[Discussion] Reviewing how NS deals with hate speech

[USS Monitor]

well if you want to do that, I don't consider any of those last things hate speech, because I consider hate speech to be a fictional concept.

Luckily for us, the determination rests on Mod shoulders. It doesn't matter if you believe hate speech to be a fictional concept. I believe hobbits are a fictional concept but, unlike hate speech, countries have not passed laws prohibiting hobbits from existing.

The US should outlaw hobbits. They're bad for the environment.

[Ethel mermania]

[*]The forum rules does not have a specific rule on hate speech or similar, including incitement to racial hatred, justification for discrimination against certain ethnic/sexual groups, or blanket vilification of foreigners or refugees;

I don't support adding such a rule. Trolling covers the most vitriolic hate speech and takes the most extreme and unreasonable racists out of circulation when they earn themselves a DOS. If people have some racist views, but are willing to have a reasonable debate, it is worthwhile to engage in conversation and introduce them to other points of view. You'll never reach people and change their minds by refusing to even talk to them.

[*]Other forums on the internet remove all rule-breaking posts from public view.

There was recently a discussion backstage about removing troll posts from view. I think there's some value in leaving mild rule-breaking visible to help people understand where the line is, and so that the flow of conversation is not disrupted by missing posts.

But [v] asked us to be a bit more proactive about removing "GAS THE KIKES!!!" type of troll posts.

[*]What do you think about the idea of extending the report button to the forums? (but not making such function a part of GHR)*
* phpBB 3 and later supports the report function out of the box.

The report button is used by mods as our "2nd opinion flare."

Creating a separate feature that players could use to report forum posts would require some tricky modification of the forum software. Also, it would be open to abuse by people that just go down a thread reporting every post as a form of spam, or people who get mad at another player and report all of their posts.

Otoh, speaking as a kike, leaving the gas the kikes post in the with the red text on does two things for me.

1. It tells me that moderation is doing something about it.
3. It let's me know who the people who wish to do me harm are.

So may I suggest leaving it there with it all its glory and red text.

[Katganistan]

Luckily for us, the determination rests on Mod shoulders. It doesn't matter if you believe hate speech to be a fictional concept. I believe hobbits are a fictional concept but, unlike hate speech, countries have not passed laws prohibiting hobbits from existing.

The US should outlaw hobbits. They're bad for the environment.

Let them keep their second breakfasts in New Zealand as is only proper!

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Luckily for us, the determination rests on Mod shoulders. It doesn't matter if you believe hate speech to be a fictional concept. I believe hobbits are a fictional concept but, unlike hate speech, countries have not passed laws prohibiting hobbits from existing.

The US should outlaw hobbits. They're bad for the environment.

We small people deserve respect and rights, damn it. Stop hairy feet discrimination!! o/

[Swith Witherward]

There is a standardization in place. Posters are not allowed to call each other names or refer to whole groups as something vile, nor to suggest that systemic violence against a group is ok.

Posters are allowed to say they think your argument or political affiliation is wrong.

Report sigs you think are rulebreaking. Some mods have their preferences set not to see sigs. Others have their preferences set to see them. If it's not been caught, it likely hasn't been seen. There are many more accounts than there are mods, after all.

What I would hate to see is people demanding that more and more things be banned not because they are intrinsically and demonstrably bad, but because they just don't like them. That will stifle debate, and then what's the point of a debate forum?

The ability to attack the argument is one of the things I appreciate most about NS.

Sigs are a mixed bag. There have been a few antiziganist statements over the years, mainly belonging to edgelords.

I've reported things via GHR before. I've been chastised for being too "wordy" on occasion. If I don't explain, the complaint is met with "I see no problem with it" etc. It leaves me feeling deflated and hollow. I'm not complaining, mind. But there are times when people do feel marginalized because their concerns regarding hate speech seem to be overlooked due to misunderstanding or lack of familiarity.

[Frisbeeteria]

If I don't explain, the complaint is met with "I see no problem with it" etc.

Short answer on sigs, and in general: if it needs paragraphs of explanation to see why it's wrong, then it's not obvious enough to be a violation.

The mods are an educated bunch, and by now all of us have a pretty good feel for player behavior on this site. I don't think the problem is lack of understanding or lack of familiarity. It's just that some things don't rise to the level of warnable offense, even if they offend a few players. It's been made clear in the FAQ that some people might be offended by some of the content other players post. This is particularly true for interpersonal relationships, which often depend on extensive knowledge of how Player A interacts with Players B, C, and D. Most of those don't rise to the level of warning offenses.

We do have a lot of kids on site, and I imagine that the majority of the most offensive hate speech comes from 'edgelords' under 18. I could of course be wrong - we have no age verification process. We do make a concerted effort to drive out the worst of the edgy memes and meme posters. "Gas the kikes" is an obvious hate meme. "Pepe the frog" is less obvious. We have to make judgements on a regular basis. If there is any question, the post is usually brought to the attention of other mods. We do a LOT of back room collaboration. Stuff isn't just falling through the cracks because one of us isn't paying attention.

[Luminesa]

The US should outlaw hobbits. They're bad for the environment.

We small people deserve respect and rights, damn it. Stop hairy feet discrimination!! o/

WHAT SHE SAID.

[Big Jim P]

The US should outlaw hobbits. They're bad for the environment.

We small people deserve respect and rights, damn it. Stop hairy feet discrimination!! o/

Shave them feet. Problem solved.

[Salandriagado]

Taking off the mod hat here.

"All Muslims are terrorists" and such like comments are already dealt with under the rules banning trolling. It's textbook "All X = Y" trolling.

The purpose of allowing distasteful opinions to be aired when they are aired civilly is to expose the ideas and to allow them to be argued. Thus, they do not fester in silence with no one to disagree with them, and persons who may not be involved in the discussion as well as people who are might be swayed if they see how illogical the arguments and how reprehensible others see them.

By silencing them entirely, you allow a clannish echo-chamber where all they hear is that they are right, and oppressed, and heroic. By exposing such arguments to being torn down logically, you may change minds -- if not of the participants, then of posters hanging back and observing because they aren't sure which way they really go yet.

And yet no less than five different moderators have told me explicitly that "all autistic people are retards" isn't trolling and that appealing such decisions is "frivolous" will get me warned.

[Luna Amore]

Taking off the mod hat here.

"All Muslims are terrorists" and such like comments are already dealt with under the rules banning trolling. It's textbook "All X = Y" trolling.

The purpose of allowing distasteful opinions to be aired when they are aired civilly is to expose the ideas and to allow them to be argued. Thus, they do not fester in silence with no one to disagree with them, and persons who may not be involved in the discussion as well as people who are might be swayed if they see how illogical the arguments and how reprehensible others see them.

By silencing them entirely, you allow a clannish echo-chamber where all they hear is that they are right, and oppressed, and heroic. By exposing such arguments to being torn down logically, you may change minds -- if not of the participants, then of posters hanging back and observing because they aren't sure which way they really go yet.

And yet no less than five different moderators have told me explicitly that "all autistic people are retards" isn't trolling and that appealing such decisions is "frivolous" will get me warned.

#1 reason these discussions eventually get locked: people keep bringing up old axes to grind. Unsurprisingly, you are misrepresenting what was actually said. Regardless, that ruling is not the topic of discussion. Back to the topic at hand.

[Salandriagado]

And yet no less than five different moderators have told me explicitly that "all autistic people are retards" isn't trolling and that appealing such decisions is "frivolous" will get me warned.

#1 reason these discussions eventually get locked: people keep bringing up old axes to grind. Unsurprisingly, you are misrepresenting what was actually said. Regardless, that ruling is not the topic of discussion. Back to the topic at hand.

I am, in fact, quoting a private communication from one of said moderators word for word. And it's entirely relevant: if you're using "All X are Y is trolling" as your basis for claiming to have already banned hate speech, you better actually consistently enforce that rule.

[Luna Amore]

#1 reason these discussions eventually get locked: people keep bringing up old axes to grind. Unsurprisingly, you are misrepresenting what was actually said. Regardless, that ruling is not the topic of discussion. Back to the topic at hand.

I am, in fact, quoting a private communication from one of said moderators word for word.

Nope, never once did any mod say "All autistic people are retards" is A-OK. That's the part you are misrepresenting. The fact you hammered into the forum and GHR with appeals and final appeals over a non actionable ruling is unfortunately true. Five mods did eventually have to rule on that because you just wouldn't drop it. It was frivolous at that point.

Are you going to drop it now or do I actually have to warn you to get you to stop?

[Kostov]

To be honest, i do agree with the mods

That's all i wanted to say

[Gregoryisgodistan]

well if you want to do that, I don't consider any of those last things hate speech, because I consider hate speech to be a fictional concept.

Luckily for us, the determination rests on Mod shoulders. It doesn't matter if you believe hate speech to be a fictional concept. I believe hobbits are a fictional concept but, unlike hate speech, countries have not passed laws prohibiting hobbits from existing.

I'm not sure this is the appropriate metric we should be measuring things by. Russia bans "pro-homosexuality propaganda" in any situation where minors could view it, which would include this forum where the age limit is 13, and there's nothing stopping people younger than that from viewing the forum, just posting. Should we ban people from speaking out in support of gay rights or saying it's ok to be gay? That's ridiculous and is the exact opposite of what OP is proposing. Should we ban people from denying Mohammed is the prophet and Allah is God because blasphemy is illegal in some Islamic countries? Of course not. Just because something's illegal in some country somewhere doesn't mean we should ban it. My flag would probably get me arrested (or worse) in a good part of the Middle East, but nobody's ever complained about it.

That being said, we're not the government, the First Amendment doesn't apply here, we absolutely can ban hate speech, and certain things protected by the First Anendmebt already are banned.

[Luminesa]

Luckily for us, the determination rests on Mod shoulders. It doesn't matter if you believe hate speech to be a fictional concept. I believe hobbits are a fictional concept but, unlike hate speech, countries have not passed laws prohibiting hobbits from existing.

I'm not sure this is the appropriate metric we should be measuring things by. Russia bans "pro-homosexuality propaganda" in any situation where minors could view it, which would include this forum where the age limit is 13, and there's nothing stopping people younger than that from viewing the forum, just posting. Should we ban people from speaking out in support of gay rights or saying it's ok to be gay? That's ridiculous and is the exact opposite of what OP is proposing. Should we ban people from denying Mohammed is the prophet and Allah is God because blasphemy is illegal in some Islamic countries? Of course not. Just because something's illegal in some country somewhere doesn't mean we should ban it. My flag would probably get me arrested (or worse) in a good part of the Middle East, but nobody's ever complained about it.

That being said, we're not the government, the First Amendment doesn't apply here, we absolutely can ban hate speech, and certain things protected by the First Anendmebt already are banned.

Your flag is silly, though, and hardly offensive to any religious group. Lol.

[Litorea]

I'd be extremely wary of enforcing restrictions on hateful speech even if the public debate in the modern day is become less and less civil, purely because the specific line of hate speech is hard to find. Sure, you could obviously point at, say, "Muslims are all rapists" and say that's unacceptable, but then you get into arguments and topics that I think are much less so, like, say, "Western civilization has a lot of traits that make it superior in many respects to Muslim societies" or "xir/shi should not be recognized as valid gender pronouns". There's no real rule of thumb to determine exactly what's hateful and what's not and I fear the end result will either be overzealous enforcement or people completely steering clear of the entire area of race/religion/gender in full. It's playing with fire. I could abide by a method of identifying hate speech that's efficient, fair, just, and doesn't stop debates on race or religion or gender from happening, but that tends not to be the case.

The most blatant hate speech is, in any case, already covered under existing trolling/flaming rules, and if you go much further beyond that, you're starting to risk seeing patterns of hate that don't actually exist or reading into arguments too deeply in case it's really just hate in disguise. Not to mention that the foe list exists, which is probably much more efficient at weeding out such arguments for people offended by them than any moderator action.

[Luminesa]

Taking off the mod hat here.

"All Muslims are terrorists" and such like comments are already dealt with under the rules banning trolling. It's textbook "All X = Y" trolling.

The purpose of allowing distasteful opinions to be aired when they are aired civilly is to expose the ideas and to allow them to be argued. Thus, they do not fester in silence with no one to disagree with them, and persons who may not be involved in the discussion as well as people who are might be swayed if they see how illogical the arguments and how reprehensible others see them.

By silencing them entirely, you allow a clannish echo-chamber where all they hear is that they are right, and oppressed, and heroic. By exposing such arguments to being torn down logically, you may change minds -- if not of the participants, then of posters hanging back and observing because they aren't sure which way they really go yet.

And yet no less than five different moderators have told me explicitly that "all autistic people are retards" isn't trolling and that appealing such decisions is "frivolous" will get me warned.

Going to go off-topic for a moment, and respond, because I've looked at point a couple times and have tried to do so in context. First of all, he says nowhere in the post that all autistic people are "retarded". While I also dislike the term "retarded" very much, he was speaking about it more in the context of a.) a movie, and b.) the media's annoying tendency to throw people with specific labels into a movie (such as having autism, being a specific skin-color, etc.) without realistically considering their conditions or even trying to make good, 3-D, complex characters. Like a character who perhaps has a slight intellectual disability but who also loves to cook, or something else like that. We could go on forever into that topic.

Back to topic! Now it becomes more of hate-speech related to the website's rules if you were to go and say, "That East Marches, he's a retard, probably was dropped down the stairs as a baby." Or, "Big Jim P is a gun-loving fool and he needs to be eaten by a gator." Because those are directly attacking people on the website, and those are probably grounds for warnings and such. Other such quotes would be genuine "All X or Y," such as, "You know, those gays, they're all hypersexual nutjobs and they need to be ground in a blender." That would certainly be hate-speech, and probably flamebait.

I certainly hope, however, nobody shouts at me for giving suggestions on what might be a ruling and what might not be a ruling. I'm simply maybe trying to assuage a heated situation, if this is okay. :3

[Tallapoosa]

The last thing NS needs is more censorship. Posters should be free to use so called "hate speech," as long as it isn't something that a reasonable person from any political perspective would call trolling or flaming. I'm all for restrictions on saying things like "[insert group of people] should all be exterminated." But a ban on hate speech could easily lead to mods taking action against posters for saying something as tame as "According to DOJ crime statistics, black people are more likely to commit violent crime than white people are." (Source)

[Katganistan]

We would prefer posters not to discuss individual rulings, especially ones that really don't have much to do with the matter at hand.

However, your conclusion about why that particular case doesn't really fit into the trolling/flaming category is pretty accurate.

[Sciftaen]

I'm firmly against censorship on NS for the sole reason of subjectivity. What is extremely offensive to one person might be perfectly fine to another and differences in contexts, formatting and what forum it's posted in all can mean the difference between hate speech and intelligent, thoughtful discussion. For example suppose I were to post that I believe that Western culture is superior to Islamic culture. If this was posted on a thread comparing different cultures this would be perfectly fine. If however I was to address this to one person because they said they were a Muslim it would be clearly be unacceptable, despite the message staying the same.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

The last thing NS needs is more censorship. Posters should be free to use so called "hate speech," as long as it isn't something that a reasonable person from any political perspective would call trolling or flaming. I'm all for restrictions on saying things like "[insert group of people] should all be exterminated." But a ban on hate speech could easily lead to mods taking action against posters for saying something as tame as "According to DOJ crime statistics, black people are more likely to commit violent crime than white people are." (Source)

I don't recall anybody being warned or banned for saying that.

[Katganistan]

The last thing NS needs is more censorship. Posters should be free to use so called "hate speech," as long as it isn't something that a reasonable person from any political perspective would call trolling or flaming. I'm all for restrictions on saying things like "[insert group of people] should all be exterminated." But a ban on hate speech could easily lead to mods taking action against posters for saying something as tame as "According to DOJ crime statistics, black people are more likely to commit violent crime than white people are." (Source)

That is not be problematic, if presented as you did.

"They're all violent criminals" would be a different story.

[CoraSpia]

And yet no less than five different moderators have told me explicitly that "all autistic people are retards" isn't trolling and that appealing such decisions is "frivolous" will get me warned.

Going to go off-topic for a moment, and respond, because I've looked at point a couple times and have tried to do so in context. First of all, he says nowhere in the post that all autistic people are "retarded". While I also dislike the term "retarded" very much, he was speaking about it more in the context of a.) a movie, and b.) the media's annoying tendency to throw people with specific labels into a movie (such as having autism, being a specific skin-color, etc.) without realistically considering their conditions or even trying to make good, 3-D, complex characters. Like a character who perhaps has a slight intellectual disability but who also loves to cook, or something else like that. We could go on forever into that topic.

Back to topic! Now it becomes more of hate-speech related to the website's rules if you were to go and say, "That East Marches, he's a retard, probably was dropped down the stairs as a baby." Or, "Big Jim P is a gun-loving fool and he needs to be eaten by a gator." Because those are directly attacking people on the website, and those are probably grounds for warnings and such. Other such quotes would be genuine "All X or Y," such as, "You know, those gays, they're all hypersexual nutjobs and they need to be ground in a blender." That would certainly be hate-speech, and probably flamebait.

I certainly hope, however, nobody shouts at me for giving suggestions on what might be a ruling and what might not be a ruling. I'm simply maybe trying to assuage a heated situation, if this is okay. :3

The all x are y thing always seemed a bit unnecisary, if I'm honest. As a gay man I'm more likely to think 'that poster is a moron, best ignore him' if they posted something like that last example, rather than get offended at it.

[Reploid Productions]

Quick point of reference, "hate speech" (at least in general terms) is already covered by the existing rules. Heck, it's already covered by the highest level from which the OSRS is derived:

> What can't I post?

Any content that is:

obscene
illegal
threatening
malicious
defamatory
spam

We are not going to make particular ideologies illegal to discuss and debate here. (Well, at least outside of a couple of special case topics, IE: pedophilia.) In theory, one can argue any opinion here without breaking the site rules. In reality, and this is a big reason why far-right/nazi players (and their less common far-left counterparts) tend to have a short shelf life around here: some opinions are inherently very, very difficult to argue in a way that doesn't break the site rules. (For instance, there is no way to argue "All <group> should be killed off!" that isn't a flagrant rules violation.) Generally, the more extreme the viewpoint, be it extreme right, extreme left, extreme pro-religion, extreme atheism, and so on, the more difficult it will be to argue it in a way that stays within the bounds of (mostly) civil debate dictated by the rules. Plus, the more extreme the viewpoint, the less likely the person arguing for it is going to be able to back their view up with sources, and absent evidence, they often have a bad habit of resorting to flaming/trolling their detractors.

The boss wants absurd, ugly, and indefensible opinions to be voiced, to be dragged out into the light where they can be criticized, commented on, ripped to ribbons, and generally shown for the indefensible, ugly opinions they are rather than let them fester in the shadows unchallenged. And y'know, y'all do a pretty damn good job of it.

[The Lone Alliance]

Hi all,

I feel that this is very important, especially in wake of a major debate over hate speech on social media, a major controversy where advertisers have been boycotting YouTube because their adverts were appearing with Neo-Nazi content (CBC, 31 March 2017), and the Finsbury Mosque attacks. I am aware of this post from 2012, but the controversy over hate speech has evolved dramatically since then, and NationStates has clearly become more globalised.

There is no real rising debate over hate speech, it's more like there was hate speech, then there was a strong push to silence hate speech on the internet in the belief that silencing hate speech would lead to the end of hate.... only to backfire and make it worse instead.

In March this year, I wrote this post, expressing my concern about hate speech on this forum and my belief that NationStates should review how tolerant it should be on extreme views on NationStates General, in order to ensure that we do not decline to the same level of hostile conduct that we have seen with 4chan. In response, The Blaatschapen recommended that I bring up the idea here.

This is my original post that expressed my hopefully understandable concern about extreme views in this forum:

The events of last year is something that led me to think again about the future of NationStates’ approach towards far-right and Neo-Nazi views, and whether NationStates should perhaps toughen its approach to racist content in order to ensure that we do not decline to the same level of hostile conduct that we have seen with 4chan.

The fact that the site banned the ‘echo’ is promising in my opinion but I feel I could do better to toughen its line against inciting racial hatred, as in condoning discrimination and all that hate stuff.

Of course, any action we take needs to balance freedom of expression, although here in Europe we do not see incitement to racial hatred as part of freedom of expression. Norway does have laws against hate speech (Section 135a of the Penal Code, PDF) but is #1 in the World Press Freedom Index this year with a score of 7.60 (range is 0-100, lower is better).

Maybe it is because I try to have really high standards in user conduct, even though I am openly honest about my mental health for the hopefully understandable sake of breaking the stigma (TES, 25 April 2017): while most students in my university were drinking and partying, I used the same time to study and come up with new ideas.

I should add to the first paragraph that another example of extremely hostile conduct is the YouTube comments section. I should add to the second paragraph that I am also concerned about some users making blanket assumptions, particularly the “all Muslims are terrorists” assumption.

Nationstates is nowhere near the level of 4chan and it's kind of depressing that you actually believe that nationstates is at risk of reaching the level of 4chan comments... or Youtube comments which from what I heard are even worse than 4chan's in some cases.

I gave myself a bit of time to think about how I could open such a discussion since some groups in the United States see freedom of expression as sacred, regardless of intent.

I'm partly one of those people, then again I also don't believe that banning hate speech is an effective means to ending hate speech and hate in general.

During this time, I have noticed that:

1. The forum rules does not have a specific rule on hate speech or similar, including incitement to racial hatred, justification for discrimination against certain ethnic/sexual groups, or blanket vilification of foreigners or refugees;
2. Other forums on the internet remove all rule-breaking posts from public view.
3. While Facebook and YouTube has come under heavy fire for not enforcing the rules effectively, both have a policy against hate speech (linky, linky).

1. As Reploid Productions pointed out most forms of malicious intent would be gathered from all of the above.
2. So?
3.Unlike nationstates Facebook and Youtube are both giant websites where the war of public opinion is truly critical to their livelyhood.

Hence, I feel that the main points in this discussion are as follows:

[list=1][*]How should NationStates deal with extreme views, such as hate speech (including far-right and Neo-Nazi views) more effectively on NationStates General?
[*]What do you think about the idea of moving all rule-breaking posts (e.g. this post, which was already addressed with this post) to the evidence locker, instead of keeping it in public view?
[*]What do you think about the idea of having a specific rule about hate speech to make things more clearer?
[*]What do you think about the idea of extending the report button to the forums? (but not making such function a part of GHR)* (EDIT: withdrawn due to transparency issues)

1. Debate them, it's the best most effective way of dealing with anything is confronting it directly...
2. Leave it up as proof of their screw up unless the person in question wants their post deleted as a sign of turning over a new leaf is my only suggestion. (But keep it in the evidence locker)
3. The existing rules cover most form of hate speech that is outright offensive... the remaining hate speech, statements that are seen as harsh and wrong, can be debated over.
4. Ignoring since you withdrew it.

To reiterate, any action we take needs to balance freedom of expression, although here in Europe we do not see incitement to racial hatred as part of freedom of expression. Norway does have laws against hate speech (Section 135a of the Penal Code, PDF) but is #1 in the World Press Freedom Index this year with a score of 7.60 (range is 0-100, lower is better).

And in my opinion that's one way that Nationstates is actually superior to Europe when it comes to how they handle hate speech. It's clear that Europe's attempt to end hate speech has done little to actually solve the issues of hate within the region.

I understand that is will be a very sensitive topic, but I feel that it is necessary to bring this up in light of the current events. I hope that this is all in good faith, after reading the guidelines – after all, I don't want NationStates to get negative press attention for appearing to promote hate speech.

-- Minoa

If someone in the press decided to write a smear article on Nationstates claiming that this site is an "Alt right safe haven" the only thing that would happen is that it would be seen as another example of fake news and in the end might just cause Max Berrry to have a few more books sold. Though I'll pity the mods who'll have to preform overtime in banning the influx of Alt Righters and SJWs who'll quickly try to turn the website into their newest battleground.

But really Nationstates has been accused of worse things in the past, I seem to remember an edit war on Wikipedia of people accusing Nationstates of supporting worse things.