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

71–80 of 1001 posts

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#71

Post by 99052882514569 »

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.

But that is not where they're starting though, is it? They're going much further:

>Today we’re announcing a ban on praise, support and representation of white nationalism and separatism on Facebook and Instagram

Praise, support and representation not of speech encouraging harm, but the ideology itself, reprehensible and ass-backwards as it may be.

This sentence indicates they're picking and choosing which ideologies to censor.

This is wrong (opinion), antithetical to American notions of freedom of speech (opinion), but Facebook has a complete and unalienable right to do this on their platform (fact). Despite that right, things should nevertheless be accurately labeled. This is censorship of political thought, not censorship of "hate speech" as most reasonable people define it.

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#72

Post by ordu »

> We didn’t originally apply the same rationale to [...] because we were thinking about [...] things like American pride and Basque separatism [...]

What do they mean by "American pride"? Googling it brings a lot of marketing, I do not know how to filter all of that to find out an idea.

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#73

Post by anth_anm »

ThomPete wrote: post #36
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…

For someone who cares more about freedom of speech and the free sharing of ideas, than what political stance people have it's a sad day. However, at least Facebook now admits their political bias and people can make informed choices. And no I do not support white nationalism.

This isn't about sharing legitimate political views at this point, it's about helping prevent radicalization.

White nationalist content should be viewed no differently than content by the likes of isis. I think it's completely reasonable and responsible to ban it from the platform.

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#74

Post by fixermark »

xxpor wrote: post #20
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…

If this sort of thing leads to Section 230 repeal though, are we really any better off?

I don't see why this would lead to an S230 repeal if banning nudity doesn't.

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#75

Post by function_seven »

rexpop wrote: post #61
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?

I think you do understand it, yeah. The only caveat to that is the private control of what I believe to be public infrastructure. The wires that connect all of us.

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#76

Post by sparkling »

crushcrashcrush wrote: post #4

[flagged]

> balkanize traditional institutions of democracy

Trump was elected by a free, fair, democratically held vote of the people. You may cry about the outdated electoral system, but well, the rules are the rules. He won fair and square.

> and cooperation (USA/NATO/UN).

Switzerland isn't a member of the NATO and have only joined the UN in the early 2000s. You don't need to be a member of every overblown bureaucrat club on the planet to be friends with other nations and trade with other countries.

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#77

Post by anigbrowl »

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…

Well, we already have a point of comparison in how platforms handle content from groups like ISIS. The thing about groups who adhere to eliminationist positions is that they so obviously don't care about anyone else's civil liberties, so one could argue that respect for the rights of others is the ante required to sit at the social table.

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#78

Post by ianleeclark »

yegle wrote: post #57
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. "Speech that harms people" and "speech that hurt people's feelings" are so closely related and sometimes people (intentionally or unintentionally) mix them up.

Are you saying that white supremacists only hurt people's feelings and does not have real and tangible outcomes? Look to Christchurch or the innumerable attacks/murders/gig economy fascism in the US perpetrated by the far right.

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#79

Post by ceejayoz »

cypherpunks01 wrote: post #64
ceejayoz wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I really don't think this is the same interpretation of "protected classes" as the US government uses:

> White men are considered a group because both traits are protected, while female drivers and black children, like radicalized Muslims, are subsets, because one of their characteristics is not protected.

I'm fairly certain a state that tried to ban female drivers or (openly via legislation; this next one definitely happens in practice) punish black children disproportionately would find themselves in hot water with the Feds.

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#80

Post by anth_anm »

rmbryan wrote: post #46
soared wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The definition of hate speech and its boundaries has been thoroughly explored by the US supreme court. A taste of it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_in_the_United_Stat...

THANK YOU! That was helpful to read. This is my favorite bit, from right at the top: "Hate speech in the United States is not regulated, in contrast to that of most other liberal democracies.[1] The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that hate speech is legally protected free speech under the First Amendment. The most recent Supreme Court case on the issue was in 2017, when the justices unanimously reaffirmed th…

I like that part too, because it also brings up the notion that US version of near absolute free speech is not the only on that exists. That other countries have banned hate speech without falling into totalitarianism, banning legitimate political discourse, or falling into the other traps that a "slippery slope" argument pushes.
Post reply on HN