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

751–760 of 1001 posts

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#751

Post by Macross8299 »

iliketosleep wrote: post #714

In practice, it's going to be an arbitrary mess. They draw a series of vaguely defined lines across highly nuanced issues, make their fancy press release, and then send it off to implemented by underpaid and undertrained workers (in 3rd world sweatshops last time I checked).

>3rd world sweatshops

Jeez man, Arizona isn't that bad, I wouldn't call it third world [1]

Jokes aside, you are correct that Facebook does have lots of third-party contractors that do moderation located in underdeveloped countries and Facebook seems to exploit a lot of their contractor labor, regardless of where that labor is located.

[1]: https://www.theverge.com/2019/2/25/18229714/cognizant-facebo...

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#752

Post by dragonwriter »

JPKab wrote: post #735

My question is this: Are they also going to ban other ethno nationalist movements? Last I checked, the Hebrew Israelites (a black nationalist and anti semitic group) are on FB. They believe that the people who currently identify as Jews are evil impostors.

And the last time there was a “Hebrew Israelite”-motivated mass killing was... when, exactly?

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#753

Post by TheSpiceIsLife »

btilly wrote: post #728
staticvar wrote: post #694

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Knowing her, it wasn't. It was sarcasm. Did she know that the person she directed that comment to did not know her?

Define "directed that comment to". I am quite sure that Texas billionaire Lacy Harber does not know her. I am also quite sure that the person who shared the post she replied to about his hunting an endangered black rhino did know her. It would also be a safe bet that some friends of friends who saw that comment did not know her. I would say that she "directed that comment to" the second. It is impossible to tell who…

> It is impossible to tell who reported her, or what they thought.

Wouldn't Facebook know these things?

Under what circumstances do we have a right to confront our accusers?

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#754

Post by kortilla »

dragonwriter wrote: post #752
JPKab wrote: post #735

My question is this: Are they also going to ban other ethno nationalist movements? Last I checked, the Hebrew Israelites (a black nationalist and anti semitic group) are on FB. They believe that the people who currently identify as Jews are evil impostors.

And the last time there was a “Hebrew Israelite”-motivated mass killing was... when, exactly?

Irrelevant? Violent hate speech doesn’t have to result in a mass killing before you ban it.

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#755

Post by chrischen »

dragonwriter wrote: post #752
JPKab wrote: post #735

My question is this: Are they also going to ban other ethno nationalist movements? Last I checked, the Hebrew Israelites (a black nationalist and anti semitic group) are on FB. They believe that the people who currently identify as Jews are evil impostors.

And the last time there was a “Hebrew Israelite”-motivated mass killing was... when, exactly?

Dunno about that one but the last anti-Jewish mass killing wasn't that long ago.

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#756

Post by gfodor »

root_axis wrote: post #731
gfodor wrote: post #712

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the other difference today is that 'the masses' used to mean ~millions of Internet-connected people staring at screens on their desks, now it means the whole damned planet, at all times. as these networks have grown to global scale we need to assess them for what they are, not for abstractions that may be less relevant now that these systems represent unprecedented "public squares"

> millions of Internet-connected people staring at screens on their desks, now it means the whole damned planet, at all times. So what? Those people use Facebook because they like to do so. If you feel like Facebook treats you unfairly then stop using it. It is permissible to communicate with people that use Facebook even if you don't use it. If you fundamentally disagree with the way Facebook operates then stop usin…

I deactivated my account years ago. My point wasn't about me, but about the fact that these platforms are intertwined enough into society they are blurring the lines between optional service customers can switch off of, and global-scale utilities that are necessary to operate in society.

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#757

Post by pj_mukh »

JPKab wrote: post #735

My question is this: Are they also going to ban other ethno nationalist movements? Last I checked, the Hebrew Israelites (a black nationalist and anti semitic group) are on FB. They believe that the people who currently identify as Jews are evil impostors.

Are any of them communicating and chest-beating to organize violent acts? I realize its tough to tell with some of these groups. I think Facebook in this situation is looking at net-effects (esp given the timing of it all).

Note German, Dutch and French Heritage celebration isn't banned. Neither is Palestinian or Syrian.

But Hezbollah is banned [1], not sure why White Nationalists shouldn't be.

[1] https://www.timesofisrael.com/facebook-twitter-pages-of-hezb...

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#758

Post by ls612 »

Fins wrote: post #473
ganeshkrishnan wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The paradox of tolerance is that we must always be intolerant of the intolerant. You are always FOR free speech until the speech starts hurting you. ie would you be tolerant of isis posting on FB?

This alleged "paradox" is just a convenient sledgehammer with which those in power can hit the powerless over the head to keep them quiet.

No, it’s a solution to the problem that if you are tolerant of everything someone will eventually whack you with a sledgehammer. To avoid that you don’t tolerate those who are violently intolerant, which in the US takes the form of the “Imminent lawless action” doctrine.

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#759

Post by [deleted] »

codedokode wrote: post #713
talmand wrote: post #194

At what point do such things change into a public discourse problem? Do we wait until it can be shown that companies such as Facebook, Twitter, Google, etc. influenced elections because they refused to serve information from a candidate they didn't like? If we aren't already there, it's not long before it is. What do you think would happen if these "private companies" with such deep hooks into our communication infra…

> Do we wait until it can be shown that companies such as Facebook, Twitter, Google, etc. influenced elections because they refused to serve information from a candidate they didn't like? If we aren't already there, it's not long before it is. That's an interesting question. What if Google and Facebook would secretly demote and hide articles about one political party and promote articles about another party? Theoreti…

[deleted]

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#760

Post by jonfw »

zelon88 wrote: post #661
talmand wrote: post #194

At what point do such things change into a public discourse problem? Do we wait until it can be shown that companies such as Facebook, Twitter, Google, etc. influenced elections because they refused to serve information from a candidate they didn't like? If we aren't already there, it's not long before it is. What do you think would happen if these "private companies" with such deep hooks into our communication infra…

> Tim Pool is right, at this rate, sooner or later, the Feds will come knocking and will shut that party down. What party? The government is gonna come into a private organization and tell them they are obligated to spend money to preserve, host, and broadcast hate speech that doesn't align with the company's values? Please tell me how this differs from telling small business owners they can't refuse service.

The government tells power and phone companies that they can't cut off service to people discriminately.

I'm pretty libertarian in respects to market regulation, but when it comes to mopolistic industries you need regulation.

Post reply on HN