Facebook to ban white nationalist content • Hacker News Board

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#821

Post by anth_anm » Thu, Mar 28, 2019, 12:52 AM UTC

jelliclesfarm wrote: post #142

anth_anm wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There is no greater protection to vulnerable populations than transparency This is somewhat true, but your argument has a pretty big flaw. > When people communicate on a public platform unself consciously, they reveal themselves openly and freely This simply isn't true. You aren't revealing that you read this content. THe authors aren't always revealing themselves. Those who don't really do themselves any harm beca…

I think terrorist content is different from nationalism/racism. The latter is still a deeply held belief. Regardless of how we feel about it, everyone has the right to feel love or hate or superiority. This is really a failure of state to install controls and protections from out of control elements. This is a breakdown of state measures to deter/punish unlawful acts and failure to protect WHEN actions occur rather t…

> The latter is still a deeply held belief

and I need to kill the isn't sincerely held?

I think you have to believe pretty sincerely to be radicalized to the point of committing murder.

> Regardless of how we feel about it, everyone has the right to feel love or hate or superiority.

Why? I was perfectly happy living in a society where that was not the case. Where freedom of expression is guaranteed, rather than absolute freedom of speech. It's not flawless, but it's better than nazis murdering people all the damn time.

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#822

Post by anth_anm » Thu, Mar 28, 2019, 12:53 AM UTC

zcid wrote: post #646

anth_anm wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There is no greater protection to vulnerable populations than transparency This is somewhat true, but your argument has a pretty big flaw. > When people communicate on a public platform unself consciously, they reveal themselves openly and freely This simply isn't true. You aren't revealing that you read this content. THe authors aren't always revealing themselves. Those who don't really do themselves any harm beca…

> This is why people take photos and plaster them online when white supremacists march. People get recognized, that's the point where they can be called out. I've found it interesting that the supposed "bad guys" are willing to openly espouse their views while the opposing side frequently utilizes masks to hide their identity.

> I've found it interesting that the supposed "bad guys"

Friend, if you aren't willing to condemn the white supremacists as the bad guys I seriously question your decision making.

There is zero value in maintaining this veneer of both sides being in any way the same.

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#823

Post by la6470 » Thu, Mar 28, 2019, 12:55 AM UTC

They should ban ALL kind of hate speech not just white ones.

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#824

Post by azernik » Thu, Mar 28, 2019, 12:57 AM UTC

jelliclesfarm wrote: post #142

anth_anm wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There is no greater protection to vulnerable populations than transparency This is somewhat true, but your argument has a pretty big flaw. > When people communicate on a public platform unself consciously, they reveal themselves openly and freely This simply isn't true. You aren't revealing that you read this content. THe authors aren't always revealing themselves. Those who don't really do themselves any harm beca…

I think terrorist content is different from nationalism/racism. The latter is still a deeply held belief. Regardless of how we feel about it, everyone has the right to feel love or hate or superiority. This is really a failure of state to install controls and protections from out of control elements. This is a breakdown of state measures to deter/punish unlawful acts and failure to protect WHEN actions occur rather t…

> The latter is still a deeply held belief.

And Salafi Jihadism isn't? I have some Saudis and Pakistanis I should introduce you to...

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#825

Post by prawn » Thu, Mar 28, 2019, 1:01 AM UTC

theseatoms wrote: post #276

cortic wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>No company or platform owes them anything. This is discrimination of opinion , strange as that sounds. There is a reason we don't see signs up like; 'No Blacks', 'No Gays', 'No Jews' in private establishments. Its because its not allowed, we either have a list of protected groups - or a general rule that forbids banning anyone because of their 'group'. If we don't fairly quickly extend free speech into these platfor…

> There is a reason we don't see signs up like; 'No Blacks', 'No Gays', 'No Jews' in private establishments. Could you imagine the immediate public backlash against this type of behavior by a private establishment? I don't think the law is doing the heavy lifting here.

Saw a plumber's vehicle driving around recently with a blatant anti-Chinese sticker on it.

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#826

Post by FireBeyond » Thu, Mar 28, 2019, 1:05 AM UTC

zobzu wrote: post #640

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…

There's many arguments that can be had either way but the one that always resonate for me is this: Once you ban speech on any ground that isnt directly putting people in danger, even real nazis for example, they DO NOT disappear. They still recruit. They still operate. You just don't see it. The people they recruit are suddenly in a bubble where they DO NOT see the opposite view point. Their opinions become unbalance…

> 1. many people inside FB believe in censorship and that you can forbid people to speak or think and that it makes the problem disappear. Many people in tech actually believe this.

That sounds like you're making many assumptions and implications that aren't borne out by evidence. Why do you leap to this conclusion rather than:

"Many people inside FB believe that they don't want the platform they've built and created to be a platform for views they feel abhorrent, and if this means that those views need to feel an alternate home, that's not their problem"?

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#827

Post by ArtDev » Thu, Mar 28, 2019, 1:05 AM UTC

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.

Well, "white" isn't a heritage at all unlike Irish, English, German, Scandinavian.. etc.

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#828

Post by carnagii » Thu, Mar 28, 2019, 1:09 AM UTC

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.

why not just have their policy be the first amendment and they abide by the same rules as the country that created them? Why should corporations take on censorship powers that are prohibited for the government? Why should a private for-profit corporation controlled by one man have more power than a transparent institution controlled by democracy?

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#829

Post by ng12 » Thu, Mar 28, 2019, 1:14 AM UTC

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.?

Maybe it wouldn't be as big but I can assure you nothing gives a conspiracy theory more credence among it's followers than being deplatformed.

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#830

Post by ASinclair » Thu, Mar 28, 2019, 1:19 AM UTC

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…

> It just makes it fester somewhere else that isn't as visible.

That's a win in this case. It already festers somewhere else. White nationalists would like to spread their ideology outside of their normal bubble. They often talk about "redpilling normies." It's harder for them to do that if "normal" people have to explicitly seek out that kind of speech.