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

191–200 of 1001 posts

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#191

Post by function_seven »

insickness wrote: post #170

Marsh v. Alabama, 326 U.S. 501 (1946), was a case decided by the United States Supreme Court, in which it ruled that a state trespassing statute could not be used to prevent the distribution of religious materials on a town's sidewalk, even though the sidewalk was part of a privately owned company town. The Court based its ruling on the provisions of the First Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment. https://en.wikipedia.…

I consider the sidewalk to be the last-mile connection to the Internet. The businesses lining that sidewalk may still trespass annoying pamphleteers from within their building.

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#192

Post by fixermark »

chubot wrote: post #186

I don't have a strong opinion on this particular issue, but I don't think your comment gets to the core of it. If Facebook decided to ban all Chinese, Islamic, or African-American content, then the conversation would be completely different. People wouldn't say, "so be it -- go set up your own servers". Obviously they have to make a value judgement, and they have done so here and said as much (which I appreciate). In…

If we're limiting our discussion to US law and mores, then at least in the context of banning African-American content, there's specific federal law they'd be tripping over.

That same law has not been (and probably should not be) extended to protect white supremacy or white separatism, which are political ideologies.

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#193

Post by interlocutor »

Attitudes towards free speech have changed a lot in recent times. I believe this is related to the rise of social media. The advent of social media had made it too easy to spread hate online. This has caused an upheaval in attitudes towards free speech. For example, consider that UC Berkeley which gave birth to the Free Speech Movement is now making news for banning controversial/harmful speech, such as that by Ann Coulter. The people (as opposed to governments) have decided that some censorship is in order. This is a natural evolution of societal norms. This particular evolution was causated by social media, and it is befitting to see that a social media company is now in the news for censoring harmful speech. This type of censorship, as opposed to absolute free speech, will be the new normal.

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#194

Post by talmand »

At what point do such things change into a public discourse problem?

Do we wait until it can be shown that companies such as Facebook, Twitter, Google, etc. influenced elections because they refused to serve information from a candidate they didn't like? If we aren't already there, it's not long before it is.

What do you think would happen if these "private companies" with such deep hooks into our communication infrastructure suddenly decided to remove all data associated to the Republican Party? For that matter, the Democratic Party?

It seems to me that Facebook and Twitter are trying to have it both ways. They can choose to police the content provided by their users but can't be held responsible for said content? Are they a publisher or a platform?

I don't think comparing old thinking based around old methods of communication compares to what we have today, it requires new thinking. These aren't like newspapers sold by kids on the corner in a city that can have dozens of newspapers countering each other. Imagine if there were only three newspapers in the entire country, soon the world, controlled by a small group of people who wish to use their publishing for their own agendas.

Tim Pool is right, at this rate, sooner or later, the Feds will come knocking and will shut that party down.

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#195

Post by XIVMagnus »

I'm seeing comments mainly focusing on "free speech" and that no company or monopoly should control it. I think we are stemming away from the actual GOOD that comes from banning such content. Why are we allowing people who influence others to do harmful things to minorities? Why should we give people with harmful ideas a platform to begin with? If they feel like they need to be heard, sure let them develop their own platform and spread it among themselves. Rather than influence young people who don't know any better. That's just my opinion on the matter.

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#196

Post by jeffdavis »

The US President has identified himself as a "nationalist"[1], and appears to be racially white. So how would this policy apply to Trump supporters and their speech?

This is a general problem with trying to ban speech. It's often very hard to figure out what someone intends to mean versus how others interpret it versus what it "really means". Especially when symbols, slogans, etc., come into play, not to mention different audiences. That ensures that this policy will be applied inconsistently and have unintended consequences, and create a flurry of argument over what was banned, by whom, and why.

It's just a mess and does not help the discourse.

[1] https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/10/24/trum...

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#197

Post by iheartpotatoes »

Lots of slippery-slope fanatics posting today.

When they start banishing speech that is not about exterminating nonwhites, then we can have that conversation. (For example: Elizabeth Warren speaking out against Facebook.) But until then let's just agree that supporting groups who actively incite violence and march for exterminating nonwhites is a BAD THING. OK?

JFC I can't believe how many people are so eager to cite Voltaire and a flimsy knowledge of the 1st Amendment (hint: it only applies to government suppression) to stand up for white supremacy.

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#198

Post by lgleason »

Many are rightfully making the argument that they are a common carrier because of their monopoly in the space. Right now there really isn't a viable competitor to them. The same is true with Twitter etc. because they are all substantially different products.

IMHO I would supports Facebook's right to do this if: 1. They gave up the safe harbor protections and were subject to the same liabilities as news organizations. 2. Or they were broken up.

Otherwise, this is akin to kicking someone out of the town square without the ability to move to another one....and that is not free speech...

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#199

Post by _dczq »

commandlinefan wrote: post #163
bilbo0s wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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,…

You're misunderstanding (or deliberately misrepresenting) what free-speech absolutists are saying. Nobody is saying that Facebook should be "forced" to host any particular content, any more than anybody is saying that homedepot.com should be forced to host any particular content. What we are saying is that Facebook is no longer a platform for free and open exchange of idea and is engaging in censorship - and it's ope…

==What we are saying is that Facebook is no longer a platform for free and open exchange of idea and is engaging in censorship==

When was this ever not the case? Violent imagery and sexual nudity are already not allowed.

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#200

Post by bilbo0s »

djsumdog wrote: post #168
bilbo0s wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I should preface this by saying that I'm kind of a "strict Constitutionalist" so to speak. In my view all these arguments people are making about "open environments", or "bad faith actors", or extremism or what have you are completely irrelevant. A privately owned, NON -governmental, environment is allowed to be as "open" or as "closed" as they please. If a "bad faith actor" wants to act in "bad faith", (whatever tha…

The trouble is that today, these companies have a monopoly on distribution. People who are banned go to other sites that capture extremists views (Gab/Voat/4chan). At some point, platforms need to realize there is a moral value in allowing different view points so that they can discuss and be seen. Otherwise, people leave for more "open" platforms that breed exclusive extremism. It then further divides the split. The…

>The trouble is that today, these companies have a monopoly on distribution. People who are banned go to other sites that capture extremists views (Gab/Voat/4chan)...

If the banned go to Gab and 4chan, then there is no "monopoly" on distribution. The Constitution is what allows for the alternative options to even exist. It's GOOD that we have the alternative options. That's not a "bad" thing.

And what is wrong with people going to "open" platforms that "breed exclusive extremism"? I don't see anything Constitutionally wrong with that. (Keep in mind, you or I not liking something does not mean it should be Constitutionally restricted.)

Post reply on HN