Facebook takes down Britain First ads • Hacker News Board

Re: Facebook takes down Britain First ads

#101

Post by saint_fiasco » Mon, Jan 07, 2019, 4:35 PM UTC

fxfan wrote: post #66

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?

I don't agree with Christianity's stand on gays. Hence no more churches. I don't agree with islam's stance on gays and women and adultery. Hence no more mosques. Am I a hater?

Yes.

Preventing the construction of mosques and churches does not actually help women and gay people. All it does is hurt their enemies, and that is not the same thing.

Re: Facebook takes down Britain First ads

#102

Post by freehunter » Mon, Jan 07, 2019, 4:36 PM UTC

spaginal wrote: post #94

freehunter wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 e…

The slope is not nearly as slippery as you're imagining it to be. I'm not sure literal white supremecists are the shining beacon upon which you want to hang your argument (if I'm wrong on this, you don't need to read any further). We're not talking about a controversial political opinion, we're not talking about coastal liberals shutting down good American conservative free speech, we're talking about white supremecists who refer to themselves as genocidal. People who want to murder (and have done so) non-white people just for the crime of having a different skin color.

But beyond that absolutely ridiculous argument, yes. The Internet is free-as-in-freedom as long as you have an IP address. If you want to start your own competitor to the World Wide Web because a few private companies exercise their right to not to business with you, you can do that. The Web and the Internet work without domain names, and if you really need your message out there and your followers really need to hear it, is typing in an IP address too much work? If it is, then your message might not be as convincing as you think it is. But even still, you can host your own website or Internet service regardless. And you can start your own registrar and host your own servers and make your own payment processor. That is entirely possible and at that point only the government can stop you (and even then, you can choose your own government like The Pirate Bay did). If your movement is stopped by a lack of convenience, that's not Facebook's problem.

Saying "but Facebook banned me" as if Facebook was the entire Internet or even the entire Web doesn't fly. Only you can give them that power, and you can take that power from them whenever you want to. Being banned from Twitter/Facebook/YouTube is only a problem if you honestly believe that Twitter/Facebook/YouTube owns the entire Internet. But they don't. You're free to start a competitor any time you want.

Re: Facebook takes down Britain First ads

#103

Post by rdtsc » Mon, Jan 07, 2019, 4:42 PM UTC

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 if you're ethnically Christian

How does that work? Russians are ethnically Christian I presume, but they are Orthodox Christians so do they get a license to rail against the Catholic church or would that be "hate speech". What about railing against Mormons? Or does that only extend to the religious sect that is traditionally associated with that ethnic group in that particular area?

I see the idea I think, but it seem it needs to be defined a bit more precisely to be useful.

Re: Facebook takes down Britain First ads

#104

Post by manfredo » Mon, Jan 07, 2019, 4:52 PM UTC

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.

Plenty of countries regulate public religious practice. Take France, for instance, which even regulates public display of religious symbols . Does it follow that it is hate speech to say, "the government should handle religion more like France."?

Re: Facebook takes down Britain First ads

#105

Post by Buldak » Mon, Jan 07, 2019, 4:59 PM UTC

growlist wrote: post #85

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?

..and this is the problem with hate speech - it involves perceived intent and thus the criminalisation of thought.

This could be said of many more crimes than hate speech.

Re: Facebook takes down Britain First ads

#106

Post by manfredo » Mon, Jan 07, 2019, 5:07 PM UTC

freehunter wrote: post #102

spaginal wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 e…

The slope is not nearly as slippery as you're imagining it to be. I'm not sure literal white supremecists are the shining beacon upon which you want to hang your argument (if I'm wrong on this, you don't need to read any further). We're not talking about a controversial political opinion, we're not talking about coastal liberals shutting down good American conservative free speech, we're talking about white supremeci…

Do you have a source to back up your claim that Britain First have "referred to themselves as genocidal"? Extreme claims require extreme evidence, and I have not been able to find instances where they have referred to themselves as such. You're making a very significant claim when you say that Britian First has described themselves as genocidal (as opposed to being described as such by others).

While it may be tempting to reach for the most extreme label one can think of to try and inspire others to reject something that seriously distresses you, when it goes into the realm of hyperbole it mostly functions to decrease the crediblility of the point you're making and lessens the significance of the label you're using.

Re: Facebook takes down Britain First ads

#107

Post by xolorg » Mon, Jan 07, 2019, 5:21 PM UTC

baddox wrote: post #12

vorpalhex wrote: post #4

As always, this begs the question between hate speech and disfavored political speech. I think Britain First is doing their best to actively revert the UK back 50 years, but I struggle to see why it is they're simply hate speech and not a valid political movement.

> Ads for a Britain First petition to stop a mosque being built in Maidstone, Kent, appeared on Facebook over the Christmas period, despite the group being banned by the social network. > The three ads and the page on which they originated have now been removed, after BBC News contacted Facebook. I think it’s safe to say that the “to stop a mosque being built” is the important phrase here.

How is that hate speech...

Re: Facebook takes down Britain First ads

#108

Post by gammateam » Mon, Jan 07, 2019, 5:22 PM UTC

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…

I dont think it matters? I didnt say it was evil, interestingly enough you did

Cambridge Analytica is still the instruction manual

Its almost like your response was on your clipboard for anytime you saw CA in a sentence

How would you expect me to respond to that.. sorry that Obama’s team isnt getting credit?

Re: Facebook takes down Britain First ads

#109

Post by xolorg » Mon, Jan 07, 2019, 5:22 PM UTC

saint_fiasco wrote: post #101

fxfan wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't agree with Christianity's stand on gays. Hence no more churches. I don't agree with islam's stance on gays and women and adultery. Hence no more mosques. Am I a hater?

Yes. Preventing the construction of mosques and churches does not actually help women and gay people. All it does is hurt their enemies, and that is not the same thing.

You are a hater for saying he is a hater.

Re: Facebook takes down Britain First ads

#110

Post by drugme » Mon, Jan 07, 2019, 5:30 PM UTC

manfredo wrote: post #104

drugme wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Plenty of countries regulate public religious practice. Take France, for instance, which even regulates public display of religious symbols . Does it follow that it is hate speech to say, "the government should handle religion more like France."?

Does it follow that it is hate speech to say, "the government should handle religion more like France."?

You'll note that France does not, by any stretch, attempt to ban mosques outright.

So obviously there's not much of a comparison here.