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

661–670 of 1001 posts

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#661

Post by zelon88 »

talmand wrote: post #194

At what point do such things change into a public discourse problem? Do we wait until it can be shown that companies such as Facebook, Twitter, Google, etc. influenced elections because they refused to serve information from a candidate they didn't like? If we aren't already there, it's not long before it is. What do you think would happen if these "private companies" with such deep hooks into our communication infra…

> Tim Pool is right, at this rate, sooner or later, the Feds will come knocking and will shut that party down.

What party? The government is gonna come into a private organization and tell them they are obligated to spend money to preserve, host, and broadcast hate speech that doesn't align with the company's values?

Please tell me how this differs from telling small business owners they can't refuse service.

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#662

Post by zobzu »

josefresco wrote: post #376
weberc2 wrote: post #112

The obvious questions are and always have been "what constitutes 'harmful speech'?" and "who gets to decide?". Sure, we can agree that "white supremacy" is harmful, but in the last 5 years we've seen the definition of white supremacy slide from "people who espouse views that whites are better than nonwhites" to "people who espouse views that are not in line with progressive orthodoxy".

> we've seen the definition of white supremacy slide from "people who espouse views that whites are better than nonwhites" to "people who espouse views that are not in line with progressive orthodoxy". No we haven't. We've seen white supremacy being legitimized at the highest levels, and as a result white supremacists claiming to be "victims" openly because they feel emboldened by the election of white supremacist po…

you've watched too much tv

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#663

Post by btilly »

In principle, who could be opposed?

In practice, how will this actually work out?

True story. I have a friend who got a temporary ban from Facebook (I think 90 days?) for commenting on a story about a Texas billionaire paying to hunt endangered animals, "How much would it cost to hunt Texas billionaires?" That was considered a violation of their anti-bullying stance. Knowing her, it wasn't. It was sarcasm.

Moving on to this policy, I'm happy to see neonazis and the KKK have a hard time. But there are people in the UK and EU who would see Brexit as being a separatist cause motivated by racial animosity. Will we see discussion of a future such measure banned by Facebook on such grounds? And remaining banned even for people who support it on economic grounds because they think that having to follow EU policies on GDPR, copyright, and so on will be a net negative for the UK?

Facebook is going to have some difficult conversations ahead. And the more of these lines that they draw, the more difficult boundary cases they will run into.

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#664

Post by AnimalMuppet »

ganeshkrishnan wrote: post #232
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…

The paradox of tolerance is that we must always be intolerant of the intolerant. You are always FOR free speech until the speech starts hurting you. ie would you be tolerant of isis posting on FB?

The problem is, by being intolerant (even of the intolerant), you're intolerant. So if the "paradox of tolerance" is accurate, then we must not tolerate you.

"But", you say, "they were intolerant first, so they are the ones who should not be tolerated!" From your perspective, sure. Maybe not from theirs, though. That gets you to a cycle of each side being sure that the other is intolerant, and therefore that their own intolerance is justified. Maybe this "paradox of tolerance" isn't the right way forward, even in the face of intolerance by others. You should be better than them, not imitate them.

Worse, if each side can think that the other side started it, well, what if the other side is right? What if you actually are the problem? Using the "paradox of tolerance" as your justification is a handy way to justify your own intolerance, and never have to examine yourself.

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#665

Post by dragonwriter »

sadris wrote: post #639
dragonwriter wrote: post #496

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> But they're not banning Zionist (Jewish nationalist) content

True.

> So they're engaging in illegal discrimination due to disparate impact.

Disparate impact discrimination is illegal under Title VII (employment) but not Title II (public accommodation), so even assuming FB is covered by Title II (which is dubious), and even assuming this would be found to be disparate impact discrimination (which is difficult to assess because the test for that is narrowly tailored to Title VII context), it would not be illegal on that basis.

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#666

Post by jpkiser »

hcurtiss wrote: post #652
sagichmal wrote: post #608

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What do you think would happen if these "private companies" with such deep hooks into our communication infrastructure suddenly decided to remove all data associated to the Republican Party? For that matter, the Democratic Party? They wouldn't do that, because there would be justified public outcry. Luckily, as moral agents, we humans are capable of differentiating "general political party" from "white nationalists…

Are you sure? Do we even know, for sure, what "white nationalist" means? I'm white, and I favor a government that's principally oriented toward advancing this nation's interests. Am I a white nationalist?

Banned.

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#667

Post by antt »

sagichmal wrote: post #608
talmand wrote: post #194

At what point do such things change into a public discourse problem? Do we wait until it can be shown that companies such as Facebook, Twitter, Google, etc. influenced elections because they refused to serve information from a candidate they didn't like? If we aren't already there, it's not long before it is. What do you think would happen if these "private companies" with such deep hooks into our communication infra…

> What do you think would happen if these "private companies" with such deep hooks into our communication infrastructure suddenly decided to remove all data associated to the Republican Party? For that matter, the Democratic Party? They wouldn't do that, because there would be justified public outcry. Luckily, as moral agents, we humans are capable of differentiating "general political party" from "white nationalists…

>They wouldn't do that, because there would be justified public outcry. Luckily, as moral agents, we humans are capable of differentiating "general political party" from "white nationalists", and can target the latter and not the former.

Why white? The CCP is running concentration camps for hundreds of thousands of Muslims right now, yet I see no ban on the only party that can be called National Socialist today, just because the nation they are supporting is yellow.

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#668

Post by samaItman »

zelon88 wrote: post #661
talmand wrote: post #194

At what point do such things change into a public discourse problem? Do we wait until it can be shown that companies such as Facebook, Twitter, Google, etc. influenced elections because they refused to serve information from a candidate they didn't like? If we aren't already there, it's not long before it is. What do you think would happen if these "private companies" with such deep hooks into our communication infra…

> Tim Pool is right, at this rate, sooner or later, the Feds will come knocking and will shut that party down. What party? The government is gonna come into a private organization and tell them they are obligated to spend money to preserve, host, and broadcast hate speech that doesn't align with the company's values? Please tell me how this differs from telling small business owners they can't refuse service.

Greetings,

We've determined that your username contains hate speech [https://www.adl.org/education/references/hate-symbols/88]. We'll be shutting down your account forthwith and contacting the local authorities.

Have a nice day.

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#669

Post by 0xbadcafebee »

hcurtiss wrote: post #652
sagichmal wrote: post #608

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What do you think would happen if these "private companies" with such deep hooks into our communication infrastructure suddenly decided to remove all data associated to the Republican Party? For that matter, the Democratic Party? They wouldn't do that, because there would be justified public outcry. Luckily, as moral agents, we humans are capable of differentiating "general political party" from "white nationalists…

Are you sure? Do we even know, for sure, what "white nationalist" means? I'm white, and I favor a government that's principally oriented toward advancing this nation's interests. Am I a white nationalist?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_nationalism

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#670

Post by dang »

djtriptych wrote: post #625
charliesharding wrote: post #284

As a non-white person living in America, this is scary to see. It's a policy targeting a specific race of people's content... How is that not racist? It will only foment more resentment and retaliatory sentiment while serving to make "certain kinds of racism" socially acceptable as long as it's the "right race" to discriminate against. Ban ethno-nationalists if you feel so inclined, not {{insertRaceHere}} nationalism…

Pretty sure you're white bro.

Personal attacks are not ok here. Please don't do this again.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Post reply on HN