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

411–420 of 1001 posts

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#411

Post by burfog »

talmand wrote: post #194

At what point do such things change into a public discourse problem? Do we wait until it can be shown that companies such as Facebook, Twitter, Google, etc. influenced elections because they refused to serve information from a candidate they didn't like? If we aren't already there, it's not long before it is. What do you think would happen if these "private companies" with such deep hooks into our communication infra…

We're already there.

Repeating a previous study, which had shown bias in the 2016 election, Dr. Robert Epstein shows that bias in the 2018 election pushed voters towards democrats. Approximately 4.6 million undecided voters are likely to have flipped. Numerous districts, particularly CA 45, are likely to have been flipped by Google's weaponized bias.

There has also been an awful lot of bans of beginner politicians, all on one side, often corrected after the election (damage is done) with a lame excuse about algorithms making mistakes.

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#412

Post by _fq4v »

AaronFriel wrote: post #396
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.

I'll avoid a more sinister accusation of bad faith and assume you are earnest in that belief. As you seem to believe that, I suspect that's largely because your standard of evidence is different from others who believe differently. If your standard is that no one in the White House has said explicitly "I am a white nationalist", then yes, that seems to be true and there is "no evidence". But on the other hand, notabl…

[flagged]

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#413

Post by JimBrimble35 »

philwelch wrote: post #218
JimBrimble35 wrote: post #47

I fully support scrubbing hateful content from any place where it appears. I think people should take note though, that this is the exact point in time when the machinery for censoring and filtering the internet is being implemented. Although hateful speech is a great use case for this technology I can't help but wonder what it will get pointed at next. This isn't the kind of development that can sit back idly after…

The arguments for censorship and "deplatforming" follow the fashions of the times. In one era, the notion of screenwriters inserting subtle communist propaganda into Hollywood films was terrifying enough to motivate an industry blacklist. In an earlier era, advocating resistance to the draft was considered dangerously treasonous. Somehow these threats always seem less severe in hindsight than they seemed at the time,…

I think that's an interesting argument, but I also think you need to consider the type of tooling and the reach of content in today's world. The apparatus that we have for tracking an identifying individuals and their media consumption habits gives unprecedented control over perception at a very granular level.

It also sounds like the events that you mention were dealt with quickly and severely, maybe they would have been more severe threats given the space and time to form more completely.

My fear is that we'll get to a point where people won't know about the suffering or injustice that is occurring in the world without physically going to the places where it's happening. Or that people will have to go to extreme lengths or break the law simply to escape their filter bubble.

/tinfoil hat

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#414

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#415

Post by lazyjones »

bduerst wrote: post #367
wolco wrote: post #322

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.

Except deplatforming is shown to work against alt-right hate speech: https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/bjbp9d/do-social-... Anti-semitic speech has traditionally relied on soap boxes to spread their message, for decades before the internet even existed. That's why most academics won't engage them, because these groups are not interested in genuine discussion but in broadcasting their prejudice.

VICE is trash content, not journalism. And the current debate obviously stems from the tragic results of increased alt-right hate speech, despite all the "deplatforming".

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#416

Post by zamalek »

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #237
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…

> It's not OK to redefine free speech to mean "government censorship" I beg to disagree, and in fact I believe you are the one that is redefining free speech. "Free speech" as I have known it has always referred just to government restrictions, because the government is the only entity that has the very unique punative powers that they do. Indeed, a strong corrolary to free speech, freedom of the press, by definition…

You are referring to the most common definition. The are, in fact, many.

The parent comment is referring to absolutist FoS. This form of FoS implies that you do not have the right to walk away from a discussion: the speaker has "the right to be heard" and you do not have the "right to ignore." If someone were to post involuntary pornography of you online, that would be their FoS and you wouldn't be able to issue a take-down. This type of FoS is ludicrous because it sacrifices so many other freedoms to achieve purity in a single freedom.

The common definition of FoS deals mainly with government censorship and fighting words. The government must step in to protect the speech of someone if they are not violating the rights of others; conversely the government must stop speech that might result in the rights of others being violated (e.g. promoting violence towards a group). This approximates the UDHR definition, which is basically the "dictionary definition" of FoS (even this definition has been amended).

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#417

Post by anigbrowl »

DuskStar wrote: post #103
yardie wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except they are not censored. If these groups feel like they want to espouse these dangerous ideas they still can. They don't need Facebook to do and the rest of us can ignore them. But at the moment Facebook's and Youtube's algorithms put some of this crap front and center in your browser. To the unsuspecting this can seem like validating and endorsing those ideas.

Are you really saying that these groups aren't going to be censored by Facebook? Censorship does not require a government.

I would really appreciate if people making terminology arguments could cluster int he same subthread instead of (likely inadvertently) resetting numerous individual subthreads with the same point.

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#418

Post by marricks »

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…

I agree with the spirit of this totally, if I run a coffee shop I sure as heck would kick out white nationalists and would support other coffee shops having that ability.

There’s a weird side to this though that if you want to host a video let’s say YouTube is the place for it. Or if you want to organize a group Facebook is THE place for it. Well what if your group is about shutting down Facebook? Facebook could close it. Heck FB took down Elizabeth Warren’s post critiquing FB.

I think these mega corps need to be broken up so they don’t get so much power in deciding what is and isn’t allowed on the internet. Sure they make good choices like this one but they also make tons of other choices that are only because it benefits them.

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#419

Post by anigbrowl »

djsumdog wrote: post #168
bilbo0s wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I should preface this by saying that I'm kind of a "strict Constitutionalist" so to speak. In my view all these arguments people are making about "open environments", or "bad faith actors", or extremism or what have you are completely irrelevant. A privately owned, NON -governmental, environment is allowed to be as "open" or as "closed" as they please. If a "bad faith actor" wants to act in "bad faith", (whatever tha…

The trouble is that today, these companies have a monopoly on distribution. People who are banned go to other sites that capture extremists views (Gab/Voat/4chan). At some point, platforms need to realize there is a moral value in allowing different view points so that they can discuss and be seen. Otherwise, people leave for more "open" platforms that breed exclusive extremism. It then further divides the split. The…

What is the moral value in allowing group X to threaten the very existence of group Y? I don't mean saying that group Y should be kicked off Platform.com, I mean threatening to kill group Y IRL.

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#420

Post by chillacy »

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…

They ban a subset of Islamic content at least: the terrorist propaganda that leads to terrorist acts. If you assume that white nationalist content leads to terrorist acts too, then it only makes sense to ban it as well.
Post reply on HN