I don't think anyone with leftist or conservative views (at least how we define them today) would have it in them to murder 50 innocents in a mosque. I don't see the slippery slope applying here either - the views held by white supremacists haven't exactly evolved over the years .
Facebook to ban white nationalist content
961–970 of 1001 posts
Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content
#962Earlier 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.
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.
I’m describing the spread of hateful ideas as a cancer, not the people themselves. We use the description of “virality” to describe the meme or idea, not that the people sharing are viruses. Same thing here.
Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content
#963Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Goebbels was in favor of free speech for views he liked. So was Stalin. If you're really in favor of free speech, then you're in favor of freedom of speech for precisely the views you despise. Otherwise, you're not in favor of free speech." - Noam Chomsky
Thank you. Free speech isn't just an amendment for the government, it's a principle for society. If Facebook were a television station with limited air time for a single track, it would be perfectly valid for them to decide (reasonably) who gets air time. However, Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube have infinite tracks and time. I don't think the OPs argument is as strong, with that in mind.
What is the alternative to a private company making their own decisions on what to allow on their platform? A blanket order to not ban any content whatsoever?
Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content
#964Earlier quoted context omitted.
>To the people that say "Where does it end?" – that's pretty easy. Let's start with curbing speech that encourages harming others. But that is not where they're starting though, is it? They're going much further: >Today we’re announcing a ban on praise, support and representation of white nationalism and separatism on Facebook and Instagram Praise, support and representation not of speech encouraging harm, but the id…
> Facebook has a complete and unalienable right to do this on their platform (fact) If you remove "unalienable", then yes, that's correct. Future legislation and regulation could definitely change that.
That's fair.
Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content
#965Earlier 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.
You are not forced to look at subreddits that offend you. > hide behind the first amendment I think people need to hide behind first amendment, you misunderstand what it is.
Not if your speech is advocating for the erosion of the rights of others’ speech. Just as there is a paradox of tolerance, there is a paradox of free speech, and the hate groups use it to great effect in this country.
Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content
#966At 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…
Yes, they wouldn’t do that. But no, checks and balances can not be based on something that would or would not happen.
Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content
#967I'd hope they would also ban antifa/black block content too. Those assholes are trashing the city where I live every weekend for months
Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content
#968Earlier 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 honestly wonder why do you feel the need to defend a business worth 138 billion with more than 2.23 billion monthly active users, 210 million in the U.S. alone. Isn't it obvious that they are not just ANY business like a mom and pop store, they are THE place where public discourse is happening with a massive influence on culture, society and politics. Yet people feel the need to jump in and defend their right to do…
No need to defend a large business, but the idea that they can regulate content on their own platform is what I defend. If I were to do the opposite and pile on them for being large and profitable, I'd have just as weak of a case as for defending them based on that.
Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content
#969Earlier 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.
Thats quite an interesting question. Filtering is not publishinng, the content is user generated. However they are taking on an editorial role. Also, they are not a newspaper, so terminology from that kind of medium might not be useful.
Any platform that offers freedom is going to have problems on the head and tail of their platform. I feel facebook is trying to adjust where they make that slice and are justified in doing so, from a moral basis and according to the wishes of their shareholders.
Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content
#970Quite clearly this is just a move to gain back support. But this has nothing to do with free speech. If I tell someone something, they have no obligation to broadcast what you said. Why should Facebook act differently? I don't like that they're targeting such a specific group. I think we should be on the lookout for real racism, and this is certainly an example of that.
The purpose of free speech is that you can influece the reality you live in, without that its useless, might as well not have it. As such free speech requires to be allowed on the most popular social platforms. Just like free speech had to be allowed on a towns square.
Facebook has no obligation to share what you share. No one has that obligation. They may be a "platform" but that doesn't mean it's a free playing field.