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

811–820 of 1001 posts

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#811

Post by throwaway66323 »

dragonwriter wrote: post #752
JPKab wrote: post #735

My question is this: Are they also going to ban other ethno nationalist movements? Last I checked, the Hebrew Israelites (a black nationalist and anti semitic group) are on FB. They believe that the people who currently identify as Jews are evil impostors.

And the last time there was a “Hebrew Israelite”-motivated mass killing was... when, exactly?

Happens all the time - really hard to pin down without remembering exact details as Google does a surprisingly good job of filtering them out. Not sure why.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Fresno_shootings https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_shooting_of_Dallas_police... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaika_Griffin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hastings_Arthur_Wise

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#812

Post by finnthehuman »

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, who could be opposed?

Ends vs. means, buddy. Ends vs means. Every single political topic on HN seems to be arguments between people who can't separate the two, and those who do.

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#813

Post by leereeves »

skosch wrote: post #809
godshatter wrote: post #804

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In principle, I am opposed. I don't think hiding unwanted dialogue is very helpful in the long run. It just makes it fester somewhere else that isn't as visible. If Facebook feels they have to do something about it, then I'd suggest just flagging it. That gives people more information that they can use how ever they see fit. There is also the thought of collateral damage, like your friend ran into. I also oppose it o…

> It just makes it fester somewhere else that isn't as visible. Is that true? Would we have the anti-vax movement if it weren't for Facebook & co.?

We had the anti-vax movement before Facebook.

And if it were banned, they'd just spin it as the pharma companies paying to suppress the truth. It would only further confirm their beliefs.

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#814

Post by malloreon »

AgentME wrote: post #738
malloreon wrote: post #410

Zero credit for deciding white hate is bad 15 years after your company's founding.

Better late than never. A lot of commenters seem to be giving them negative credit for this outcome, and a number of people who claim to want racist content gone are also giving them negative or zero credit. As someone that wants racist content gone, this seems like a perverse state of affairs. No wonder they allowed it for so long given this.

Then facebook should name and fire every single person who fought this long to keep racism prosperous on facebook.

facebook is not a monolith, it is a collection of people making evil decisions every single day. When it takes them 15 years to overturn just one of their evil decisions, there still should be some penalty for it.

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#815

Post by 0xEFF »

godshatter wrote: post #804
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, I am opposed. I don't think hiding unwanted dialogue is very helpful in the long run. It just makes it fester somewhere else that isn't as visible. If Facebook feels they have to do something about it, then I'd suggest just flagging it. That gives people more information that they can use how ever they see fit. There is also the thought of collateral damage, like your friend ran into. I also oppose it o…

I wonder what would happen if they flagged it the same way my thermostat flags my monthly energy usage.

“Most of your peers consider this post racist neonazi propaganda.”

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#816

Post by novia »

duxup wrote: post #63

I suspect there is some value in pushing such content off of large sites to reduce the surface area available for recruitment. I used to think that pushing such content off a site or forum was futile and calling it for what it is on a site had value, I'm not sure that is the case anymore. If you look on platforms like reddit and such where you have groups in subreddits calling for race wars, general hatred, and viole…

>Gamergate from something about "gaming journalism" or general angst to an identity movement steeped in fear / hate, harassment, and for some actual violence.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c6TrKkkVEhs

According to ^this video, gamergate actually started out as the latter and only later claimed to be the former.

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#817

Post by [deleted] »

6nf wrote: post #799
smileysteve wrote: post #689

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

So we are banning jokes now?

[deleted]

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#818

Post by StevePerkins »

vkou wrote: post #805
JPKab wrote: post #735

My question is this: Are they also going to ban other ethno nationalist movements? Last I checked, the Hebrew Israelites (a black nationalist and anti semitic group) are on FB. They believe that the people who currently identify as Jews are evil impostors.

"White" isn't an ethnicity. It's not a culture. Irish, German, Roma, Italian, Russian, are all ethnicities. All of them have particularly Irish, German, Roma, etc cultures. But there is no shared "White" culture. White nationalism defines itself not by a shared ethnicity or culture, but by making it crystal-clear who it excludes . A white nationalist can't tell you what being white actually means - but he can tell yo…

This is nonsense. Well meaning nonsense perhaps, but nonsense nevertheless.

If some measure of "white culture" does not exist, then what is it that people are code switching to in the workplace? What is it that comedians often make fun of, and why do audiences (including white members) laugh in recognition?

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#819

Post by remarkEon »

komali2 wrote: post #469
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".

>"people who espouse views that are not in line with progressive orthodoxy". Nah disagree there. We'll see if Facebook starts arbitrarily banning libertarian content or whatever, but I don't think this spells the doom that conservatives think it will for the bits of their ideology that aren't racist.

You're proving the exact point that you're replying to. You've proceeded to qualify everything except the things you decide of a particular ideology as "racist".

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#820

Post by grawprog »

acid__ wrote: post #722
grawprog wrote: post #542

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm going to respond to this comment because my response is just kind of in general to the whole conversation this spawned. In what way is facebook more of a public space than hacker news, reddit or any public forum, message board or website where users can sign up and post content? You couldn't post a bunch of white nationalist comments here or on most other sites without getting banned. Why would and should faceboo…

One thing that I've been thinking about, and I'm curious on your thoughts on, is Facebook's "Internet.org" project. If you're not familiar, Facebook is offering low-cost (or free) internet access in less developed countries to a hand-picked selection of sites [0] and has roughly 100m users. [1] It's been argued that they're essentially acting as an ISP and are significantly violating the principles of net neutrality.…

I've never heard of that specific program. The only one like that I really knew about was the free data stuff in the Philipines because of a friend of mine there. I know in that specific instance it comes down to basically non-existent regulation over carriers and ISP's and a lack of any real choice.

If Facebook is becoming a defacto ISP in countries it should be subject to the same regulations and really should be required to follow net neutrality rules. Though I don't think those exist in a lot of developing countries(or I guess America also...).

In the end though, it's those country's governments allowing facebook to do this.

These are my realistic thoughts on the matter.

My own personal thoughts...

That shit's downright evil. Government's should absolutely not be allowing facebook to do this. But I feel the same way about ISP's in general owning content providers and favouring their own services.

This practice would be the same as Ford or gm owning a bunch of gas stations and giving preferential prices to drivers of Ford or gm vehicles. I honestly don't understand why it's looked at differently when it comes to internet companies or technology in general.

If a social media company wants to be an ISP or a an ISP wants to be a content provider or host, they really should not be able to give preferential treatment to their own content and companies that do this should be scrutinized heavily for bullshit.

Post reply on HN