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

221–230 of 1001 posts

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#221

Post by DuskStar »

fixermark wrote: post #192
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.

I think the obvious analogy would be banning things like the Black Panthers. Should Facebook be allowed to do that?

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#222

Post by falcrist »

mieseratte wrote: post #83
rexpop wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand your position. The 1A is fulfilled—in word and spirit—to your satisfaction so long as government puts up no barriers to speech, even if private, quasi-monopolistic firms filter speech to their own ends?

"Free Speech" != 1A

Exactly. Freedom of speech isn't just freedom from government censorship. Other entities can infringe on it.

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#223

Post by cortic »

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…

>No company or platform owes them anything.

This is discrimination of opinion, strange as that sounds.

There is a reason we don't see signs up like; 'No Blacks', 'No Gays', 'No Jews' in private establishments. Its because its not allowed, we either have a list of protected groups - or a general rule that forbids banning anyone because of their 'group'.

If we don't fairly quickly extend free speech into these platforms, then we will have to eventually legislate a list of protected opinions.

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#224

Post by mc32 »

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…

The virality of violence is a bad aspect of network effects. I think we agree online calls for actual violence should not be promoted.

What I have a difficulty understanding is how and who will define "violence". Inciting direct violence is one thing, but people like expanding definitions. Is expressing support for one state which wants to overthrow another state "violence"? Is supporting China (in some aspect) but which none the less persecutes some people, "violence"?

Is buying almonds violence because it deprives some people in some areas of California of municipal water violence?

What about suppressed minority groups in Sudan who oppose a regime, or likewise South Sudan? Are they proposing and promoting violence?

An uprising in Teheran, is that violence? Suppress it? Are they pro regime, are they anti-regime? Is it fluid, is it at times both? What do you do?

This gets very dicey very quickly.

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#225

Post by caprese »

Nice move

I was annoyed that instagram has now become just reshares of twitter and facebook posts that spread the same message without being indexed as easily as the text versions are

Hope they don't go after things I like and target my accounts next! I know how the limitations of their process and lack of appeals or justification.

Also easy enough to find my friends on group chats elsewhere

I would have very different views if these were state run systems, but fortunately that's not relevant here.

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#226

Post by staticautomatic »

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.

At a high level this is fine but it doesn't address the issue of what kinds of nationalist content are ban-worthy.

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#227

Post by narrator »

rexpop wrote: post #136
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]

Not everyone has equal abilities. Societies function best when they are set up to find a place for everyone in a color blind way where they can live up to their full potential doing whatever they're adequately capable to do to contribute to society.

On these boards many people believe all members of a given race have the qualities of their worst members. I try and dissuade them from this by showing many counterexamples and that they should really focus on convincing all member of society to call out bad behavior in whatever groups they associate and have influence with to improve society. My beef with progressives is there is too much special treatment given to ones own group just because they belong to that group by virtue of their birth and this allows bad behavior to go unpunished and uncondemed.

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#229

Post by captainredbeard »

rexpop wrote: post #136
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]

Hmm, maybe this is a matter of vocabulary. Are you including supporting policies with unintentionally disproportionate impact in your definition of racism?

If so, you're going to find a lot of misunderstanding with conservatives when discussing the topic.

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#230

Post by fixermark »

caprese wrote: post #203
fixermark wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> then at least in the context of banning African-American content, there's specific federal law they'd be tripping over which specific federal law would that be? I can't think of any law protecting content about specific groups

Depending on how you turn your head and squint, Title II of the Civil Rights Act (assuming we can interpret Facebook as a public accommodation engaging in interstate commerce).

... though it's unclear whether it's more of a private club.

Post reply on HN