Facebook to ban white nationalist content • Hacker News Board

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#641

Post by Teknoman117 » Wed, Mar 27, 2019, 9:47 PM UTC

> 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.

Can anyone elaborate on this? Speaking as one of them, I'd hazard to say that the majority of 'white people' in the United States are so far distant from their 'ethnic heritage' that we'd just define it as 'American'.

Mexican-Americans celebrate their Mexican heritage, Japanese-Americans celebrate their Japanese heritage, etc. What does your average 'white person' celebrate? We don't know a heck of a lot about my mom's side other than that her father is French Canadian and her mother is Polish American. Dad's side has been here since the 17th century (according to my grandmother anyways).

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#642

Post by Rapzid » Wed, Mar 27, 2019, 9:47 PM UTC

cortic wrote: post #223

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…

>No company or platform owes them anything. This is discrimination of opinion , strange as that sounds. There is a reason we don't see signs up like; 'No Blacks', 'No Gays', 'No Jews' in private establishments. Its because its not allowed, we either have a list of protected groups - or a general rule that forbids banning anyone because of their 'group'. If we don't fairly quickly extend free speech into these platfor…

It's the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and it has its limits just like everything else. Namely employment and "places of public accommodation". If you read the SCOTUS opinion on Masterpiece Cake Shop you will see "public accommodation" mentioned a LOT.

So, I'm certain you will find legally hung signs with racist and discriminatory content in certain places.

> If we don't fairly quickly extend free speech into these platforms

That's outside the scope of the First Amendment. It may not even be possible to pass such a law without infringing on those platforms First Amendment rights... I would expect the SCOTUS to strike any such law down.

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#643

Post by golemiprague » Wed, Mar 27, 2019, 9:47 PM UTC

Why only white nationalist? Why not black nationalist? or Japanese nationalist? or Chinese nationalist? Facebook is a global company after all, if an African country says that they don't want white immigration will they keep this opinion up or is it just applied to whites in America?.

What about other unsavoury opinions from the left side? Why white nationalist is any different to no borders propaganda? Aren't they both dangerous to people in America?

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#644

Post by gramstrong » Wed, Mar 27, 2019, 9:48 PM UTC

I don't think that private censorship is necessarily a problem, but I do think that corporations having the authority to exercise what is a pretty effective form of muting is a problem. This is of course due to the size and prevalence of Facebook as a platform. I don't think the solution (or best solution, at least) is to break up the tech giants as Elizabeth Warren would suggest. I would instead prefer to see some form of socialized media platforms that take the market question out of the equation (does white supremacy content hurt Facebook more than removing it would?). This is of course, because, the market is not always right (even though in this case I would make a strong argument that it is).

I'm not sure what the best social media model for such a platform would be -- preferably something mostly non-anonymous like Facebook, but self-moderated (within the bounds of the law) like Reddit used to be.

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#645

Post by rexpop » Wed, Mar 27, 2019, 9:48 PM UTC

captainredbeard wrote: post #229

rexpop wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Hmm, maybe this is a matter of vocabulary. Are you including supporting policies with unintentionally disproportionate impact in your definition of racism? If so, you're going to find a lot of misunderstanding with conservatives when discussing the topic.

The entire conservative cohort pleads ignorance across the board, from denying human-caused climate change, to denying human-caused segregation and poverty.

If I did not include allegedly unintentionally racist impacts in my analysis of conservative policy, I'd be granting them the benefit of the doubt on which they, in bad faith, rely. Plausible deniability is, perhaps, the second tenant of conservatism. Ostensibly unintended consequences cannot be, after a millennium of this charade, left unattributed.

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#646

Post by zcid » Wed, Mar 27, 2019, 9:49 PM UTC

anth_anm wrote: post #108

jelliclesfarm wrote: post #70

I 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.

> There is no greater protection to vulnerable populations than transparency This is somewhat true, but your argument has a pretty big flaw. > When people communicate on a public platform unself consciously, they reveal themselves openly and freely This simply isn't true. You aren't revealing that you read this content. THe authors aren't always revealing themselves. Those who don't really do themselves any harm beca…

> This is why people take photos and plaster them online when white supremacists march. People get recognized, that's the point where they can be called out.

I've found it interesting that the supposed "bad guys" are willing to openly espouse their views while the opposing side frequently utilizes masks to hide their identity.

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#647

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Mar 27, 2019, 9:49 PM UTC

justinmchase wrote: post #514

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.

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.

[deleted]

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#648

Post by egao1980 » Wed, Mar 27, 2019, 9:50 PM UTC

This is clear discrimination. As if people with different shades of skin being nationalists are nicer than white nationalists. Is it 1984 already or we still have some time?

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#649

Post by henvic » Wed, Mar 27, 2019, 9:53 PM UTC

As an anarcho-capitalist, I feel very happy that Facebook is banning nationalist content. They should have done it ages ago.

However, banning all separatists?

Well. Not all separatists are created equally. Sometimes it is a question of getting out of a union for the sake of reducing the state, and this is in no way vile. Quite the opposite.

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#650

Post by dragonwriter » Wed, Mar 27, 2019, 9:54 PM UTC

egao1980 wrote: post #648

This is clear discrimination. As if people with different shades of skin being nationalists are nicer than white nationalists. Is it 1984 already or we still have some time?

> This is clear discrimination

Every decision is discrimination.

> As if people with different shades of skin being nationalists are nicer than white nationalists.

A “white nationalist” isn't “a nationalist with white skin” but “an adherent to the ideology of white nationalism”.

You can be a white-skinned nationalist and not be a white nationalist.

> Is it 1984 already or we still have some time?

1984 didn't feature discrimination against either white nationalists or white-skinned nationalists, so it seems unrelated to your complaint.