Facebook to ban white nationalist content • Hacker News Board

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#211

Post by odorousrex » Wed, Mar 27, 2019, 6:03 PM UTC

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.

Cynical Answer:

It's affecting FB's bottom line.

White nationalism is in the news and on the rise in the US/Europe and therefore spooking advertisers who only really care what the pundits in US/Europe are talking about.

This soothes them over = money for FB.

My hope is that the algorithms and models developed for slowing the spread of White Nationalism will also work (down the road) for things like Hindu Nationalism, Chinese, etc.

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#212

Post by gpm » Wed, Mar 27, 2019, 6:03 PM UTC

40dslf wrote: post #29

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

As a Canadian I would be horrified if they banned all speech related to separatism. Quebec should absolutely be entitled to rant about wanting to separate themselves from the rest of Canada. That's not extremist speech, there is no realistic risk of violence from that speech, it's just a widely held (slightly less so recently) political opinion about how we should organize ourselves into political bodies.

I don't know what issues Spain has with separatism, maybe there are some legitimate ones, but not all separatist groups are inherently bad.

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#213

Post by satokema_work » Wed, Mar 27, 2019, 6:03 PM UTC

jrumbut wrote: post #159

Inu wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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

There's a difference between supporting someone's right to speech and handing them a microphone and gathering up an audience for them. There is some room for human judgment and give and take here, at this time there is absolutely no shortage of platforms that allow anyone to broadcast any awful thing they can dream up. Email, web sites, street corners, I believe there can be different standards for different places.

There's no shortage of street corners to protest on. Why are you mad that we pepper spray you when you try to protest in front of the bankers' offices?

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#214

Post by fixermark » Wed, Mar 27, 2019, 6:03 PM UTC

Veraticus wrote: post #139

Inu wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

Essentially. A person's freedom of speech doesn't imply curtailment of another person's freedom of the press.

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#215

Post by aestetix » Wed, Mar 27, 2019, 6:03 PM UTC

Does this mean Facebook can now be considered a publishing platform, and thus liable for content put on the site?

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#216

Post by marvindanig » Wed, Mar 27, 2019, 6:04 PM UTC

kansface wrote: post #127

marvindanig wrote: post #40

Too little, too late. Brexit is around the corner spiraling Britain down to chaos not seen for a hundred years. America is hurting its closest allies with a joker that pathetic dictators love to watch. Meh. Anonymity is still very important for the web. Until FB moves away from the 'face' part of their book, it's a terrible outcome for the Internet any day even with all kinds of curation that they are announcing now.…

This type of hyperbolic comment doesn't belong on HN.

I know you would say that it doesn't belong here. Especially when it hurts bottomline of your favorite bay area brag. ;-)

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#217

Post by mythrwy » Wed, Mar 27, 2019, 6:04 PM UTC

Well what can they do really?

If they leave content up after big incidents they are enabling. If they take it all down, they are promoting certain points of view over others. Both will have folks screaming.

Probably they were smart enough to do the math and determined which action likely results in less blowback. That's all.

Then again, Facebook like many public areas always was a cesspool in my opinion. Not a fan of drinking from cesspools. So they can do whatever brings in the most money and I'm sure they will.

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#218

Post by philwelch » Wed, Mar 27, 2019, 6:04 PM UTC

JimBrimble35 wrote: post #47

I fully support scrubbing hateful content from any place where it appears. I think people should take note though, that this is the exact point in time when the machinery for censoring and filtering the internet is being implemented. Although hateful speech is a great use case for this technology I can't help but wonder what it will get pointed at next. This isn't the kind of development that can sit back idly after…

The arguments for censorship and "deplatforming" follow the fashions of the times. In one era, the notion of screenwriters inserting subtle communist propaganda into Hollywood films was terrifying enough to motivate an industry blacklist. In an earlier era, advocating resistance to the draft was considered dangerously treasonous. Somehow these threats always seem less severe in hindsight than they seemed at the time, though.

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#219

Post by dragonwriter » Wed, Mar 27, 2019, 6:04 PM UTC

jeffdavis wrote: post #196

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 diff…

> The US President has identified himself as a "nationalist"[1], and appears to be racially white

A white nationalist is not the same as a nationalist who is white; a white nationalist is one who adheres to the ideology of white nationalism.

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#220

Post by pdonis » Wed, Mar 27, 2019, 6:06 PM UTC

drak0n1c wrote: post #161

wildmusings wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

A popular argument for Net Neutrality posited that allowing non-government monopolies to exercise free-reign over what they've built will result in free speech being infringed. Here is an article and call-to-action from the EFF: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/06/attack-net-neutrality-...

While I agree that Net Neutrality is necessary, the argument given in this EFF article seems to contradict itself with regard to FB, Twitter, et al. The article notes that social networking sites have been used by people to coordinate in order to get their viewpoints heard. But then it says:

"What does this have to do with net neutrality? Simple: all of these services depend the existence of open communications protocols that let us innovate without having to ask permission from any company or government."

But anyone who uses FB or Twitter does have to "ask permission" from those companies: the companies own the sites, not the users. And the idea that FB, Twitter, et al are based on "open communications protocols" is obviously wrong.

If the argument is that FB, Twitter, et al should have to use open communications protocols, let anyone use them without asking permission, etc., then that is an argument for ending FB, Twitter, et al as private companies and making them public utilities run by the government. I'm not sure that's a good solution. It seems to me that a much better idea would be to encourage competition in free speech platforms on the Internet, so that people do not have to depend on FB, Twitter, et al to coordinate and get their viewpoints heard.