Facebook to ban white nationalist content

Post by bdhe » Wed, Mar 27, 2019, 6:26 PM UTC

narrator wrote: post #227

rexpop wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[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 counterexampl…

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

dantheman wrote: post #90

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.

Like a newspaper deciding what to publish?

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

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…

Post by tedivm » Wed, Mar 27, 2019, 6:28 PM UTC

stcredzero wrote: post #267

tedivm wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This case was about a "company town", where there was very much a blending of public and private. > The Court initially noted that it would be an easy case if the town were a more traditional, publicly administered, municipality. Then, there would be a clear violation of the right to free speech for the government to bar the sidewalk distribution of such material. The question became, therefore, whether or not consti…

> In Lloyd Corp. v. Tanner, the Supreme Court distinguished a private shopping mall from the company town in Marsh and held that the mall had not been sufficiently dedicated to public use for First Amendment free speech rights to apply within it. So if a site has a monopoly on video commentary, that would seem to be "sufficiently dedicated to public use" to me.

Post by tnzn » Wed, Mar 27, 2019, 6:28 PM UTC

DuskStar wrote: post #250

weberc2 wrote: post #112

The obvious questions are and always have been "what constitutes 'harmful speech'?" and "who gets to decide?". Sure, we can agree that "white supremacy" is harmful, but in the last 5 years we've seen the definition of white supremacy slide from "people who espouse views that whites are better than nonwhites" to "people who espouse views that are not in line with progressive orthodoxy".

> seen the definition of white supremacy slide from "people who espouse views that whites are better than nonwhites" And even there it is debatable - does saying "people with pale skin are better at producing vitamin D in low-light conditions than people with dark skin" make me a white supremacist?