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

981–990 of 1001 posts

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#981

Post by aabeshou »

im3w1l wrote: post #872
aabeshou wrote: post #408

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I think you have a misunderstanding of the word "white nationalism". I'd recommend looking it up to understand what is happening here. But in short it means the belief that there is a white race and that it has a right to preserve itself and it's culture. Genocidal racism was never allowed on facebook. After this move they will censor a lot of legitimate things.

I just don't believe that you neutrally believe "there's a white race" without also believing in its superiority over other races - whatever reasons you euphemize it in, like culture, or IQ, or something.

And this idea of "preserving itself"... what exactly does that mean? Does that mean getting to kick other people out of their homes? Threaten their livelihood? Threaten their social safety nets? What exactly happens in this supposedly benign process of "preserving culture"?

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#982

Post by aabeshou »

qualipetv wrote: post #915
aabeshou wrote: post #408

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I find it worrying that a) you’re being downvoted and b) there actually being sympathies for white nationalism and fascist thought on HN. We all who love freedom and love our friends whatever background they may have should be working to not let these kinds of people obtain more power.

yes. It is incredibly upsetting and scary for me. I'm so glad there are other sane people out here. I hope we get through this.

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#983

Post by paulddraper »

laughinghan wrote: post #924
paulddraper wrote: post #856

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was odd they are only going after white nationalism. I have the same question. What about all the other nationalist movements?

> It was odd they are only going after white nationalism. They aren't. They went after ISIS years ago, and they've recently been trying to go after accounts contributing to the Rohingya genocide in Myanmar, as a sibling comment noted and provided a link for. If Hebrew Israelites start driving cars into crowds or shooting up churches and synagogues, I'd hope Facebook goes after them, too.

As I understand it though, Facebook is going after while nationalist groups that don't drive into crowds and shoot up churches.

(Also, those are odd examples...AFAIK each time it was single person operating alone.)

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#984

Post by samhain »

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…

>Imagine if there were only three newspapers in the entire country, soon the world, controlled by a small group of people who wish to use their publishing for their own agendas.

Could you explain how this is any different than the handful of television companies for the past 70 years?

As best as I can tell, the older demographics seem to be the ones primarily watching the news, and it shows in polling data. Their opinions and narratives are easily manipulated by the "news" networks they are faithful to. Companies run by a "small group of people."

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#985

Post by fzeroracer »

antt wrote: post #674
baddox wrote: post #480

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is when you say you want to live apart from others, but you want that to be right here where there happen to currently be other people. When you say that, even if you claim to not be advocating for violence or forceful removal, that is effectively what you’re advocating. There are white nationalist groups that actually use the phrase “peaceful ethnic cleansing.”

There are also Muslim groups who say as much. "We will just out breed them" is a common tactic used to great effect in Kosovo and Western Macedonia by Albanians. The shooting in Christchurch referenced a video from the Mosque in question that spelled the same thing out. Unfortunately I can't share the video due to laws which would put me in jail. [0] Is your objection to them saying it out loud, or saying it in Engli…

If you can't link the document, why don't you link the video he purportedly referenced? There is nothing stopping you from sharing said video, you just can't share the doc.

So I'm going to call baloney on your claim unless you can provide evidence for it.

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#986

Post by ratling »

devmunchies wrote: post #905
ratling wrote: post #677

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Are you really going with, "But think of all the GOOD things Nazis do?"

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#987

Post by djanogo »

As a brown person this pisses me off, liberals keep pushing for these social justice rules on the platforms to silence content they find offending.

If your argument is that "they don't have right to access the platform", you are acting ignorant when you know there are only handful of platforms on internet.

The next step would be blocking DNS registrations of websites whose content you don't agree with, oh wait there is entire country which does this and you disagree with that country's rules too.

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#988

Post by mike10010100 »

djanogo wrote: post #987

As a brown person this pisses me off, liberals keep pushing for these social justice rules on the platforms to silence content they find offending. If your argument is that "they don't have right to access the platform", you are acting ignorant when you know there are only handful of platforms on internet. The next step would be blocking DNS registrations of websites whose content you don't agree with, oh wait there…

> you are acting ignorant when you know there are only handful of platforms on internet.

Your continued participation in said platforms ensures that they will remain the "only" platforms on the internet.

There is absolutely nothing guaranteeing you a right to have a private entity host your information, especially when you're paying absolutely nothing for them to do so.

> The next step would be blocking DNS registrations of websites whose content you don't agree with

Slippery slope fallacy incoming!

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#989

Post by dragonwriter »

devmunchies wrote: post #905
ratling wrote: post #677

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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)

There are plenty of nations, both before and since, that have so much higher of a focus on conservation and environmentalism that they don't compromise those in the interest of conquest and genocide; the Nazi campaigns directed at those aims, leaving aside the moral dimension of their more direct effects on humans, were fairly disastrous from an environmental and conservationist perspective.

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#990

Post by WhompingWindows »

anigbrowl wrote: post #556
WhompingWindows wrote: post #373

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you transparently protect those in Christchurch NZ or at one of the sites of nationalist, extremist violence? Transparency does nothing to deter the mentally ill and psychotic individuals who perpetrate mass murder.

Just going to add a caveat that most terrorists are not, in fact, mentally ill, and arguments of the form 'you'd have to be mentally ill to commit this sort of violence' stigmatize mentally ill people without having any foundation in fact. They're often advanced by people who are unfamiliar with political violence and don't like discussing it. Here's a decent and current introductory article on the topic: https://med…

Then let me amend my statement: I was not intent on stating that those who are mentally ill are more likely to be violent, rather I'm interested in if those who do indeed commit mass murder have problems with mental health - would you disagree with that interest? Is it the act of a healthy mind to kill dozens of people? If we allow that someone who can willfully kill 48 peaceful individuals may have something unhealthy in their mind, then maybe we should look into the treatment of that specific subset of mental illness.

I'm not part of the group who says the tail wags the dog here. I don't think mental illness leads to violence, but that violent people may be more likely to have certain kinds of mental illness.

Post reply on HN