Facebook to ban white nationalist content • Hacker News Board

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#381

Post by smsm42 » Wed, Mar 27, 2019, 6:58 PM UTC

edmundkorley wrote: post #285

At least in the United States, it is the power dynamic that differentiates White Nationalism. White nationalists and their ideology have penetrated the Senate, the White House, and our police force to name just a few places of power. This has huge and potentially violent consequences for non-Whites in the U.S. and needs to be take more seriously. We have seen historical manifestations of this from slavery to contempo…

> White nationalists and their ideology have penetrated the Senate, the White House

Wait, this means Trump is now banned on Facebook? Or who in the White House is the white nationalist that will be banned on Facebook starting next week?

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#382

Post by oyvey » Wed, Mar 27, 2019, 6:58 PM UTC

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.

>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.

Well its easy to believe in something that is simply true.

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#383

Post by Thriptic » Wed, Mar 27, 2019, 6:58 PM UTC

theseatoms wrote: post #276

cortic wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>No company or platform owes them anything. This is discrimination of opinion , strange as that sounds. There is a reason we don't see signs up like; 'No Blacks', 'No Gays', 'No Jews' in private establishments. Its because its not allowed, we either have a list of protected groups - or a general rule that forbids banning anyone because of their 'group'. If we don't fairly quickly extend free speech into these platfor…

> There is a reason we don't see signs up like; 'No Blacks', 'No Gays', 'No Jews' in private establishments. Could you imagine the immediate public backlash against this type of behavior by a private establishment? I don't think the law is doing the heavy lifting here.

The supreme court heard a court case in 2014 in which a business refused to serve people because they were gay: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colora...

A large number of people are still alive back from when Jim Crow laws were still actively in effect. In 1957 the president had to send the 101st airborne to Arkansas to escort black children to school and seized control of the state's national guard because they were being used to block desegregation of schools: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Rock_Nine

A non-trivial percentage of Americans would love to have these signs up and are kept from doing so by the law. The women's movement, LGBT rights, and minority rights are actually a fairly new thing, and are still not without controversy in the US.

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#384

Post by josefresco » Wed, Mar 27, 2019, 6:58 PM UTC

oh_sigh wrote: post #365

edmundkorley wrote: post #285

At least in the United States, it is the power dynamic that differentiates White Nationalism. White nationalists and their ideology have penetrated the Senate, the White House, and our police force to name just a few places of power. This has huge and potentially violent consequences for non-Whites in the U.S. and needs to be take more seriously. We have seen historical manifestations of this from slavery to contempo…

You can claim that white nationalism has penetrated the White House all you want, but there is no evidence of this being the case.

Well there's this (sorry for the quick source): https://www.thedailybeast.com/doj-trumps-early-businesses-bl...

And then of course Stephen Miller who really needs no explanation.

Central Park 5 ...

"Good people on both sides"

The list goes on - how many examples do you need?

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#385

Post by contrarian1000 » Wed, Mar 27, 2019, 6:58 PM UTC

When are they going to ban Wakanda? Black Nationalism? Chinese Nationalism? Indian Nationalism? They aren't because "anti white nationlist" is code for anti-white. People are being attacked for having tshirts that say "Its OK to be white".

How about applying rules evenly for everyone instead of pushing a certain political agenda?

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#386

Post by oh_sigh » Wed, Mar 27, 2019, 6:58 PM UTC

craftyguy wrote: post #375

oh_sigh wrote: post #365

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can claim that white nationalism has penetrated the White House all you want, but there is no evidence of this being the case.

Uh, Trump invited Steve Bannon into his cabinet. They did not part ways because of Bannon's extreme white nationalist views...

You would need to show that Trump invited Bannon into the White House because of his white nationalist views, and not because of his abilities in other areas. Which I don't think you can do.

Also, if Steve Bannon is a white nationalist, it seems weird that Trump would support him, considering that presumably makes him want to get rid of parts of Trump's own family(Ivanka/Jared and their kids).

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#387

Post by PavlovsCat » Wed, Mar 27, 2019, 6:58 PM UTC

karmelapple wrote: post #243

SkyBelow wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Let's start with curbing speech that encourages harming others. Based on numerous past incidents of corporate behavior (not specifically from Facebook) I do doubt a fair and unbiased application of such a standard. Politically we cannot even agree on what constitutes harm or even murder (abortion being an example of such disagreement). How then is it possible to fairly ban speech that encourages harm when we don't a…

A platform can define what harm is. We can see what definition is, and we can choose to use a particular platform or not.

Well, read the top comment in this dicussion: They're not saying "if FB wants to kick arbitrary people including me I'm fine with that", they use "bigots" and "anti-vaxxers" as examples. Another important element is a constant refrain of "but platforms with no restrictions end up as a cesspool".

> We can see what definition is

"seeing the definition" just means seeing some flowery language which may or may not be the full truth when it comes to individual cases. If people don't pay attention to the fact that they don't actually know, and don't seem to care, who exactly is booted off these platforms and why, exactly and on a case by case basis, and just take the word of platforms like FB or Twitter for it, they're in for a rude awakening when they end up on the wrong end of it themselves.

The amazing achievement of not being a racist or an anti-vaxxer doesn't make up for the failure to clearly speak out against the hypocrisy of a company that on the hand hand fights democracies that want to protect citizens against tracking [0], to mention just one color in the spectrum of shit they're up to, while on the other hand bragging about how they're not evil. Facebook can do what they want, people and use their "services" all they want, and roll their eyes about "outrage over FB" all they want, but then they also need to own it.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19499598

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#388

Post by Shekelberg » Wed, Mar 27, 2019, 6:59 PM UTC

tathougies wrote: post #100

Why are white people specifically targeted. As someone of an Indian background, I've seen plenty of Hindu nationalist content on Facebook, and -- despite it actually affecting my Christian family who are still in India -- there is no ban on that content. Such nationalism has led to more violence and death than any of the white nationalism stories.

> Why are white people specifically targeted.

Facebook is run by Jews, who have a specific dislike for white people. Notice you will never see pro-Israel (Jewish nationalist) content banned.

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#389

Post by golergka » Wed, Mar 27, 2019, 6:59 PM UTC

fixermark wrote: post #146

golergka wrote: post #119

I would love for all people around the world to become level-headed and rational enough so we can have complete and total free speech. Personally, I enjoy 4chan and don't experience any negative emotions conserving to people who openly advocate genocide that would target me and my family. However, people en masse are different, and tech platforms have to acknowledge that. So, I believe it is a good thing to ban and p…

Without delving too deeply, because I don't want to engender any negative emotions: do you take the people who openly advocate genocide against you seriously? If you do and it doesn't cause you to experience any negative emotions, I am surprised. If you don't, I am also surprised. In light of what has happened in Pittsburgh and Christchurch.

My mother and grandparents have had to make a run for a bomb shelter a few times this week. So, yeah, I don't think that people who have "from the river to the sea" in their bio are joking.

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#390

Post by hhs » Wed, Mar 27, 2019, 6:59 PM UTC

moosingin3space wrote: post #345

hhs wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ar…

Totally agree, recruitment will be much more difficult. It's what happens to many conspiracy theorists over time. Their recruitment takes the hit in society.