about what happened with special anti-terrorist laws. They always get applied to more and more things. What is accepted speech today can be hate speech tomorrow. Remember: the power we let good government get will also be available to shitty government later.
  - guywaffle 9y ago
    Yes, but Twitter isn’t the government so they can’t deny someone their freedom of speech. Only the government can do that
- nodesocket 9y ago
  > says freedom of speech is granted only as far as hate speech isn't involved. I see this all the time on HN, mostly Europeans. This is false. US freedom of speech is universal, including Nazi or hate. There is no such clause that prohibits hate speech. That's Europe's thing.
  - bad_user 9y ago
    I specified that I'm an European in that same sentence, so that's a straw man.
    - nodesocket 9y ago
      Sorry, I missread. That’s my bad. You are right, you did say you are European. Apologize.

gaius 9y ago

There are literally nazis promoting themselves on twitter without censorship There's all kinds of genocide being promoted on Twitter, and the so-called Nazis are literally the only ones being censored. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander says I. Either Twitter - a for profit entity - is a common carrier or they impose editorial standards, they can't be allowed to get away with playing both sides as it suits them. And by "suits them" I mean, sells the most ads.

aaronbrethorst 9y ago
Rose McGowan would disagree with your assertion.
ajuc 9y ago
> and the so-called Nazis are literally the only ones being censored False. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_of_Twitter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_of_Twitter
localhost3000 9y ago
“So-called nazis”, huh?
- stale2002 9y ago
  The group of people who literally self identify as Nazis is a very very small group. The group of people that get accused of being Nazis can span all the way up into the hundreds of millions (Ex: Many people call Trump a fascist, and therefore his X million supports would be fascist under these accusations)
  - ajuc 9y ago
    Self-identification isn't the one true criterium. See "I'm not racist but ...".
    - stale2002 9y ago

patrickg_zill 9y ago

How do you know this to be the case?

pls2halp 9y ago

What about the literal communists? There’s just as many of those.

koonsolo 9y ago
I don't understand why you are getting downvoted. Stalin killed millions of soviets. All central and eastern european countries can testify how terrible it was when communists invanded their countries and took everything from them, including all posessions and freedom. When my mother in law (who always lived in Slovakia) was in Belgium, we saw a guy with a soviet hammer and sickle t-shirt. She was shocked why anyone would freely wear something like that. I'm pretty sure the guy just thought it was cool. So my question to the downvoters: why are nazi's bad and communists not?
- maccard 9y ago
  Nazism [0] is broadly defined as fascism with: > Usually characterized as a form of fascism that incorporates scientific racism and antisemitism Communism [1] is broadly defined as > which is a socioeconomic order structured upon the common ownership of the means of production The issue that people have with Nazis is mostly the systematic racism. A better comparison is fascism to communism, which is a broader political term. It’s thrown around in an insulting way just as communism is, but without the same intent. If you compare a modern day Marxist to a modern day Nazi it would be a better comparison [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism
  - koonsolo 9y ago
    > If you compare a modern day Marxist to a modern day Nazi it would be a better comparison I fail to see the difference. One wants to take away the freedom of all (except the party members), while the other the freedom of some. Mao and Stalin were responsible for about 75mil deaths, Hitler 17mil. Defending either seems very wrong to me. So either you censor both, or you censor none. And for my personal opinion, I would censor none, because I believe in freedom of speech. Neither one of the 2 ideologies above had freedom of speech. And I believe that's why all the Marxists think it's OK to censor Nazi's, but not themselves.

dmichulke 9y ago

So "promoting themselves" is an action that should only allowed to a subset of people? If so to whom and how to you identify those people?

ajuc 9y ago
It's not "who", it's "what". Instigating violence is forbidden for one example. Defamation too. Nazism is based on belief that some ethnicities are to be blamed for all evil in the world (defamation), and proposes to deal with that by one ethnicity exterminating or enslaving the others (instigation of violence). Does it really surprise you it's forbidden in many countries, and many websites doesn't want to have it promoted on their property? And additionally - twitter is a private website. It's not censorship, when a newspaper chooses who can write articles for them. Make your own newspaper if you disagree.
- dmichulke 9y ago
  > Instigating violence is forbidden For good reason! But I don't get why you criticize the fact that there are > nazis promoting themselves on twitter What I'm trying to say here is that you should criticize if they do something bad (violence, threat of violence, ...) but not when they promote themselves (which is totally legal).
  - ajuc 9y ago
    Promoting nazism is promoting violence.

nostromo123 9y ago

There are also uncensored calls for "killing all whites", instituting sharia, and murdering gays. Your point is?

sctb 9y ago

Could you please not take us straight into ideological hell? These inescapably repetitive flamewars aren't a real discussion, they're just teeth-gnashing. > Eschew flamebait. Don't introduce flamewar topics unless you have something genuinely new to say. Avoid unrelated controversies and generic tangents. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html