Facebook shuts down the Socialist Workers Party in Britain • Hacker News Board

Re: Facebook shuts down the Socialist Workers Party in Britain

#491

Post by ameister14 » Sat, Jan 23, 2021, 3:11 PM UTC

thaumasiotes wrote: post #369

ameister14 wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

no - the reason that 230 exists is because it was argued effectively that the task of moderating content was too great, to the point that it be an undue burden to internet companies. If that is not currently the case and these companies can effectively moderate the content on their networks without driving themselves out of business with the cost, well, they don't have the justification for 230's exemption anymore.

You appear to hold some very idiosyncratic beliefs about section 230. It does not provide immunity or any other benefit to a publisher that doesn't perform moderation. Such a publisher was already immune under preexisting law. It provides immunity to publishers who (1) publish user-generated content, and (2) perform moderation on some of that content. They are free to do their moderation without being required to mod…

>It provides immunity to publishers who (1) publish user-generated content, and (2) perform moderation on some of that content. They are free to do their moderation without being required to moderate everything posted to their site.

It doesn't. It outlines that internet companies ARE NOT PUBLISHERS. As a result, they aren't liable for the things that people or other companies publish on their platforms.

>It does not provide immunity or any other benefit to a publisher that doesn't perform moderation. Such a publisher was already immune under preexisting law.

They weren't immune under preexisting law, they were actually liable as they could be treated as the publisher of any content on their platform. The reason the exception was carved out was because it was considered detrimental to the development of the internet and the free spread of ideas on the internet if websites were forced to moderate content completely.

It's actually a very interesting exception, too, because in effect this means companies like facebook are not held liable for publishing things on their platform, just so long as they didn't create the things they publish. It also provides them immunity to perform any kind of moderation they like.

The problem is that this exception was built for the prior internet. It depended on and was intended to build up the idea of personal control over content, where a person could decide what content they did and did not want to see online. That's why they were required to have a message telling users they can get parental controls and blockers.

>It's still quite obviously true that Facebook is not able to moderate everything posted to its website. What are you trying to say?

That's not obvious. I run ads on Facebook, Twitter, Google, and other platforms; there is moderation before publishing for every ad I post. It's not perfect and often has problems, but it exists and it's expanding.

Re: Facebook shuts down the Socialist Workers Party in Britain

#492

Post by dpwm » Sat, Jan 23, 2021, 3:12 PM UTC

helsinkiandrew wrote: post #456

simonh wrote: post #368

For any non-Brits, the SWP is the main left of Labour party in Britain. As a student in the 80s I remember them as an earnest, way too serious bunch of ideological zombies ranting into microphones at the Student's Union about the latest crimes against humanity perpetrated by 'Thatcher'. They're the kind of people that come up to you in the street with leaflets about some atrocity in Africa and shout "Would you murder…

The main FB page is now back but they claim other local pages are not: https://swp.org.uk/1049-2/ I'm not sure how they SWP got banned - I guess some pro palestinian posts may have strayed into the antisemitic territory?

> I guess some pro palestinian posts may have strayed into the antisemitic territory?

My understanding is that any pro-palestinian posts can be labeled antisemitic under the IHRA/EUMC working definition of antisemitism (as adopted into UK law) if it any way singles out Israel for the oppression in a way not done for other states.

> “criticism of Israel similar to that levelled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic”

This to me seems vague and a point of likely disputed interpretations likely to have at the very least a chilling effect.

Re: Facebook shuts down the Socialist Workers Party in Britain

#493

Post by yters » Sat, Jan 23, 2021, 3:13 PM UTC

Facebook just needs to let the misinformation flow, and allow it's users to develop their own critical thinking and fact checking skills.

Re: Facebook shuts down the Socialist Workers Party in Britain

#494

Post by collyw » Sat, Jan 23, 2021, 3:21 PM UTC

simonh wrote: post #368

For any non-Brits, the SWP is the main left of Labour party in Britain. As a student in the 80s I remember them as an earnest, way too serious bunch of ideological zombies ranting into microphones at the Student's Union about the latest crimes against humanity perpetrated by 'Thatcher'. They're the kind of people that come up to you in the street with leaflets about some atrocity in Africa and shout "Would you murder…

You will probably find that the SNP is more of a "main left of Labour" party in Britain.

Re: Facebook shuts down the Socialist Workers Party in Britain

#495

Post by zach_garwood » Sat, Jan 23, 2021, 3:23 PM UTC

"Social media is biased against conservatives!"

Re: Facebook shuts down the Socialist Workers Party in Britain

#496

Post by collyw » Sat, Jan 23, 2021, 3:23 PM UTC

kypro wrote: post #287

How is this not foreign political interference? The UK media has been preaching to us about dangers of Russian election interference for years at this point, but simultaneously they seem completely unconcerned that a handful of wealthy Americans how the power to censor popular media outlets, entire political movements and political activists at a whim. The SWP is massive. I don't know for sure, but I suspect they had…

That is a valid point, but then every one of my friends in Europe posting anti-Trump stuff, encouraging Americans to vote for Biden could be considered election interference as well, no?

Re: Facebook shuts down the Socialist Workers Party in Britain

#497

Post by guerrilla » Sat, Jan 23, 2021, 3:38 PM UTC

benjamoon wrote: post #210

Tim Berner’s Lee and the Solid project have a good answer to these issues I think. Everyone owns their posts and likes and comments and friends etc. Any new platform can spin up and instantly compete because they just have to make your data more useful to you. It’d be like you owning all your music online and Spotify is just an interface, if you don’t like it you can jump to Apple Music. Or make your own or download…

That sounds like an improvement for sure but it looks like it just shifts the problem to pod providers and hosts. If the web was all pods then the Socialist Workers Party could just as well end up in a situation similar to Parler's in the end.

Re: Facebook shuts down the Socialist Workers Party in Britain

#498

Post by notahacker » Sat, Jan 23, 2021, 4:07 PM UTC

chiefalchemist wrote: post #428

TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #407

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The SWP is not massive. It's never been massive. Current paid-up membership is maybe four figures. It's considered eccentric, comically cliched, ineffectual, and frankly irrelevant by virtually everyone on the British left. It's the very definition of fringe. Which is why banning the SWP sets a very bad example. Especially when there are far more dangerous organisations on the British far right which Facebook seems h…

So then it would seem, this is a great "beta test" for FB & Co. That is, pick a fringe meaningless group - but one with enough name recognition - and ban them to grease the skids of societal expectations. The group is small and fringe so few will feel the relevance which makes it a fitting target for FB and its ilk to normalize banning.

Facebook has banned, unbanned and rebanned UK registered minor political parties before. (Britain First, a far right party that was only marginally less hopeless at winning votes than the SWP but very effective at getting Facebook likes back when it still had a page) The world didn't begin in January.

Re: Facebook shuts down the Socialist Workers Party in Britain

#499

Post by root_axis » Sat, Jan 23, 2021, 4:09 PM UTC

colordrops wrote: post #271

root_axis wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not saying it's impossible, I'm saying it doesn't change anything with respect to operators removing content. A "website" is just what we call a node accessible via the http protocol.

A new protocol could conceivably prevent anyone from removing content without your consent, that's my point.

A protocol can't stop people from removing content from servers they control.

Re: Facebook shuts down the Socialist Workers Party in Britain

#500

Post by jlokier » Sat, Jan 23, 2021, 4:22 PM UTC

angry_octet wrote: post #452

dpwm wrote: post #412

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My first encounter with the SWP was at a stall outside a university building. They didn't seem shouty, but I remember asking questions and getting vague, half-thought-out answers. Then about ten years later, I met a couple who were ex SWP but switched to labour once Corbyn became leader. I was reminded slightly of that stall by Corbyn's speeches. It's worth noting that the harder left Communist Party of Great Britain…

The sudden increase in Labour membership and Corbyn coming to power suddenly makes more sense.

The increase in Labour membership was significantly higher than the number of SWP members, and I would guess the number of ex-SWP members as well. So I don't think ex-SWP people were driving that.

I saw a lot of pro-Corbyn comments on my Facebook feed a few years ago and they were from comfortably middle-class people. Lefty and green tendencies, centre-left (not hard-left) types. Some of them previously Lib Dem supporters.

The gist was "at last an honest politician!" and "for the first time in a long time, we have a chance at real socially progressive policies, this one is worth voting for".

In other words Corbyn seemed different somehow, and in a good way.

Corbyn gave many people a feeling of hope for a few years, especially young people but including all ages, against an establishment regarded as cruel. That hopefulness grew into a mass movement to join Labour specifically tied to Corbyn and his policies. Labour's manifesto policies under Corbyn were generally popular, even though it fell apart in 2019 over Brexit and painting Corbyn as a terrorist sympathiser.

Now that Corbyn is out of the picture, Labour looks like Tory-lite again, and there's not much enthusiasm for current Labour from those who enthusiastically switched to it a few years ago. It's not surprising after the landslide loss in 2019 that the party would change to accommodate what it thinks the electorate will vote for (on balance), and the swell of membership under Corbyn would not like the changed party.