Facebook to ban white nationalist content • Hacker News Board

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#771

Post by dragonwriter » Wed, Mar 27, 2019, 11:39 PM UTC

chrischen wrote: post #755

dragonwriter wrote: post #752

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> the last anti-Jewish mass killing wasn't that long ago.

Indeed. And it was motivated by white nationalism, not the Hebrew Israelite movement, so it's kind of a weird thing to bring up if you are trying to make the case that deplatforming the latter has as strong a case as the former.

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#772

Post by lyxsus1 » Wed, Mar 27, 2019, 11:40 PM UTC

thundergolfer wrote: post #609

rdl wrote: post #274

This seems absurd and unreasonable once you look at it more closely. If any group of people say they want to go live apart from others (white, gay, men, linux users, whatever), I'm fine with that. I wouldn't want to live in a racial separatist region myself, but I have no problem with other people choosing to do so. Treating black nationalists as heroes (which in a historical sense they were) while making white natio…

Those identity categories are not all equivalent. Wanting to live among only "white" people is not a coherent or rational preference. It can really only be grounded in racism.

Do you realise that any person has a right to have a racist point of view, exchange it in conversations with like-minded people and discuss it with others, unless it doesn't result in real discrimination?

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#773

Post by Corya0687 » Wed, Mar 27, 2019, 11:41 PM UTC

_iyig wrote: post #327

So what about black nationalism? The Dallas mass-shooter, Micah Xavier Johnson, was reportedly radicalized in part by various black power Facebook groups: https://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-dallas-police-shooting-...

Well... the fbi has a specific intiative targeting them(BIE). And while they are a problem, they aren't nearly as big of a threat.

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#774

Post by int_19h » Wed, Mar 27, 2019, 11:42 PM UTC

andrewla wrote: post #95

I am also nearly a free speech absolutist, but I feel that platforms like YouTube and FB are nearly in-scope. I can't specifically say what the criteria is, but there's some notion of how much responsibility they take for the content. Something like the notion of a DMCA shield; where a platform can expose third-party content without consequences so long as they response to take-down requests means that they do not ge…

I think that unless they are in a market-dominant position, or there's collusion between several players to effectively create a cartel that has that position, then there's more leeway.

But the ones that are - where their private rules have an extremely broad stifling effect that in practice makes it comparable to government censorship - should have very little leeway. I'd rather not allow such dominant positions in the first place (i.e. cap the size directly), but if we are doing that, it should come with strings attached - e.g. smaller companies get a choice between common carrier and curated platform with responsibility for everything, but something as big as Facebook is forced to be a common carrier.

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#775

Post by dragonwriter » Wed, Mar 27, 2019, 11:43 PM UTC

kortilla wrote: post #754

dragonwriter wrote: post #752

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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

I would say that, where there is debate over the level of danger and need to take action to restrain hate speech, whether or not that particular kind of hate speech is motivating violent acts and on what scale is a quite legitimate factor to consider.

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#776

Post by sabujp » Wed, Mar 27, 2019, 11:44 PM UTC

Good, they try to hide behind the 1st amendment but there's only one endgame that they're after, and we know how that turned out.

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#777

Post by int_19h » Wed, Mar 27, 2019, 11:47 PM UTC

moosingin3space wrote: post #345

hhs wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Based on the evolution of the web, indeed, it looks like new businesses will be made out of this. With this banned group, I am concerned about what social scientists call the 'backfire effect', where beliefs turn even stronger and bolder. For instance, this happens with groups of people who hold conspiracy theories; when society rejects them, the conspiracy theorists double-down on their beliefs.

The key thing you're missing is recruitment. White supremacists need access to the larger platforms in order to recruit new adherents to their bigoted ideology, which is significantly harder to do if they're forced into "underground" spaces. De-platforming works -- if we make it clear that hateful ideology isn't tolerated in large platforms, then people have to actively seek out such ideologies. If such ideologies ar…

The purveyors of such ideologies simply do a wink-wink-nudge-nudge dance.

Look at Germany and its Streitbare Demokratie policies. Then look at how AfD polls.

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#778

Post by anigbrowl » Wed, Mar 27, 2019, 11:49 PM UTC

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #664

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?

The problem is, by being intolerant (even of the intolerant), you're intolerant. So if the "paradox of tolerance" is accurate, then we must not tolerate you . "But", you say, "they were intolerant first, so they are the ones who should not be tolerated!" From your perspective, sure. Maybe not from theirs, though. That gets you to a cycle of each side being sure that the other is intolerant, and therefore that their o…

Neo-nazis and their ilk tend to be pretty explicit about wanting to kill specific groups of people as part of their ideology, something which your hypothesis seems to overlook.

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#779

Post by baddox » Wed, Mar 27, 2019, 11:50 PM UTC

antt wrote: post #674

baddox wrote: post #480

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is when you say you want to live apart from others, but you want that to be right here where there happen to currently be other people. When you say that, even if you claim to not be advocating for violence or forceful removal, that is effectively what you’re advocating. There are white nationalist groups that actually use the phrase “peaceful ethnic cleansing.”

There are also Muslim groups who say as much. "We will just out breed them" is a common tactic used to great effect in Kosovo and Western Macedonia by Albanians. The shooting in Christchurch referenced a video from the Mosque in question that spelled the same thing out. Unfortunately I can't share the video due to laws which would put me in jail. [0] Is your objection to them saying it out loud, or saying it in Engli…

> There are also Muslim groups who say as much.

My criticism applies to them as well, and as far as I can tell, they are also banned from Facebook.

> Is your objection to them saying it out loud, or saying it in English?

English very clearly has nothing to do with my objection.

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#780

Post by chaostheory » Wed, Mar 27, 2019, 11:50 PM UTC

ratling wrote: post #495

chaostheory wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This form of hateful speech will not stop. The only immediate consequence is that it will go underground. The bigger consequence is that it will be much harder to for authorities to monitor. Under the previous status quo, it was an intelligence treasure trove. Suspected future terrorists would openly tell everyone their thoughts, their location, and more importantly their friends and associates. All of that will be g…

If they go underground it makes it a lot harder for them to radicalize idiots on facebook. Sounds like a win to me. The average person isn't exactly curious about different ideologies but when facebook and youtubes algorithms throw it in their face constantly? Probably something we want to fix.

I don't believe that the average person is interested in racist ideology. The people it tends to attract are disaffected white males. They tend to have poor education and poor job prospects i.e. no hope for the future. My guess is that they were already radicalized before being heavily exposed to racist ideology online. They will still be able to cluster online. It just won't be under our watchful eyes anymore. It'll be similar to how pedophiles cluster online.

I hope that you're right and that I'm completely wrong about this.