8 ms·

Facebook removed the US Declaration of Independence for violating hate speech

26 points by laurex 8y ago

MiscIdeaMaker99 8y ago
I have a hard time caring about this.
- crististm 8y ago
  The implications are that "hate speech" is being defined by some entity. And in whatever period of time you consider, those who get to define it are the ones you least want to do this job. In this case it seems it was the job of some algorithm. Good luck when that algorithm (or person) gets to decide your fate besides telling you what (not) to say!
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
stephengillie 8y ago
> The paper questioned whether to put up the rest of the Declaration of Independence after the removal, because if Facebook found more content to be unpalatable, The Vindicator could lose its page on the platform, and thus a crucial way to disseminate its content. Thus the chilling effect of censorship limits the free press from testing the censor - out of fear for economic repercussions.
BadThink6655321 8y ago
Is the problem of mindless censoring of content the “mindless” or the “censoring”? Or, as the first comment indicated, it’s not really a problem?
- smt88 8y ago
  The problem, in my opinion, is that Facebook has too much control over public discourse. Whom Facebook does/doesn't censor wouldn't be a big news story in an ideal world. Ignoring that point, Facebook has the right to censor its own platform and, like any human organization, is going to screw it up, sometimes laughably badly.
  - gremlinsinc 8y ago
    FB has the right to censor anything, they're a private owned company after all. They could censor anything with a right wing bent at all for example, and it'd be perfectly acceptable, unless the government took over facebook, and we had communism instead of democracy. Freedom of speech only goes so far as the government can't block speech on public land, etc. Private businesses can expel people for using foul language/etc and disrupting other customers.
    - eesmith 8y ago
      I don't think your view is quite right. That is, some private companies operate as common carriers, and therefore are not allowed to censor what their users do. For example, your local phone company cannot censor someone on the basis of their political speech, nor can FedEx refuse to deliver material with a right wing bent. Also, Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins established that "under the California Constitution, individuals may peacefully exercise their right to free speech in parts of private shopping centers regularly held open to the public, subject to reasonable regulations adopted by the shopping centers", and that "under the U.S. Constitution, states can provide their citizens with broader rights in their constitutions than under the federal Constitution, so long as those rights do not infringe on any federal constitutional rights." (Quoting from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v._Robins https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v._R... .) That is, there can be free speech rights even at a private business.
frogpelt 8y ago
It was probably because of the phrase used by Thomas Jefferson, "merciless Indian savages" which on one hand sounds hateful. But it was also an accurate description of the way Indians fought. We must study history and we have to accept it in context. We cannot change it. We cannot revise it. And we cannot apply a new context to it. But if we study it and accept it in context, we can learn from it.
- eesmith 8y ago
  "it was also an accurate description of the way Indians fought" Except that it wasn't. Or, if you want to use that language, the Allies were merciless savages who firebombed cities full of German civilians - "undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions" - and the US forces were merciless savages who carpet bombed Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia. Remember, by 1776 there had been 150 years of interaction between those "merciless Indian savages" and the English colonists (to say nothing of the French and Spanish colonists who had a different experience). We know it's wrong to make the blanket statement that the Native Americans were merciless - because they did show mercy. English colonists learned combat skills from their Native American allies, rather than the military formations of European combat. (Eg, Benjamin Church in the early 1700s). How did did the English have local allies if the Native Americans were merciless? Finally, and I'll quote from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scalping#Intertribal_warfare https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scalping#Intertribal_warfare : > More recently, historian Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz contends that, in reality, Ulster Scots settlers, who were experienced in scalping as foot soldiers in the British occupation of Northern Ireland, introduced the practice of scalping to the Americas.[15] She points out that the practice of scalping is one example of how acts of brutality were and are attributed to inaccurate degrees to Indigenous peoples, while the usually greater violence of dominant settler-colonial groups is suppressed through various means. The imagined greater brutality of groups settler-colonial nations were and are exterminating, ethnically cleansing, dispossessing and looting was thus used as one rationale for these settler-colonial undertakings. So, how do you know that "merciless Indian savages" is an accurate description, and not a piece of propaganda to justify continued warfare and colonial expansion? Because what I've read of history, it's much more the latter.
  - 8y ago
shp0ngle 8y ago
> merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions Well technically that is a hate speech, that justified genocide again native Americans later. So yeah good call Facebook
- loco5niner 8y ago
  Well, technically, it was an accurate description of how the Indians fought.
  - eesmith 8y ago
    Wasn't it an equally true description of how the English settlers fought? As a reminder, and quoting from, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Indian_massacres https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Indian_massacres . >English colonists and Creek allies under former Carolina Governor James Moore launched a series of brutal attacks on the Apalachee villages of Northern Florida. They murdered 1000 Apalachees and enslaved at least 2000 survivors. > In the Pequot War, English colonists commanded by John Mason, with Mohegan and Narragansett allies, launched a night attack on a large Pequot village on the Mystic River in present-day Connecticut, where they burned the inhabitants in their homes and killed all survivors, for total fatalities of about 600–700. > Colonial militia and Indian allies attacked a Narragansett fort near South Kingstown, Rhode Island. At least 40 warriors were killed and 300 women, children and elder men burnt in the village.
    - loco5niner 8y ago
      Well, it's true that they killed a lot of indians, I'm not convinced that means the settlers, in general, were a bunch of merciless savages. It's interesting that in each of your examples it mentions that they were attacking along with their "Indian allies"... perhaps that has something to do with it.
      - eesmith 8y ago
        And I'm not convinced that the Native Americans, in general, were a bunch of merciless savages. What do you mean by "it" in "something to do with it"? The first example I gave was the Apalachee massacre. Quoting from the Wikipedia page: > In 1703 ex-Governor Moore presented to the Carolina assembly and his replacement, Nathaniel Johnson, a plan for an expedition against the Spanish towns in Apalachee Province.[17] He promised that, unlike the St. Augustine expedition, the colony would not have to pay for anything; he expected its costs to be recovered by the taking of loot and slaves. On September 7, 1703, the Carolina assembly approved the plan, asking Moore to go "to the Assistance of the Cowetaws and other our friendly Indians, and to attacque the Appalaches." How do "friendly Indians" become "merciless savages"? Why is is that the Indians around the Great Lakes region, who had amicable relationships with the French, rebelled under the new British rule after the French and Indian War? Eg, quoting from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontiac%27s_War#Amherst's_policies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontiac%27s_War#Amherst's_poli... : > Amherst and officers such as Major Henry Gladwin, commander at Fort Detroit, made little effort to conceal their contempt for the Native Americans. Native Americans involved in the uprising frequently complained that the British treated them no better than slaves or dogs.

26 points by laurex 8y ago

MiscIdeaMaker99 8y ago

I have a hard time caring about this.

crististm 8y ago
The implications are that "hate speech" is being defined by some entity. And in whatever period of time you consider, those who get to define it are the ones you least want to do this job. In this case it seems it was the job of some algorithm. Good luck when that algorithm (or person) gets to decide your fate besides telling you what (not) to say!
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]

stephengillie 8y ago

> The paper questioned whether to put up the rest of the Declaration of Independence after the removal, because if Facebook found more content to be unpalatable, The Vindicator could lose its page on the platform, and thus a crucial way to disseminate its content. Thus the chilling effect of censorship limits the free press from testing the censor - out of fear for economic repercussions.

BadThink6655321 8y ago

Is the problem of mindless censoring of content the “mindless” or the “censoring”? Or, as the first comment indicated, it’s not really a problem?

smt88 8y ago
The problem, in my opinion, is that Facebook has too much control over public discourse. Whom Facebook does/doesn't censor wouldn't be a big news story in an ideal world. Ignoring that point, Facebook has the right to censor its own platform and, like any human organization, is going to screw it up, sometimes laughably badly.
- gremlinsinc 8y ago
  FB has the right to censor anything, they're a private owned company after all. They could censor anything with a right wing bent at all for example, and it'd be perfectly acceptable, unless the government took over facebook, and we had communism instead of democracy. Freedom of speech only goes so far as the government can't block speech on public land, etc. Private businesses can expel people for using foul language/etc and disrupting other customers.
  - eesmith 8y ago
    I don't think your view is quite right. That is, some private companies operate as common carriers, and therefore are not allowed to censor what their users do. For example, your local phone company cannot censor someone on the basis of their political speech, nor can FedEx refuse to deliver material with a right wing bent. Also, Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins established that "under the California Constitution, individuals may peacefully exercise their right to free speech in parts of private shopping centers regularly held open to the public, subject to reasonable regulations adopted by the shopping centers", and that "under the U.S. Constitution, states can provide their citizens with broader rights in their constitutions than under the federal Constitution, so long as those rights do not infringe on any federal constitutional rights." (Quoting from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v._Robins https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v._R... .) That is, there can be free speech rights even at a private business.

frogpelt 8y ago

It was probably because of the phrase used by Thomas Jefferson, "merciless Indian savages" which on one hand sounds hateful. But it was also an accurate description of the way Indians fought. We must study history and we have to accept it in context. We cannot change it. We cannot revise it. And we cannot apply a new context to it. But if we study it and accept it in context, we can learn from it.

eesmith 8y ago
"it was also an accurate description of the way Indians fought" Except that it wasn't. Or, if you want to use that language, the Allies were merciless savages who firebombed cities full of German civilians - "undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions" - and the US forces were merciless savages who carpet bombed Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia. Remember, by 1776 there had been 150 years of interaction between those "merciless Indian savages" and the English colonists (to say nothing of the French and Spanish colonists who had a different experience). We know it's wrong to make the blanket statement that the Native Americans were merciless - because they did show mercy. English colonists learned combat skills from their Native American allies, rather than the military formations of European combat. (Eg, Benjamin Church in the early 1700s). How did did the English have local allies if the Native Americans were merciless? Finally, and I'll quote from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scalping#Intertribal_warfare https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scalping#Intertribal_warfare : > More recently, historian Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz contends that, in reality, Ulster Scots settlers, who were experienced in scalping as foot soldiers in the British occupation of Northern Ireland, introduced the practice of scalping to the Americas.[15] She points out that the practice of scalping is one example of how acts of brutality were and are attributed to inaccurate degrees to Indigenous peoples, while the usually greater violence of dominant settler-colonial groups is suppressed through various means. The imagined greater brutality of groups settler-colonial nations were and are exterminating, ethnically cleansing, dispossessing and looting was thus used as one rationale for these settler-colonial undertakings. So, how do you know that "merciless Indian savages" is an accurate description, and not a piece of propaganda to justify continued warfare and colonial expansion? Because what I've read of history, it's much more the latter.
- 8y ago

shp0ngle 8y ago

> merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions Well technically that is a hate speech, that justified genocide again native Americans later. So yeah good call Facebook

loco5niner 8y ago
Well, technically, it was an accurate description of how the Indians fought.
- eesmith 8y ago
  Wasn't it an equally true description of how the English settlers fought? As a reminder, and quoting from, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Indian_massacres https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Indian_massacres . >English colonists and Creek allies under former Carolina Governor James Moore launched a series of brutal attacks on the Apalachee villages of Northern Florida. They murdered 1000 Apalachees and enslaved at least 2000 survivors. > In the Pequot War, English colonists commanded by John Mason, with Mohegan and Narragansett allies, launched a night attack on a large Pequot village on the Mystic River in present-day Connecticut, where they burned the inhabitants in their homes and killed all survivors, for total fatalities of about 600–700. > Colonial militia and Indian allies attacked a Narragansett fort near South Kingstown, Rhode Island. At least 40 warriors were killed and 300 women, children and elder men burnt in the village.
  - loco5niner 8y ago
    Well, it's true that they killed a lot of indians, I'm not convinced that means the settlers, in general, were a bunch of merciless savages. It's interesting that in each of your examples it mentions that they were attacking along with their "Indian allies"... perhaps that has something to do with it.
    - eesmith 8y ago
      And I'm not convinced that the Native Americans, in general, were a bunch of merciless savages. What do you mean by "it" in "something to do with it"? The first example I gave was the Apalachee massacre. Quoting from the Wikipedia page: > In 1703 ex-Governor Moore presented to the Carolina assembly and his replacement, Nathaniel Johnson, a plan for an expedition against the Spanish towns in Apalachee Province.[17] He promised that, unlike the St. Augustine expedition, the colony would not have to pay for anything; he expected its costs to be recovered by the taking of loot and slaves. On September 7, 1703, the Carolina assembly approved the plan, asking Moore to go "to the Assistance of the Cowetaws and other our friendly Indians, and to attacque the Appalaches." How do "friendly Indians" become "merciless savages"? Why is is that the Indians around the Great Lakes region, who had amicable relationships with the French, rebelled under the new British rule after the French and Indian War? Eg, quoting from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontiac%27s_War#Amherst's_policies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontiac%27s_War#Amherst's_poli... : > Amherst and officers such as Major Henry Gladwin, commander at Fort Detroit, made little effort to conceal their contempt for the Native Americans. Native Americans involved in the uprising frequently complained that the British treated them no better than slaves or dogs.