I just don't get why people can't be adults and just decide what conservations they do or do not want to participate in. Instead of the Masters of Universe building tools to more easily manage and filter desired conversations, they enforce the "views of the anointed" at every turn.
Facebook to ban white nationalist content
901–910 of 1001 posts
Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content
#902At 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…
> we humans are capable of differentiating "general political party" from "white nationalists", and can target the latter and not the former.
We’re also good at being boiled slowly, like frogs.
Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content
#903Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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. If Facebook and Twitter suddenly decided to de-platform and ban any discussion praising, defending, or favoring a political party, where would the outcry happen? On Facebook? Sorry, it’s banned!
Traditional media, competing social media, forums, blogs, posters, demonstrations, sticker campaigns.
Journalists would be absolutely salivating at the thought of writing about Facebook's new policy, especially if it was that blatant.
FB and Twitter are not the entire world. It's good praxis to be involved with people in the real world.
Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content
#904>Our efforts to combat hate don’t stop here. As part of today’s announcement, we’ll also start connecting people who search for terms associated with white supremacy to resources focused on helping people leave behind hate groups. People searching for these terms will be directed to Life After Hate, an organization founded by former violent extremists that provides crisis intervention, education, support groups and o…
What exactly makes you uncomfortable with calling genocidal racism "Wrong(TM)", and helping people leave it? Are you also uncomfortable with them banning child porn, or is that an example of punishing wrongthink too? EDIT: I invite downvoters to tell me why they disagree?
> genocidal racism
not allowing people of European decent to have their own state, country, etc IS genocidal. Is it "supremacy" and "racism" to simply advocate for the preservation of a culture and people?
Whether you agree, they should at least be able to talk about it without being labeled "genocidal racists".
(Not talking about actual white supremacists. Don't believe I've ever met one.)
Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content
#905>Our efforts to combat hate don’t stop here. As part of today’s announcement, we’ll also start connecting people who search for terms associated with white supremacy to resources focused on helping people leave behind hate groups. People searching for these terms will be directed to Life After Hate, an organization founded by former violent extremists that provides crisis intervention, education, support groups and o…
There is no slippery slope argument when you're talking about literal Nazis. We went to war on the subject.
Your comment implies that Nazi Germany had absolutely ZERO redeeming qualities, which no credible historian would agree with. (e.g. no other country since has had the degree of focus on conservationism and environmentalism)
And we went to war because of Japan, whom we put into concentration camps.
Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content
#906At 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…
[deleted]
Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content
#907Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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…
> 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.)
No, it's not. You seem to be mixing an inverted understanding of CDA Section 230 (which was instituted to avoid discouraging host moderation of user content, because prior to 230 exerting any such editorial control risked a host being treated as a publisher rather than distributor, with greater liability exposure for the user content) with the DMCA safe harbor (which, unlike CDA 230, applies to copyright claims.)
Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content
#908Some of the people you won't be hearing from on FB are here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_X_nationalist_organiza...
where X = white.
Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content
#909Some of the people you won't be hearing from on FB are here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_X_nationalist_organiza...
where X = white.
Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content
#910Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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…
Are you a lawyer? If not, can you point to a legal expert explaining why a court would interpret the law as requiring neutrality, or as waiving the protection in the case of pre-approval or vetting copyright, or as requiring that the immunity is only provided in exchange for supporting free speech?
I read and re-read both the DMCA 17 USC § 512 and Section 230 of the CDA, and as far as I can tell, the DMCA only requires responding "expeditiously" to DMCA takedown notices and court orders, and the CDA has no conditions at all but doesn't protect from copyright liability in the first place.
In fact, the CDA explicitly states that its liability protection DOESN'T require neutrality, and extends to “any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected”. See https://www.eff.org/issues/bloggers/legal/liability/230