Facebook to ban white nationalist content • Hacker News Board

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#491

Post by jelliclesfarm » Wed, Mar 27, 2019, 7:55 PM UTC

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.

Being aware of people and surroundings in their true form is better than gagging some of the people around us, yes?

We have been hating on others not like ourselves since the caveman days. I honestly can’t think of any time in history when we haven’t been doing horrible things to each other. It’s like cancer. We are able to diagnose it and hear more about it now.

It’s like saying ...we are going to install a ban on sharing that you have cancer. “If we don’t know about it, we don’t have to acknowledge that there is a terminal illness amongst some of us. And all will be fine and dandy.”

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#492

Post by alexmingoia » Wed, Mar 27, 2019, 7:55 PM UTC

The great thing about the Internet is that anyone can publish a website and any other Internet user can access it.

The web is pleasant over here in the blogosphere. People write what they want, and readers read what they want. There’s no clamor about ads, algorithms, and censorship. Try it sometime!

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#493

Post by pathseeker » Wed, Mar 27, 2019, 7:55 PM UTC

ianleeclark wrote: post #78

yegle wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> To the people that say "Where does it end?" – that's pretty easy. Let's start with curbing speech that encourages harming others. "Speech that harms people" and "speech that hurt people's feelings" are so closely related and sometimes people (intentionally or unintentionally) mix them up.

Are you saying that white supremacists only hurt people's feelings and does not have real and tangible outcomes? Look to Christchurch or the innumerable attacks/murders/gig economy fascism in the US perpetrated by the far right.

>Are you saying that white supremacists only hurt people's feelings and does not have real and tangible outcomes?

Are you going to extend that same logic to devout religious followers that want a government aligned with their religion and think non-followers should be forcefully re-educated or killed?

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#494

Post by jeffdavis » Wed, Mar 27, 2019, 7:56 PM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #219

jeffdavis wrote: post #196

The US President has identified himself as a "nationalist"[1], and appears to be racially white. So how would this policy apply to Trump supporters and their speech? This is a general problem with trying to ban speech. It's often very hard to figure out what someone intends to mean versus how others interpret it versus what it "really means". Especially when symbols, slogans, etc., come into play, not to mention diff…

> The US President has identified himself as a "nationalist"[1], and appears to be racially white A white nationalist is not the same as a nationalist who is white; a white nationalist is one who adheres to the ideology of white nationalism.

I understand that, but I was trying to point out the difficulty in drawing that distinction when it comes to applying a censorship policy.

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#495

Post by ratling » Wed, Mar 27, 2019, 7:56 PM UTC

chaostheory wrote: post #275

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…

This form of hateful speech will not stop. The only immediate consequence is that it will go underground. The bigger consequence is that it will be much harder to for authorities to monitor. Under the previous status quo, it was an intelligence treasure trove. Suspected future terrorists would openly tell everyone their thoughts, their location, and more importantly their friends and associates. All of that will be g…

If they go underground it makes it a lot harder for them to radicalize idiots on facebook. Sounds like a win to me.

The average person isn't exactly curious about different ideologies but when facebook and youtubes algorithms throw it in their face constantly? Probably something we want to fix.

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#496

Post by dragonwriter » Wed, Mar 27, 2019, 7:56 PM UTC

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.

Also, if they decided to ban all White content, it would be different.

White and White nationalist aren't the same thing; please stop insulting White people that aren't racists by implicitly equating them.

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#497

Post by qwerty456127 » Wed, Mar 27, 2019, 7:56 PM UTC

Why just white? I've read asian nationalism (incl. in US) happens to be nasty too. E.g. an asian-american girl dated a white boy and had to face lots of ridiculous hate speech in Facebook.

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#498

Post by cowwithbeef » Wed, Mar 27, 2019, 7:57 PM UTC

I am surprised their PR team didn't advise them to use the neutral term "ethno-nationalist."

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#499

Post by shiado » Wed, Mar 27, 2019, 7:57 PM UTC

.

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#500

Post by justinmchase » Wed, Mar 27, 2019, 7:58 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…

I think if they allow public signups then they should not have the ability to censor anybody, except by court order or to comply with the laws of the users region.

Because of course "anything I don't agree with is hitler" is a problem and an inevitability. Its fine if they do not allow public sign ups and all people they are publishing are considered employees or enter into contract with the company but facebook, twitter etc. are different animals and I really don't see how anybody supporting free speech can support facebook inhibiting the speech of certain people.