Facebook to ban white nationalist content • Hacker News Board

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#501

Post by kelnos » Wed, Mar 27, 2019, 7:59 PM UTC

99052882514569 wrote: post #71

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…

>To the people that say "Where does it end?" – that's pretty easy. Let's start with curbing speech that encourages harming others. But that is not where they're starting though, is it? They're going much further: >Today we’re announcing a ban on praise, support and representation of white nationalism and separatism on Facebook and Instagram Praise, support and representation not of speech encouraging harm, but the id…

> Facebook has a complete and unalienable right to do this on their platform (fact)

If you remove "unalienable", then yes, that's correct. Future legislation and regulation could definitely change that.

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#502

Post by gamblor956 » Wed, Mar 27, 2019, 8:00 PM UTC

smsm42 wrote: post #344

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 case was about a "company town", where there was very much a blending of public and private. With the pervasiveness of regulation in modern United States, pretty much everything worth mentioning now is "a blending of public and private". Any business has restrictions of how it can hire and choose their clientele. A person with minarchist political bent could consider this wrong but it is undeniably the reality…

Consider what would happen if AOL blocked communications by a competitor, or say political speech by a popular group? I can not guarantee it, but I ascribe very high probability to the outcome being very different. If so, the conclusion is not that the provider can do whatever they want, but they can do whatever they want as long as they serve public interest. Which means, the current politics defines what they can do and what they can't.

AOL would have still won. That case didn't turn on the content of the spam. It absolutely was predicated on AOL's rights to control its own software/community.

Companies block competitor ads all the time. Companies frequently refuse to air or display political ads.

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#503

Post by anigbrowl » Wed, Mar 27, 2019, 8:00 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

They're not. Why is white nationalism specifically targeted? Because there's a lot of it in the US and the anglosphere in general which is Facebook's home and primary market.

I've seen plenty of Hindu nationalist content on Facebook, and [...]

Well, that's something they should be addressing too and I agree it has significant negative effects. At least now you know who to address at Facebook about it. I know other people have been making that exact complaint to Facebook, such as members of the Dalit caste who have been on the receiving end of violence from Hindu extremists with very reactionary views on caste.

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#504

Post by ratling » Wed, Mar 27, 2019, 8:00 PM UTC

smsm42 wrote: post #353

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…

> Let's start with curbing speech that encourages harming others. Raising taxes would certainly harm me. In fact, in much more direct way than impotent babble of bunch of idiots obsessed with the color of their epidermis. So I guess we should start with banning any speech advocating raising taxes?

> Raising taxes would certainly harm me. In fact, in much more direct way than impotent babble of bunch of idiots obsessed with the color of their epidermis. So I guess we should start with banning any speech advocating raising taxes?

So impotent that they never walked into a synagogue or mosque and shot up a bunch of people. Oh wait...

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#505

Post by cynoclast » Wed, Mar 27, 2019, 8:00 PM UTC

I can't believe people are applauding this.

The whole "you can go make your own platform, facebook/google/twitter/youtube doesn't owe you anything" excuse is bullshit. Look at what happened when people DID try to make their own platform with Gab. They were DDOSed and people uploaded child porn and then reported it to try to get the whole site shut down to prevent people who were silenced elsewhere from talking there too. They're behaving more like the nazis than the white nationalists!

Cheering on authoritarian censorship of things you don't want to hear doesn't make you virtuous it makes you a coward.

The solution to bad speech isn't censorship, it's better speech:

First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

-Martin Niemöller

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#506

Post by darkwizard42 » Wed, Mar 27, 2019, 8:00 PM UTC

otabdeveloper2 wrote: post #488

Thought experiment for ya: > Facebook to ban homosexual hookup content How about that, eh? Funny how a simple change of political platform will U-turn your support of so-called 'free speech'!

There is a relatively far line from 'free speech' to 'free speech that actively encourages discrimination, harm of others, or infringing on others rights'

As a private platform, Facebook is free to curb the topic you have suggested, in the same way you are free to avoid said private platform.

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#507

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Mar 27, 2019, 8:00 PM UTC

maldusiecle wrote: post #438

burfog wrote: post #411

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, a…

Do you have citations for any of this?

[deleted]

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#508

Post by justinmchase » Wed, Mar 27, 2019, 8:00 PM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #496

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.

I don't think he was doing that. He was trying to say that racial discrimination would not be an acceptable reason, I believe. I didn't take it the way you are suggesting at least.

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#509

Post by cynoclast » Wed, Mar 27, 2019, 8:01 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 consider myself a free speech absolutist. Or very nearly so.

You're not. You're a coward.

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#510

Post by aszantu » Wed, Mar 27, 2019, 8:01 PM UTC

they could just use their algorithm to make unwanted content insignificant... This will not quench the problem with nationalists, it just drive them to other plattforms and they will become more radicalized because they only hear their own voices there.