• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Facebook bans far right groups

luchog said:
That's the big problem, the "You might like this" algorithms. Automatically suggesting and directing to similar or related content. Great if you're an advertiser looking to generate views, but it's also extremely effective at sucking people into echo chambers.
Click to expand...

And the thing is, the algorithm seems to send these sorts of far-left and far-right conspiracy video links to just about everyone. Sometimes I hesitate to click on a video on Youtube that I disagree with just because it might attract more in my suggestions, but it doesn't seem to make much of a difference.
 
uke2se said:
For what it's worth, though, most justice systems take intent into account when sentencing. That's what a hate-crime is.
Click to expand...

Indeed they do, but in Psion10's idealist fantasy world, a person's history or intent bears no relation to what they did.

DON'T CLICK THE SPOILER UNTIL YOU HAVE READ READ THE GREEN TEXT!

Fred has a dispute with his neighbour over a fence. The neighbour is being a domineering, arrogant prick and acting like he owns the whole street, and like everyone has to march to his tune. After much arguing, and noisy dispute, Fred reaches his breaking point, a loses his rag and paints a swastika on the neighbour's front fence.

Is this a hate crime?

When it goes to court, it turns out that the neighbour is Jewish, and Fred has a history of making anti-Semitic slurs

Is it a hate crime now? If not, why not?

Should it have any impact in the court? If not, why not?

Should the judge take it into account when handing down a punishment? If not, why not?
 
smartcooky said:
Indeed they do, but in Psion10's idealist fantasy world, a person's history or intent bears no relation to what they did.

DON'T CLICK THE SPOILER UNTIL YOU HAVE READ READ THE GREEN TEXT!

Fred has a dispute with his neighbour over a fence. The neighbour is being a domineering, arrogant prick and acting like he owns the whole street, and like everyone has to march to his tune. After much arguing, and noisy dispute, Fred reaches his breaking point, a loses his rag and paints a swastika on the neighbour's front fence.

Is this a hate crime?
Click to expand...

I am fairly sure Psion10 rejects the very idea of hate crime. The idea being that motivation and thought have no bearing on crime or punishment. Yet though such as premeditation is pretty often very significant in other crimes.
 
psionl0 said:
Only after it has been determined that an act is a crime. It is not used to determine whether an act is a crime or not.
Click to expand...
Intent forms a rather large plank in criminal codes in countries like the UK and the USA. It is often all that is used to determine if a crime has happened or not.
 
Intent and motivation are completely different topics however.

"I hit Ted with at 2x4 because I wanted him dead" is intent. It makes sense that hitting Ted with a 2x4, killing him because you want him dead and hitting Ted with a 2x4 because you wanted to hurt him but wound up killing might be treated different in some cases.

"I hit Ted with at 2x4 because he's one of those dirty [racial slurs]" is motivation. The question is whether hitting Ted with a 2x4 because he's black or hitting Ted with a 2x4 because he's wearing the jersey of the other team should be "different" crimes. There's fair arguments on both sides I think.
 
smartcooky said:
Indeed they do, but in Psion10's idealist fantasy world, a person's history or intent bears no relation to what they did.

DON'T CLICK THE SPOILER UNTIL YOU HAVE READ READ THE GREEN TEXT!

Fred has a dispute with his neighbour over a fence. The neighbour is being a domineering, arrogant prick and acting like he owns the whole street, and like everyone has to march to his tune. After much arguing, and noisy dispute, Fred reaches his breaking point, a loses his rag and paints a swastika on the neighbour's front fence.

Is this a hate crime?

When it goes to court, it turns out that the neighbour is Jewish, and Fred has a history of making anti-Semitic slurs

Is it a hate crime now? If not, why not?

Should it have any impact in the court? If not, why not?

Should the judge take it into account when handing down a punishment? If not, why not?
Click to expand...
The crime is willfully causing damage to somebody's property. Even then it is probably a civil matter.

It is an extremely wretched world we live in if drawing a swastika can see you jailed.
 
Darat said:
Intent forms a rather large plank in criminal codes in countries like the UK and the USA. It is often all that is used to determine if a crime has happened or not.
Click to expand...
There are lots of crimes that come in the vanilla verson, "aggravated" version and the version that includes "with intent to . . .". The latter versions are harder to prove and that should be the case since they attract harsher penalties.
 
psionl0 said:
The crime is willfully causing damage to somebody's property. Even then it is probably a civil matter.

It is an extremely wretched world we live in if drawing a swastika can see you jailed.
Click to expand...

I disagree.

If someone burns down a shop in my city, that will certainly strike fear into the wider community.

If someone burns down an Indian-owned shop and makes clear he specifically targeted Indians, that strikes a far greater amount of fear into a small subset of the community.
 
psionl0 said:
The crime is willfully causing damage to somebody's property. Even then it is probably a civil matter.

It is an extremely wretched world we live in if drawing a swastika can see you jailed.
Click to expand...

This is wrong and I think you understand it.

Painting a swastika on a Jewish owned house is intimidation targeted against Jews. It's a hate crime.

If the guy had painted a defecating dog it would have been willfully causing damage. A swastika on a Jewish owned house is different. The same difference as "You will kill me" not being a threat while "I will kill you" is a threat, despite using almost the same words.
 
Eddie Dane said:
I disagree.

If someone burns down a shop in my city, that will certainly strike fear into the wider community.

If someone burns down an Indian-owned shop and makes clear he specifically targeted Indians, that strikes a far greater amount of fear into a small subset of the community.
Click to expand...
Yes, burning down shops is more serious than painting swastikas.
 
uke2se said:
Painting a swastika on a Jewish owned house is intimidation targeted against Jews. It's a hate crime.
Click to expand...
Read smartcooky's post again. This is about a neighbour who is a "domineering, arrogant prick and acting like he owns the whole street, and like everyone has to march to his tune".
 
psionl0 said:
Read smartcooky's post again. This is about a neighbour who is a "domineering, arrogant prick and acting like he owns the whole street, and like everyone has to march to his tune".
Click to expand...

It's a swastika on the house of a Jewish person.
 
The question is not which is worse:

- Burning down a house
- Painting a Swastika

the question is which is worse:

- Burning down a house
- Burning down a house specifically because the person that lives there Jewish.
 
JoeMorgue said:
the question is which is worse:

- Burning down a house
- Burning down a house specifically because the person that lives there Jewish.
Click to expand...
Yes, doing a criminal act with intent to cause fear is a thing but you should really stick to what is being discussed.
 
Belz... said:
And the thing is, the algorithm seems to send these sorts of far-left and far-right conspiracy video links to just about everyone. Sometimes I hesitate to click on a video on Youtube that I disagree with just because it might attract more in my suggestions, but it doesn't seem to make much of a difference.
Click to expand...

I heard an interesting suggestion today - limit "shares" to only 5 people. The context was Facebook's complicity in the genocide of the Rohinga, and how fake crime videos are an epidemic in India & Pakistan on WhatsApp right now. Of course, limiting shares is not in Facebook's self-interest, but it would be an interesting experiment.

I'm really conflicted about what to do about this Facebook problem. At the same time, I'm definitely not down with restricting speech or passing horribly restrictive / abusive laws that can convict a guy for posting a nazi joke with a dog.
 
carlitos said:
I heard an interesting suggestion today - limit "shares" to only 5 people. The context was Facebook's complicity in the genocide of the Rohinga, and how fake crime videos are an epidemic in India & Pakistan on WhatsApp right now.
Click to expand...

Those show how to win in the marketplace of ideas. As such they are by definition good because only the best ideas win in the marketplace of ideas.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom