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

831–840 of 1001 posts

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#831

Post by anbotero »

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…

Blegh, the worst is coming in here and reading people criticizing and outright banning the use of sarcasm, or implying that they know your friend better than you and that she definitely literally meant what she said.

This is the end of freedom and, along with Europe decisions recently, the beginning of all the worst dystopias we have already listened/read/watched about.

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#832

Post by [deleted] »

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.?

[deleted]

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#833

Post by NoodleIncident »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #664
ganeshkrishnan wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The paradox of tolerance is that we must always be intolerant of the intolerant. You are always FOR free speech until the speech starts hurting you. ie would you be tolerant of isis posting on FB?

The problem is, by being intolerant (even of the intolerant), you're intolerant. So if the "paradox of tolerance" is accurate, then we must not tolerate you . "But", you say, "they were intolerant first, so they are the ones who should not be tolerated!" From your perspective, sure. Maybe not from theirs, though. That gets you to a cycle of each side being sure that the other is intolerant, and therefore that their o…

[flagged]

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#834

Post by hi5eyes »

ASinclair wrote: post #830
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. 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.

>It already festers somewhere else

excluding people from a conversation doesn't help them learn why/how they think is wrong.. those "hidden" places that let the wrongthink fester only create more actions brought by wrongthink (guess what they talk about? wrongthink).

i dont understand the logic of removing someones ability to converse if they dont understand why they're wrong.. they cant ask questions

someone explain to me how banning content/people = deradicalizing

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#835

Post by duxup »

novia wrote: post #816
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.

It blended very quickly from the start, but the claims about "gaming journalism" while hallow as far as their actual activity, was IMO a semi legitimate claim as far as some of the initial outrage..... but really it moved on quickly and didn't matter.

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#836

Post by NoodleIncident »

charliesharding wrote: post #377
chapium wrote: post #346

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see why facebook would be obliged to host content they don't agree with. These people will always find a platform on the internet. Facebook doesn't need to make their recruitment more convenient.

I get what you're saying but if they're going to curate what content that they put forth, then they cease to be a platform and they become a publisher. Publishers are liable for much more under the eyes of the law. They can't cherry pick the advantages from the two systems without any of the drawbacks.

Platforms choose what to remove, and Publishers choose what to include. No matter how much a Platform removes, it never becomes a Publisher.

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#837

Post by amalcon »

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…

From the release:

> Our own review of hate figures and organizations – as defined by our Dangerous Individuals & Organizations policy – further revealed the overlap between white nationalism and separatism and white supremacy.

It doesn't appear that this content is being banned because Facebook surrogates find the politics in question abhorrent (though they likely do so find). It is being banned because it is acting as part of a recruitment funnel for an ideology that openly advocates violence. They collected evidence of this before acting.

The line is somewhat blurry, but it does exist. On one side, we have a sensible use of editorial discretion; on the other, we have censorship. Is Facebook going to cross the line at some point? Almost certainly. Basically every individual or entity to have editorial discretion has both made mistakes and abused that power.

It remains to be seen to what extent that will happen here. If anything, they've erred on the side of permissiveness so far (e.g. how long it took to ban ISIS). If that changes, we should call them out at that time.

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#838

Post by throwit04 »

This is racist. What about other forms of nationalist content? Nope. Just that by white people.

Chomsky's reversal test: Would it be racist to ban black nationalist content? If the answer is yes, then it is also racist to ban white nationalist content.

Don't be racist, facebook. Ban all nationalist content.

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#839

Post by chrononaut »

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…

Corporations and organizations always had the ability to police their content to their own desires. A more interesting question is when does that become perhaps ethically wrong; Are people against the big companies policing content _in general_ (and thus likely against the first statement), or at people against the big companies policing content that violates popular definition of free speech once they reach a certain size?

I mean, we're discussing this topic on a site that highly polices content, albeit in one that does in different ways, but such different ways that it attracts the very commenters in this thread to read and respond to content rather than visiting other sites -- or any at all.

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#840

Post by naasking »

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…

> Facebook can do what they want, we're not talking about the government here and I understand that

That isn't so clear: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=139661

Post reply on HN