Nothing wrong with deplatforming.
Facebook to ban white nationalist content
611–620 of 1001 posts
Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content
#612well no one held a gun to your head and made you login to Facebook. All censorship is wrong and the reason this country has become a spoiled crybaby filled cesspool of offended snowflakes. The supreme court has also ruled that there is no such thing as hate speech! Get over someone else's words you shallow bitch baby!
Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content
#613If the views can't expressed, then they can't be refuted either. Banning this sort of content from Facebook will only foster a sense of persecution in white nationalists, which will likely strengthen their movement overall, while isolating them further from contrary opinions. John Stuart Mill's "On Liberty" is essential reading for those who wish to silence speech they find offensive, especially corporations which ma…
I don't buy the "essential to modern life" part. I've quit FB cold turkey, because I concluded that it was making my life worse. And I seem so far to be happier for it, and to have lost very little.
Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content
#614Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
You're equating someone asking for a cake for their same-sex marriage to hate speech? Are you kidding?
No, I'm equating one business refusing a customer to another business refusing a customer. That is how analogies work.
Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content
#615I 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 based on the outcome of this action, it has the potential to do real harm to the internet.
If the current executive branch decides to get tough, they could withhold section 230 exemptions from the private companies.
The net effect would be to destroy the companies platform as no company in their right mind would operate with that potential liability.
Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content
#616Earlier 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.
But you are not allowed to suppress the speech of people based on the views they hold. The first amendment does indeed protect even racists. Or at least corporations and the government are not allowed to.
Not speaking legally, but speaking ethically, it is of course both possible and good to suppress the speech of e.g. white nationalists.
Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content
#617> Going forward, while people will still be able to demonstrate pride in their ethnic heritage, we will not tolerate praise or support for white nationalism and separatism. So you can praise and support your ethnic nationality, as long as you're not white.
You can't understand what White Nationalism and Separatism if you're happy to come conflate it with "praise for your ethnic identity".
Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content
#618Does this mean Facebook can now be considered a publishing platform, and thus liable for content put on the site?
It should.
Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content
#619Earlier quoted context omitted.
The notion is that the history of European colonialism and imperialism "justifies" black and Chinese nationalism as a countermeasure to white supremacy. There's a "punching up" vs. "punching down" model that pretty much explains most "hypocrisy" on this issue. For instance, even subtle hints of anti-Semitism expressed by white Westerners (e.g. being anti-George Soros in particular) are condemned far more vehemently t…
Just because white nationalists are white, doesn't mean that they've received any kind of largesse because of it. If you look at the demographics of white nationalists, it will be largely overrepresented by poor whites from marginalized, backwater communities.
I don't think you understand the concept of "privilege" very well.
Privilege is basically the logical inverse of discrimination. If driving while black means getting pulled over more (discrimination), then driving while white means not getting pulled over more (privilege).
Hope this clarifies how even poor whites are "privileged".
Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content
#620Yes, FB is a private company and all that. But they have clearly been censoring speech and cannot be protected by common carrier rules, as they are a publisher.
This change of designation, of course, would be a significant financial blow, once they started losing lawsuits. But you can bet that if one considers their gov't influence and status as a money-spigot for leftist politicians, they have no fear of this actually happening.
It's only the little people who have to worry about running afoul of the law---not HRC and not FB. Welcome to the late Roman Empire.