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

371–380 of 1001 posts

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#371

Post by saalweachter »

xkjkls wrote: post #202
vokep wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see what you mean, but it does seem different because FB or YouTube are not publications, but public forums, public communication spaces to publish as a person. Things published on youtube are not on behalf of youtube. Basically FB and Youtube and things like it form space where content fills in.

> Things published on youtube are not on behalf of youtube Tell that to people using YouTube. YouTube will end up being inextricably tied to whatever content is uploaded using their platform as long as they are the ones who manage its display and recommendations.

I think a better retort would be "tell that to 4chan".

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#372

Post by oyvey »

I would never become sympathetic to the ideas of white nationalism if it wasnt for the exposure to them on mainstream media platforms. This makes me mad as hell. How am I supposed to call this a democracy? Might as well live in communist china.

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#373

Post by WhompingWindows »

jelliclesfarm wrote: post #70

I am not a ‘white person’ (whatever that means) ...but I don’t want to see ‘white nationalist content’ banned. When people communicate on a public platform unself consciously, they reveal themselves openly and freely. There is no greater protection to vulnerable populations than transparency. Freedom of speech is a gift and a valuable tool.This move is dumb beyond words.

How do you transparently protect those in Christchurch NZ or at one of the sites of nationalist, extremist violence? Transparency does nothing to deter the mentally ill and psychotic individuals who perpetrate mass murder.

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#374

Post by bluntfang »

ramblerouser wrote: post #356
joshuamorton wrote: post #337

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>If Facebook decided to ban all Chinese, Islamic, or African-American content, then the conversation would be completely different. People wouldn't say, "so be it -- go set up your own servers". This is because we have laws about discrimination based on race. White supremacy is not a race. You're free to discriminate against someone due to the views they hold.

So chinese people who are proud of their heritage and promote it can be discriminated against because being proud of your race is just a view one can hold?

Do you believe there is a difference between being proud and supporting white supremacy?

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#375

Post by craftyguy »

oh_sigh wrote: post #365
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…

You can claim that white nationalism has penetrated the White House all you want, but there is no evidence of this being the case.

Uh, Trump invited Steve Bannon into his cabinet. They did not part ways because of Bannon's extreme white nationalist views...

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#376

Post by josefresco »

weberc2 wrote: post #112

The obvious questions are and always have been "what constitutes 'harmful speech'?" and "who gets to decide?". Sure, we can agree that "white supremacy" is harmful, but in the last 5 years we've seen the definition of white supremacy slide from "people who espouse views that whites are better than nonwhites" to "people who espouse views that are not in line with progressive orthodoxy".

> we've seen the definition of white supremacy slide from "people who espouse views that whites are better than nonwhites" to "people who espouse views that are not in line with progressive orthodoxy".

No we haven't. We've seen white supremacy being legitimized at the highest levels, and as a result white supremacists claiming to be "victims" openly because they feel emboldened by the election of white supremacist politicians.

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#377

Post by charliesharding »

chapium wrote: post #346
charliesharding wrote: post #284

As a non-white person living in America, this is scary to see. It's a policy targeting a specific race of people's content... How is that not racist? It will only foment more resentment and retaliatory sentiment while serving to make "certain kinds of racism" socially acceptable as long as it's the "right race" to discriminate against. Ban ethno-nationalists if you feel so inclined, not {{insertRaceHere}} nationalism…

I don't see why facebook would be obliged to host content they don't agree with. These people will always find a platform on the internet. Facebook doesn't need to make their recruitment more convenient.

I get what you're saying but if they're going to curate what content that they put forth, then they cease to be a platform and they become a publisher. Publishers are liable for much more under the eyes of the law. They can't cherry pick the advantages from the two systems without any of the drawbacks.

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#378

Post by smsm42 »

atonse wrote: post #235
99052882514569 wrote: post #71

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. But that is not where they're starting though, is it? They're going much further: >Today we’re announcing a ban on praise, support and representation of white nationalism and separatism on Facebook and Instagram Praise, support and representation not of speech encouraging harm, but the id…

This has nothing to do with free speech. Free speech has to with governments curbing your speech, not private companies.

No, free speech has to do with being able to speak freely. If you are prevented from doing that by private means, it's in no way better than if you are prevented by the government, and for exactly the same reasons. If free speech has any value and not just an empty slogan, then it should have value in the face of privatized censorship too. If your freedom has value, would you feel better if you'd be in a private prison than in a government one? Probably not. Why should it be different with speech?

Imagine your ISP blocked your every message that disagrees with their political stance. Would it console you they're doing it as a private company, or would you demand regulators to come and stop it?

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#379

Post by anigbrowl »

lgleason wrote: post #198

Many are rightfully making the argument that they are a common carrier because of their monopoly in the space. Right now there really isn't a viable competitor to them. The same is true with Twitter etc. because they are all substantially different products. IMHO I would supports Facebook's right to do this if: 1. They gave up the safe harbor protections and were subject to the same liabilities as news organizations.…

I'd argue that there are lots of alternatives. But the smaller and less exclusive ones which tolerate extreme content often have reputations like Mos Eisley spaceport, so while people can gather and organize there relatively freely it seriously limits their fundraising and recruitment outreach.

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#380

Post by tathougies »

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…

You understand that Christian Indians have been killed for eating beef and pork right? And the current party in power is the BJP, a party that has allied itself with people like Bal Thackeray, a politician who suggested suicide bombings as a viable means of protecting Hindu interests, as well as links to actual murders of politicians he disagreed with [1] as well as instigating the Mumbai riots [2].

And that's just in the one state I'm familiar with. The party itself has many links to actual Hindu militias. Pull your head out of the ground. The United States problems (if there really even is one) are nothing compared to those of certain other countries.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krishna_Desai [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombay_riots

Post reply on HN