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

271–280 of 1001 posts

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#271

Post by conanbatt »

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…

Thats fine, but how does the line blur when Facebook takes government money in the form of subsidies and political ads?

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#272

Post by drewrv »

DuskStar wrote: post #221
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.

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

The obvious analogy would be banning jihadi content, which it does.

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#274

Post by rdl »

This seems absurd and unreasonable once you look at it more closely. If any group of people say they want to go live apart from others (white, gay, men, linux users, whatever), I'm fine with that. I wouldn't want to live in a racial separatist region myself, but I have no problem with other people choosing to do so. Treating black nationalists as heroes (which in a historical sense they were) while making white nationalists a target of scorn seems...unsustainable.

If FB wanted to redirect funding from "bad" things they don't like to a decent group, Life After Hate is about as bad as SPLC. There have to be better groups focused on helping people of various types.

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#275

Post by chaostheory »

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…

This form of hateful speech will not stop. The only immediate consequence is that it will go underground. The bigger consequence is that it will be much harder to for authorities to monitor. Under the previous status quo, it was an intelligence treasure trove. Suspected future terrorists would openly tell everyone their thoughts, their location, and more importantly their friends and associates. All of that will be gone now.

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#276

Post by theseatoms »

cortic wrote: post #223
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 platfor…

> There is a reason we don't see signs up like; 'No Blacks', 'No Gays', 'No Jews' in private establishments.

Could you imagine the immediate public backlash against this type of behavior by a private establishment? I don't think the law is doing the heavy lifting here.

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#277

Post by robenkleene »

throwawaysea wrote: post #241

Large privately-owned platforms carry so much discourse across today's society, that censorship and deplatforming in those spaces has the same impact as governmental censorship, for most intents and purposes. Even if these corporations do not constitute what we might traditionally call a "monopoly", they control a large-enough share of traffic to have significant impact when they take artificial actions. That sizable…

"The same impact as governmental censorship, for most intents and purposes." False and dangerous. Government censorship means imprisonment and other forms of punishment, sometimes including death.

This doesn't mean your point is wrong (I don't think it is), but it's more effective to make your argument on its own merits rather than making a false equivalency.

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#278

Post by staticautomatic »

I'm in favor of values-based governance. At some point you have to say "these are our values" and if you don't share them then don't use our platform. They do not necessarily teach a specific solution to a specific problem, but they can guide you toward an internally consistent position on one. As a practical matter, you must be willing to rank-order your values. Many emerging rights issues, particularly those involving speech and religion, simply cannot be dealt with if you treat all rights as equal and inviolable. This is government 101.

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#280

Post by ijpoijpoihpiuoh »

cortic wrote: post #223
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 platfor…

> 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'.

It's the former. There is no law, at least in the US, that forbids banning people from private property for group membership in general.

Post reply on HN