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

171–180 of 1001 posts

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#171

Post by kadendogthing »

I'm going to caution against people using the phrase "free speech" as a thought terminating cliche when discussing this.

Banning speech can and typically has been harmful, especially when governments get involved with doing it. No one is ignorant about this fact. But we're collectively discovering that not doing anything about what can be published and said is just about as harmful, if not more so in concentrated circumstances. There will be irrational people who act irrational on fundamental erroneous information. It's a practical matter, not an ideological one. White supremacist ideas aren't up for debate. There isn't a point in debating them. And the people adhering to these ideals aren't looking for a debate and most definitely won't consider other ideas. You can't debate rationally with someone who hasn't arrived at their position in a rational manner.

There's also something else at play here. We're seeing new systems that replaced old ones re-implement "lost" functionality they thought wasn't needed. Turns out it was, in fact, needed. The old media empire of yesteryear was always subject to regulations around the content they spread.

If bitcoin is an exercise in why we need financial regulations, facebook and other social media networks are an exercise in why we need content and publishing regulations.

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#172

Post by philwelch »

randyrand wrote: post #67

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.

The notion is that the history of European colonialism and imperialism "justifies" black and Chinese nationalism as a countermeasure to white supremacy.

There's a "punching up" vs. "punching down" model that pretty much explains most "hypocrisy" on this issue. For instance, even subtle hints of anti-Semitism expressed by white Westerners (e.g. being anti-George Soros in particular) are condemned far more vehemently than anti-Semitism expressed by black people or Muslims, because of the perception that Jews, being perceived as predominantly white and Westernized themselves, are more privileged than blacks and Muslims but less privileged than white Gentiles.

I don't agree with this mentality myself because the tides can turn a lot faster than your ideological model of privilege and oppression can change to reflect it, but it's similar to the ideas that are commonly expressed on the left and serves as a decent predictive model of their attitudes.

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#173

Post by vokep »

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 see what you mean, but it does seem different because FB or YouTube are not publications, but public forums, public communication spaces to publish as a person. Things published on youtube are not on behalf of youtube. Basically FB and Youtube and things like it form space where content fills in.

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#174

Post by sparkie »

ianleeclark wrote: post #93
ThomPete wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> And no I do not support white nationalism. Saying that white nationalists, despite their inherently violent nature, deserve a platform is categorically support. You're not acting as a neutral arbiter. Instead, you're saying that this group who spouts violent rhetoric, despite the fact that we as a society have said hate speech should not be tolerated, ought to be able to spread their message.

> despite the fact that we as a society have said hate speech should not be tolerated

Here's your problem. Free speech isn't about "we as a society".

"We as a society" had decided that the earth was the center of the universe before Galileo decided to defy "we as a society" to state something unpopular.

I'm not suggesting that there is any value in white supremacism like there was in Galileo's speaking of heliocentricism, but his lack of access to free speech protection meant he was persecuted for speaking the unpopular - the idea that you can ban "certain kinds of speech" is going to do precisely the same.

Where exactly is the line drawn at what is considered "white supremacism?" What if somebody says something which isn't a white supremacist viewpoint, but some loon misrepresents the view as if it were? You don't seriously think it will end at white supremacism do you? This is just the first step towards incrementally dismantling your right to free speech.

The solution to "bad speech" is "good speech", not attempting to issue bans. The Streisand effect is in full force, and each time you try to ban it, you accidentally give them more leverage. The solution is to ignore. Stop advertising for them! That's all you're doing.

That doesn't mean that we should ignore actual hate crimes - but can we get back to a sane world where people are innocent until proven guilty, and where we have a legal system where judge and jury get to decide the punishment for crimes - rather than bored, virtue signalling keyboard warriors.

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#175

Post by djsumdog »

tylermenezes wrote: post #45
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…

You can't show a woman's nipple on Facebook, but you could show white nationalist propaganda. They never genuinely cared about being a platform to begin with.

I miss old Tumblr. It was the last true bastion of a lot of different ideas. Now it's just like everything else: trying hard to be advertiser friendly.

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#176

Post by brlewis »

Ragnarork wrote: post #148
99052882514569 wrote: post #71

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. 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…

Totally with you on the accurate labeling: this isn't censorship. This is deplatforming, which is entirely different. > This sentence indicates they're picking and choosing which ideologies to censor. [...] This is wrong [...] This is censorship of political thought, not censorship of "hate speech" Are you saying that hate speech comes off of a vacuum? These two concepts do overlap.

> Are you saying that hate speech comes off of a vacuum? These two concepts do overlap.

In general, that logic calls for deplatforming every topic that people get outraged over.

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#177

Post by commandlinefan »

tathougies wrote: post #100

Why are white people specifically targeted. As someone of an Indian background, I've seen plenty of Hindu nationalist content on Facebook, and -- despite it actually affecting my Christian family who are still in India -- there is no ban on that content. Such nationalism has led to more violence and death than any of the white nationalism stories.

In fairness, they've been censoring middle-eastern terrorist content (Al Qaeda, ISIS, etc.) for quite a while now.

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#178

Post by whatshisface »

bdhe wrote: post #134
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?

The vast majority of both conservatives and liberals are passive about the vast majority of issues. It would make sense that if you are actively seeking out specific conflicts, you can add an anti- prefix. If the parent specifically seeks out and engages with racists then they are much more anti-racist than the average person irrespective of political alignment. The conservative side definitely does not include "arguing with people on voat" as a platform.

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#179

Post by satokema_work »

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

This.

A big problem is oligarchic in nature: if you believe that ISPs should be classified as common carrier utilities that should not be permitted to limit or censor the data you receive within reason, then the oligarchic content hubs should similarly be common carriers of speech.

I don't have a rock solid argument on this, this is just an equivalence I'm asserting.

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#180

Post by ordu »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #123
ordu wrote: post #72

> 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.

Search "patriotism".

So it is not a meme, like a song or some group of active people from the past or anything like that?
Post reply on HN