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

951–960 of 1001 posts

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#951

Post by raxxorrax »

aryehof wrote: post #927
tibbydudeza wrote: post #895

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see Germany tolerating any support of National Socialism in their public sphere and rightly so ... some ideologies just too bloody abhorent and against the public good.

For now. The passing of time and new generations will result in the loss of the lessons of the past.

Contrary to popular believe we already had laws against hate-speech in the middle of the 19th century. The authoritarians used that regularly to underline their alleged prosecution. And it worked because they were right to a degree.

You can only remember the lessons of the past if you understood them in the first place. And frankly, arguing for more content controls by authorities is an insult to anyone actually having an understanding of those times.

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#952

Post by raxxorrax »

seventytwo wrote: post #880
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…

I spend most of my time on Reddit, and you’re spot on here. Deplatforming is the most effective way to fight the spread of hate. It’s literally a cancer, and it’s goinf to take the chemo therapy of stepping on the toes of free speech to protect our country and society. Sucks, but that’s what it takes - especially when they wrap themselves up in the flag and hide behind the first amendment to spew their hate.

I think the current discourse if far more polarized than it was maybe 5 years ago. I think your assessment is delusional if you think your country and society got saved to any degree. On the contrary.

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#953

Post by Natanael_L »

insickness wrote: post #170

Marsh v. Alabama, 326 U.S. 501 (1946), was a case decided by the United States Supreme Court, in which it ruled that a state trespassing statute could not be used to prevent the distribution of religious materials on a town's sidewalk, even though the sidewalk was part of a privately owned company town. The Court based its ruling on the provisions of the First Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment. https://en.wikipedia.…

https://www.lawfareblog.com/ted-cruz-vs-section-230-misrepre...

There's good legal arguments for why online publishing is excluded

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#954

Post by Natanael_L »

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…

They're protected by the US first amendment, unconditionally so given that online websites by design work through publishing. You can't compel them to host unwanted speech.

As for liability, here's why the laws intentionally shield them;

https://www.lawfareblog.com/ted-cruz-vs-section-230-misrepre...

And finally, there's nothing forcing you to use them. Convenience (or lack of it) is not a sufficient argument for regulation.

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#955

Post by CathedralBorrow »

raxxorrax wrote: post #930
sagichmal wrote: post #608

Earlier 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…

I can give you hundreds of examples of people being accused of being a white nationalist without any merit to it. To such a degree that this word almost lost its meaning. edit: Tim Pool for example was already accused. It will clearly be used to shut down unwelcome dissent.

Did Facebook announce that any content accused by anyone of being white nationalist would be banned?

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#956

Post by Natanael_L »

NotAnEconomist wrote: post #850
zelon88 wrote: post #661

Earlier 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…

No neutrality is required, only best effort removal of illegal material

https://www.lawfareblog.com/ted-cruz-vs-section-230-misrepre...

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#957

Post by CathedralBorrow »

ryandrake wrote: post #782
sagichmal wrote: post #608

Earlier 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!

Do you honestly believe that Facebook and Twitter have replaced every other communication platform that exists?

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#958

Post by CathedralBorrow »

gormo2 wrote: post #660
sagichmal wrote: post #608

Earlier 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. Somehow saying "yes, these multinational corporation could exert undue influence over a political system, but they just wouldn't" does not seem sufficient. I feel that such an attitude is like saying "The US government would not spy on its on citizens -- they wouldn't do that, just imagine the public outcry!" Perhaps that is a bad analogy, but th…

What's the alternative? Governments dictating what kind of speech private communications platforms can and cannot allow? Is that better?

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#959

Post by samatman »

seventytwo wrote: post #880
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…

I spend most of my time on Reddit, and you’re spot on here. Deplatforming is the most effective way to fight the spread of hate. It’s literally a cancer, and it’s goinf to take the chemo therapy of stepping on the toes of free speech to protect our country and society. Sucks, but that’s what it takes - especially when they wrap themselves up in the flag and hide behind the first amendment to spew their hate.

Describing groups of humans as a cancer is stage 4 of the ten stages of genocide:

http://genocidewatch.net/genocide-2/8-stages-of-genocide/

You’re engaging in behavior with truly horrifying antecedents.

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#960

Post by seventytwo »

colllectorof wrote: post #900
seventytwo wrote: post #880

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I spend most of my time on Reddit, and you’re spot on here. Deplatforming is the most effective way to fight the spread of hate. It’s literally a cancer, and it’s goinf to take the chemo therapy of stepping on the toes of free speech to protect our country and society. Sucks, but that’s what it takes - especially when they wrap themselves up in the flag and hide behind the first amendment to spew their hate.

>Deplatforming is the most effective way to fight the spread of hate. As evidenced by what? From everything I see, deplatforming creates filter bubbles, which lead to radicalization, which lead to hate. After the rise of deplatforming tactics in the last 5 years, American society is more radicalized than before.

There have been a few informal studies that have shown its effectiveness. Additionally, the mechanism for action is clear - deplatforming actually breaks up the very filter bubbles that allow hate to become organized. It makes it harder for those seeking to spread hate, and gives more of an opportunity to consider alternatives for those who are perhaps caught in the drain of that bubble.
Post reply on HN