Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Facebook takes down Britain First ads

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 136 posts

Re: Facebook takes down Britain First ads

#51

Post by Spivak »

ramblerman wrote: post #37
drugme wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I struggle to see why it is they're simply hate speech and not a valid political movement. A quick look at their "No More Mosques!" campaign should suffice to provide the insight you seek.

Explain to me why that is not something people can vote on? What if I don't want Saudi funded mosques in particular, is there any nuance allowed. There is no racism or exclusion based on a person's ethnicity here. Should we lock up Richard Dawkins for being anti catholic?

Of course there's nuance allowed. We're talking about human speech, it's basically all nuance.

If you say that Saudi funding churches, businesses, housing, etc. is not good for Britain for a reason other than you have something against Saudis as a people then you're fine.

If you say you're against all churches because you're an anti-theist then you're fine.

There is absolutely exclusion based on ethnicity. It's extremely important to recognize that there is a difference between someone who is religiously Muslim and ethnically Muslim -- same with Judaism -- and same with Christianity too as well but we don't call it that because we're the default in the West. Saying there is no such thing ignores the dominating cultural impact of religious institutions.

Re: Facebook takes down Britain First ads

#52

Post by YorkshireSeason »

drugme wrote: post #32
alkibiades wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

why is that hate speech? i don’t want more churches built, is that hate speech?

I don’t want more churches built, is that hate speech? Yes. What business is it of yours what people do behind closed doors? (EDIT: assuming that behavior is otherwise law-abiding, in compliance with building codes, etc).

What people do behind closed doors tends to affect what they do openly.

Religion has historically always been used as a tool to assert political power. Mosques often get financed by undemocratic regimes, in particular Mohammad bin Salman's Saudi-Arabia, which most definitely funds Mosques in a political influence operation.

Re: Facebook takes down Britain First ads

#53

Post by Cthulhu_ »

EGreg wrote: post #27

I've seen Britain First ads. While I disagree with their fearmongering, I think they went to great lengths to portray things in a nonviolent and "we Christians just want to make sure our children can still practice Christianity" way. Really, though, this is beside the point. Just like whether the Internet should be regulated under Title I or Title II was beside the point. The point is that, when you're at a point whe…

> Why are we, in 2018, still relying on giant centralized corporations to connect us and "allow" us to have our own (shocker) chatroom on their servers?

We're not though, but why are you posting this in a centralized, censored / managed comment section while you could go to one of the decentralized open source alternatives currently being worked on? It's not about options, it's about what everyone wants - engagement, being where the crowds are, being heard, reading other people's opinions. As long as they align enough with your own, of course.

Re: Facebook takes down Britain First ads

#54

Post by js8 »

EGreg wrote: post #21
bluGill wrote: post #7

Regardless of content I don't want to live in a world where corporate interests censor me.

So join us in building open source alternatives.

I am curious - which open source alternative to Facebook (and Google) has currently the most traction?

Re: Facebook takes down Britain First ads

#56

Post by [deleted] »

Spivak wrote: post #28
alkibiades wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

why is that hate speech? i don’t want more churches built, is that hate speech?

It depends, why don't you want more churches built? Because it's a Muslim church and you don't like them? Because you're an anti-theist? Because you don't like the noise? Because you think their application for a zoning exception is shaky?

[deleted]

Re: Facebook takes down Britain First ads

#58

Post by lewisflude »

Cthulhu_ wrote: post #46
lewisflude wrote: post #23

I feel like this corporate censorship is awful for free speech. Specifically, because dividing people by beliefs/demographics increases tribalistic behaviour and the spread of misinformation. I foresee a situation where we have multiple social networks, each with radically different social/political slants. Similar to what we've seen with things like Reddit and Voat.

Free speech on the internet is a dream. Look at what happened while Reddit tried to advocate it - shitholes like coontown, dead girl fetishes, and a lot of other shit. That's "free speech" too. Everyone has their own standards at what is acceptable in online communities.

I agree completely! I don't expect free speech as a must for online communities. When it comes down to it, these are private companies, and not public services.

Most of the time when I see people advocating for free speech, it's to be allowed to give controversial opinions, or say things that would otherwise be seen as totally unacceptable.

Any social media site that I'd personally like to be a part of would ideally be "intolerant to intolerance, although I cannot stress enough how I think that people with intolerant opinions shouldn't be restricted from voicing their opinion. At least not at a political level.

Re: Facebook takes down Britain First ads

#59

Post by plufz »

I never think ads have been fair or 100% free speech. If I own a web site with ads I very much get to pick which organizations can use my platform for getting out their message. And they are free to start other web pages with their own content. Also if I am a billionarie I can make my voice heard a billion times louder than a poor person, how democratic is that? When Facebook bans actual accounts or pages, I think that is a bit different. You could still argue that they could start their own web page, but I think that is murkier territory when they limit non-paid free speech.

Edit: Would be great to get a reply on why I'm being downvoted?

Re: Facebook takes down Britain First ads

#60

Post by Spivak »

asdkhadsj wrote: post #45
Spivak wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It depends, why don't you want more churches built? Because it's a Muslim church and you don't like them? Because you're an anti-theist? Because you don't like the noise? Because you think their application for a zoning exception is shaky?

Curiously, is it better to be anti-theist than anti-Muslim? I have a feeling like I can be against religion, but not one religion.

You can be against the the faith tied to your ethnicity. So if you're ethnically Christian you can rail against the Catholic church specifically all day long. Not trying to say whether this is right or wrong, just that you can hate a particular religion with impunity as long as you're part of the in-group.
Post reply on HN