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

581–590 of 1001 posts

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#581

Post by ddenisen »

factsaresacred wrote: post #560
joshuamorton wrote: post #337

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

Discrimination is only illegal in certain contexts, mostly related to employment and essential services, as well as when interacting with the government (see First Amendment). For example, if I allow Girl Scouts to sell cookies on my business premises, it doesn't mean that I am also obligated to allow Jehovah's Witnesses to set up a stand as well.

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#582

Post by ceejayoz »

stcredzero wrote: post #301
guelo wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it is your redefinition that is the new one. And the right-wing is not standing on consistent principles when they try to self-servingly redefine freedom as the individual's freedom to appropriate a company's private property only for the case of popular social networks and nothing else.

And the right-wing is not standing on consistent principles when they try to self-servingly redefine freedom as the individual's freedom to appropriate a company's private property only for the case of popular social networks and nothing else. False. As the Marsh case demonstrates, Free Speech takes priority over property rights. No inconsistency there.

> As the Marsh case demonstrates, Free Speech takes priority over property rights.

As the "subsequent history" section of the Marsh v. Alabama Wikipedia entry indicates, not always.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lloyd_Corp._v._Tanner

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#583

Post by yardie »

DuskStar wrote: post #103
yardie wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except they are not censored. If these groups feel like they want to espouse these dangerous ideas they still can. They don't need Facebook to do and the rest of us can ignore them. But at the moment Facebook's and Youtube's algorithms put some of this crap front and center in your browser. To the unsuspecting this can seem like validating and endorsing those ideas.

Are you really saying that these groups aren't going to be censored by Facebook? Censorship does not require a government.

These groups aren't censored, full dead stop. Corporations have a TOS. IF you don't like it you can take your speech elsewhere. Governments are different. You are free to chose a private platform other than Facebook, Apple, Google. You are not free to chose a different government.

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#586

Post by dqpb »

beat wrote: post #511
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 am no longer a free speech absolutist. And the reason I am not is the sort of abstract, angels-on-a-pinhead bullshit arguments that fill the responses to the parent post. The more it can be abstracted to "free speech", the less oxygen there is for discussion of the real harm caused by white supremacist thought and white supremacist actions. I put the safety of society at large first. And if you think that's oppress…

Who do you propose gets to decide what speech is dangerous?

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#587

Post by simmanian »

chubot wrote: post #392
ada1981 wrote: post #333

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s interesting that you seem to equate African-American content with White Nationalist content. Facebook isn’t banning content from white people, it’s banning content that is racist by design.

They said they already ban "white supremacy" because it falls under their existing guidelines. That's what I take to be the "racist" content. But now they are banning "white nationalism and separatism" in addition. I guess I don't know enough about white nationalism to say if it's racist or not. Like I said, it's a value judgement (and an issue of categorization) that's beyond my expertise. I don't think separatism i…

White nationalists and separatists are racists because they want an ethnostate. I don't think it should be difficult to tell why these ideas are racist, and I hope you would make the same judgement.

Also, the separatist movement in Spain was not racist because any number of races can live in the region that called for separation. An ethnostate is racist.

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#588

Post by tathougies »

anigbrowl wrote: post #503
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 ad…

> 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.

Facebook has 1 billion + users, which means the majority are necessarily not American. Now I don't know where those other users are from, but white nationalism is not the largest source of terrorism related killings worldwide, even if it is a problem in america. The fact is that white nationalism is -- for whatever reason -- seen as something worse than all the other forms of racism, and that perception is itself racist. There are two forms of such racism, either straight up dislike of white people or an infantilization of the racism of other cultures that absolves them of their own racism (well they didn't know better...)

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#590

Post by tssva »

gowld wrote: post #164

It's OK to say you believe that you are pro free-speech only in cases of government/military/police censorship. It's not OK to redefine free speech to mean "government censorship", especially not to call your position "very nearly absolutist". You believe that private companies have the moral right to censor and filter user-generated content. That's your opinion/morality. But it's not "free speech absolutism" in the…

The definition of free speech has historically also included the right not to be compelled to produce speech against your will.

It could be argued that requiring companies to reproduce speech against their will is more a violation of "free speech absolutism" than defending their right not to do so.

Post reply on HN