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

521–530 of 1001 posts

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#521

Post by MockObject »

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.

Seems no more hypocritical and self-awareness-lacking than arguing that Facebook has the right to turn away white nationalists, but that a bakery must serve all the cakes.

Either way, it's conceptual gerrymandering to carefully carve out a wiggly boundary that -- strictly by coincidence! -- protects their own side and restrains the other side.

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#522

Post by DoofusOfDeath »

ratling wrote: post #479
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.

> You don't solve nazi ideology with reasoned debate.

How did you reach that conclusion?

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#523

Post by JakeTheAndroid »

throwawaysea wrote: post #255
hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Free speech means freedom from censorship. And from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship > Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information, on the basis that such material is considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or "inconvenient". Censorship can be conducted by a government, private institutions, and corporations. From Merriam-Webster ( https://www.merriam-webster.com/…

If you take all of this out of context, sure I see where you are coming from. But in context this is simply being pedantic.

Facebook is a US based company. When talking about Freedom of Speech in America, it's almost exclusively used to refer to the Constitutional protections around Freedom of Speech, as that is the only codified Free Speech parameters for the country at large. So in context, OP would be saying that they are near absolutist on Freedom of Speech as it relates to the Constitution.

I don't know many people that would interpret Freedom of Speech as a more generalized concept unless it was defined before hand.

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#524

Post by kelnos »

atonse wrote: post #235
99052882514569 wrote: post #71

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. 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…

This has nothing to do with free speech. Free speech has to with governments curbing your speech, not private companies.

No, free speech is free speech. The fact that, legally, free speech is handled differently if you're the US government vs. a private entity is immaterial to the definition.

But also recognize that (unregulated) private entities have a right to decide what speech they do and don't want to be a platform for. That's the big distinction here.

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#525

Post by Macross8299 »

duxup wrote: post #63

I suspect there is some value in pushing such content off of large sites to reduce the surface area available for recruitment. I used to think that pushing such content off a site or forum was futile and calling it for what it is on a site had value, I'm not sure that is the case anymore. If you look on platforms like reddit and such where you have groups in subreddits calling for race wars, general hatred, and viole…

>calling it for what it is on a site had value,

The terrifying thought is that this might be a product of scale more than anything else.

Because of the bullshit asymmetry principle, it's easier to produce propaganda than debunk it and "call it what it is," so any sufficiently large and scaled platform will almost certainly eventually be flooded with propaganda bullshit.

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#526

Post by qmanjamz »

rexpop wrote: post #136
narrator wrote: post #30

As an anti-racist conservative, the most fun I have on the internet these days is arguing racists out of their beliefs on the armpits of the internet. I relish my downvotes there. I would be bummed about these beliefs being banned everywhere because I wouldn't get to exercise my Internet debate skills to make a positive impact on the world without worrying about trampling on somebody's right to an echo chamber.

[flagged]

[flagged]

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#527

Post by ratling »

DoofusOfDeath wrote: post #522
ratling wrote: post #479

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> You don't solve nazi ideology with reasoned debate. How did you reach that conclusion?

1940-1945

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#528

Post by omegaworks »

aszantu wrote: post #510

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.

Your assumption being that Facebook presently serves as an effective platform for deradicalizing extremists.

Do you have evidence backing that up? Because from what I've seen[1], Facebook has been serving the opposite purpose: showing people things that reinforce their beliefs and trigger outrage reactions for clicks.

1. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/15/technology/myanmar-facebo...

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#529

Post by mrtesthah »

randyrand wrote: post #426
mrtesthah wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

That seems incredibly arbitrary. 1. a Chinese nationalist can post about China while living in the USA. 2. You don't need institutional power in order to do harm to other people. 3. How do you handle cases where power is evenly split? 60/40? 70/30? Who gets to be racist?

Try to stop thinking like an engineer and read my comment as the elucidation of a philosophical position on race rather than a Facebook policy rule.

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#530

Post by DoofusOfDeath »

pathseeker wrote: post #485
ianleeclark wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that an open environment cannot work when there are bad faith interlocutors actively seeking to undermine that open environment. There's a famous Sartre quote that deals with the paradox of tolerance in regards to anti-semites.

Either they are presenting valid arguments or they aren't. If you have the mental tools to analyze and quickly dismiss arguments it doesn't matter if they aren't acting in good faith.

> Either they are presenting valid arguments or they aren't.

I agree. But one problem with bad-faith actors is they can bring productive discussion to a near standstill, due to the time / attention / emotional-energy costs.

Post reply on HN