Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Facebook shuts down the Socialist Workers Party in Britain

swp.org.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 550 posts

Re: Facebook shuts down the Socialist Workers Party in Britain

#261

Post by edmundsauto »

a1369209993 wrote: post #256
csense wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of the problems with this is opening up to criticism, liability, and further argumentation. If you say "We removed them because of their political views," then you get criticized for being openly partisan. If you say "We removed them because their comments were inciting violence," you'll get arguments about how their comments didn't actually tell people to do violent things (for example, in the US I'm sure for th…

> One of the problems with this is opening up to criticism, liability, and further argumentation. That's not a problem ; it's the point . > It's better for users if the platform's transparent. Exactly. > or even sue you because that line of reasoning makes you liable. Also the point. Corporations are not people, and their reasoning should be assumed liability-worthy unless shown otherwise.

It also leads bad actors to game the system.

Re: Facebook shuts down the Socialist Workers Party in Britain

#262

Post by imgabe »

pmlnr wrote: post #142

> They are demanding to be reinstated immediately. LOL. You were using someone else's website - Zuck's, to be specific. If you demand that he allows you to post on his site, could I make demands to post on your site? I'm actually glad these are finally happening. People need to learn to go back running their own services, under their own domain, owned (bought or leased) hardware, etc. The current "social" media + clo…

> If you demand that he allows you to post on his site, could I make demands to post on your site?

Facebook is the Internet equivalent of a public accommodation[1]. It is not Zuckerberg's personal home, it is a place open to the public to conduct business. If Facebook is going to set conditions that some members of the public are allowed and not others, it should be clear what those conditions are and when they are and are not met.

That said, I do agree that people should flee these places where they're at the mercy of whatever algorithm or ideological fad that takes over the current employees or whatever. But insofar as they aren't we should regulate it the same way we regulate (in the US) hotels, restaurants, and other public-facing businesses to ensure that the whole public has a fair chance to use them.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_accommodations_in_the_U...

Re: Facebook shuts down the Socialist Workers Party in Britain

#263

Post by nexthash »

bluSCALE4 wrote: post #232
nexthash wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What makes you think the future will be so dystopian? In Western countries such as the United States citizens have a high level of political participation and awareness of various issues. If the government attempts to unilaterally throttle the Internet there will be such a large uproar that our political leaders will be overturned on the next election. Plus, the newly voted-in Democratic leadership has a policy of ad…

I've yet to see a strong political movement on something that actually matters. Everything is half-assed and the major movements all fail. Look at Bernie, the Wall Street bailout, China buying out our mortgages, the war on: Iraq, Afghanistan. And these are just recent memory. The will of the American people has been long controlled. Now they only care what the oligarchs tell them to like unions, universal healthcare,…

I am an American, and I don't feel like my will is being controlled... It is important to understand that everybody has a unique life situation and makes their own choices. Elon Musk hasn't been able to implant Neuralinks in our heads yet. I think the rebuke of Donald Trump in swing states like Georgia really shows that any attempt by an established group to clutch onto power is always going to be a gamble. It took the collective will of the people and real grassroots effort to overcome the obstacles elites put up there.

Re: Facebook shuts down the Socialist Workers Party in Britain

#264

Post by CamperBob2 »

csense wrote: post #254
6gvONxR4sf7o wrote: post #235

> ... have been removed from Facebook with no explanation given At the very least, this should be unacceptable. You shouldn't get banned for something if you aren't told what you did. If it was for use of the word revolutionary, it should say so. Or if they called for some leader's heads, it should say so. Then they could avoid doing the same in the future and we could all agree with or criticize the rationale. As it…

One of the problems with this is opening up to criticism, liability, and further argumentation. If you say "We removed them because of their political views," then you get criticized for being openly partisan. If you say "We removed them because their comments were inciting violence," you'll get arguments about how their comments didn't actually tell people to do violent things (for example, in the US I'm sure for th…

One of the problems with this is opening up to criticism, liability, and further argumentation.

Too bad. They must do it anyway. None of those are valid excuses for removing all accountability from the moderation process.

Re: Facebook shuts down the Socialist Workers Party in Britain

#265

Post by CamperBob2 »

edmundsauto wrote: post #261
a1369209993 wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> One of the problems with this is opening up to criticism, liability, and further argumentation. That's not a problem ; it's the point . > It's better for users if the platform's transparent. Exactly. > or even sue you because that line of reasoning makes you liable. Also the point. Corporations are not people, and their reasoning should be assumed liability-worthy unless shown otherwise.

It also leads bad actors to game the system.

That's unfortunate. Not the victim's problem, though.

Re: Facebook shuts down the Socialist Workers Party in Britain

#266

Post by JasonFruit »

neves wrote: post #32
chroem- wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's irrelevant, because a private company can't be compelled to support someone else's speech against their will. If you don't like it, then take political action. Edit: For those unaware, this is the devil's advocate take. HN has been remarkably pro-corporate censorship lately, and only a matter of weeks later its coming back to bite pro-censorship advocates.

That's why Facebook must become a public entity.

That's quite a leap.

Re: Facebook shuts down the Socialist Workers Party in Britain

#268

Post by tehjoker »

oarabbus_ wrote: post #220
tehjoker wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not yet, but FB's incentive structure is anti-left (they're a corporation natch) and their head of public policy is a hardcore Republican that worked for the GWB administration and energy companies. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joel_Kaplan

How is the incentive structure anti-left? I suppose suspending Trump's account qualifies as "anti-left" these days. Zuckerberg openly stating he supported Black Lives Matter? Anti-left. Facebook deleting PragerU content for "hate speech" before getting reprimaneded? Anti-left. Zuckerberg personally assisting Pete Buttigieg around primary season? ANTI LEFT, I SAY! DIDN'T YOU HEAR HE SAT AT A DINNER TABLE WITH CONSERVA…

They are either liberal or conservative or they wouldn't be allowed in corporate management. Socialists and anarchists are antithetical to capitalism. Likewise, they have started banning far-right conservatives that are destabilizing to the system.

Facebook's current allegiance is to pleasing the entrenched state apparatus so they won't get broken up.

Re: Facebook shuts down the Socialist Workers Party in Britain

#269

Post by colordrops »

SR2Z wrote: post #205
colordrops wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's like claiming that digital money can't be fully decentralized. And it indeed wasn't possible until Satoshi figured it out. There's no obvious reason to believe that a fully distributed social network isn't also possible. A requirement would be that any individual would have full agency for all operations on the network. Once you've got one agent that has special power over another agent, it's lost.

What Satoshi has actually proven is that the cliche is true: you have nothing to fear if you have nothing to hide, if by "nothing" you mean "nothing that's a major crime." Bitcoin is mostly a speculative tool and what few transactions happen on the blockchain are dominated by drugs and other contraband. Society doesn't hold together at all unless people are smacked back into line when they act antisocially. No amount…

What does that have to do with anything I said? The point was that something previous claimed not possible was actually technically feasible. Completely unrelated to its morals, use cases, or value proposition. Do you now understand my point?

Re: Facebook shuts down the Socialist Workers Party in Britain

#270

Post by alisonkisk »

edmundsauto wrote: post #261
a1369209993 wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> One of the problems with this is opening up to criticism, liability, and further argumentation. That's not a problem ; it's the point . > It's better for users if the platform's transparent. Exactly. > or even sue you because that line of reasoning makes you liable. Also the point. Corporations are not people, and their reasoning should be assumed liability-worthy unless shown otherwise.

It also leads bad actors to game the system.

"bad people might behave better to we can't ban them easily" is a pretty poor argument. Zuckerberg has $50,000,000,000; he can afford to hire some people to do the job.
Post reply on HN