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

851–860 of 1001 posts

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#851

Post by arp242 »

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…

> Moving on to this policy, I'm happy to see neonazis and the KKK have a hard time. But there are people in the UK and EU who would see Brexit as being a separatist cause motivated by racial animosity.

No one is confused about the difference between "I want to kill all Jews" and "I think the British economy would be better off with fewer Polish plumbers".

> And remaining banned even for people who support it on economic grounds because they think that having to follow EU policies on GDPR, copyright, and so on will be a net negative for the UK?

This is a non-issue and just scaremongering, not all that different from "they allow sex with children next!" from the anti-gay idiots (no one is confused between gay rights and "pedo rights").

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#852

Post by fukbezos »

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 think we're all about free speech but one thing we are learning is that social media allows nearly anyone to weaponize "free speech". I don't know what we should do, if anything, but I do know social media in it's current form is not good for society.

Facebook at the end of the day is a company that can do whatever they want. It would be different if the government were enforcing this.

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#853

Post by betterunix2 »

SlowRobotAhead wrote: post #696
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.

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…

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

The problem is not that I personally disagree with white supremacy. The problem is that white supremacist organizations are a significant and growing terrorist threat, and they are using Facebook to recruit new members. This is no different from the various platforms that banned ISIS.

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#854

Post by Simon_says »

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?

Of course we are. Where have you been the last 5 years?

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#855

Post by paulddraper »

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?

I am opposed in principle.

White nationalism (or black nationalism, or yellow nationalism) should be able to speak on a social platform like Facebook.

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#856

Post by paulddraper »

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.

It was odd they are only going after white nationalism.

I have the same question. What about all the other nationalist movements?

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#858

Post by alangpierce »

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?

I think it's pretty reasonable to ban jokes about killing people. Maybe it was an overreaction here, but I certainly try to avoid even jokingly saying things that could be interpreted as a death threat if taken seriously, especially on the internet where it's easy for tone and context to get lost.

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#859

Post by AgentME »

malloreon wrote: post #814
AgentME wrote: post #738

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I was mainly talking about outsiders who Facebook presumably tries to please, like commenters in this thread. It could be that any number of Facebook employees personally wanted to get rid of racist content, but Facebook thought that would be an extremely unpopular decision. Assuming the sentiment across this entire HN thread isn't unique to HN, I can see why they might have thought this would be an unpopular decision and maybe a bit of why they took so long to make it. I'm very glad they decided to do it.

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#860

Post by joshuamorton »

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…

> 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.

Let's prod at this:

- Should ISIS recruitment videos and propaganda be allowed (nay, encouraged) because deplatforming them will make them put their recruitment pamphlets elsewhere? Where else do they put their recruiting materials?

- Should we publicly and loudly encourage people to self harm, ideate suicide, etc. because if we don't, they'll just find secret places to do it?

- Should we consider white supremacist recruiting materials "dialogue" at all? If we're talking about dialogue, as in a formal debate between Richard Spencer and pretty much anyone else, one on one, that's potentially interesting (also embarrassing for Spencer). On the other hand, a video posted by a white supremacist isn't dialogue. It's even less dialogue when they can delete comments they can't aptly respond to, and when the people there are already interested (Richard Spencer videos weren't ever going to cross my feed). You're calling this dialogue, but it's really a one sided dog and pony show with maybe some unlucky sacrifices. Perhaps we shouldn't ban dialogue between white supremacists and normal people, but you're not advocating for dialogue, your advocating for Facebook (and whomever else) to support (distribute, platform, etc.) white supremacist propaganda and theater.

>I don't want to live in a society where what can and can't be said is strictly regulated either by force or by general consent.

How do you propose to create a society where people aren't allowed to dislike you? That's what you're asking for, essentially. "Freedom from consequences" is the common way of putting this, but really what you're asking for is an infringement on my freedom of association. If you piss enough people off, that'll come back to bite you. What's the alternative? That people can't hold you accountable for your previous words? That quickly devolves into a society of 4chan, which, well, I'm not sure why you'd want to live in that.

>For example, the opinion I'm expressing now used to be a lot more common than it is today.

How certain of this are you? Did black people or women have the freedoms you suggest 100-150 years ago in the US? Was anyone advocating for that?

Post reply on HN