Facebook to ban white nationalist content • Hacker News Board

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#791

Post by int_19h » Thu, Mar 28, 2019, 12:06 AM UTC

beat wrote: post #511

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…

I am no longer a free speech absolutist. And the reason I am not is the sort of abstract, angels-on-a-pinhead bullshit arguments that fill the responses to the parent post. The more it can be abstracted to "free speech", the less oxygen there is for discussion of the real harm caused by white supremacist thought and white supremacist actions. I put the safety of society at large first. And if you think that's oppress…

Because the safety of society at large, especially if we look at the perception of it rather than the real goals, can translate directly into oppression of those who are perceived to be a threat. The whole "build the wall" thing is pitched as being about safety of society, for example. There are people in this country - including prominent elected politicians representing party that dominates state legislatures, and that has broad popular support in most those states - who sincerely believe that BLM and CAIR are terrorist organizations. There's that whole "BDS is anti-Semitism" thing, and some countries already have laws on the books that make it a felony to participate.

Would you say that the political and judicial system of our societies is fair, or is it biased against minorities? If it's biased, why do you expect it to enforce any such "safety of society" laws in a way that is not similarly biased towards the groups that already are the beneficiaries of that society?

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#792

Post by yawaramin » Thu, Mar 28, 2019, 12:07 AM UTC

colordrops wrote: post #767

sagichmal wrote: post #608

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What do you think would happen if these "private companies" with such deep hooks into our communication infrastructure suddenly decided to remove all data associated to the Republican Party? For that matter, the Democratic Party? They wouldn't do that, because there would be justified public outcry. Luckily, as moral agents, we humans are capable of differentiating "general political party" from "white nationalists…

> Luckily, as moral agents, we humans are capable of differentiating "general political party" from "white nationalists", and can target the latter and not the former. This is highly debatable. There are plenty of examples of benign movements and opinions that have been stifled violently by society and the state. You can find with little effort plenty of people today calling for censoring or even being violent toward…

Luckily, in civilized societies we have a system of checks and balances in place to ensure that doesn't happen.

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#793

Post by geofft » Thu, Mar 28, 2019, 12:07 AM UTC

wyclif wrote: post #786

dragonwriter wrote: post #752

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Since when was triggering "mass killing" the standard for censorship on the internet?

At least since Facebook's current community standards were written, probably earlier:

We aim to prevent potential real-world harm that may be related to content on Facebook. [...] We remove content, disable accounts, and work with law enforcement when we believe there is a genuine risk of physical harm or direct threats to public safety.

In an effort to prevent and disrupt real-world harm, we do not allow any organizations or individuals that proclaim a violent mission or are engaged in violence, from having a presence on Facebook. This includes organizations or individuals involved in the following:

- Terrorist activity

- Organized hate

- Mass or serial murder

- Human trafficking

- Organized violence or criminal activity

We also remove content that expresses support or praise for groups, leaders, or individuals involved in these activities.

That seems like a pretty clear statement that people who are engaged in / advocating for / recruiting for groups that engage in mass killing will be censored.

It would surprise me if Facebook were the first internet platform with rules like this.

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#794

Post by int_19h » Thu, Mar 28, 2019, 12:10 AM UTC

ineedasername wrote: post #399

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…

> No company or platform owes them anything. Precisely. I worked on a college newspaper. It was common , had been going on for years and years in face, that a specific hate group would send an order for advertisements, and threaten to sue if we didn't print them. They were usually Holocaust denial ads w/ anti-semitic conspiracy theories. We never printed them, but some schools inevitably did, failing to understand th…

What if one company builds a loudspeaker that basically drowns out everybody else, just by virtue of scale alone?

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#795

Post by leereeves » Thu, Mar 28, 2019, 12:10 AM UTC

pj_mukh wrote: post #757

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.timeso…

Even the extremely left-wing SPLC has warned about the Return of the Violent Black Nationalist.

https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/intelligence-report/...

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#796

Post by istherealimit » Thu, Mar 28, 2019, 12:10 AM 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…

Do you think that a website like the daily stormer should be forced off the web? And should payment processors be required to allow them an account? (for server donations, etc).

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#797

Post by asabjorn » Thu, Mar 28, 2019, 12:11 AM UTC

alexandre_m wrote: post #739

asabjorn wrote: post #312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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,…

It's quite dangerous to be allowed to be judge, jury and executioner. FB has become too large and ubiquitous, they shouldn't be all of those.

Exactly, and I am surprised they don't know they should have a better process that is feels fairer to their customers. This seems to be treating customers too logistically, without enough regard to your own potential mistakes and biases.

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#798

Post by anigbrowl » Thu, Mar 28, 2019, 12:11 AM UTC

alexandre_m wrote: post #744

stiangrindvoll wrote: post #633

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also, By mere searching for specific terms, Facebook gladly assume your motives to be to in particular way. This seem misguided and not well thought through. Finding a book in the library about frogs, doesn't make you a frog.

I find that specific part to be terrifying. You could be searching for those terms for a good reason, maybe I'm writing an essay about the spread of white nationalism and want to see how many groups exist online, or whatever. It's very dangerous to label people and infer their intention automatically.

So make a specific account for research purposes like everyone else does.

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#799

Post by 6nf » Thu, Mar 28, 2019, 12:12 AM UTC

smileysteve wrote: post #689

btilly wrote: post #663

In principle, who could be opposed? In practice, how will this actually work out? True story. I have a friend who got a temporary ban from Facebook (I think 90 days?) for commenting on a story about a Texas billionaire paying to hunt endangered animals, "How much would it cost to hunt Texas billionaires?" That was considered a violation of their anti-bullying stance. Knowing her, it wasn't. It was sarcasm. Moving on…

> That was considered a violation of their anti-bullying stance. Knowing her, it wasn't. It was sarcasm. That line is grey and I'd argue that your friend's comment, while obviously hyperbole, does not respect human life. There was an article posted about cyclists that points out the danger ous dehumanizing others; that comedy / hyperbole help group think achieve it.

So we are banning jokes now?

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#800

Post by int_19h » Thu, Mar 28, 2019, 12:13 AM UTC

clucas wrote: post #673

wozniacki wrote: post #558

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In earlier times, that meant that no newspaper or printing press was required to print everything sent their way. Today it's the centralized websites that also don't have this obligation. ... You are not entitled to widespread distribution. Never have been. This sort of pointing-to-the-past-to-pave-the-future is disturbing to say the least. We don't apply the received wisdom of the past blindly to issues of the prese…

So what are you advocating? That we force private entities to publish speech, and allow no recourse to enforce social norms through private action, only through government? That seems far more dystopian than the past that you are speaking out against so strongly.

How about we force private entities in a dominant market position in any kind of information-distribution market to be common carriers?