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

471–480 of 1001 posts

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#471

Post by komali2 »

ThomPete wrote: post #36
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…

For someone who cares more about freedom of speech and the free sharing of ideas, than what political stance people have it's a sad day. However, at least Facebook now admits their political bias and people can make informed choices. And no I do not support white nationalism.

>However, at least Facebook now admits their political bias

White nationalism is a... Politics?

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#472

Post by intended »

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…

They point being missed is that this is action on things Facebook CAN understand.

How the heck are they going to deal with pro separatist or uzbekian socio-political issues?

What FB has realized and is realizing is how to play the PR game, because they have to.

----

And if that means getting rid of Nazis, more power to them.

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#473

Post by Fins »

ganeshkrishnan wrote: post #232
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…

The paradox of tolerance is that we must always be intolerant of the intolerant. You are always FOR free speech until the speech starts hurting you. ie would you be tolerant of isis posting on FB?

This alleged "paradox" is just a convenient sledgehammer with which those in power can hit the powerless over the head to keep them quiet.

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#474

Post by baddox »

tathougies wrote: post #406
danharaj wrote: post #393

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because it's in the news since the New Zealand mosque shooting. Maybe Facebook should ban Hindutva organizing on their platform. That seems a perfectly reasonable position.

My point in posting this was to point out that Facebook is not a benevolent organization policing speech that disagrees with its internal morals. Rather, it is a business that bans speech based on whether or not such speech hurts its profit margins. Those advocates of free speech should realize that Facebook is not currently a platform for speech, but rather a mass publishing company whose sole purpose is to sell ads…

Shouldn’t we be glad when incentives align like this? It seems bizarre to disapprove of a company doing something bad because of profit motive and disapprove of a company doing something good because of profit motive. If you think profit motive is inherently bad regardless of any outcome, then fine, but that should be the focus of the argument.

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#475

Post by drak0n1c »

josefresco wrote: post #384
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.

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?

1) The early businesses suit was against the owner and alleged originator of the policies - Fred. There’s evidence of paternal racism, but no coherent “white nationalism”, especially since Jewish tenants were favored over whites.

Donald in his own ventures was the first in the county to open up his country clubs to Blacks and Jews, and was repeatedly celebrated by African American leaders for his other community efforts.

2) Stephen Miller is Jewish. How is he a white nationalist?

3) Central Park 5 was a rush to judgement when a woman claimed she was raped near the ice rink and part of the park that Trump had just recently invested in renovating. Not proof of racism, or white nationalism.

4) "Good people on both sides", when you look at the full paragraphs of the speech (which details who exactly he is describing), is in reference to the "heritage not hate" locals who attended the event simply thinking it was about saving the statue. They were not sensational, and left when the neo-nazis showed up later in vans, so they were not covered in national news. I do not blame you for not noticing them.

Many good people attended the Women’s March who were later horrified to find out that organizers were anti-Semites, and that they had a convicted homophobic murderer (Donna Hylton) as a speaker. I can empathize with people caught in that kind of situation.

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#476

Post by komali2 »

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.

Probably because Facebook is an American company.

It sounds like you have legitimate concerns about further content that should be banned and I fully support this and further efforts to draw Facebook's attention to the issue.

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#477

Post by neuronexmachina »

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…

Facebook already actively deletes ISIS and Al Qaeda-related propaganda: https://venturebeat.com/2018/11/08/facebook-claims-it-delete...

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#479

Post by ratling »

gatherhunterer wrote: post #21

There is merit to maintaining an open environment. Censorship makes the censored content seem lucratively dangerous; it looks like the powers that be are afraid of what some people are saying. I think it is best to let bad arguments fail on their own merit. The problem is that most people are unable to recognize a bad argument.

You don't solve nazi ideology with reasoned debate. You don't solve it with deplatforming either but I doubt facebook is going to start throwing bricks so I'll take it.

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#480

Post by baddox »

rdl wrote: post #274

This seems absurd and unreasonable once you look at it more closely. If any group of people say they want to go live apart from others (white, gay, men, linux users, whatever), I'm fine with that. I wouldn't want to live in a racial separatist region myself, but I have no problem with other people choosing to do so. Treating black nationalists as heroes (which in a historical sense they were) while making white natio…

The problem is when you say you want to live apart from others, but you want that to be right here where there happen to currently be other people. When you say that, even if you claim to not be advocating for violence or forceful removal, that is effectively what you’re advocating. There are white nationalist groups that actually use the phrase “peaceful ethnic cleansing.”
Post reply on HN