Facebook to ban white nationalist content • Hacker News Board

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#841

Post by naasking » Thu, Mar 28, 2019, 1:59 AM UTC

sagichmal wrote: post #608

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…

> 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…

> They wouldn't do that, because there would be justified public outcry.

This is an argument for mob rule. I'm not sure that's as comforting as you intended.

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#842

Post by chillacy » Thu, Mar 28, 2019, 2:03 AM UTC

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?

Just the unfunny ones

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#843

Post by chillacy » Thu, Mar 28, 2019, 2:05 AM UTC

refurb wrote: post #763

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…

Until there are objective, rationale ways to determine what content to ban and what not to ban i’d prefer that we stay clear of using filter based on “I know it when I see it”.

If we did that with pornography we'd still be swimming in porno ads.

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#844

Post by naasking » Thu, Mar 28, 2019, 2:07 AM UTC

grawprog wrote: post #542

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…

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…

> Why would and should facebook be treated differently than other websites? Having a large amount users and money doesn't suddenly make them a public entity.

Because FB is not targeted at specific communities of people like HN, and less so reddit, it's welcome to everyone. Everyone is in fact actively encouraged to join. That's their mission. Private spaces that are open to the public often have first amendment protections:

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=139661

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#845

Post by chillacy » Thu, Mar 28, 2019, 2:12 AM UTC

leereeves wrote: post #810

vkou wrote: post #805

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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…

By that definition, "Black" and "Hispanic" and "Asian" aren't ethnicities or cultures either. Each of those groups have numerous distinct and often warring subgroups. But if Hispanic can be an ethnicity, so can European, AKA "white".

This is purely an argument of semantics but a more technical term is the US classification of race.

You have Asian covering disparate people from india, east asia, and southeast asia with completely different cultures and economic states.

Relatedly, there's African-american which covers both black americans and black africans, but not people don't really consider white South Africans to be African-American.

And then we get to the white americans which in modern times covers most europeans, but at various points of history didn't cover Italians, Germans, and Irish.

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#846

Post by BalinKing » Thu, Mar 28, 2019, 2:13 AM UTC

carnagii wrote: post #828

Veraticus wrote: post #683

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I think the standard answer is that corporations are less restricted because they are not able to enact those policies through force. The government can fine you, imprison you, etc. regardless of what you think; however, you don't have to use Facebook in the first place.

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#847

Post by BurningFrog » Thu, Mar 28, 2019, 2:14 AM UTC

anbotero wrote: post #831

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.

I don't like recent trends either, but you really need to read more.

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#848

Post by BurningFrog » Thu, Mar 28, 2019, 2:16 AM UTC

sagichmal wrote: post #608

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…

> 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…

> They wouldn't do that, because there would be justified public outcry

Where would the outcry happen?

There aren't that many public platforms with any reach, and they're all adopting similar policies.

In [blocked] no one can hear you scream!

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#849

Post by betterunix2 » Thu, Mar 28, 2019, 2:19 AM UTC

carnagii wrote: post #828

Veraticus wrote: post #683

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Governments have vastly more power over their citizens than any corporation. Facebook cannot imprison or kill users that violate their rules, and being banned from Facebook is not all that big of a deal (I have not had a Facebook account for more than a decade, and honestly I feel no particular need to go back). Moreover, if you required private for-profit corporations to adhere to the first amendment, you would quickly run into problems. Scientific journals could not exist -- the first amendment comes with no requirement for scientific rigor. Newspapers could not exist -- the first amendment has no requirement for journalistic quality (hence the legality of fake news).

The framers of the constitution could certainly have included a requirement that private institutions follows the same rules as the government. There were certainly big and powerful non-governmental organizations at the time -- the Catholic Church, for example.

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#850

Post by NotAnEconomist » Thu, Mar 28, 2019, 2:19 AM UTC

zelon88 wrote: post #661

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…

> Tim Pool is right, at this rate, sooner or later, the Feds will come knocking and will shut that party down. What party? The government is gonna come into a private organization and tell them they are obligated to spend money to preserve, host, and broadcast hate speech that doesn't align with the company's values? Please tell me how this differs from telling small business owners they can't refuse service.

The safe harbor protections from copyright violations for user uploads require neutrality in content hosting, because pre-approval implies you must also vet copyright.

They're welcome to censor to editorialize, but they lose their protections from copyright suits for relaying copyright material uploaded by their users.

For Facebook to be immune from copyright liability for my uploads, when they display them to others publicly for profit, they cannot express prior restraint over my upload. Such commercial copyright violations carry heft penalties, in the thousands of dollars per view: Facebook and Google can't operate in an environment where they're liable to such a degree for uploads.

The government recognized this about internet services, and granted them immunity to copyright related suits in exchange for supporting the American value of free speech on their platforms. (This is a law.) They're free to not accept that deal, but they're liable for their commercial copyright infringement in that case.