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

Facebook Dangerous Individuals and Organizations List (Reproduced Snapshot)

theintercept.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 137 posts

Re: Facebook Dangerous Individuals and Organizations List (Reproduced Snapshot)

#111

Post by woodruffw »

legostormtroopr wrote: post #109
woodruffw wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm guessing the list is based on political salience, not just how "bad" a person is. There probably aren't that many Vlad the Impaler apologists in the world, given that he's a functionally irrelevant person to be an apologist for. That's perhaps less the case for Stalin, but even Marxist-Leninists (seem) to make fewer excuses for Stalin-the-human than neo-Nazis do for Hitler-the-human.

> There probably aren't that many Vlad the Impaler apologists in the world Literally the entire genre of Vampire literature disagrees.

> Literally the entire genre of Vampire literature disagrees.

I wasn't under the impression that there was any particular political message behind contemporary vampire fiction. Dracula itself is full of political messages, but probably not the ones you're thinking of[1].

[1]: https://www.jstor.org/stable/3828327

Re: Facebook Dangerous Individuals and Organizations List (Reproduced Snapshot)

#112

Post by nl »

throwawayboise wrote: post #65
detaro wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Likely matches what the respective countries or organizations there put pressure on Facebook for, or which pose a legal problem for Facebook there. E.g. lots of German neonazi stuff in the hate category.

Nazism is illegal in Germany. Militias are constitutionally protected in the USA, so there's not really a legal argument for all of those to be included.

> Militias are constitutionally protected in the USA

Not private militias! In-fact, they are banned by all 50 states: https://www.npr.org/2020/08/30/907720068/are-citizen-militia...

Re: Facebook Dangerous Individuals and Organizations List (Reproduced Snapshot)

#113

Post by lsiebert »

LinuxBender wrote: post #99
lsiebert wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

all 50 states prohibit private militia groups. https://www.npr.org/2020/08/30/907720068/are-citizen-militia... "...But one thing is consistent - all 50 states have some provision in their state law, whether it's their state constitution or their state statutes, that prohibits private militia, private paramilitary activity. And that's also the case in Wisconsin. In addition, many states, including Wisconsin, prohibit…

Could there be a loophole if a group instead of calling themselves a private militia, instead calls themselves a {insert whatever} activist group and instead of paramilitary activity, they practice {insert whatever} peace protests? Asking because some of the organized groups in the past few years on the media appear to be heavily armed, organized and quite destructive.

I'm not sure I'd call it a loophole, it's still illegal to hurt people or damage property, but certainly there is evidence to suggest bugaloo boys and white nationalists are doing exactly that, by infiltrating peaceful protests.

https://www.salon.com/2020/06/17/far-right-boogaloo-boy-kill... https://heavy.com/news/2020/07/mitchell-carlson-umbrella-man... https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/boogaloo-b... https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/boogaloo-bois-member-charged... https://www.complex.com/life/2020/07/white-supremacists-infi...

Re: Facebook Dangerous Individuals and Organizations List (Reproduced Snapshot)

#114

Post by m0zg »

woodruffw wrote: post #105
m0zg wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Same FBI that's about to start arresting "terrorist" parents for having the temerity to speak at school board meetings? That FBI? https://thehill.com/opinion/criminal-justice/575658-fbi-shou... https://www.newsweek.com/concerned-about-your-childs-school-... Don't rely so heavily on "fact checks" - their sole raison d'etre is to provide ammo to the "official" narrative peddlers nowadays. Read the original letter.

For what it's worth, it's considered bad etiquette to substantively edit your comments without marking that you've done so. In this case, the original post consisted entirely of: > Same FBI that's about to start arresting "terrorist" parents for having the temerity to speak at school board meetings? That FBI? As for the new links: they're both opinion pieces, both of which are (vague) handwringing that don't support…

For what it's worth, HN throttles the opinions it doesn't like. And you're clearly not looking hard enough for me to consider that you're arguing your case in good faith. Bye.

Re: Facebook Dangerous Individuals and Organizations List (Reproduced Snapshot)

#115

Post by chuckee »

Jon_Lowtek wrote: post #80
detaro wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Likely matches what the respective countries or organizations there put pressure on Facebook for, or which pose a legal problem for Facebook there. E.g. lots of German neonazi stuff in the hate category.

germany has a law called "social network enforcement act" which requires big social media networks to have a german speaking team that enforces national laws and effectively handles complaints. And germany has outlawed national-socialist ideology for obvious reasons. I am honestly surprised that style of enforcement isn't more common internationally. (edit: got a detail wrong: the team does not need to physically be…

I don't know if you're aware, but that law (known as NetzDG: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_Enforcement_Act) does a lot more than what you described. It requires social networks to delete "obviously illegal" posts within 24 hours of receiving a complaint, or face a €5 million fine per offense.

What social network will risk such a fine to keep a single post?

> I am honestly surprised that style of enforcement isn't more common internationally.

Probably because the NetzDG considered incompatible with both the German constitution and the European Convention of Human Rights (but the European Commission illegally does not allow access to their legal assessment regarding that law), and is opposed by many human rights groups, including Reporters Without Borders and the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Opinion and Expression.

Re: Facebook Dangerous Individuals and Organizations List (Reproduced Snapshot)

#116

Post by justin_oaks »

I can appreciate that this is a "Reproduced Snapshot". I don't see anywhere that clarifies what it means, but I assume that this means it's not a simple copy/paste of text, nor a screenshot.

The reason for avoiding both of those is to avoid passing through watermarking that can reveal how the data was leaked.

Text can be watermarked by including unicode characters that look identical to ASCII characters or including invisible characters like zero-width spaces. Copy-pasting text will keep those characters.

Images from screenshots can be watermarked by having subtly differently colored pixels, subtle differences in text spacing, etc.

Re: Facebook Dangerous Individuals and Organizations List (Reproduced Snapshot)

#117

Post by woodruffw »

m0zg wrote: post #114
woodruffw wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For what it's worth, it's considered bad etiquette to substantively edit your comments without marking that you've done so. In this case, the original post consisted entirely of: > Same FBI that's about to start arresting "terrorist" parents for having the temerity to speak at school board meetings? That FBI? As for the new links: they're both opinion pieces, both of which are (vague) handwringing that don't support…

For what it's worth, HN throttles the opinions it doesn't like. And you're clearly not looking hard enough for me to consider that you're arguing your case in good faith. Bye.

The official memo from the DoJ isn't "looking hard enough"?

Re: Facebook Dangerous Individuals and Organizations List (Reproduced Snapshot)

#118

Post by detaro »

Jon_Lowtek wrote: post #80
detaro wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Likely matches what the respective countries or organizations there put pressure on Facebook for, or which pose a legal problem for Facebook there. E.g. lots of German neonazi stuff in the hate category.

germany has a law called "social network enforcement act" which requires big social media networks to have a german speaking team that enforces national laws and effectively handles complaints. And germany has outlawed national-socialist ideology for obvious reasons. I am honestly surprised that style of enforcement isn't more common internationally. (edit: got a detail wrong: the team does not need to physically be…

Yes, although for that a list such as this is merely a helper - e.g. it's not like any mention of or even praise for e.g. the neonazi bands is illegal. NetzDG is an incredibly crude, bad law, because it basically forces sites to be overly cautious, is even harder to comply with for small sites, ... - not really what we want, even if you generally think Facebook should ban such things. (And Twitter and Facebook have also gotten in trouble with German courts for "unfair" banning at the same time)

Re: Facebook Dangerous Individuals and Organizations List (Reproduced Snapshot)

#119

Post by r721 »

Accompanying article:

>Revealed: Facebook’s Secret Blacklist of “Dangerous Individuals and Organizations”

>Experts say the public deserves to see the list, a clear embodiment of U.S. foreign policy priorities that could disproportionately censor marginalized groups.

https://theintercept.com/2021/10/12/facebook-secret-blacklis...

UPD Twitter thread by author:

https://twitter.com/samfbiddle/status/1447974771522564097

Re: Facebook Dangerous Individuals and Organizations List (Reproduced Snapshot)

#120

Post by undoware »

throwaway8582 wrote: post #77
korethr wrote: post #3

Huh. There's a lot bands in the "Hate" section. Looking up the various names I'm finding various death metal and black metal bands. I can't help but wonder how many of those bands on are on that list because someone at Facebook took heavy metal imagery and lyrical themes too seriously and literally. More Edit: Turns out I picked a bad example. I missed reference to a name collision with an actual National Socialist b…

The "hate" section is about political censorship. It's full of people Facebook doesn't like, but can't throw under "crime" or "terror" because they aren't actually dangerous. Notice how the only groups in there are pro-white or white nationalist groups? Not to defend these groups, but by deciding to vilify these people while ignoring all other forms of racial and ethnic pride/nationalism/hatred, Facebook is sending a…

..or it's sending a clear message that white nationalist groups tend to be violent and militarized?

The very fact that this issue presents itself to you as anything other than a damning report on the state of the union is itself telling.

Perhaps instead, think of it this way: *even Facebook*, whose Zuck repeatedly dined with the architect of Jan 6, clocks this country as having a white-nationalists-with-guns problem.

Like.

Post reply on HN