[Discussion] Reviewing how NS deals with hate speech

[CoraSpia]

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.

Why is pedophylia such a special case?

[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.

Why is pedophylia such a special case?

Long story short, discussions about age of consent laws/pedophilia attracted the types of people that we really don't want on a website with a sizable under-18 userbase. Some of which were those rare cases that ended up involving IRL law enforcement. =/

[Holy Shot]

I'd honestly ask for more leniency if anything. My primary nation is a mostly-faithful alternate history of Nazi Germany that assumes the Third Reich was formed during the revolutions of 1848. I despise fascism, Nazism, extreme nationalism, socialism, communism... you name it. If it's oppressed people, chances are I wish it to be gone from this Earth.

That said, I believe that on a site dedicated to political simulations, people should be able to express their political views, even if that does include the views of ideologies I personally dislike. We all have morals that are mostly common, and we can nearly universally agree that the Axis governments were some of the most horrifically evil regimes in the history of the world. (I personally find it ironic that we can't universally agree on the Soviet government's evil, despite their kill count, racism, and political repression being as extreme if not moreso much of the time.)


We may personally disagree with hate speech in all its forms, whether that comes from racial supremacy, ultra-nationalism or religious fanaticism. However, it is up to us as grown-up, civilized people to recognize that we are better than them, and that's why they are allowed here.
Some examples: radical sites like Stormfront won't allow dissenters to express their opinions (well, okay, they allow opposition to talk in a special little corral. Whee). That's frankly childish, because anyone who knows their ideology is superior won't mind if the "incorrect" guy starts talking. Faith that their belief is the correct one, and that their correctness will show in discourse with opposing opinions, is what allows Bill Nye to debate Ken Ham and why neither of them are simply going to shut their door to the other. It's why the "free world" allows you to research communism, and the reverse is why East Germans weren't allowed to leave their country.

To take this a step further, imagine for a moment some strange, Man in the High Castle world where the bad guys won and Maximilian Barrystadt made Nationalstaaten, a game where people could make their own (markedly national socialist) choices for a government they created. The world, by now thoroughly indoctrinated, believes that basic moral values such as tolerance and political/religious/economic freedoms are the wrong. Would you still want those all banned because you disagreed with them?

I understand that this is a private site, that the concepts of "freedom" have no legal status here. However, I also understand that we can be the better people and allow for everything to be expressed, knowing secretly that the truly correct way will make itself obvious.

That's really all I have to say, and anything more than that would probably just be a restatement of this.

[CoraSpia]

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.

Why is pedophylia such a special case?

At least it brings those people out into the open before they start harassing/causing more serious trouble.

[The Blaatschapen]

Why is pedophylia such a special case?

At least it brings those people out into the open before they start harassing/causing more serious trouble.

The question is if we, as a mere game website, should want to go through that trouble.

The answer is No. We value the safety of our userbase.

[Dumb Ideologies]

This website already strikes just about the right balance. I would hate for us to go down the rabbit hole of blanket banning words without context or auto-filtering them out as some forums and communities on other sites have. This is a site for discussion and debate. If someone can articulate why they don't like a minority group in a civil way, fine. If something doesn't meet the criteria for trolling it shouldn't be banned just because it happens to be hostile towards a minority group.

I've strongly supported campaigns in the past to ensure trolling and attacks against minority groups are treated equally. But special treatment and protections, and creating a "ban bigots" rule is against the entire point of what this section of the forum is for.

[Internet Freedom Republic]

Communism killed about 100 million innocent people, but Nazism only about 12 million.

Which flags are allowed on NS?

Just pointing this out. I'm not sure why communism is always looked upon as an ideology that's way better than anything, even though it almost led to nuclear annihilation multiple times.

[CoraSpia]

At least it brings those people out into the open before they start harassing/causing more serious trouble.

The question is if we, as a mere game website, should want to go through that trouble.

The answer is No. We value the safety of our userbase.

Our focus should be facilitating debate, rp and enjoyment.
Those individuals would be on this site anyway, they don't come here because their is a thread about whether the age of consent should be lower. However, when they start bragging about doing the sort of stuff to children that makes our skin crawl, we can press the bye-bye pedo button, which we wouldn't be able to press should that useful thread not have brought their sick views into the open.

[The Blaatschapen]

The question is if we, as a mere game website, should want to go through that trouble.

The answer is No. We value the safety of our userbase.

Our focus should be facilitating debate, rp and enjoyment.
Those individuals would be on this site anyway, they don't come here because their is a thread about whether the age of consent should be lower. However, when they start bragging about doing the sort of stuff to children that makes our skin crawl, we can press the bye-bye pedo button, which we wouldn't be able to press should that useful thread not have brought their sick views into the open.

Yeah, we're not going for that. That decision is not up for debate. And this discussion has gone long enough. Back to the original, and somehow more delightful topic of Hate Speech.

[Twilight Imperium]

Communism killed about 100 million innocent people, but Nazism only about 12 million.

Which flags are allowed on NS?

Just pointing this out. I'm not sure why communism is always looked upon as an ideology that's way better than anything, even though it almost led to nuclear annihilation multiple times.

This will be the time this being pointed out makes a difference. Not any of the previous thousands, this one. This one right here.

E: Oh also on topic of course ( ) there's no reason to change the rules at the moment. NS bends over backwards to be fair to every ideology under the sun and promote actual debate and discourse.

[Soyouso]

The mods can definitely tell the difference between someone going out of their way to verbally torment people and when someone has an opinion considered offensive. I think it's doing just fine handling things that are actually hate speech without disrupting freedom of speech. Someone can say they don't like Islam, which is just an opinion, but they can't say that all Muslims are terrorists, that would be considered rule breaking, plus it would actually be hate speech. It works just fine for both sides in my opinion.

[Kennlind]

Hi all,

Hello

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.

Why should we review it? The rules are fine how they are just now. We shouldn't be more intolerant, we should be more tolerant.

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.

Ah, so we should censor opposing viewpoints? I'm no nazi, I despise them in fact, but should we stoop to their level and censor opposing viewpoints? If one can debate in a civil manner, they should be allowed to hold these viewpoints.

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;

Blanket vilification of foreigners or "refugees" (Just use migrants please) would fall under "all X are Y" trolling, and incitement to racial hatred, and in some cases justification for discrimination against certain groups would most likely fall under baiting or trolling as well.

How should NationStates deal with extreme views, such as hate speech (including far-right and Neo-Nazi views) more effectively on NationStates General?

There is already rules for trolling, baiting and flaming. You can say something that would fall under hate speech, but still be considered civil.

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.

Evidently, we don't have freedom of expression in Europe if incitement to racial hatred isn't protected by it.

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.

Yeah I really think this is just an excuse for opinions you disagree with to be banned.

Extra: Looking at the replies so far, it is likely that NationStates needs to be clearer in the forum rules about their approach towards hate speech.

Translation: I don't want anyone to disagree with me

[Internet Freedom Republic]

Communism killed about 100 million innocent people, but Nazism only about 12 million.

Which flags are allowed on NS?

Just pointing this out. I'm not sure why communism is always looked upon as an ideology that's way better than anything, even though it almost led to nuclear annihilation multiple times.

This will be the time this being pointed out makes a difference. Not any of the previous thousands, this one. This one right here.

E: Oh also on topic of course ( ) there's no reason to change the rules at the moment. NS bends over backwards to be fair to every ideology under the sun and promote actual debate and discourse.

Just giving my two cents, mate. No need to start trying to insult me for stating the facts.

Also, if NS was fair to every ideology, then communist imagery would be just as un-allowed as Nazi imagery.

EDIT: ...Which was what I stated in the first place.

[Hadenyx]

Communism killed about 100 million innocent people, but Nazism only about 12 million.

Which flags are allowed on NS?

Just pointing this out. I'm not sure why communism is always looked upon as an ideology that's way better than anything, even though it almost led to nuclear annihilation multiple times.

This will be the time this being pointed out makes a difference. Not any of the previous thousands, this one. This one right here.

E: Oh also on topic of course ( ) there's no reason to change the rules at the moment. NS bends over backwards to be fair to every ideology under the sun and promote actual debate and discourse.

Just giving my two cents, mate. No need to start trying to insult me for stating the facts.

Also, if NS was fair to every ideology, then communist imagery would be just as un-allowed as Nazi imagery.

EDIT: ...Which was what I stated in the first place.

And we're just pointing out that the "b-b-but Communism acted like an asshole tooooooo!!" argument has been addressed countless times on this site in reference to the Nazi imagery ban, so you'll have to excuse us if seeing it reiterated like some epic snappy takedown of the ban is more than a little eyeroll-inducing.

[Katganistan]

I'll just leave this here.

[Ethel mermania]

I'll just leave this here.

maybe japan wanted the zombie attack.

[Katganistan]

I'll just leave this here.

maybe japan wanted the zombie attack.

Possible. Zombies are cool now.

[Internet Freedom Republic]

Communism killed about 100 million innocent people, but Nazism only about 12 million.

Which flags are allowed on NS?

Just pointing this out. I'm not sure why communism is always looked upon as an ideology that's way better than anything, even though it almost led to nuclear annihilation multiple times.

Just giving my two cents, mate. No need to start trying to insult me for stating the facts.

Also, if NS was fair to every ideology, then communist imagery would be just as un-allowed as Nazi imagery.

EDIT: ...Which was what I stated in the first place.

And we're just pointing out that the "b-b-but Communism acted like an asshole tooooooo!!" argument has been addressed countless times on this site in reference to the Nazi imagery ban, so you'll have to excuse us if seeing it reiterated like some epic snappy takedown of the ban is more than a little eyeroll-inducing.

I've never seen a compelling argument against it, but whatever you say

[USS Monitor]

And we're just pointing out that the "b-b-but Communism acted like an asshole tooooooo!!" argument has been addressed countless times on this site in reference to the Nazi imagery ban, so you'll have to excuse us if seeing it reiterated like some epic snappy takedown of the ban is more than a little eyeroll-inducing.

I've never seen a compelling argument against it, but whatever you say

Whatever Max Barry says. We've got orders from the top on this subject.

[Esternial]

You're free to argue your case, though it might not always make a difference. So if you get slapped for hate speech, you (not someone else in your stead) is permitted to request a second opinion and include reasoning as to why your post is not hate speech.

It's a decent enough system which doesn't rely on a set treshold but case-by-case interpretation.

[Yortium Allanstan]

Hi all,

Hello

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.

Why should we review it? The rules are fine how they are just now. We shouldn't be more intolerant, we should be more tolerant.

Why should we be tolerant of Nazis?

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.

Ah, so we should censor opposing viewpoints? I'm no nazi, I despise them in fact, but should we stoop to their level and censor opposing viewpoints? If one can debate in a civil manner, they should be allowed to hold these viewpoints.

Not allowing neo Nazis a platform to spread their noxious views is as bad as advocating genocide?

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;

Blanket vilification of foreigners or "refugees" (Just use migrants please) would fall under "all X are Y" trolling, and incitement to racial hatred, and in some cases justification for discrimination against certain groups would most likely fall under baiting or trolling as well.

And clearly those definitions need to be expanded.

How should NationStates deal with extreme views, such as hate speech (including far-right and Neo-Nazi views) more effectively on NationStates General?

There is already rules for trolling, baiting and flaming. You can say something that would fall under hate speech, but still be considered civil.

I can't tell if you're really this obtuse or if your just trolling. Minoa is clearly arguing for the rules to be amended to include hate speech.

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.

Evidently, we don't have freedom of expression in Europe if incitement to racial hatred isn't protected by it.

You want to incite hatred against minorities?

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.

Yeah I really think this is just an excuse for opinions you disagree with to be banned.

Can you not fucking read? They want to ban HATE SPEECH not disagreement.

Extra: Looking at the replies so far, it is likely that NationStates needs to be clearer in the forum rules about their approach towards hate speech.

Translation: I don't want anyone to disagree with me

Translation: I want to be able to shitpost with impunity.

[Varayusha]

-snip-

You seem to have a clear idea of what constitutes "hate speech". Please give us a definition for the term, and what parts thereof are not already covered by the rules. Also, please explain to us why those parts should be covered, as well as why the parts that already are should be moved or copied into a blanket "hate speech" rule. Remember, a nebulous position cannot be debated, only dismissed.

[Ethel mermania]

Hello


Why should we review it? The rules are fine how they are just now. We shouldn't be more intolerant, we should be more tolerant.

Why should we be tolerant of Nazis?

Ah, so we should censor opposing viewpoints? I'm no nazi, I despise them in fact, but should we stoop to their level and censor opposing viewpoints? If one can debate in a civil manner, they should be allowed to hold these viewpoints.

Not allowing neo Nazis a platform to spread their noxious views is as bad as advocating genocide?

Blanket vilification of foreigners or "refugees" (Just use migrants please) would fall under "all X are Y" trolling, and incitement to racial hatred, and in some cases justification for discrimination against certain groups would most likely fall under baiting or trolling as well.

And clearly those definitions need to be expanded.

There is already rules for trolling, baiting and flaming. You can say something that would fall under hate speech, but still be considered civil.

I can't tell if you're really this obtuse or if your just trolling. Minoa is clearly arguing for the rules to be amended to include hate speech.

Evidently, we don't have freedom of expression in Europe if incitement to racial hatred isn't protected by it.

You want to incite hatred against minorities?

Yeah I really think this is just an excuse for opinions you disagree with to be banned.

Can you not fucking read? They want to ban HATE SPEECH not disagreement.

Translation: I don't want anyone to disagree with me

Translation: I want to be able to shitpost with impunity.

The bolded is hate speech, this post should be banned.

Or warned as it attacks the poster and not the post.

[Kennlind]

Why should we be tolerant of Nazis?

Why should we be tolerant of people who want to crack down on free speech? One minute it's "hate speech", the next it's all forms of dissent. Once you start, you can't stop.

Not allowing neo Nazis a platform to spread their noxious views is as bad as advocating genocide?

Because the only thing the Nazis did was genocide, very smart!

And clearly those definitions need to be expanded.

No they really do not.

I can't tell if you're really this obtuse or if your just trolling. Minoa is clearly arguing for the rules to be amended to include hate speech.

I have mild dyslexia so calling me obtuse would fall under speech.

You want to incite hatred against minorities?

yeah vro thats exactly it you got me

Can you not fucking read? They want to ban HATE SPEECH not disagreement.

Once they ban hate speech, they'll begin trying to ban all forms of political opposition.

Translation: I want to be able to shitpost with impunity.

You know nothing about me yet here you are making claims like this.

[Esternial]

The First Amendment applies in the constitution here.

No, it doesn't.

First off, this isn't even American soil.