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

681–690 of 1001 posts

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#681

Post by dang »

insickness wrote: post #170

Marsh v. Alabama, 326 U.S. 501 (1946), was a case decided by the United States Supreme Court, in which it ruled that a state trespassing statute could not be used to prevent the distribution of religious materials on a town's sidewalk, even though the sidewalk was part of a privately owned company town. The Court based its ruling on the provisions of the First Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment. https://en.wikipedia.…

This subthread started as a reply to https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19503270.

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#682

Post by antt »

ianleeclark wrote: post #65
gatherhunterer wrote: post #21

There is merit to maintaining an open environment. Censorship makes the censored content seem lucratively dangerous; it looks like the powers that be are afraid of what some people are saying. I think it is best to let bad arguments fail on their own merit. The problem is that most people are unable to recognize a bad argument.

The problem is that an open environment cannot work when there are bad faith interlocutors actively seeking to undermine that open environment. There's a famous Sartre quote that deals with the paradox of tolerance in regards to anti-semites.

And yet Jews have only been murdered in countries that did not have freedom of speech.

Words are an antidote to sticks and stones which stop people from breaking others bones.

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#683

Post by Veraticus »

btilly wrote: post #663

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…

Because Facebook can misapply its policies does not mean it should have no policies, it merely means it should implement them better.

Obviously there are other kinds of content that Facebook could ban, but merely because those things exist doesn't mean this shouldn't also be banned.

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#684

Post by dang »

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…

This subthread started as a reply to https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19503270.

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#685

Post by clucas »

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?

You're right that some of these terms have ambiguity, but your example is silly - it's well-accepted that the term "white nationalist" stands on its own and means something different from "white and a nationalist."

But even setting aside your specific example, I don't believe that ambiguity should paralyze us into inaction. I think it's fair to say "OK, we'll ban anyone who advocates distributing political power based on race, with the white 'race' getting the most power... when people cross that line won't always be clear, but we'll do our best." For private action especially, we should not let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#686

Post by justatdotin »

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?

will neo-nazis be able to side-step appropriate regulation by framing hate statements as questions?

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#687

Post by metafunctor »

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…

Neutral might not exist.

> It seems to me that Facebook and Twitter are trying to have it both ways.

Of course Facebook and Twitter are trying to have it both ways, and, indeed, all ways — there are many more ways for people to communicate, or stances to take, than “both”.

Platforms like FB and Twitter hope to be the communications backbone of the world. The problem is, the world has opinions on what kinds of communications are acceptable. These platforms try to stay neutral, but the people are not.

Neutral does not exist. It's all relative.

In a polarized world, a neutral platform will die because either side won't like it. In a more interesting world, it might still die because people don't like people who don't think like them.

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#688

Post by KerryJones »

Veraticus wrote: post #683
btilly wrote: post #663

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…

Because Facebook can misapply its policies does not mean it should have no policies, it merely means it should implement them better. Obviously there are other kinds of content that Facebook could ban, but merely because those things exist doesn't mean this shouldn't also be banned.

"it merely means it should implement them better" this is the theory of every government committee, ever. In practice, generally, _it doesn't happen_.

I believe private companies are usually better, but still highly dependant on size and a number of other factors.

I definitely don't have faith that FB will wield this well, and the worse part is it will probably pretty hard to find out from the silenced parties when they f!@# up until much later.

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#689

Post by smileysteve »

btilly wrote: post #663

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…

> That was considered a violation of their anti-bullying stance. Knowing her, it wasn't. It was sarcasm.

That line is grey and I'd argue that your friend's comment, while obviously hyperbole, does not respect human life.

There was an article posted about cyclists that points out the danger ous dehumanizing others; that comedy / hyperbole help group think achieve it.

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#690

Post by chubot »

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.

Yes, I should have said the "analogous" Chinese, Islamic, or African-American content, e.g. like the sibling suggests with Zionist content.

The thread this spawned reminds me of why I don't usually chime in on these issues. But what many replies are missing is that Facebook says they already ban "white supremacist" content under existing rules. They don't need a special rule for that. Just like they don't need a special rule for terrorist content that's violent.

But they ARE adding a special rule for "white nationalism", for the reasons given in the post.

I'm not saying they are wrong. I'm just saying that you can't really use the argument "they can go set up their own servers" to justify it, as the grandparent did.

I suspect that there's simply a LOT of white nationalist content, and it has a practical damaging effect, but nationalist content of other kinds isn't that widespread or damaging, and they want to allow it for free speech reasons (and probably because they aren't qualified to make fine judgements about various nationalist movements). That seems reasonable.

Anyway, Facebook gives the "right" reason for the ban (a value judgement), while the parent comment was pushing a reason that's besides the point, IMO. It felt like a "backward rationalization". But yeah it's more of a nitpick, so I regret spawning this thread, which became very political :-/

-----

Even so, let me throw something else onto the pile. A few days ago I watched this documentary on Netflix:

Struggle: The Life and Lost Art of Szukalski

https://www.netflix.com/title/80109551

It's too complex to summarize, but it's about a very talented sculptor who was also a Polish nationalist (for a significant period). It came out in December and was produced by Leo DiCaprio, because his father was a friend of the artist in LA.

I googled for reviews afterward, and this was one of the best summaries that I found:

https://www.counter-currents.com/2019/01/a-patriot-without-a...

Only after reading the whole article did I realize that it's from a white nationalist site (if you read "about this site", it's very clear).

The long and short of it is that it's a subtle issue, but most people seem to view it in black and white. If Facebook banned this content, it would be a mistake IMO (although I don't use facebook). But their decision might be the right thing overall. They have a hard job, and people like the parent were trying to apply some strict principle to it, when in reality there's no such thing.

Post reply on HN