8 ms·

I remember Jared Kushner was asked about the Russians ads, he said something along the lines of "that's what the GOP spends in advertising in 3 hours". I don't

I remember Jared Kushner was asked about the Russians ads, he said something along the lines of "that's what the GOP spends in advertising in 3 hours". I don't think 99.99% of people understand the scale to which propaganda and establishment bias penetrates into their lives and daily functioning. "Hate Speech", defined essentially as any form of discrimination whatsoever, has been made illegal in Europe following the growth of the anti-immigration far right. Is this fair towards these parties? Imagine making climate change speech illegal because it hurts the feelings of people who drive cars or eat meat. Would green parties not be discriminated against? How about making speech illegal that suggests increasing taxes on corporations? Where do we stop? There is always an ongoing political battle to steer our thinking. The world is a political place down to the air we breathe, what we eat, what we wear, how we to talk to each other and increasingly even what people we find in our community.

La1n 7y ago
>"Hate Speech", defined essentially as any form of discrimination whatsoever, has been made illegal in Europe following the growth of the anti-immigration far right. Source? This is not true in my experience.
- Synaesthesia 7y ago
  In many countries “hate speech” is illegal, the US is one of the few with truly free speech. Pro Nazi and racial incitement speech is illegal in France, Germany and Austria AFAIK. Here in South Africa too. Even though I’m for free speech, I feel this is understandable and defendable.
  - La1n 7y ago
    I know there are quite a few European countries with laws against hate speech, I was mostly referring to the following two parts: >defined essentially as any form of discrimination whatsoever >has been made illegal in Europe following the growth of the anti-immigration far right.
  - solinent 7y ago
    Even in the states, there are plenty of exceptions to free speech. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exce... The US definitely has the most free speech, but you're still restricted in various ways.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- charlchi 7y ago
  In this case it is useful to carefully read what I have said and to take stock of the definitions. "Illegal hate speech" is currently defined as inciting violence or hatred against specific people based on some characteristics. In the larger context which I have mentioned, there is a correspondence between various EU multi-national and national governmental agencies, hundreds of NGOs and "The IT Companies"(Microsoft, Facebook, Twitter, etc..) that establishes more specifically how these rules are implemented in the context of "hate".
- jsonne 7y ago
  https://www.wsj.com/articles/europe-court-upholds-ruling-against-women-who-insulted-islam-1540580231 https://www.wsj.com/articles/europe-court-upholds-ruling-aga... There was no incitement to violence here in so far as I can tell and this woman was found guilty not only in Austria but in the ECHR
  - zajio1am 7y ago
    You are mixing up hate speech laws and blasphemy laws. While hate speech laws are pretty common in EU, blasphemy laws are vestige of the past, and in just few EU members (e.g Austria and Germany).
    - jsonne 7y ago
      I mean what is the functional difference between a hate speech law and a blasphemy law? Seems it's just a subset of hate speech and is relevant to the conversation.
      - La1n 7y ago
        But legally they are two different things. Just because you feel it's a subset of hate speech that doesn't mean it is. In a lot of countries with hate speech laws, but no blasphemy laws, this would be allowed. She did not say anything about the people following Islam but about a religious figure, these are not the same thing.
      - zajio1am 7y ago
        They have distinct targets. Hate speech laws forbid speech against groups of people, not against ideas and religious characters. Verbally attacking christians or muslims may fall under hate speech laws, while verbally attacking Christianity, Islam, Jesus or Mohammad does not. But it would fall under blasphemy laws.
jascii 7y ago
No, you can not equate laws against inciting violence against minorities with censoring political debate based on a vague and unsubstantiated redefinition of the term "hate speech" Hate speech laws have been around in various forms throughout Europe since the end of WW2. And yes, it is fair to expect a party to stick to the same laws as other parties and not incite violence, be it physical, verbal, or otherwise, to minorities.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
timje1 7y ago
'"Hate Speech", defined essentially as any form of discrimination whatsoever, has been made illegal in Europe following the growth of the anti-immigration far right.' Misguided on a number of fronts -> 'hate speech' is defined differently in each country but usually requires an incitement to violence, or direct violent threats, before a prosecution takes place. Hate Speech wasn't made illegal as a result of the recent rise of the anti-immigration far right, these laws have often been in place for decades and were initially aimed at neo-nazis. e.g. 1986 in the UK. 1985 in Germany (initially). And "in Europe" is a fucking stupid grouping when it comes to these laws as each country is completely different - what you can do in Romania is vastly different to what you can do in Germany.
- charlchi 7y ago
  > Misguided on a number of fronts -> 'hate speech' is defined differently in each country but usually requires an incitement to violence, or direct violent threats, before a prosecution takes place. This is very untrue and you clearly have not researched what has happened in the actual written law or in the correspondence between various EU governments, NGO's and big tech companies the past few years. And I'll add just in case this isn't clear, inciting hateful action against people should(edit: whoops) be illegal. But banning all forms of discrimination whatsoever is going too far.
  - Alma_Elma 7y ago
    > inciting hateful action against people shouldn't be illegal. excuse me? edit: apparently it was a freudian typo and got fixed.
    - jacobush 7y ago
      Saying it was a freudian type is sort of a jab at him anyways..
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
hos234 7y ago
It won't stop, but will reduce over time, as people realize the return on investment. Right now its just mindless red queen dynamics. Everyone is running on treadmills going nowhere, producing no great outcomes, but continue to do so cause the "enemy" is doing it.
jfengel 7y ago
And indeed, it's not clear to me how much of a difference those ads made against the background of that total advertising budget. Such things are hard to measure, but at the very least those ads came after decades of campaigning that primed people to believe them. Personally, I suspect they moved the needle by at most a point or two. Given the closeness of the election, that was all they needed -- indeed, they may not have been needed at all. But they do make a very good focal point for the broader question of whether it was worth it to win elections under those circumstances, with their opponents presented in such negative terms that political cooperation is almost impossible and they can achieve almost nothing legislatively.
jsonne 7y ago
I mean not that I'm a big Jared Kushner fan but he's right. I'm a nobody in digital advertising land and I regularly spend more than the Russians did in total for clients on a weekly basis. Take from that what you will, and not to downsize election interference, but it really is a negligible amount they spent in the grand context of advertising.

La1n 7y ago

>"Hate Speech", defined essentially as any form of discrimination whatsoever, has been made illegal in Europe following the growth of the anti-immigration far right. Source? This is not true in my experience.

Synaesthesia 7y ago
In many countries “hate speech” is illegal, the US is one of the few with truly free speech. Pro Nazi and racial incitement speech is illegal in France, Germany and Austria AFAIK. Here in South Africa too. Even though I’m for free speech, I feel this is understandable and defendable.
- La1n 7y ago
  I know there are quite a few European countries with laws against hate speech, I was mostly referring to the following two parts: >defined essentially as any form of discrimination whatsoever >has been made illegal in Europe following the growth of the anti-immigration far right.
- solinent 7y ago
  Even in the states, there are plenty of exceptions to free speech. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exce... The US definitely has the most free speech, but you're still restricted in various ways.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
charlchi 7y ago
In this case it is useful to carefully read what I have said and to take stock of the definitions. "Illegal hate speech" is currently defined as inciting violence or hatred against specific people based on some characteristics. In the larger context which I have mentioned, there is a correspondence between various EU multi-national and national governmental agencies, hundreds of NGOs and "The IT Companies"(Microsoft, Facebook, Twitter, etc..) that establishes more specifically how these rules are implemented in the context of "hate".
jsonne 7y ago
https://www.wsj.com/articles/europe-court-upholds-ruling-against-women-who-insulted-islam-1540580231 https://www.wsj.com/articles/europe-court-upholds-ruling-aga... There was no incitement to violence here in so far as I can tell and this woman was found guilty not only in Austria but in the ECHR
- zajio1am 7y ago
  You are mixing up hate speech laws and blasphemy laws. While hate speech laws are pretty common in EU, blasphemy laws are vestige of the past, and in just few EU members (e.g Austria and Germany).
  - jsonne 7y ago
    I mean what is the functional difference between a hate speech law and a blasphemy law? Seems it's just a subset of hate speech and is relevant to the conversation.
    - La1n 7y ago
      But legally they are two different things. Just because you feel it's a subset of hate speech that doesn't mean it is. In a lot of countries with hate speech laws, but no blasphemy laws, this would be allowed. She did not say anything about the people following Islam but about a religious figure, these are not the same thing.
    - zajio1am 7y ago
      They have distinct targets. Hate speech laws forbid speech against groups of people, not against ideas and religious characters. Verbally attacking christians or muslims may fall under hate speech laws, while verbally attacking Christianity, Islam, Jesus or Mohammad does not. But it would fall under blasphemy laws.

jascii 7y ago

No, you can not equate laws against inciting violence against minorities with censoring political debate based on a vague and unsubstantiated redefinition of the term "hate speech" Hate speech laws have been around in various forms throughout Europe since the end of WW2. And yes, it is fair to expect a party to stick to the same laws as other parties and not incite violence, be it physical, verbal, or otherwise, to minorities.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

timje1 7y ago

'"Hate Speech", defined essentially as any form of discrimination whatsoever, has been made illegal in Europe following the growth of the anti-immigration far right.' Misguided on a number of fronts -> 'hate speech' is defined differently in each country but usually requires an incitement to violence, or direct violent threats, before a prosecution takes place. Hate Speech wasn't made illegal as a result of the recent rise of the anti-immigration far right, these laws have often been in place for decades and were initially aimed at neo-nazis. e.g. 1986 in the UK. 1985 in Germany (initially). And "in Europe" is a fucking stupid grouping when it comes to these laws as each country is completely different - what you can do in Romania is vastly different to what you can do in Germany.

charlchi 7y ago
> Misguided on a number of fronts -> 'hate speech' is defined differently in each country but usually requires an incitement to violence, or direct violent threats, before a prosecution takes place. This is very untrue and you clearly have not researched what has happened in the actual written law or in the correspondence between various EU governments, NGO's and big tech companies the past few years. And I'll add just in case this isn't clear, inciting hateful action against people should(edit: whoops) be illegal. But banning all forms of discrimination whatsoever is going too far.
- Alma_Elma 7y ago
  > inciting hateful action against people shouldn't be illegal. excuse me? edit: apparently it was a freudian typo and got fixed.
  - jacobush 7y ago
    Saying it was a freudian type is sort of a jab at him anyways..
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]

hos234 7y ago

It won't stop, but will reduce over time, as people realize the return on investment. Right now its just mindless red queen dynamics. Everyone is running on treadmills going nowhere, producing no great outcomes, but continue to do so cause the "enemy" is doing it.

jfengel 7y ago

And indeed, it's not clear to me how much of a difference those ads made against the background of that total advertising budget. Such things are hard to measure, but at the very least those ads came after decades of campaigning that primed people to believe them. Personally, I suspect they moved the needle by at most a point or two. Given the closeness of the election, that was all they needed -- indeed, they may not have been needed at all. But they do make a very good focal point for the broader question of whether it was worth it to win elections under those circumstances, with their opponents presented in such negative terms that political cooperation is almost impossible and they can achieve almost nothing legislatively.

jsonne 7y ago

I mean not that I'm a big Jared Kushner fan but he's right. I'm a nobody in digital advertising land and I regularly spend more than the Russians did in total for clients on a weekly basis. Take from that what you will, and not to downsize election interference, but it really is a negligible amount they spent in the grand context of advertising.