Facebook to ban white nationalist content • Hacker News Board

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#631

Post by asabjorn » Wed, Mar 27, 2019, 9:42 PM UTC

asabjorn wrote: post #312

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…

Why do they have the right to use power to suppress viewpoint opponents with 100% flexibility in claiming an individual has wronged a group with no evidence, no clear definition of what the terms are, and no recourse? It seems like terms like this and hate speech often boil down to “people that are effective at calling out my bullshit”. It is unethical to with no evidence call republicans or classical liberals Nazis,…

It is quite telling how this is getting downvoted with no argument. Always judge people on their actions, and especially how their actions impose upon others.

Edit: and then this is also downvoted with no argument. A better demonstration of why this facebook policy is a terrible idea could have not happened.

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#632

Post by justaman » Wed, Mar 27, 2019, 9:42 PM UTC

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?

Why can't China be for the Chinese? Sure don't kill anybody. Don't hate them. But why can't German's want their German ancestry to be Germany?

The USA is a unique case in the world and should be exception, not the rule.

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#633

Post by stiangrindvoll » Wed, Mar 27, 2019, 9:43 PM UTC

dsfyu404ed wrote: post #131

>Our efforts to combat hate don’t stop here. As part of today’s announcement, we’ll also start connecting people who search for terms associated with white supremacy to resources focused on helping people leave behind hate groups. People searching for these terms will be directed to Life After Hate, an organization founded by former violent extremists that provides crisis intervention, education, support groups and o…

Also, By mere searching for specific terms, Facebook gladly assume your motives to be to in particular way. This seem misguided and not well thought through.

Finding a book in the library about frogs, doesn't make you a frog.

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#634

Post by beat » Wed, Mar 27, 2019, 9:43 PM UTC

roenxi wrote: post #630

They've left a lot of room for the details to be stupid. 1) In particular, what about black nationalists, Chinese nationalists, etc, etc? 2) One of their main justifications is "conversations with members of civil society and academics". It seems unlikely that these conversations are with politically neutral groups, particularly since academics focused on race relations tend to self select for slightly off-beat views…

And when Richard Spencer asks if we should maybe just send every black person to Africa and create an all-white America, he's being civil and nonviolent.

Which is the problem.

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#635

Post by leereeves » Wed, Mar 27, 2019, 9:44 PM UTC

cynoclast wrote: post #515

dqpb wrote: post #432

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This already happens. "Mainstream Media" doesn't give equal coverage to 3rd party candidates.

Or even DNC candidates, if they're actual progressives: https://decisiondata.org/news/political-media-blackouts-pres...

[flagged]

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#636

Post by daveheq » Wed, Mar 27, 2019, 9:44 PM UTC

What if they end up banning dissent material that merely looks like white nationalist material because of popular mischaracterizing narratives by fear-mongering clickbait newsfeeds?

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#637

Post by tathougies » Wed, Mar 27, 2019, 9:45 PM UTC

tzs wrote: post #570

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.

According to their statement, they have long banned for "hateful treatment of people based on characteristics such as race, ethnicity or religion", and white supremacy has long fallen under that. They also say that nationalism does not usually fall under this, with things like "American pride" or "Basque separatism" being an important part of people's identities. What they say is changing is that in the specific case…

This comment confuses me unless the claim is that Hinduism forms a nation within India, and the existence of such a nation justifies the violence committed in its name.

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#638

Post by wolco » Wed, Mar 27, 2019, 9:45 PM UTC

bduerst wrote: post #367

wolco wrote: post #322

In the case of facebook. If they removed one side from debating that side will leave. Creating a smaller more similiar group of people. That would go against the goal of connecting the world and change the goal to connecting the left or right. Plenty of those sites. Facebook's ideal strategy is not to get involved.

Except deplatforming is shown to work against alt-right hate speech: https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/bjbp9d/do-social-... Anti-semitic speech has traditionally relied on soap boxes to spread their message, for decades before the internet even existed. That's why most academics won't engage them, because these groups are not interested in genuine discussion but in broadcasting their prejudice.

The original post referenced if one party was removed. Either one take your pick.

The alt-right or alt-left is a tiny group. An entire party is 35-50% of the population. Rep or Dem.

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#639

Post by sadris » Wed, Mar 27, 2019, 9:46 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.

But they're not banning Zionist (Jewish nationalist) content, only White natl content. So they're engaging in illegal discrimination due to disparate impact.

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#640

Post by zobzu » Wed, Mar 27, 2019, 9:47 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…

There's many arguments that can be had either way but the one that always resonate for me is this:

Once you ban speech on any ground that isnt directly putting people in danger, even real nazis for example, they DO NOT disappear. They still recruit. They still operate. You just don't see it.

The people they recruit are suddenly in a bubble where they DO NOT see the opposite view point. Their opinions become unbalanced and they become radicalized. You now have more hard-core nazis.

In this case, I believe FB does this for 3 reasons:

1. many people inside FB believe in censorship and that you can forbid people to speak or think and that it makes the problem disappear. Many people in tech actually believe this.

2. FB sees this as good marketing, and good to retain eyeballs on their platform, specially vs the "we reached out and FB refused to ban nazis, FB is siding with nazis"

3. FB wants to control speech so that they can ask money when you want to be heard. Effectively, this means "media company X pays X so that their message appears more often". The more you control speech on the platform the more you can push for sources of content that will actually pay you money.

Of course, these are just my opinions, and stuff.