Facebook to ban white nationalist content • Hacker News Board

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#131

Post by dsfyu404ed » Wed, Mar 27, 2019, 5:43 PM UTC

>Our efforts to combat hate don’t stop here. As part of today’s announcement, we’ll also start connecting people who search for terms associated with white supremacy to resources focused on helping people leave behind hate groups. People searching for these terms will be directed to Life After Hate, an organization founded by former violent extremists that provides crisis intervention, education, support groups and outreach.

The fact that they're readily going down the slippery slope of propaganda by identifying people with Wrong(TM) beliefs and directing them at the Right(TM) beliefs does not sit well with me. Censorship aside, this is a different issue and a very dangerous precedent for a "platform" to be setting IMO.

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#132

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Mar 27, 2019, 5:43 PM UTC

Inu wrote: post #116

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…

"Goebbels was in favor of free speech for views he liked. So was Stalin. If you're really in favor of free speech, then you're in favor of freedom of speech for precisely the views you despise. Otherwise, you're not in favor of free speech." - Noam Chomsky

[deleted]

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#133

Post by fixermark » Wed, Mar 27, 2019, 5:43 PM UTC

0815test wrote: post #56

mrguyorama wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you want a negative example, check out Voat. It started as a "less moderated/censored reddit" and quickly filled with actual nazis and other vitriol. A business cannot survive on "We accept hate speech" in the same way 4chan has never really been a business proposition; Nobody wants to look like they are supporting hate speech so advertisers won't go near it with a ten foot pole. IMO, this is a good thing, and imp…

"The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one’s time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all."

With respect, putting a bad idea in quotation marks doesn't make it a good idea. Mencken was extremely intelligent, but applied over-broadly, the concept embodied in this quote implies we should defend even murderers against the oppression of banning murdering.

I much prefer "Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake."

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#134

Post by bdhe » Wed, Mar 27, 2019, 5:43 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.

What does it mean to be an anti-racist conservative, and what do you think about the conservatism movement in that you have to use that extra qualifier?

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#135

Post by djsumdog » Wed, Mar 27, 2019, 5:43 PM UTC

weberc2 wrote: post #112

The obvious questions are and always have been "what constitutes 'harmful speech'?" and "who gets to decide?". Sure, we can agree that "white supremacy" is harmful, but in the last 5 years we've seen the definition of white supremacy slide from "people who espouse views that whites are better than nonwhites" to "people who espouse views that are not in line with progressive orthodoxy".

And what about more complex things? Twitter and Twitch bans people who question some of the modern beliefs on gender ideology, even if they bring up the discussion respectfully.

Not to mention, it just means extremists go to platforms that welcome them (Voat, Gab and others). That means platforms that use to have a big mix of views, like Reddit, are now horribly one sided and those other platforms are all extremist.

Keep in mind, we're not seeing the "right" or "moral" view. We're seeing Twitter/Facebook/Reddit's CEOs/Mods/deciders views.

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#136

Post by rexpop » Wed, Mar 27, 2019, 5:43 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.

[flagged]

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#137

Post by daenz » Wed, Mar 27, 2019, 5:43 PM UTC

Dylan16807 wrote: post #84

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.

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

Except you can't, which is why for example "Islamophobia" is a thing. Things that should be ideologically separate are inevitably tied back to race/ethnicity, because nobody seems to know how to separate race/ethnicity from ideology in debate. Just listen to how much flak Sam Harris gets on the subject.

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#138

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Mar 27, 2019, 5:44 PM UTC

ianleeclark wrote: post #78

yegle wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

[deleted]

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#139

Post by Veraticus » Wed, Mar 27, 2019, 5:44 PM UTC

Inu wrote: post #116

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…

"Goebbels was in favor of free speech for views he liked. So was Stalin. If you're really in favor of free speech, then you're in favor of freedom of speech for precisely the views you despise. Otherwise, you're not in favor of free speech." - Noam Chomsky

Facebook and YouTube are private corporations and have no obligation to platform any idea. They have the freedom to remove any content on their platforms they like, and your freedom of speech doesn't trump theirs. Of course, you can continue saying whatever it is you like -- you just have to find a platform for it yourself.

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#140

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Mar 27, 2019, 5:44 PM UTC

Inu wrote: post #116

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…

"Goebbels was in favor of free speech for views he liked. So was Stalin. If you're really in favor of free speech, then you're in favor of freedom of speech for precisely the views you despise. Otherwise, you're not in favor of free speech." - Noam Chomsky

[deleted]