Facebook to ban white nationalist content • Hacker News Board

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#231

Post by pcbro141 » Wed, Mar 27, 2019, 6:09 PM UTC

99052882514569 wrote: post #71

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…

>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…

It's really hard to prevent "we should do what it takes to maintain the dominance and survival of the white race" and "we should do what it takes to establish a white ethnostate" from being received as a call to violence.

If we're being intellectually honest, we know that they know full well that they're not getting a white ethnostate from peaceful participation in the political process.

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#232

Post by ganeshkrishnan » Wed, Mar 27, 2019, 6:09 PM UTC

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…

The paradox of tolerance is that we must always be intolerant of the intolerant.

You are always FOR free speech until the speech starts hurting you. ie would you be tolerant of isis posting on FB?

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#233

Post by philwelch » Wed, Mar 27, 2019, 6:09 PM UTC

CobrastanJorji wrote: post #208

ceejayoz wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course, the follow-ups are important, too: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lloyd_Corp._v._Tanner I'd put Facebook more in the "mall" example than the "company town" one.

The mall got out of it because there were many alternate places to distribute messages, so banning mall speech didn't significantly stifle overall speech. That probably still also applies to Facebook today, but not by a wide margin.

One could argue that this implies an antitrust issue, no?

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#234

Post by ThomPete » Wed, Mar 27, 2019, 6:09 PM UTC

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.

I don't know about you but I am perfectly capable of holding two parallel opinions at once.

I can both think their ideas are absurd and at the same time support their right to have those ideas.

That's the very definition of free speech in the US. There are many ideas and messages I don't think should be spread that doesn't mean I am against people being allowed to spread them.

You don't know what kind of fire you are playing with here if your think your position is the rational one and have a good outcome.

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#235

Post by atonse » Wed, Mar 27, 2019, 6:09 PM UTC

99052882514569 wrote: post #71

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…

>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…

This has nothing to do with free speech. Free speech has to with governments curbing your speech, not private companies.

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#236

Post by yummybear » Wed, Mar 27, 2019, 6:09 PM UTC

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…

Counterpoint - if every media, platform or provider blocks the content, and the only audience you're allowed to speak freely to, is to yourself - is it still "free speech"?

I'm not saying we're there yet, but we could be at some point.

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#237

Post by hn_throwaway_99 » Wed, Mar 27, 2019, 6:09 PM UTC

gowld wrote: post #164

It's OK to say you believe that you are pro free-speech only in cases of government/military/police censorship. It's not OK to redefine free speech to mean "government censorship", especially not to call your position "very nearly absolutist". You believe that private companies have the moral right to censor and filter user-generated content. That's your opinion/morality. But it's not "free speech absolutism" in the…

> It's not OK to redefine free speech to mean "government censorship"

I beg to disagree, and in fact I believe you are the one that is redefining free speech. "Free speech" as I have known it has always referred just to government restrictions, because the government is the only entity that has the very unique punative powers that they do. Indeed, a strong corrolary to free speech, freedom of the press, by definition means that a (private) journalism organization is free to publish (or not publish) whatever they want.

I do agree that the relatively new, immense power of large technology companies with respect to how we communicate may require a sense of updating what we mean by "free speech", but this would be an update - it is not inherent to the original meaning of free speech.

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#238

Post by NelsonMinar » Wed, Mar 27, 2019, 6:09 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.

I think the benchmark here is the use of Facebook to help spread genocide in Myanmar. I'm hoping the company learned something there about how dangerous hate indeology is on their platform, including white nationalism. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/15/technology/myanmar-facebo...

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#239

Post by 4XyT5vXsnKyX8b » Wed, Mar 27, 2019, 6:09 PM UTC

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]

[dead]

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#240

Post by mrtesthah » Wed, Mar 27, 2019, 6:10 PM UTC

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.

Chinese nationalism probably should be banned in China (but not the US) for the same reason that white nationalism should be banned in the US: the racial designations "white" and "black" are completely arbitrary terms, not grounded in any scientific fact, and are social constructs based around an in-group (whites) wielding political, economic, and cultural power over an out-group (blacks). "Irish" is an ethnicity. "Lithuanian" is an ethnicity. "White", on other hand, is most definitely not an ethnicity, and identifying as such implicitly supports the present racist status quo, because the white in-group already wields overwhelming power in American society[1]. White nationalism asserts that only those Americans who identify as white are "real Americans", and therefore explicitly advocates for the exercise of white cultural and political dominance at the expense of all other out-groups. And at its most extreme, it advocates genocide as a means of accomplishing its vision.

1. http://www.mdcbowen.org/p2/rm/reports/cerd.pdf