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

971–980 of 1001 posts

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#971

Post by smileysteve »

ratling wrote: post #677
dsfyu404ed wrote: post #131

>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.

> We went to war on the subject.

This seems historically inaccurate, unless from the perspective of German resistance.

Britain waited on the war to come to them, and the U.S. didn't join until Pearl Harbor.

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#972

Post by mike10010100 »

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.

> I can give you hundreds of examples of people being accused of being a white nationalist without any merit to it.

Feel free to do so whenever. Be sure to indicate when that has resulted in serious consequences for the "victim".

> Tim Pool for example was already accused.

TBF Tim Pool pulled the whole "I'm so neutral" act when dealing with a bunch of actual white supremacists. What "dissent" was unwelcome there? That he was pretending like these were totally fine people who just happened to think that genocide was okay?

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#973

Post by mike10010100 »

int_19h wrote: post #769
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…

By definition, this arrangement favors viewpoints that generate more public outcry, which sets up any marginalized group for being steamrolled. Do you seriously think that's going to be restricted to white nationalism? I mean, there's already plenty of other stuff that Facebook is censoring that the same people who are cheering these news have pushed back against before. https://www.aclu.org/blog/free-speech/internet…

...and yet white nationalists are still free to set their own social network up or use networks that don't care, like Voat for example.

That's called freedom of association: the right for an organization or individual to not wish to associate with someone.

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#974

Post by mike10010100 »

BurningFrog wrote: post #848
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 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!

> There aren't that many public platforms with any reach

Okay? Private organizations are under no obligation to provide you with a platform to spread your message.

If you want, you can start your own social network or host your own blog.

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#975

Post by mike10010100 »

coldtea wrote: post #934
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…

> Luckily, as moral agents, we humans are capable of differentiating "general political party" from "white nationalists", and can target the latter and not the former. Really? How about plain nationalists? How about communists? How about separatists? How about traditionalists? How about "Occupy Wall Street"? How about "nationalists" in e.g Iceland, a country where nationalists would be predominantly if not exclusivel…

> Really? How about plain nationalists? How about communists? How about separatists? How about traditionalists? How about "Occupy Wall Street"? How about "nationalists" in e.g Iceland, a country where nationalists would be predominantly if not exclusively white in the first place?

Are they talking about racial genocide? No? Then they're a-okay.

I don't know why this is such a difficult concept for people to understand: If you're advocating genocide or violence against a people, you're gonna get banned. Pure and simple.

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#976

Post by chrisseaton »

ams6110 wrote: post #885
chrisseaton wrote: post #737

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That was considered a violation of their anti-bullying stance. Knowing her, it wasn't. It was sarcasm. That's what bullies usually say when you confront them.

A one off joke, or even mean remark, is not bullying.

Why should we tolerate any mean remarks at all?

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#977

Post by godshatter »

joshuamorton wrote: post #860
godshatter wrote: post #804

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 an…

Just to put this out there from the beginning, I don't know what the exact appropriate balance between censorship and freedom of expression is. Also, FB can do what they like and don't have to listen to me.

With regards to ISIS, if their recruitment videos are publicly available, then people can contest them publicly too. They can explain why this viewpoint or whatever might be appealing to certain demographics, but look at this evidence for what happens to those people once they join.

The self-harm / suicide question is harder for me. I still think it's a good idea to have this happen in the public sphere so people can expose those who encourage such things in other people. However, if an individual is being targeted specifically then maybe there should be a line there. I don't know.

As for white supremacy, yes, I said "dialogue" when what I really meant was "speech". I don't know who Richard Spencer is, but if he's blocking comments then people can still post rebuttals in other videos.

I guess my main point is that it's better to confront such things openly then to try to hide them under the rug.

There also seems to be this idea that ISIS and white supremacists and whoever can magically infect others with their dogma as a form of mind control or something. The danger, in my opinion, lies in trying to bury it. Then when people stumble upon them, or are recruited and given a login somewhere, they have access to only one side of the argument and are effectively in a bubble. In the public sphere where this plays out openly, they have ready access to conflicting information on the same platform.

I don't want a society where people aren't allowed to dislike me. I don't quite get where you're coming from. I want a society where people can say what they think and not get censored for it for the most part. It requires that we all come to terms with the fact that some people hold different opinions that we really hate.

I wasn't alive 100 to 150 years ago. However, growing up 40-ish years ago, I remember hearing such things as "I don't agree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it". Not something you hear much, any more.

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#978

Post by pmarreck »

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.

A while back, my leftist circles kept repeating ad nauseam that Peter Thiel (who is already in a minority, being gay) is a white nationalist. I suspected bullshit and decided to look into it.

All I could find was this: Peter Thiel once spoke at a libertarian conference. Libertarians, being libertarians, permit racism (read: not the same as "support racism"). THEREFORE, PETER THIEL IS A WHITE NATIONALIST.

Are you fucking serious? I pushed back on my leftist friends with what I found. "Duhhhhh, errrrrr, ummmmm, well... everyone just knows he is!" Oh, really.

Bullshit, repeated often enough as truth, becomes evidence for itself.

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#979

Post by pmarreck »

White racists used free-speech-limiting laws against Martin Luther King, Jr.

You start limiting free speech, that's going to cut both ways, eventually.

I've had comments on Facebook get auto-censored simply by discussing racism while trying to combat it.

Talk about shooting yourself in the foot!

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#980

Post by waffleguy »

ams6110 wrote: post #887
waffleguy wrote: post #746

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“Joking” about murder or gun violence should be banned. To use satire to critic hunting when gun violence is a bigger issue is tone deaf.

That's really a perfect time to use satire.

If people weren’t shooting up schools and places of worship every other week... still no. It’s still callous.
Post reply on HN