as a person of color, I would be very grateful if facebook can also ban material offensive towards Whites as well as hate literature towards white -- and this should include translation of non-English messages/materials in long run to weed such things out.
Facebook to ban white nationalist content
551–560 of 1001 posts
Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content
#552There 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.
And of course as long as you agree with FB's determination of who is a Nazi and who isn't, it's all fine and peachy?
Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content
#553So, who gets to decide what a "white nationalist" is? These guys?
https://freebeacon.com/issues/soros-bankrolls-unverified-hat...
Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content
#554Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your assumption is that this targets white people generally. White supremacist content is spread by a tiny minority of violent extremists in hopes of recruiting others to their cause.
How is that an assumption? The post is very clear that this is targeting white nationalism/separatism/supremacist. Black nationalism, Jewish nationalism (ie, Zionism), etc, are all perfectly okay.
In light of the evidence, it's a measure to target the groups that are disproportionately responsible for the majority of violent ideology-driven attacks in this country.
https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2018/09/12/study-shows-t...
Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content
#555Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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...
The GP's example of raising taxes might be surprisingly hard to refute.
For example, if the U.S. government's tax revenues were much lower in the 1960's, would they still have invaded Vietnam? Perhaps not entering Vietnam would have saved far more lives than are lost to domestic mass-shootings.
My main point is simply that causal relationships between policies and (various definitions of) harm can be highly speculative and messy.
Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content
#556I 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.
Just going to add a caveat that most terrorists are not, in fact, mentally ill, and arguments of the form 'you'd have to be mentally ill to commit this sort of violence' stigmatize mentally ill people without having any foundation in fact. They're often advanced by people who are unfamiliar with political violence and don't like discussing it.
Here's a decent and current introductory article on the topic: https://medicalxpress.com/news/2018-11-link-terrorism-mental...
Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content
#557Earlier quoted context omitted.
> seen the definition of white supremacy slide from "people who espouse views that whites are better than nonwhites" And even there it is debatable - does saying "people with pale skin are better at producing vitamin D in low-light conditions than people with dark skin" make me a white supremacist?
If you're saying it in a conversation about wether or not we should allow non-white people to be in a country with low light, yeah. There is no objective, neutral statement.
You're re-contextualizing parent's statement and thereby changing it's meaning. That's unfair and dishonest.
Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content
#558I 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…
In earlier times, that meant that no newspaper
or printing press was required to print
everything sent their way. Today it's the
centralized websites that also don't have
this obligation.
...
You are not entitled to widespread
distribution. Never have been.
All else being equal, the history of what was allowed to say (and what was not) in newspapers, radio or television is rife with examples of heavy handed editorializing, gate-keeper-ship, outright bias and favor and misguided attempts to selectively allow what truths are judged to be fit to be heard by the masses.
Those were the dark ages for the dissemination of information.
Do we really want to go back to those ages or even a shade resembling what was considered acceptable practices back then?
Heck, most of that stuff happens unimpeded in large parts of the world today, as I write this.
Do we want tell those countries and regions that its okay to sieve and favor what's allowed and what isn't in their public discourse, if a substantial majority of their populace finds it morally repugnant?
Won't those places and people, then apply their own standards of morality in that judgment, which could be diametrically opposite to ours?
Is this the example we want to set for the world to follow?
Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content
#559Earlier quoted context omitted.
> "Where does it end?" It ends, as it always does (and must) with massive hypocrisy on the part of the arbitrary censor, since "harm" is so poorly defined that it ends up being replaced with "whatever seems fashionable today".
> It ends, as it always does (and must) with massive hypocrisy on the part of the arbitrary censor, since "harm" is so poorly defined that it ends up being replaced with "whatever seems fashionable today". You are defending literal nazis. Their idea of speech is Christchurch. Deplatforming that is absolutely the correct move.
> You are defending literal nazis. Their idea of speech is Christchurch.
This whole conversation centers on the relationship between speech and action. Equating the two will confuse the discussion.
Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content
#560I 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. People wouldn't say, "so be it -- go set up your own servers". This is because we have laws about discrimination based on race. White supremacy is not a race. You're free to discriminate against someone due to the views they hold.
> You're free to discriminate against someone due to the views they hold.
I'm pretty sure discriminating against people for their views on religion is illegal. Ditto for their political views.
It's the definition of bigotry.