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

321–330 of 1001 posts

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#321

Post by erikpukinskis »

nilkn wrote: post #262
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…

This is a nuanced topic, but I think the subsequent cases you mentioned all make sense and are consistent with the proposition that certain social media sites actually should obey the "company town" precedent. Malls aren't and have never been the primary space used for public social discourse and commentary. Today, such discourse increasingly happens online, and it's increasingly true that sites like Facebook and Twi…

In interesting conclusion of your suggestion: people may have to start capping user sign-ups to their site in order to maintain free speech rights:

    if (users.count.toString.length > 7) {
      return response.send(noMoreSignupsAtThisTime) }

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#322

Post by wolco »

In the case of facebook. If they removed one side from debating that side will leave. Creating a smaller more similiar group of people. That would go against the goal of connecting the world and change the goal to connecting the left or right. Plenty of those sites. Facebook's ideal strategy is not to get involved.

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#324

Post by smsm42 »

Legally, of course, FB is completely right. Morally - try to replace "white nationalism" with, say, "communism" (one can argue communists killed a lot of people, so why not?), "Christianity", "Islam", "Black separatism", "Wiccans"... I could continue forever, but I hope you get the point. If you're consistently fine with any $GROUP put there, no matter how much you love it/disgusted by it, then your position is consistent and you are one of about 0.001% of people that has a consistent free speech position. For the rest, the answer would be "but this is completely different - $INGROUP can not be banned, they are a nice people that sometimes are misunderstood, but $OUTGROUP are definitely all violent bigots that should be banned everywhere for everybody's safety".

Of course, FB does not owe anybody to neither have consistent free speech position, nor support free speech at all, nor be an inclusive platform. They could convert their site to the fan club of Jar Jar Binks tomorrow and make every user to pledge loyalty to Supreme Lord Jar Jar or take a hike. Completely within their rights. Presenting themselves as an open platform while executing a clear political censorship is less morally clear (though of course still legally completely OK). It doesn't matter that political censorship is now directed to the group that is outgroup for most people here - it always starts that way. It never ends there.

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#325

Post by dayvid »

I wish larger tech companies would follow Jack Dorsey's path and have more open communication about their policies. His debate with Tim Pool on the Joe Rogan podcast[0] especially provided insight into why they're making these type of decisions.

[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZCBRHOg3PQ

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#328

Post by lukifer »

fixermark wrote: post #207
Inu wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Goebbels was in favor of free speech for views he liked. So was Stalin. If you're really in favor of free speech, then you're in favor of freedom of speech for precisely the views you despise. Otherwise, you're not in favor of free speech." - Noam Chomsky

... and yet, child pornography possession and distribution is illegal. Do we think Chomsky would find this unacceptable?

Chomsky’s position is that the burden of proof is on state violence to justify itself, and I think he would agree it’s clearly justified in that case.

However, that’s a very narrowly scoped restriction (and it’s also not clear that such distribution is a type of “speech”). A more appropriate question would be: would Chomsky support free speech for an advocacy group such as NAMBLA, or for creating mangas that depict drawings similar to CP? Those are exactly the type of speech/expression that are clearly vile, yet should still be protected from interference by state violence, from the civil-libertarian perspective.

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#329

Post by sparkie »

iheartpotatoes wrote: post #197

Lots of slippery-slope fanatics posting today. When they start banishing speech that is not about exterminating nonwhites, then we can have that conversation. (For example: Elizabeth Warren speaking out against Facebook.) But until then let's just agree that supporting groups who actively incite violence and march for exterminating nonwhites is a BAD THING. OK? JFC I can't believe how many people are so eager to cite…

Speech that is about "exterminating nonwhites" is already illegal speech. It is incitement to commit crime. There does not need to be new rules or laws to prevent this speech - there just needs to be enforcement of the existing rules, which is fine, and I think everyone, including most right-wingers will agree that such laws should be enforced, and it is correct that media platforms block posts as soon as they are alerted to them.

The issue isn't about banning speech which is about "exterminating nonwhites", but about banning speech which discusses something else, but which takes a gigantic stretch of imagination to be considered about "exterminating nonwhites". What you want to ban isn't speech which is illegal (incitement to commit crime), but in fact, anything you imagine can be misrepresented to be considered equivalent. The only limit to your restrictions on speech are your imagination!

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#330

Post by [deleted] »

Veraticus wrote: post #139
Inu wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Goebbels was in favor of free speech for views he liked. So was Stalin. If you're really in favor of free speech, then you're in favor of freedom of speech for precisely the views you despise. Otherwise, you're not in favor of free speech." - Noam Chomsky

Facebook and YouTube are private corporations and have no obligation to platform any idea. They have the freedom to remove any content on their platforms they like, and your freedom of speech doesn't trump theirs. Of course, you can continue saying whatever it is you like -- you just have to find a platform for it yourself.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN