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

Facebook to ban white nationalist content

newsroom.fb.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 1001 posts

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#61

Post by rexpop »

function_seven wrote: post #31

I consider myself a free speech absolutist. Or very nearly so. But that runs both ways. Not only do I think that almost all (to borrow a mathematical term) speech should be permitted, but also that the onus is on the speaker to make themselves heard or to find an audience. No company or platform owes them anything. In earlier times, that meant that no newspaper or printing press was required to print everything sent…

I don't understand your position. The 1A is fulfilled—in word and spirit—to your satisfaction so long as government puts up no barriers to speech, even if private, quasi-monopolistic firms filter speech to their own ends?

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#62

Post by dgacmu »

Kalium wrote: post #12
atonse wrote: post #6

Good to see the Valley is starting to get off its "we are just a platform, all information should be free and neutral no matter how bad, so we're not responsible" extremism of the past few years and understand that some forms of speech are harmful should not ever be encouraged and accelerated on any platform or technology, ever. To the people that say "Where does it end?" – that's pretty easy. Let's start with curbin…

> To the people that say "Where does it end?" – that's pretty easy. Let's start with curbing speech that encourages harming others. This may come as a surprise to you, but this response will not be comforting to those with genuine concerns about civil liberties. Avoiding the question of where to draw the final line with the question of where to draw the first one just implies that you intend to draw more lines in the…

I have genuine concerns about civil liberties, but as others noted, there's a difference between using the power of government to prevent speech and a company refusing to provide a megaphone.

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#63

Post by duxup »

I suspect there is some value in pushing such content off of large sites to reduce the surface area available for recruitment.

I used to think that pushing such content off a site or forum was futile and calling it for what it is on a site had value, I'm not sure that is the case anymore.

If you look on platforms like reddit and such where you have groups in subreddits calling for race wars, general hatred, and violence and of course the lesser efforts to just normalize hate takes place... there's no discussion anyway. In their own subs any hint of anything less than absolute commitment to their talking points of the day, ever changing theories, and general hatred is an instant ban from their subreddit(s). Then they venture out spam their fake news articles / take over other subs and push their message with endless streams of new accounts. There is no discussion, just constant spam, memes and etc.

We've seen topics like Gamergate, incels and such (while not that tasteful to begin with) quickly pulled to the extreme and go from something about "gaming journalism" or general angst to an identity movement steeped in fear / hate, harassment, and for some actual violence.

I suspect there may be some value in ushering these people away, if only to prevent recruitment of some others who otherwise might avoid their message that fear or dissatisfaction with life and other problems can be explained with hate.

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#64

Post by cypherpunks01 »

ceejayoz wrote: post #17
xienze wrote: post #3

The bigger question is, will they also ban content that would be construed as hate speech if you simply replaced the words “white people” with “[!white] people”?

Facebook's rules have always been a bit bizarre here. https://www.propublica.org/article/facebook-hate-speech-cens... > One document trains content reviewers on how to apply the company’s global hate speech algorithm. The slide identifies three groups: female drivers, black children and white men. It asks: Which group is protected from hate speech? The correct answer: white men.

Facebook certainly did not invent the idea of protected classes, USGOVT and tons of news/social companies all use the exact same notion when determining what constitutes illegal discrimination and disallowed hate speech.

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#65

Post by ianleeclark »

gatherhunterer wrote: post #21

There is merit to maintaining an open environment. Censorship makes the censored content seem lucratively dangerous; it looks like the powers that be are afraid of what some people are saying. I think it is best to let bad arguments fail on their own merit. The problem is that most people are unable to recognize a bad argument.

The problem is that an open environment cannot work when there are bad faith interlocutors actively seeking to undermine that open environment. There's a famous Sartre quote that deals with the paradox of tolerance in regards to anti-semites.

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#66

Post by panarky »

Curious that a post about eliminating white nationalist content actually includes an image with white nationalist content.

https://imgur.com/a/fSm1pHa

It's perhaps an unintentional example of the difference between advocacy (banned) and education or discussion (not banned).

Very interested in how Facebook will distinguish between them when both use identical words.

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#67

Post by randyrand »

Why not ban all racist nationalism entirely? What is unique about white nationalism versus Chinese nationalism in China, or black nationalism in South Africa? There are many racist movements all around the world.

Only banning white nationalism is giving fuel to the white nationalist belief that whites are being unfairly targeted. That's not something we should encourage IMO.

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#68

Post by umvi »

> Last fall, we started using [machine learning and artificial intelligence] to extend our efforts to a range of hate groups globally, including white supremacists

So... is this going to be a train wreck like YouTube's content ID where certain keywords will trigger the robots to censor my post with no human to appeal to?

"Sorry, you said: '80 years ago today Hitler committed suicide and axis power was extinguished.' This post contains keywords associated with dangerous groups and individuals and has been removed."

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#70

Post by jelliclesfarm »

I am not a ‘white person’ (whatever that means) ...but I don’t want to see ‘white nationalist content’ banned.

When people communicate on a public platform unself consciously, they reveal themselves openly and freely. There is no greater protection to vulnerable populations than transparency. Freedom of speech is a gift and a valuable tool.This move is dumb beyond words.

Post reply on HN