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

111–120 of 136 posts

Re: Facebook takes down Britain First ads

#111

Post by drugme »

bluecalm wrote: post #93
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.

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.

Churches have special status given by the government.

Then maybe the problem is the messed up laws providing that "special status" then. But that doesn't mean you can (even under those laws) category ban a certain group from building any churches, anywhere.

Which is exactly what Britain First is advocating.

Re: Facebook takes down Britain First ads

#112

Post by freehunter »

manfredo wrote: post #106
freehunter wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 tempti…

I was responding to the link that spaginal had posted about Daily Stormer. In that article, it says "[Daily Stormer] calls itself “The World’s Most Genocidal Republican Website.”"

I am not referring to Britain First at all, and there is no hyperbole or reaching for extreme labels involved with my comment.

Re: Facebook takes down Britain First ads

#113

Post by manfredo »

freehunter wrote: post #112
manfredo wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 tempti…

I was responding to the link that spaginal had posted about Daily Stormer. In that article, it says "[Daily Stormer] calls itself “The World’s Most Genocidal Republican Website.”" I am not referring to Britain First at all, and there is no hyperbole or reaching for extreme labels involved with my comment.

Thanks for clarifying, as your previous post did not specify what group is being referred (and also talked about being banned from Facebook, which is why I inferred you were writing about Britian First).

Re: Facebook takes down Britain First ads

#114

Post by manfredo »

drugme wrote: post #110
manfredo wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Note that while France is a secular country, secularism is not the same thing as freedom of religion. Plenty of secular countries seek freedom from religion. This can entail restrictions that prevent people from practicing religious customs, like the burka ban. The degree of magnitude between something like that and halting the construction of mosques is debatable. A good argument can be made that the former is more restrictive than the latter: the former actually prevents people from practicing religious customs, the latter only prevents formal religious establishments. In other words, banning mosques means people can be practicing Muslims that pray in their home, while the latter prevents people from being practicing Muslims at all (if adhering to dress codes is considered part of practicing the religion).

The point I'm ultimately making is that the statement:

> But you have absolutely no right to prohibit anyone from practicing that religion simply because you don't like it.

Is demonstrably incorrect. Relatively liberal and progressive countries at times do prohibit people from practicing their religion, and France's restrictions serve as an example.

Re: Facebook takes down Britain First ads

#115

Post by spaginal »

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…

Is the only food store in town, who is ran by a racist, allowed to starve black families by refusing them service because of their skin color?

Are tech companies across the board allowed to shut down, disenfranchise, silence, and marginalize people and businesses because they simply disagree with their lawful politics and ideas?

Re: Facebook takes down Britain First ads

#116

Post by spaginal »

freehunter wrote: post #112
manfredo wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 tempti…

I was responding to the link that spaginal had posted about Daily Stormer. In that article, it says "[Daily Stormer] calls itself “The World’s Most Genocidal Republican Website.”" I am not referring to Britain First at all, and there is no hyperbole or reaching for extreme labels involved with my comment.

That was simply the first example I grabbed.

Gab was deplatformed amongst others in the same manner.

Re: Facebook takes down Britain First ads

#117

Post by Spivak »

alkibiades wrote: post #100
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.

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.

Would you prefer the term culturally Muslim/Jewish/Christian? It's not that they're the same, it's that they share a lot of similar moral values, traditions, cultural elements, and have a shared ancestry. It is closely related to, but not defined by, their faith.

I mean the French, British, Russians, Spanish, Germans, Americans, Italians, etc. are all extremely different but they nonetheless get lumped into 'White (which is damn-near the same thing as ethnically Christian).

Re: Facebook takes down Britain First ads

#118

Post by drugme »

manfredo wrote: post #114
drugme wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Note that while France is a secular country, secularism is not the same thing as freedom of religion. Plenty of secular countries seek freedom from religion. This can entail restrictions that prevent people from practicing religious customs, like the burka ban. The degree of magnitude between something like that and halting the construction of mosques is debatable. A good argument can be made that the former is more…

Relatively liberal and progressive countries at times do prohibit people from practicing their religion, and France's restrictions serve as an example.

It's a question of "restrict expression to some extent" v. "prohibit outright". When I said "no right to prohibit" -- it's the latter form that I meant.

France does restrict some aspects of religious expression (such as wearing the burka in public). But this is very far from an outright prohibition of that religion (which we both seem to agree a ban on mosques would basically amount to).

Re: Facebook takes down Britain First ads

#119

Post by manfredo »

drugme wrote: post #118
manfredo wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Note that while France is a secular country, secularism is not the same thing as freedom of religion. Plenty of secular countries seek freedom from religion. This can entail restrictions that prevent people from practicing religious customs, like the burka ban. The degree of magnitude between something like that and halting the construction of mosques is debatable. A good argument can be made that the former is more…

Relatively liberal and progressive countries at times do prohibit people from practicing their religion, and France's restrictions serve as an example. It's a question of "restrict expression to some extent" v. "prohibit outright". When I said "no right to prohibit" -- it's the latter form that I meant. France does restrict some aspects of religious expression (such as wearing the burka in public). But this is very f…

> It's a question of "restrict expression to some extent" v. "prohibit outright". When I said "no right to prohibit" -- it's the latter form that I meant.

Then banning mosques is not in the scope of your statement. Muslims can practice their religion without the presence of a mosque. Many do pray in the privacy of their homes or somewhere other than a mosque. Like France's face covering restrictions, it is only a restriction of a specific aspect of the religion. Such a ban does not, in your own words, "prohibit outright" the ability to practice Islam.

Re: Facebook takes down Britain First ads

#120

Post by freehunter »

spaginal wrote: post #115
freehunter wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Is the only food store in town, who is ran by a racist, allowed to starve black families by refusing them service because of their skin color? Are tech companies across the board allowed to shut down, disenfranchise, silence, and marginalize people and businesses because they simply disagree with their lawful politics and ideas?

>Is a store allowed to refuse service to customers because of their skin color?

In the US, no. Title III of the 1964 Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination based on race (among other things).

>Are tech companies allowed ban users because they disagree with their politics?

Yes. Political ideology is not a protected class the US. The government can't tell you what you can and can't say, but private businesses are completely free to moderate content hosted on their platforms.

But again, if you don't like the rules of Facebook/GoDaddy/Twitter/etc, of these private non-governmental for-profit businesses, you're free to start your own. You're making it sound like a global conspiracy when in reality it's more likely that Daily Stormer's talk of white supremacy and genocide is so distasteful across the board that major tech companies independently and simultaneously decided that these people were not welcome.

Post reply on HN