Facebook to ban white nationalist content

Post by antt » Wed, Mar 27, 2019, 10:05 PM UTC

philwelch wrote: post #172

randyrand wrote: post #67

Why not ban all racist nationalism entirely? What is unique about white nationalism versus Chinese nationalism in China, or black nationalism in South Africa? There are many racist movements all around the world. Only banning white nationalism is giving fuel to the white nationalist belief that whites are being unfairly targeted. That's not something we should encourage IMO.

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…

Post by clucas » Wed, Mar 27, 2019, 10:05 PM UTC

wozniacki wrote: post #558

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…

In earlier times, that meant that no newspaper or printing press was required to print everything sent their way. Today it's the centralized websites that also don't have this obligation. ... You are not entitled to widespread distribution. Never have been. This sort of pointing-to-the-past-to-pave-the-future is disturbing to say the least. We don't apply the received wisdom of the past blindly to issues of the prese…

Post by azangru » Wed, Mar 27, 2019, 10:10 PM UTC

dpq wrote: post #247

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 think your attitude is still extremely mild. It doesn't matter if we believe ourselves to be neutral, there are groups that consider themselves our opponents, and will work against everything we stand for. And, unless we decide to fight back or at least stop helping them to promote their agenda (which is often incompatible with values widely shared among secular / educated communities), they will prevail in some ma…

Post by ratling » Wed, Mar 27, 2019, 10:10 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…

Post by antt » Wed, Mar 27, 2019, 10:11 PM UTC

beat wrote: post #634

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.