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

71–80 of 136 posts

Re: Facebook takes down Britain First ads

#71

Post by pjc50 »

lewisflude wrote: post #64
robertAngst wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems like this is the first time non millennials had to deal with 'shitty mods'. They are new and don't understand- Its time to move off facebook. Same reason I'm here instead of reddit.

I think the fact that I've not encountered an "evergreen" community (i.e. one that doesn't go the way of Digg, Reddit eventually) gives me a lot of anxiety with regards to my day to day online community usage. Online communities often feel ephemeral, but maybe that's healthy in the grand scheme of the internet? I'm really thankful that we have good mods here on HN.

Metafilter has been around for almost 20 years with a small, stable, gatekept community.

I think a certain amount of churn is unavoidable in this accelerated 21st century life, sadly.

Re: Facebook takes down Britain First ads

#72

Post by lewisflude »

alistairSH wrote: post #42
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.

How is that different than news papers or long-form magazines deciding what to report and what op-eds to publish?

I don't think it is! Major social networks behave more similarly to magazines, newspapers, publishing networks than they do communication protocols that put you directly in touch with someone else (email, phone, letters).

I think a lot of people hold this philosophical belief that social networks have some sort of responsibility to be fair on everyone all of the time, but I don't really see how companies are incentivised towards that in any way.

There is a sort of ethical question, that in the same way that in theory news organisations should be honest, diligent and accurate that social networks do have some sort of responsibility to be fair on everyone.

It's just not enforceable currently, and I feel like trying to force that sort of integrity onto social networks isn't currently viable.

Re: Facebook takes down Britain First ads

#73

Post by ryanmonroe »

alistairSH wrote: post #42
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.

How is that different than news papers or long-form magazines deciding what to report and what op-eds to publish?

Because news papers and magazines review all their content by hand (and usually make that content themselves). The comparison you're making is like seeing a weekly neighborhood get together where everyone joins in except the black family which is excluded and saying "Well what about all the other private homes that black people never enter?". Those other homes aren't having a neighborhood get together, it's a different thing.

Re: Facebook takes down Britain First ads

#74

Post by [deleted] »

Spivak wrote: post #51
ramblerman wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 extre…

[deleted]

Re: Facebook takes down Britain First ads

#75

Post by mc32 »

pjc50 wrote: post #35
mc32 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does this mean countries with nascent independence movements will be able to declare these movements "hate speech"? I don't see much difference. Let's say Chiapas rebels or Puerto Rico or Scotts’ Independence movement want to seek independence, can the government declare that hate speech and have all that taken down? If this argument sticks, I can’t see why the above isn’t in similar vein.

The distinguishing factor is the promotion of hatred and implied violence. I remember when the UK banned Sinn Fein from appearing on TV, including their actual elected MPs , resulting in the ridiculous "words read by an actor" workaround.

Ok, looks like it’s a fascist group which engages in violence. It’s still tricky though because there are independence groups which while they have legitimate goals also engage in violence.

Or even AntiFa who bill themselves as anti fascists engage in violence, on occasion. Not sure they buy ads though.

Re: Facebook takes down Britain First ads

#76

Post by ben_w »

pointillistic wrote: post #8

Anyone remembers how the internet was going to liberate the expression, instead we got two, three bottlenecks manned (or is it personed?) by censors actively supported by the MSM and virtually the entire university system.

> manned (or is it personed?)

“Staffed”

Re: Facebook takes down Britain First ads

#77

Post by nemo44x »

ben_w wrote: post #67
nemo44x wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The irony is their countries flag depicts a Christian cross and they have a national religion. I can see why people are confused.

That’s the first I’ve heard that the Union Jack or any part of it is a Christian cross. Proportions all seem wrong for that. I agree with the point about state religion though.

It’s St. George’s Cross and a symbol of the Crusades. The Union Jack is a combination of flags. England is its own country among the UK, remember.

Re: Facebook takes down Britain First ads

#78

Post by pjc50 »

gwbas1c wrote: post #15

Maybe it's time to realize that it's very hard to be objective and neutral. In this case, being objective and neutral is just giving the extremes a platform to promote themselves. Maybe sites like Facebook should try taking a "no politics" policy, or a policy where a political ad is always placed next to a free ad from the opposing side?

> a political ad is always placed next to a free ad from the opposing side?

This is obviously a disaster, as it gives free rein to put lies on the same footing as truth. But adopting local rules on electoral advertising is a really good idea - UK print political adverts must have an imprint saying who's paid for them, for example.

Re: Facebook takes down Britain First ads

#79

Post by davweb »

ben_w wrote: post #67
nemo44x wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The irony is their countries flag depicts a Christian cross and they have a national religion. I can see why people are confused.

That’s the first I’ve heard that the Union Jack or any part of it is a Christian cross. Proportions all seem wrong for that. I agree with the point about state religion though.

The Union Jack comprises the cross of St George, the cross of St Andrew and the cross of the St Patrick. It's nothing but Christian crosses.

Re: Facebook takes down Britain First ads

#80

Post by guitarbill »

pjc50 wrote: post #35
mc32 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does this mean countries with nascent independence movements will be able to declare these movements "hate speech"? I don't see much difference. Let's say Chiapas rebels or Puerto Rico or Scotts’ Independence movement want to seek independence, can the government declare that hate speech and have all that taken down? If this argument sticks, I can’t see why the above isn’t in similar vein.

The distinguishing factor is the promotion of hatred and implied violence. I remember when the UK banned Sinn Fein from appearing on TV, including their actual elected MPs , resulting in the ridiculous "words read by an actor" workaround.

While I've had the pleasure of not interacting much with Britain First, and it's possible they do engage in "promotion of hatred" or "implied violence", really that could be anything these days. Like CNN's overreaction to a GIF/meme, or the internet reacting badly to an awful interview.

And talking about actual elected MPs being replaces by actors, this is a fairly common tactic since you can't use footage from the House of Commons for comedy or satire. So it's worth remembering censorship doesn't need a reason once rules or laws are put in place.

Post reply on HN