Facebook to ban white nationalist content • Hacker News Board

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#81

Post by fixermark » Wed, Mar 27, 2019, 5:31 PM UTC

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…

IIUC, it becomes discerned by US law if someone acts on violent rhetoric. Then, the violent rhetoric can be used as evidence that the actions were part of a hate crime.

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#82

Post by DisruptiveDave » Wed, Mar 27, 2019, 5:31 PM UTC

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…

> Let's start with curbing speech that encourages harming others.

You've already disproven your "that's pretty easy" note. Who defines "harm"? The goal posts seem to move damn near weekly on this. That's the problem that can't be solved as easily as you purport.

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#83

Post by mieseratte » Wed, Mar 27, 2019, 5:32 PM UTC

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?

"Free Speech" != 1A

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#84

Post by Dylan16807 » Wed, Mar 27, 2019, 5:32 PM UTC

40dslf wrote: post #29

Separatism too? As a Spaniard I couldn't be happier about that.

You can be separatist if it's not by race.

And in your rush to snark you skipped the part that calls out "American pride and Basque separatism" as important things to leave alone.

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#85

Post by wildmusings » Wed, Mar 27, 2019, 5:32 PM UTC

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 think the interesting case is the presence of a monopolist (and I take no position here as to whether any particular company is a monopoly or not). Other [classically] liberal principles like freedom of contract have been abrogated in such cases, largely out of the realization that competition and choice are what generally make such private exercises of power acceptable.

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#86

Post by fixermark » Wed, Mar 27, 2019, 5:32 PM UTC

narrator wrote: post #30

As an anti-racist conservative, the most fun I have on the internet these days is arguing racists out of their beliefs on the armpits of the internet. I relish my downvotes there. I would be bummed about these beliefs being banned everywhere because I wouldn't get to exercise my Internet debate skills to make a positive impact on the world without worrying about trampling on somebody's right to an echo chamber.

I strongly suspect neither 4chan nor 8chan are going anywhere anytime soon.

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#87

Post by bilbo0s » Wed, Mar 27, 2019, 5:32 PM UTC

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…

>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...

This!

A thousand times THIS!

People seem to think that free speech absolutists were saying that Facebook should be forced to host extremist content. For my part, I wasn't saying anything of the sort. Facebook has rights too, and as a free speech absolutist, I will jealously defend Facebook's rights as vigorously as I defend the rights of the Nazi/Confederate/whatever you want to call them.

(I think I agree with you on the "almost all" part though, because I do think pedophilia should be stamped out wherever we find it. But that's just MY line in the sand. Others may draw the line somewhere else.)

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#88

Post by 99052882514569 » Wed, Mar 27, 2019, 5:32 PM UTC

rmbryan wrote: post #19

I don't know as much about hate as I should, perhaps, but it seems arbitrary to make rules about what's hate and what's not. This part, especially, from the article... We also need to get better and faster at finding and removing hate from our platforms. Over the past few years we have improved our ability to use machine learning and artificial intelligence to find material from terrorist groups. Last fall, we starte…

>I don't know as much about hate as I should, perhaps, but it seems arbitrary to make rules about what's hate and what's not.

It is arbitrary. This is a closed for-profit platform, run by decree. In the interest of shareholders, it can (and ought to) make whatever rules it wants, as long as they don't violate any laws.

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#89

Post by camelNotation » Wed, Mar 27, 2019, 5:33 PM UTC

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…

We always draw a line somewhere when we write a law. Saying "I don't want to draw a line at all" is an attempt to abdicate our responsibility to protect weaker members of society under the guise of some higher ideal that is not threatened by good laws.

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#90

Post by dantheman » Wed, Mar 27, 2019, 5:33 PM UTC

wildmusings wrote: post #85

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 think the interesting case is the presence of a monopolist (and I take no position here as to whether any particular company is a monopoly or not). Other [classically] liberal principles like freedom of contract have been abrogated in such cases, largely out of the realization that competition and choice are what generally make such private exercises of power acceptable.

Like a newspaper deciding what to publish?