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

691–700 of 1001 posts

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#691

Post by dang »

cynoclast wrote: post #518
bduerst wrote: post #367

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You're just telling yourself what you want to hear.

Personal attacks are not ok here. We ban accounts that do this and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19505358. Please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting to HN.

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#692

Post by egao1980 »

dragonwriter wrote: post #650
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…

White nationalists = nationalists that think that white people are better than other, but we have guys from ICGJC and other afrosupremacist groups, etc. Why not ban them all?

1984 is mentioned as a reference to the dystopian world of propaganda and Facebook / Google are quickly turning into corporate Ministry of Truth.

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#693

Post by debacle »

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…

In principle, Facebook has never branded itself a bastion of free speech.

In practice, we've seen a lot of examples across YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter where things are blanket deplatformed under the guise of policies like these, and it's concerning.

One thing is for certain - Facebook can't possibly do a worse job than YouTube has at policing content.

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#694

Post by staticvar »

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…

> Knowing her, it wasn't. It was sarcasm.

Did she know that the person she directed that comment to did not know her?

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#695

Post by dbg31415 »

Cool, morality determined by ad revenue opportunities.

What could go wrong?

Clearly nobody is going to shed any tears over Nazis... but is it wrong to support Palestinian claims to Jerusalem? Where's the line?

I don't like this move since I feel it will just push people into places where we can't determine real identification, should that be needed after a crime.

I don't like this move because I don't, fundamentally, think we should all have to agree with Zuck to have a voice online.

I don't like this move because it's reactionary, and there's no consistent philosophy behind why these groups would be banned but not others.

Just feels skeezy to censor people, no matter how skeezy those people are.

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#696

Post by SlowRobotAhead »

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.

No, it means that while you can cheer this decision today, how do you know it won’t be used against you in the future? Or if the decision maker sensed your intentions or sarcasm or if you don’t beleive your speech to be hateful but someone else does.

The whole point of defending speech you don’t agree with is it promises that arbitrary rules won’t be used when YOUR speech runs afoul or someone else’s feelings.

Let me phrase it to you like this... if Mark Zuckerburg who you may generally agree with leaves Facebook and is replaced by let’s say Donald Trump and his assistant Mike Pence; do you still think it should be Facebook as a service provider’s policy to gauge what offensive speech is?

Maybe it’s not Facebook’s job to ban legal things you personally don’t agree with.

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#697

Post by just_passing_by »

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?

Can a person from Eastern Europe adamantly sure their ancestors up to 5th generation were never involved in colonialist slave trade be considered a white supremacist for not embracing the white man stigma of the naval post-colonial societies?

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#698

Post by XorNot »

yummybear wrote: post #236
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…

Counterpoint - if every media, platform or provider blocks the content, and the only audience you're allowed to speak freely to, is to yourself - is it still "free speech"? I'm not saying we're there yet, but we could be at some point.

You literally have the right to go stand on an actual soapbox outside your government offices and yell at people. That's what's constitutionally protected.

No one has to pay attention though.

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#699

Post by prewett »

metafunctor wrote: post #687
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 communi…

I like your idea that "neutral might not exist." FB is going about this in the obvious control-oriented strategy: we have a problem, ok, we'll make a rule against it. This doesn't work, and can only lead FB to having lots of rules and everyone unhappy with them.

The problem with FB is that they have built a system that rewards polarizing opinions. Edward Deming said that your system is perfectly set up to give you the results you are getting, so if you want different ones, you need to change your system. Incentivize quality, disincentivize "viral-ness". Maybe limit viral-ness. Optimize for something besides addictiveness^Wengagement. Admit that people think, say, and do harmful things and build a system that is robust to it. Add some kind of negative feedback for posts.

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#700

Post by sandov »

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…

How much would it cost to hunt [insert group of people here]?

Even if someone commented that as "sarcasm" it would look pretty bully to me.

Post reply on HN