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

101–110 of 1001 posts

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#101

Post by mcphage »

99052882514569 wrote: post #71
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 id…

> Praise, support and representation not of speech encouraging harm, but the ideology itself

The ideology itself is an encouragement to harm.

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#102

Post by blackflame7000 »

randyrand wrote: post #27

There was a time when the FB newsfeed was chronological, and just showed what your fiends posted as they post them. It seems like less blame for the world's problems could be put on FB if it was just treated as a dumb bulletin board. Why not go back to Facebook being a "dumb pipe?"

Facebook went public and now has an obligation to shareholders to make money so that means replacing the dumb pipe with highly targetted ads and articles

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#103

Post by DuskStar »

yardie wrote: post #53
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.

Except they are not censored. If these groups feel like they want to espouse these dangerous ideas they still can. They don't need Facebook to do and the rest of us can ignore them. But at the moment Facebook's and Youtube's algorithms put some of this crap front and center in your browser. To the unsuspecting this can seem like validating and endorsing those ideas.

Are you really saying that these groups aren't going to be censored by Facebook? Censorship does not require a government.

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#104

Post by anigbrowl »

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.

When a group's ideas all hinge on abridging the freedoms of others appeals to universality are hard to take seriously.

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#105

Post by hhs »

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…

Based on the evolution of the web, indeed, it looks like new businesses will be made out of this.

With this banned group, I am concerned about what social scientists call the 'backfire effect', where beliefs turn even stronger and bolder. For instance, this happens with groups of people who hold conspiracy theories; when society rejects them, the conspiracy theorists double-down on their beliefs.

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#106

Post by tathougies »

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.

The day facebook bans advertising about abortion will be the day I believe that line.

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#107

Post by ProAm »

EpicEng wrote: post #58
ProAm wrote: post #18

Why not ban all racism, all hate, everything? Doing just one is PR only.

I imagine that's because it's sometimes subjective and difficult to define. We tend to focus on the obvious cases, but not all of them are. What about the discussion of e.g. race and it's correlation to IQ? How about discussion of trans issues and viewpoints which contradict what trans activists want to hear? Are we allowed to talk about biological differences between men and women which some find offensive? They are…

I agree, it's near impossible to be a global communication platform and enforce 'goodness' and kindess for your users/audience.

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#108

Post by anth_anm »

jelliclesfarm wrote: post #70

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.

> There is no greater protection to vulnerable populations than transparency

This is somewhat true, but your argument has a pretty big flaw.

> When people communicate on a public platform unself consciously, they reveal themselves openly and freely

This simply isn't true. You aren't revealing that you read this content. THe authors aren't always revealing themselves. Those who don't really do themselves any harm because they tend to be well established as white supremacists already.

Richard Spencer doesn't care if someone calls him racist and evil.

This is why people take photos and plaster them online when white supremacists march. People get recognized, that's the point where they can be called out.

> Freedom of speech is a gift and a valuable tool.

These people are radicalizing young men into committing violent acts. They should be banned the same way terrorist content has been removed from other platforms.

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#110

Post by CharlesW »

sparkling wrote: post #76
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…

> Trump was elected by a free, fair, democratically held vote of the people.

We don't know that, and will never know that. This is a helpful resource for understanding why:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_interference_in_the_20...

Post reply on HN