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

801–810 of 1001 posts

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#801

Post by anigbrowl »

dmix wrote: post #764
ratling wrote: post #677

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no slippery slope argument when you're talking about literal Nazis. We went to war on the subject.

This comment perfectly encompasses why it's a slippery slope. The definition of "literal Nazi" is use so broadly in political discourse. Politicians have been called Hitler and Nazi since Hitler and Nazis became a thing. The massive danger is going to be the countless false positives this thinking generates. Just like the craziness of arresting the guy whose dog made a nazi salute in the video. He would be denied acc…

The only worse thing are Nazis organizing on public platforms is forcing them to congregate only with other Nazis on radical websites where no one will challenge their worldview.

Sorry, don't agree. Forcing them to congregate on unpopular websites is great because those websites have a terrible reputation and that massively hinders recruitment. Sure, they're echo chambers, but extremists already use private fora for more underground organizing activity and likewise there are people who specialize in monitoring and infiltrating those websites.

If your argument is that they just need to be talked around with reason and logic, you can always go to one of their websites and give it a try. Sure, deradicalization can work and it's great when it does, but generally the odds are poor and it's extremely labor intensive.

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#802

Post by anigbrowl »

asabjorn wrote: post #631
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 is quite telling how this is getting downvoted with no argument. Always judge people on their actions, and especially how their actions impose upon others. Edit: and then this is also downvoted with no argument. A better demonstration of why this facebook policy is a terrible idea could have not happened.

It's not a novel argument, it begs the question from the outset (boil down to “people that are effective at calling out my bullshit”), and ignores objective evidence about the content and aims of the speech in question.

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#803

Post by int_19h »

simias wrote: post #600
justinmchase wrote: post #500

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think if they allow public signups then they should not have the ability to censor anybody, except by court order or to comply with the laws of the users region. Because of course "anything I don't agree with is hitler" is a problem and an inevitability. Its fine if they do not allow public sign ups and all people they are publishing are considered employees or enter into contract with the company but facebook, twi…

By doing that you're effectively turning these websites into 4chan. Can you imagine a website like Hacker News if no moderation was possible, nobody could get banned and nothing could be removed without a court order? You'd just have every thread spammed by bots. That's the problem with unmoderated online discourse, cheap inflammatory posts are easy to make and draw a lot of attention while in-depth analysis takes ti…

The ideal state of affairs is when you can have multiple platforms, moderated in different ways as they compete for customers in a free (i.e. competitive) market, where such moderation, or lack thereof, is a part of their pitch to new customers.

But we let companies monopolize whole segments of the market. And then every such segment becomes a vast echo chamber of whatever the prevailing public opinion at the moment is.

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#804

Post by godshatter »

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…

In principle, I am opposed. I don't think hiding unwanted dialogue is very helpful in the long run. It just makes it fester somewhere else that isn't as visible. If Facebook feels they have to do something about it, then I'd suggest just flagging it. That gives people more information that they can use how ever they see fit. There is also the thought of collateral damage, like your friend ran into.

I also oppose it on general grounds in that I'm a big proponent of freedom of expression. Facebook can do what they want, we're not talking about the government here and I understand that, but I would rather they didn't go this route. I don't want to live in a society where what can and can't be said is strictly regulated either by force or by general consent. I seem to be one of the few that feels that way, though, any more.

There is also the practical concern of what happens if the ideas of what is acceptable and what isn't changes over time? Who knows which opinions that you hold now might become anathema at a later date. For example, the opinion I'm expressing now used to be a lot more common than it is today.

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#805

Post by vkou »

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.

"White" isn't an ethnicity. It's not a culture.

Irish, German, Roma, Italian, Russian, are all ethnicities. All of them have particularly Irish, German, Roma, etc cultures. But there is no shared "White" culture.

White nationalism defines itself not by a shared ethnicity or culture, but by making it crystal-clear who it excludes. A white nationalist can't tell you what being white actually means - but he can tell you exactly who isn't.

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#806

Post by mherdeg »

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 they also going to ban other ethno nationalist movements?

Yes, at least sometimes?

I think they did ban the collection of accounts in Myanmar which advocated for genocide of the Rohingya, but only a few years after the genocide was underway, so yes https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/15/technology/myanmar-facebo... .

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#807

Post by joshuamorton »

MadWombat wrote: post #655
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.

I think you misunderstood the intent of an argument that was not very well made. I think his point is that if the group banned coincided more with the majority values the discussion would be different. For example, if Facebook banned feminist content or YouTube banned climate change supporters. Neither of these is a race and yet I think the discussion would, indeed, be very different.

This is a false equivalency though.

Like yes I'd be much more annoyed if you cut off my foot than if you served a vegetarian dinner.

That's about as apt a comparison as I can make between "white supremacy" and "science".

Lest you think I'm being one sided, I absolutely support the ability of Facebook and YouTube to ban pornographic content, while I think the groups that do provide pornography are morally fine, something I don't think is true for white supremacists.

So unless you're making an absolutist free speech argument, please elaborate on why you think feminism and white supremacy deserve to be treated the same way. I can name a few reasons they shouldn't be: Haji Daoud Nabi and Clementa C. Pinckney to start.

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#808

Post by lazugod »

grawprog wrote: post #542
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'm going to respond to this comment because my response is just kind of in general to the whole conversation this spawned. In what way is facebook more of a public space than hacker news, reddit or any public forum, message board or website where users can sign up and post content? You couldn't post a bunch of white nationalist comments here or on most other sites without getting banned. Why would and should faceboo…

I would think it has to do with the invisible/nonexistent/impersonal nature of Facebook moderation.

If there’s no face, if the site is designed so you never feel like a guest on someone else’s website, you'll assume you’re in control of the social rules.

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#809

Post by skosch »

godshatter wrote: post #804
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…

In principle, I am opposed. I don't think hiding unwanted dialogue is very helpful in the long run. It just makes it fester somewhere else that isn't as visible. If Facebook feels they have to do something about it, then I'd suggest just flagging it. That gives people more information that they can use how ever they see fit. There is also the thought of collateral damage, like your friend ran into. I also oppose it o…

> It just makes it fester somewhere else that isn't as visible.

Is that true? Would we have the anti-vax movement if it weren't for Facebook & co.?

Re: Facebook to ban white nationalist content

#810

Post by leereeves »

vkou wrote: post #805
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.

"White" isn't an ethnicity. It's not a culture. Irish, German, Roma, Italian, Russian, are all ethnicities. All of them have particularly Irish, German, Roma, etc cultures. But there is no shared "White" culture. White nationalism defines itself not by a shared ethnicity or culture, but by making it crystal-clear who it excludes . A white nationalist can't tell you what being white actually means - but he can tell yo…

By that definition, "Black" and "Hispanic" and "Asian" aren't ethnicities or cultures either. Each of those groups have numerous distinct and often warring subgroups.

But if Hispanic can be an ethnicity, so can European, AKA "white".

Post reply on HN