Facebook to ban white nationalist content • Hacker News Board

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#301

Post by stcredzero » Wed, Mar 27, 2019, 6:29 PM UTC

guelo wrote: post #257

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…

No, it is your redefinition that is the new one. And the right-wing is not standing on consistent principles when they try to self-servingly redefine freedom as the individual's freedom to appropriate a company's private property only for the case of popular social networks and nothing else.

And the right-wing is not standing on consistent principles when they try to self-servingly redefine freedom as the individual's freedom to appropriate a company's private property only for the case of popular social networks and nothing else.

False. As the Marsh case demonstrates, Free Speech takes priority over property rights. No inconsistency there.

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#302

Post by SamReidHughes » Wed, Mar 27, 2019, 6:29 PM UTC

mrtesthah wrote: post #240

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. "L…

It's taxonomically arbitrary but not completely arbitrary, and in fact is grounded in scientific fact.

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#303

Post by erentz » Wed, Mar 27, 2019, 6:30 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…

> * Which leads to a place where I'll agree on obligations: root infrastructure like DNS or network connectivity. Those are the common carriers of our Internet.

And payment processors, and credit card companies, and mobile carriers, and instant messaging providers.

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#304

Post by Macross8299 » Wed, Mar 27, 2019, 6:30 PM UTC

insickness wrote: post #170

Marsh v. Alabama, 326 U.S. 501 (1946), was a case decided by the United States Supreme Court, in which it ruled that a state trespassing statute could not be used to prevent the distribution of religious materials on a town's sidewalk, even though the sidewalk was part of a privately owned company town. The Court based its ruling on the provisions of the First Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment. https://en.wikipedia.…

In the article you linked, Cyber Promotions v. America Online seems far more relevant given that it pertains to an individual's right to use an online, non-state-owned platform as a host for arbitrary speech.

In the decision[0], they cite three distinct tests used in previous cases to determine if the company acted as the state by asking if its activities are "state action" (i.e. meaning that removal of speech constitutes a violation of first amendment rights)

1. Is Facebook exercising the exclusive prerogative of the state in its activities?

2. Is Facebook acting with the help of or in concert with a state official?

3. Did the government insinuate itself into a position of interdependence with Facebook to assert itself as a joint participant?

All of these hold for the Marsh v. Alabama ruling, but the argument that these tests pass for Facebook's daily business activities is less convincing.

[0] https://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?art...

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#305

Post by closeparen » Wed, Mar 27, 2019, 6:30 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 town library is not required to carry every book. Librarians make curation decisions; that is what we pay them for. It is still a tragedy when small groups of activist Puritanical community members get enough political leverage to remove the books they don’t like. The reason it’s a tragedy is not unrelated to “free speech.”

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#306

Post by russdpale » Wed, Mar 27, 2019, 6:31 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…

It seems disingenuous for you to compare all Chinese, Islamic, and African American content to very specific bigotry spewed by white nationalists.

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#307

Post by fixermark » Wed, Mar 27, 2019, 6:31 PM UTC

stcredzero wrote: post #281

fixermark wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Company towns were a bizarre (and, arguably, pathological) special case in American history.

Company towns were a bizarre (and, arguably, pathological) special case in American history. Social media in the late 20-teens were a bizarre (and, arguably, pathological) special case in world history. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wAIP6fI0NAI

No doubt, but that doesn't imply the lessons gleaned from how law applied to company towns are immediately portable to social media.

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#308

Post by hodder » Wed, Mar 27, 2019, 6:32 PM UTC

Facebook is a private company. They are free to purge whatever they want off the platform for whatever they determine is in their best interest. And that is how it should be.

White nationalists are not a protected group, therefore it is not discrimination. If FB wanted to purge all pro Republican or all Democrat articles from the platform, that would also be in their right (though not best interest).

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#309

Post by solotronics » Wed, Mar 27, 2019, 6:32 PM UTC

tedivm wrote: post #206

insickness wrote: post #170

Marsh v. Alabama, 326 U.S. 501 (1946), was a case decided by the United States Supreme Court, in which it ruled that a state trespassing statute could not be used to prevent the distribution of religious materials on a town's sidewalk, even though the sidewalk was part of a privately owned company town. The Court based its ruling on the provisions of the First Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment. https://en.wikipedia.…

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…

I would think a massive online platform spanning multiple types of media would be analogous to a digital "company town".

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#310

Post by fixermark » Wed, Mar 27, 2019, 6:32 PM UTC

xster wrote: post #283

fixermark wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Company towns were a bizarre (and, arguably, pathological) special case in American history.

How is it much different from monopolistic digital 'company towns'?

For starters: you live in a company town, and your continued employment at the company is geographically and practically tied deeply to that relationship.

Competing digital empires are always a click away.