Facebook to ban white nationalist content • Hacker News Board

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#351

Post by CamperBob2 » Wed, Mar 27, 2019, 6:45 PM UTC

jelliclesfarm wrote: post #142

anth_anm wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There is no greater protection to vulnerable populations than transparency This is somewhat true, but your argument has a pretty big flaw. > When people communicate on a public platform unself consciously, they reveal themselves openly and freely This simply isn't true. You aren't revealing that you read this content. THe authors aren't always revealing themselves. Those who don't really do themselves any harm beca…

I think terrorist content is different from nationalism/racism. The latter is still a deeply held belief. Regardless of how we feel about it, everyone has the right to feel love or hate or superiority. This is really a failure of state to install controls and protections from out of control elements. This is a breakdown of state measures to deter/punish unlawful acts and failure to protect WHEN actions occur rather t…

This is a breakdown of state measures to deter/punish unlawful acts and failure to protect WHEN actions occur rather than breakdown of society.

You could say that Facebook has effectively privatized prior restraint, given the "town square" arguments made elsewhere in the thread. Great when we happen to agree with the views being restrained, I suppose.

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#352

Post by threatofrain » Wed, Mar 27, 2019, 6:45 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…

Similarly, Fox News isn't required to carry content they don't want to, and their political reach is enormous.

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#353

Post by smsm42 » Wed, Mar 27, 2019, 6:45 PM UTC

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…

> Let's start with curbing speech that encourages harming others.

Raising taxes would certainly harm me. In fact, in much more direct way than impotent babble of bunch of idiots obsessed with the color of their epidermis. So I guess we should start with banning any speech advocating raising taxes?

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#354

Post by lotsofpulp » Wed, Mar 27, 2019, 6:46 PM UTC

satokema_work wrote: post #179

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

This. A big problem is oligarchic in nature: if you believe that ISPs should be classified as common carrier utilities that should not be permitted to limit or censor the data you receive within reason, then the oligarchic content hubs should similarly be common carriers of speech. I don't have a rock solid argument on this, this is just an equivalence I'm asserting.

ISPs are utilities because you only have one option for ISP (running a wire to your house). Content hubs take less than a second to switch, there is no lock in.

The lack of ability to switch providers is what makes it important to have regulations, not just the fact that it is labeled a common carrier.

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#355

Post by eeeeeeeeeeeee » Wed, Mar 27, 2019, 6:47 PM UTC

bjt2n3904 wrote: post #130

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

Thank you. Free speech isn't just an amendment for the government, it's a principle for society. If Facebook were a television station with limited air time for a single track, it would be perfectly valid for them to decide (reasonably) who gets air time. However, Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube have infinite tracks and time. I don't think the OPs argument is as strong, with that in mind.

How does the amount of bandwidth capable for carrying channels relate to whether something should be carried or not in a legal or constitutional sense?

Carrying white supremacist content has a cost to both Comcast and YouTube/Facebook. Nobody expects Comcast to carry the KKK channel and yet they have hundreds of channels and clearly space to carry it. So why aren’t they compelled to do so if Facebook is?

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#356

Post by ramblerouser » Wed, Mar 27, 2019, 6:47 PM UTC

joshuamorton wrote: post #337

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…

>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". This is because we have laws about discrimination based on race. White supremacy is not a race. You're free to discriminate against someone due to the views they hold.

So chinese people who are proud of their heritage and promote it can be discriminated against because being proud of your race is just a view one can hold?

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#357

Post by ConceptJunkie » Wed, Mar 27, 2019, 6:47 PM UTC

I think it's fine if Facebook wants to ban white nationalist content, however I don't trust their judgement with respect to deciding what is "white nationalist" content or not, because as we've seen the MSM will label anything that it doesn't like as racist, and Facebook definitely falls in with this crowd, and this could be just an excuse to block things they don't want because it goes against their political agenda, and they can use "but muh white nationalism" as an excuse.

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#358

Post by iheartpotatoes » Wed, Mar 27, 2019, 6:47 PM UTC

sparkie wrote: post #329

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 al…

Please. You are pretending White Supremacy is this totally benign thing because you are ignoring reality in pursuit of egalitarian ideology. You cannot simply ignore context for the sake of argument.

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#359

Post by oh_sigh » Wed, Mar 27, 2019, 6:47 PM UTC

philwelch wrote: post #172

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.

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…

Just because white nationalists are white, doesn't mean that they've received any kind of largesse because of it. If you look at the demographics of white nationalists, it will be largely overrepresented by poor whites from marginalized, backwater communities.

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#360

Post by 1000units » Wed, Mar 27, 2019, 6:48 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…

This is obviously part of a much larger campaign to silence disagreeable speech. You aren't a "free speech absolutist" if you aren't alarmed by this. You admit that people have a right to use of "root infrastructure", but registrars and hosts are already discriminating against people for legally protected speech.

PS: Observe the downvotes without comment. These are the adherents to the school of thought that advocates not caring about reasoning with people who disagree with you. Everything is simply a bare power struggle in which considerate words are not the weapons of choice.