Facebook to ban white nationalist content • Hacker News Board

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#311

Post by rhcom2 » Wed, Mar 27, 2019, 6:32 PM UTC

thecommentary wrote: post #205

djsumdog wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And what about more complex things? Twitter and Twitch bans people who question some of the modern beliefs on gender ideology, even if they bring up the discussion respectfully. Not to mention, it just means extremists go to platforms that welcome them (Voat, Gab and others). That means platforms that use to have a big mix of views, like Reddit, are now horribly one sided and those other platforms are all extremist.…

Twitter is considering telling journalists to learn to code as hate speech now - we have already slipped down that slope even on the simple things.

Twitter said that was part of a "targeted harassment campaign", not hate speech.

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#312

Post by asabjorn » Wed, Mar 27, 2019, 6:32 PM UTC

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…

Why do they have the right to use power to suppress viewpoint opponents with 100% flexibility in claiming an individual has wronged a group with no evidence, no clear definition of what the terms are, and no recourse?

It seems like terms like this and hate speech often boil down to “people that are effective at calling out my bullshit”.

It is unethical to with no evidence call republicans or classical liberals Nazis, and then use that as a justification to abuse your power to shut them up. Why not make an argument instead?

On this topic I really recommend Frankfurts [1] terse one hour read arguing that there are three types of statements; attempt at truth, attempt at lies, and attempt to just bullshit people with no regard to relate it to truth. This kind of attempt fall in the third category.

[1] https://www.amazon.com/Bullshit-Harry-G-Frankfurt/dp/0691122...

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#313

Post by danesparza » Wed, Mar 27, 2019, 6:33 PM UTC

DuskStar wrote: post #221

fixermark wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If we're limiting our discussion to US law and mores, then at least in the context of banning African-American content, there's specific federal law they'd be tripping over. That same law has not been (and probably should not be) extended to protect white supremacy or white separatism, which are political ideologies.

I think the obvious analogy would be banning things like the Black Panthers. Should Facebook be allowed to do that?

The fact that you would find an equivalent with the Black Panthers is appalling. I would posit that if White Supremacy didn't exist, the Black Panthers likely wouldn't either. The reverse was not true for many decades.

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#314

Post by wang_li » Wed, Mar 27, 2019, 6:33 PM UTC

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…

The question here isn't whether Facebook/Twitter/etc. have a right to control what is on their platform, they absolutely do. The question is whether there should be safe harbor provisions that protect them from legal repercussions of what they do choose to allow on their sites.

A case can be made to protect someone who allows all comers, who increases the reach of the public to communicate with each other, and who extends the scope of public discourse to be protected from the legal consequences of what their users say. The same case is a lot harder to apply to an institution that curates the content they choose to publish. By way of comparison, telephone carriers, an industry that exerts no editorial control, are largely not legally liable for what customers say over the phone network. Newspaper publishers, who have absolute editorial control, on the other hand are legally responsible for what they publish.

Which of these are Facebook and Twitter? My answer is that the more they limit speech that is not legally criminal then the more liability they should have for what they allow.

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#315

Post by black-tea » Wed, Mar 27, 2019, 6:33 PM UTC

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…

> that's pretty easy. Let's start with curbing speech that encourages harming others.

I think taxes should be higher.

Whoops, did I just encourage harming others?

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#316

Post by stronglikedan » Wed, Mar 27, 2019, 6:33 PM UTC

throwawaysea wrote: post #255

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's not OK to redefine free speech to mean "government censorship" I beg to disagree, and in fact I believe you are the one that is redefining free speech. "Free speech" as I have known it has always referred just to government restrictions, because the government is the only entity that has the very unique punative powers that they do. Indeed, a strong corrolary to free speech, freedom of the press, by definition…

Free speech means freedom from censorship. And from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship > Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information, on the basis that such material is considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or "inconvenient". Censorship can be conducted by a government, private institutions, and corporations. From Merriam-Webster ( https://www.merriam-webster.com/…

> Free speech means freedom from censorship.

As I understand it, it means freedom only from prosecution, but not persecution or censorship. I agree with GP in that this is their platform and their rules.

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#317

Post by tedivm » Wed, Mar 27, 2019, 6:33 PM UTC

nilkn wrote: post #262

tedivm wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This case was about a "company town", where there was very much a blending of public and private. > The Court initially noted that it would be an easy case if the town were a more traditional, publicly administered, municipality. Then, there would be a clear violation of the right to free speech for the government to bar the sidewalk distribution of such material. The question became, therefore, whether or not consti…

This is a nuanced topic, but I think the subsequent cases you mentioned all make sense and are consistent with the proposition that certain social media sites actually should obey the "company town" precedent. Malls aren't and have never been the primary space used for public social discourse and commentary. Today, such discourse increasingly happens online, and it's increasingly true that sites like Facebook and Twi…

Considering how "corporate friendly" the SOTUS has been, and how often they think that corporations are people who have their own free speech rights (particularly with regard to spending money), I'm guessing they are not going to side with "free speech advocates" on this one.

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#318

Post by ams6110 » Wed, Mar 27, 2019, 6:34 PM UTC

CobrastanJorji wrote: post #208

ceejayoz wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course, the follow-ups are important, too: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lloyd_Corp._v._Tanner I'd put Facebook more in the "mall" example than the "company town" one.

The mall got out of it because there were many alternate places to distribute messages, so banning mall speech didn't significantly stifle overall speech. That probably still also applies to Facebook today, but not by a wide margin.

Except the primary purpose of a mall is retail business, not message distribution. Facebook's primary purpose (as far as its users are concerned) is to facilitate social interaction. It's almost exactly analagous to the village commons or town square. Or maybe, to a "place of public accommodation." I was originally sympathetic to the "it's their platform, they can do what they want" argument but this has given me something to think about.

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#319

Post by joshuamorton » Wed, Mar 27, 2019, 6:34 PM UTC

nilkn wrote: post #262

tedivm wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This case was about a "company town", where there was very much a blending of public and private. > The Court initially noted that it would be an easy case if the town were a more traditional, publicly administered, municipality. Then, there would be a clear violation of the right to free speech for the government to bar the sidewalk distribution of such material. The question became, therefore, whether or not consti…

This is a nuanced topic, but I think the subsequent cases you mentioned all make sense and are consistent with the proposition that certain social media sites actually should obey the "company town" precedent. Malls aren't and have never been the primary space used for public social discourse and commentary. Today, such discourse increasingly happens online, and it's increasingly true that sites like Facebook and Twi…

>the proposition that certain social media sites actually should obey the "company town" precedent.

This only follows if you believe you're under an obligation to use social media.

>It's really never before happened in history where a private company has become the mediator and facilitator of discourse involving millions of people simultaneously.

This depends on what you mean. On the one hand, up until ~30 years ago, discourse involving millions of people was impossible. So in one way you're correct. On the other hand, media companies of all kinds have historically had a huge level of control over what people see. When the only form of communication was the town crier, he controlled what you heard. When we added printed paper, the people with the press had outsized control over the media. And the barriers to entry were much higher then: I can spin up my own website in an hour. Your average person couldn't afford a printing press.

>This almost infinitely scalable many-to-many communication property of modern social media makes it feel much more like a public space than newspapers, TV, and radio ever did.

What public space offers infinitely scalable many-to-many communication? Public space is distance limited, these platforms aren't. Just because these platforms chose not to heavily regulate the content doesn't preclude their ability to ever do so in the future, nor does it make a comparison to a theoretical public space that never existed any more valid.

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#320

Post by inherentFloyd » Wed, Mar 27, 2019, 6:34 PM UTC

edmundkorley wrote: post #285

At least in the United States, it is the power dynamic that differentiates White Nationalism. White nationalists and their ideology have penetrated the Senate, the White House, and our police force to name just a few places of power. This has huge and potentially violent consequences for non-Whites in the U.S. and needs to be take more seriously. We have seen historical manifestations of this from slavery to contempo…

I am not from India, but you do understand that the party that has majority control over India, the BJP, is a blatantly Hindu Nationalist party? I would argue this makes them even more entrenched in nationalist politics than here in the US. Look at the hundreds of killings and mutilations over cows that the government of India seriously turns a blind eye to.