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

91–100 of 136 posts

Re: Facebook takes down Britain First ads

#91

Post by andybak »

Spivak wrote: post #60
asdkhadsj wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

So how does this rule work if there's multiple faiths tied to your ethnicity?

Re: Facebook takes down Britain First ads

#92

Post by dashundchen »

tossaccount123 wrote: post #5
gammateam wrote: post #2

“Political groups have been spending increasing amounts of money on Facebook adverts” That’s because Cambridge Analytical was the instruction manual All the hearings and dockets are better free content than any marketing guru’s online course

give me a break, Obama's team was allowed to suck up Facebook's entire social graph and also used an app to get the data for all of the app users friends without consent https://www.fastcompany.com/40546816/obama-campaigns-targete... Zuckerberg and Sandberg hosted events to raise money for Obama https://www.cbsnews.com/news/obama-harnessing-facebooks-soci... The media called it genius and a good thing when obama used…

This is propaganda level whataboutism that is attempting to conflate two different things.

1. The Obama for America campaign directly asked users permission to access their friend graph, which was allowed and stated in the permissions at the time before FB reduced app permission scope.

2. The action taken on that data was to cross reference publicly available voter registration lists to suggest those most likely to respond to an invitation to join the campaign sent by the first user. No consent was missed here either.

Whereas Cambridge Analytica:

1. Bought the data from a third party, who had slurped it down under the pretenses of "academic research" in a random quiz app. Already a couple layers of misdirection here. This was after FB had tightened up their data usage policy

2. Peddled the data for targeted harassment and voter manipulation with false or misleading info. The leadership pitched services such as staging blackmail by spreading rumors about an opponents sexuality, targeting them with prostitutes and then disseminating that info.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/ex-trump-consultant-and-cambri...

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/obama-campaign-use-tactics...

Re: Facebook takes down Britain First ads

#93

Post by bluecalm »

drugme wrote: post #90
bluecalm wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's wrong about being against one religion in particular. I think it's very reasonable to be against Islam because of its stance on gay rights, women rights, penalty for apostasy and their holy book which if interpretet literally (which is how vast majority of Muslims believe it should be interpreted) is full of hate and calls for violence. Not wanting any more of that or institutions promoting that is reasonable…

What's wrong about being against one religion in particular. You can be "against" a particular religion all you want. But you have absolutely no right to prohibit anyone from practicing that religion simply because you don't like it. Including the "practice" of getting together with friends in a room or a building, and posting a sign outside the door saying this is what you do.

Churches have special status given by the government. This means I should absolutely have a say how many, what kind and where they are built. It's not about home meetings to read the Bible after dinner. It's about special status institutions which influencen the areas they are built in.

Re: Facebook takes down Britain First ads

#94

Post by spaginal »

freehunter wrote: post #84
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.

That is absolutely not the fault of the Internet and entirely the fault of the people using the Internet. Every time I hear this complaint on a forum other than Facebook or Reddit or Twitter I laugh because if it was true, HN wouldn't exist. The millions of independent phpBB forums wouldn't exist. I wouldn't be allowed to write my own HTML and Javascript if this was true. Some people willingly put themselves into buc…

https://www.google.com/amp/s/techcrunch.com/2017/08/13/godad...

Domain providers are beginning to police content they deem as unacceptable speech or ideas. Are you going to remember IP addresses when the DNS system itself polices thought?

The problem is, tech companies are beginning to behave like a cartel when it comes to free expression. We don’t just see it in Facebook, we see it across all facets of the digital economy, from payment providers to hosting providers to DNS services themselves.

If your solution for someone getting the scarlet letter is to say they are free to build their own network, then we are approaching a major problem.

Re: Facebook takes down Britain First ads

#95

Post by Spivak »

andybak wrote: post #91
Spivak wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

So how does this rule work if there's multiple faiths tied to your ethnicity?

You can be against all of them I would think. I'm not trying to make a comment on whether any of this is 'right' just that there is an example where you can dislike a particular religion with impunity because you're part of the in-group.

Re: Facebook takes down Britain First ads

#96

Post by dep_b »

OK so let's assume for a moment that those people neither have a problem with the religious part of Islam nor the fact that it's usually practiced by foreigners but only have a problem with the political part. Then let's apply it to something else to see how it feels:

"Facebook removes petition against Communist youth center"

It has a kind of 1950's ring to it and it still doesn't totally remove the smell of stupidity, but this once was a very common stance not only in the US but in most western countries.

"We want Britain to stay capitalist" is absolutely not a strange slogan.

I still think anybody should be able to be a Communist in a free society, as long as they don't plan a violent guerrilla or want to overthrow democracy with some kind of idealistic planned economy dictatorship.

Re: Facebook takes down Britain First ads

#97

Post by lclarkmichalek »

irb wrote: post #22
alkibiades wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

is your campaign against more churches being built part of an overall plan to drive christians out of your area?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/mar/14/facebook-bans-...

They got banned a while back, not relating to this specific advert.

Re: Facebook takes down Britain First ads

#98

Post by EGreg »

Cthulhu_ wrote: post #53
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,…

Actually HN built their own software for their own forum, and I think even released it. They aren't hosted on some huge centralized site. This is exactly what I'm talking about.

Would you also say "it's not about options" in other areas like net neutrality, telcos or banking?

Re: Facebook takes down Britain First ads

#100

Post by alkibiades »

Spivak wrote: post #60
asdkhadsj wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

that’s really racist. what race is associated with Islam? Only someone whose never traveled and been to malaysia or pakistan or iran or turkey could lump them all as one ethnic group.
Post reply on HN