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

121–130 of 1001 posts

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#121

Post by meroes »

Kalium wrote: post #12
atonse wrote: post #6

Good to see the Valley is starting to get off its "we are just a platform, all information should be free and neutral no matter how bad, so we're not responsible" extremism of the past few years and understand that some forms of speech are harmful should not ever be encouraged and accelerated on any platform or technology, ever. To the people that say "Where does it end?" – that's pretty easy. Let's start with curbin…

> To the people that say "Where does it end?" – that's pretty easy. Let's start with curbing speech that encourages harming others. This may come as a surprise to you, but this response will not be comforting to those with genuine concerns about civil liberties. Avoiding the question of where to draw the final line with the question of where to draw the first one just implies that you intend to draw more lines in the…

FB isn't the government though.

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#123

Post by Dylan16807 »

ordu wrote: post #72

> We didn’t originally apply the same rationale to [...] because we were thinking about [...] things like American pride and Basque separatism [...] What do they mean by "American pride"? Googling it brings a lot of marketing, I do not know how to filter all of that to find out an idea.

Search "patriotism".

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#124

Post by rexpop »

duxup wrote: post #63

I suspect there is some value in pushing such content off of large sites to reduce the surface area available for recruitment. I used to think that pushing such content off a site or forum was futile and calling it for what it is on a site had value, I'm not sure that is the case anymore. If you look on platforms like reddit and such where you have groups in subreddits calling for race wars, general hatred, and viole…

All those patriarchal forums are the top-end of a stochastic terrorism funnel.

1. [The Pewdiepipeline](https://youtu.be/pnmRYRRDbuw] 2. [Kill All Normies: Online Culture Wars from 4chan and Tumblr to Trump and the Alt-Right](http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/34858587-kill-all-normies)

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#125

Post by 0815test »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #84
40dslf wrote: post #29

Separatism too? As a Spaniard I couldn't be happier about that.

You can be separatist if it's not by race. And in your rush to snark you skipped the part that calls out "American pride and Basque separatism" as important things to leave alone.

"Race" is a de-facto cultural category, at least in the U.S. It's not merely a description of someone's outward appearance; the reason people even care about the construct in the first place is its social aspects, which happen to be rather pervasive. It's not obviously wrong to advocate for separatism on the basis of such things, nor is separatism per se hateful or violent.

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#126

Post by MiscIdeaMaker99 »

Kalium wrote: post #12
atonse wrote: post #6

Good to see the Valley is starting to get off its "we are just a platform, all information should be free and neutral no matter how bad, so we're not responsible" extremism of the past few years and understand that some forms of speech are harmful should not ever be encouraged and accelerated on any platform or technology, ever. To the people that say "Where does it end?" – that's pretty easy. Let's start with curbin…

> To the people that say "Where does it end?" – that's pretty easy. Let's start with curbing speech that encourages harming others. This may come as a surprise to you, but this response will not be comforting to those with genuine concerns about civil liberties. Avoiding the question of where to draw the final line with the question of where to draw the first one just implies that you intend to draw more lines in the…

I wouldn't doubt that there are genuine concerns, but what Facebook is doing has nothing to do with actual civil liberties, which isn't something that FB grants or could even take away.

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#127

Post by kansface »

marvindanig wrote: post #40

Too little, too late. Brexit is around the corner spiraling Britain down to chaos not seen for a hundred years. America is hurting its closest allies with a joker that pathetic dictators love to watch. Meh. Anonymity is still very important for the web. Until FB moves away from the 'face' part of their book, it's a terrible outcome for the Internet any day even with all kinds of curation that they are announcing now.…

This type of hyperbolic comment doesn't belong on HN.

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#128

Post by Kalium »

mcphage wrote: post #97
Kalium wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> To the people that say "Where does it end?" – that's pretty easy. Let's start with curbing speech that encourages harming others. This may come as a surprise to you, but this response will not be comforting to those with genuine concerns about civil liberties. Avoiding the question of where to draw the final line with the question of where to draw the first one just implies that you intend to draw more lines in the…

> Avoiding the question of where to draw the final line with the question of where to draw the first one just implies that you intend to draw more lines in the future. No, it just implies that we don't need to have the perfect final answer now. Maybe we'll draw more lines, maybe we'll find out we don't need to, maybe we'll decide that this line was drawn too far and pull it back. We don't need to pretend that we have…

You are very wise and thoroughly correct!

Perhaps people might consider offering such elegant points as yours, instead of making the claim that the current line is correct and that's all that matters.

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#129

Post by 40dslf »

ceejayoz wrote: post #33
40dslf wrote: post #29

Separatism too? As a Spaniard I couldn't be happier about that.

You'll be disappointed here. They are specifically targeting white nationalism/separatism. They specifically exclude other types in the article. > We didn’t originally apply the same rationale to expressions of white nationalism and separatism because we were thinking about broader concepts of nationalism and separatism – things like American pride and Basque separatism, which are an important part of people’s identi…

So separatism is only bad if it targets non-whites?

So when Basques and Catalans say they want to leave because the rest of the country, especially the south, is full of half-moorish lazy fucks, that is cool.

Guess the same about the two halves of Italy.

I don't care as I don't use Facebook, but it's a double standard.

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#130

Post by bjt2n3904 »

Inu wrote: post #116
function_seven wrote: post #31

I consider myself a free speech absolutist. Or very nearly so. But that runs both ways. Not only do I think that almost all (to borrow a mathematical term) speech should be permitted, but also that the onus is on the speaker to make themselves heard or to find an audience. No company or platform owes them anything. In earlier times, that meant that no newspaper or printing press was required to print everything sent…

"Goebbels was in favor of free speech for views he liked. So was Stalin. If you're really in favor of free speech, then you're in favor of freedom of speech for precisely the views you despise. Otherwise, you're not in favor of free speech." - Noam Chomsky

Thank you. Free speech isn't just an amendment for the government, it's a principle for society.

If Facebook were a television station with limited air time for a single track, it would be perfectly valid for them to decide (reasonably) who gets air time. However, Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube have infinite tracks and time. I don't think the OPs argument is as strong, with that in mind.

Post reply on HN