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

451–460 of 1001 posts

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#451

Post by [deleted] »

WhompingWindows wrote: post #373
jelliclesfarm wrote: post #70

I am not a ‘white person’ (whatever that means) ...but I don’t want to see ‘white nationalist content’ banned. When people communicate on a public platform unself consciously, they reveal themselves openly and freely. There is no greater protection to vulnerable populations than transparency. Freedom of speech is a gift and a valuable tool.This move is dumb beyond words.

How do you transparently protect those in Christchurch NZ or at one of the sites of nationalist, extremist violence? Transparency does nothing to deter the mentally ill and psychotic individuals who perpetrate mass murder.

[deleted]

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#452

Post by amanaplanacanal »

Inu wrote: post #116
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…

"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

That's all fine and good until somebody burns a cross on your lawn. Pretty sure you're not going to be happy with their free speech rights at that point.

Free speech absolutism is naturally at odds with property rights absolutism. The question then becomes under which circumstances should one be given precedence over the other.

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#453

Post by [deleted] »

lazyjones wrote: post #415
bduerst wrote: post #367

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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".

[deleted]

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#454

Post by harrumph »

Macross8299 wrote: post #434
harrumph wrote: post #400

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

> receiving attaboys and cover from the Oval Office I don't recall of any incident where the President congratulated a white nationalist terrorist or said anything that could even be conceived as such, do you have a source for this?

...

“Good people on ‘both sides’?”

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#455

Post by bobthepanda »

solotronics wrote: post #309
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…

I would think a massive online platform spanning multiple types of media would be analogous to a digital "company town".

In a town, the only way for people to physically hear your speech is to be present in the town itself.

Facebook users are not restricted to only using Facebook. If they want to go to your blog they can.

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#456

Post by superkuh »

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…

You're right. The correct solution is for everyone to stop using the services providing by companies when they begin the downwards censorship slide. Unfortunately most people value using facebook in the >$1000/year range.

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#457

Post by ghobs91 »

Far right: private businesses such as bakeries should be allowed to refuse service to whoever they want!

Also the far right: why is Facebook censoring my ability to spread hate speech!

I'm oversimplifying it, but the hypocrisy and lack of self-awareness is astounding.

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#458

Post by 2_listerine_pls »

toomim wrote: post #440

> Going forward, while people will still be able to demonstrate pride in their ethnic heritage, we will not tolerate praise or support for white nationalism and separatism. So you can praise and support your ethnic nationality, as long as you're not white.

"Only white people can be racist because they got the best color. The unfortunate need pride to feel good about themselves so we are keeping them"

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#459

Post by gberger »

ghobs91 wrote: post #457

Far right: private businesses such as bakeries should be allowed to refuse service to whoever they want! Also the far right: why is Facebook censoring my ability to spread hate speech! I'm oversimplifying it, but the hypocrisy and lack of self-awareness is astounding.

This is a strawman. Who actually says both these things?

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#460

Post by komali2 »

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…

The problem is someone can screenshot a Nazi Facebook post with the Facebook logo right there in bold blue and spam it across the internet as evidence that Facebook implicitly supports white nationalism (by giving it a platform).

I don't think there was ever an outcome other than the one we've seen - Nazis getting banned. The company town precedent doesn't make a good comparison in my head - this is Facebook content stored on their servers and printed on their timelines. I believe they should be allowed to control what appears in their timelines.

Post reply on HN