So antifa is next right?
Facebook to ban white nationalist content
341–350 of 1001 posts
Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content
#342Good 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.
Welp, there goes the Declaration of Independence.
Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content
#343Why 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.
The notion is that the history of European colonialism and imperialism "justifies" black and Chinese nationalism as a countermeasure to white supremacy. There's a "punching up" vs. "punching down" model that pretty much explains most "hypocrisy" on this issue. For instance, even subtle hints of anti-Semitism expressed by white Westerners (e.g. being anti-George Soros in particular) are condemned far more vehemently t…
Facebook found specifically that such power dynamics are exceedingly contextual, though the role of Western European culture as effectively globally predominant puts an additional burden on anyone arguing for Western European superiority.
Radiolab covered this recently:
Post No Evil | Radiolab | Duration: 1:11:45 | Published: Fri, 17 Aug 2018 07:20:00 -0400 | Episode: http://www.wnycstudios.org/story/post-no-evil/
Media: https://www.podtrac.com/pts/redirect.mp3/audio.wnyc.org/radi...
Podcast: https://www.podcastrepublic.net/podcast/152249110
Back in 2008 Facebook began writing a document. It was a constitution of sorts, laying out what could and what couldn’t be posted on the site. Back then, the rules were simple, outlawing nudity and...
Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content
#344Marsh 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…
> This case was about a "company town", where there was very much a blending of public and private.
With the pervasiveness of regulation in modern United States, pretty much everything worth mentioning now is "a blending of public and private". Any business has restrictions of how it can hire and choose their clientele. A person with minarchist political bent could consider this wrong but it is undeniably the reality today.
> You can probably guess by the fact that we still use spam filters how that case came out.
I don't think this decision means what you think it means. Of course, AOL was found to be right to block spam. But was it because spam is repugnant, not because AOL rights are absolute. Consider what would happen if AOL blocked communications by a competitor, or say political speech by a popular group? I can not guarantee it, but I ascribe very high probability to the outcome being very different. If so, the conclusion is not that the provider can do whatever they want, but they can do whatever they want as long as they serve public interest. Which means, the current politics defines what they can do and what they can't.
Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content
#345I 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…
Based on the evolution of the web, indeed, it looks like new businesses will be made out of this. With this banned group, I am concerned about what social scientists call the 'backfire effect', where beliefs turn even stronger and bolder. For instance, this happens with groups of people who hold conspiracy theories; when society rejects them, the conspiracy theorists double-down on their beliefs.
The key thing you're missing is recruitment. White supremacists need access to the larger platforms in order to recruit new adherents to their bigoted ideology, which is significantly harder to do if they're forced into "underground" spaces. De-platforming works -- if we make it clear that hateful ideology isn't tolerated in large platforms, then people have to actively seek out such ideologies. If such ideologies are already frowned upon in the public sphere, it makes their recruitment much more difficult.
Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content
#346As a non-white person living in America, this is scary to see. It's a policy targeting a specific race of people's content... How is that not racist? It will only foment more resentment and retaliatory sentiment while serving to make "certain kinds of racism" socially acceptable as long as it's the "right race" to discriminate against. Ban ethno-nationalists if you feel so inclined, not {{insertRaceHere}} nationalism…
I don't see why facebook would be obliged to host content they don't agree with. These people will always find a platform on the internet. Facebook doesn't need to make their recruitment more convenient.
Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content
#347Why "white nationalist" specifically? Is Facebook's policy that nationalism is okay for everyone except whites? What about pro-Israel content (Jewish nationalism)? Countless Palestinians have been murdered or displaced for that cause.
Obviously this is not a principled stance against "hate speech", it's just another example of a powerful organization run by Jews using it's power to attack whites.
Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content
#348Why not just any race-based nationalism? It seems weird that facebook would ban white nationalism but black nationalism can go on.
Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content
#349As a non-white person living in America, this is scary to see. It's a policy targeting a specific race of people's content... How is that not racist? It will only foment more resentment and retaliatory sentiment while serving to make "certain kinds of racism" socially acceptable as long as it's the "right race" to discriminate against. Ban ethno-nationalists if you feel so inclined, not {{insertRaceHere}} nationalism…
US leftists are extremely racist, and their policies such as this bear it out time and again.
Their fundamental policy is disequitable treatment and standards based on race, sex, and other protected factors. It’s he same imperialist divide-and-conquer racism and other bigotry practiced by colonialists, who ironically, those same leftists pretend to hate.
And just like the bigots in the US during the 1950s or colonial powers, they justify their acts of bigotry through proclaiming its for the greater good.
It’s just garden variety racism.
Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content
#350Does this mean that they implicitly support any hate groups that they aren't specifically banning? Antifa, IRA, Isis and the like?