11 ms·
>We need to be willing to pick sides when there are clear moral or humanitarian issues. It's refreshing to see this. Very tired of this mealy-mouthed "free spe
by ashleyn 8y ago
>We need to be willing to pick sides when there are clear moral or humanitarian issues.
It's refreshing to see this. Very tired of this mealy-mouthed "free speech" refrain when we're talking about private companies. Facebook is under no legal obligation to extend white ethno-nationalists (as one relevant example) a platform or support their cause in any capacity, and should do the right thing.
- masterleep 8y agoCan we make a deal and eliminate communists and socialists as well?
- TaylorAlexander 8y agoI’m a communist and socialist. What problem do you have with that?
- masterleep 8y agoA momentary gander at the 20th century provides the answer.
- lsd5you 8y agoThat your plans could lead to the deaths of millions perhaps? i.e. You're really some kind of crypto-authoritarian, or if not a useful idiot to the authoritarians that will emerge.
- dang 8y agoPersonal attacks and ideological battle are not allowed here, so please don't do these things in HN comments. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- dang 8y agoPlease keep generic ideological tangents off HN. Nothing but hellish flamewar comes of it, and it's all boring. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- TaylorAlexander 8y agoSorry! That’s fair. I had hoped to explain a misunderstood political theory but maybe I was making it worse.
- sctb 8y agoYou've been mostly trolling after we've asked you several times not to, so we've banned the account.
- tzahola 8y agoWhat about black ethno-nationalists?
- maym86 8y agoWhat about trolls?
- sctb 8y agoWe've asked you many times not to post unsubstantive or trollish comments so we've banned the account.
- tzahola 8y agoHow is this trolling?
- aldoushuxley001 8y agoHi, I apologize if this is the wrong place to address this, but I'm not sure where else to go to get answers. But where should I go to address people falsely flagging my post? People are abusing the ability to flag posts they don't agree with, rather than flagging posts for not being relevant or of good quality.
- sctb 8y agoYou can email us at hn@ycombinator.com.
- aldoushuxley001 8y agoThank you.
- jessaustin 8y agoIf you speak plainly on controversial topics, you will be downvoted. If that bothers you, speak less plainly. Troll more. Lots of trolling gets downvoted, but lots doesn't. In the meantime, it's lots of fun to confuse those who were mentally taxed just by the act of downvoting the insightful comments you've made in this thread. Yes, this does mean that downvoting-for-disagreement encourages trolling. 'twere ever thus.
- aldoushuxley001 8y agoFrankly, I'm very tired of people complaining about "free speech" as if it's the problem. Meanwhile you go and conflate people who support free speech with white ethno-nationalists... do you realize how poisonous you're being? Legitmately this line of thinking is extraordinarily toxic to any community that actually seeks to "do the right thing". Not to mention, all too often "doing the right thing" is just siding with people who share your ideas... and that's really not the right thing.
- mustacheemperor 8y agoI saw the above comment not as equating free speech supporters to white ethnic-nationalists, but as criticizing conflating white ethnic-nationalists with free speech supporters. There are a lot of people with ideas very different from mine who are not dangerous racists, and I’m happy to share a social network with them. The remainder can stay on stormfront, which continues to exist because of the free speech rights you refer to. (And which would presumably immediately ban anyone who arrived professing non-racist viewpoints).
- aldoushuxley001 8y agoFair, but I would suggest that the above comment really is equating free speech supporters with white ethnic-nationalists. It's just implicit rather than explicit. To quote ashleyn: 'Very tired of this "free speech" refrain... facebook is under no legal obligation to extend white ethno-nationalists a platform or support their cause in any capacity' ashleyn may not have intended it, but their comment implies those who are using the "free speech" refrain are white ethnic-nationalists.
- MrLeap 8y agoI get the impression the guy above you is grey because people disagree with him more than him being off topic, or not adding to the discussion. I'm going to try my hand at going even more off topic. Not just to dick with people, but this thread made me think about it and I think it adds to the conversation. I've been playing a game that's basically a feudalism simulator recently, and I've found it interesting how familiar the dynamics of feudalism seem. I've started thinking about how the social contract that protected the tyrannies they were subject to still go on today. Transformed a bit, but not at all weakened. We have a court spymaster leaving, but making a final declaration to the noble houses that the kingdom he is leaving has a responsibility use its power to control some people more, some information less. Then the guy at the top of the comment chain is like a peasant (in the feudal sense, I'm not trash talking) who is happy to see his liege wield his tyranny against people he doesn't like. Then someone responds by pressing the power of another title (the first amendment). It's an uphill battle for him though. The empire (The United States) has nearly a hundred year precedent that the first amendment doesn't apply to kingdoms with a government type of "corporation". I don't have a strong opinion about this. I do miss my view of counter-racist action in the 90's. I liked the memory of black service members defending dirty racists from violence, and the caption on the image being something like "I don't agree with a damn thing you're saying but I signed up to protect your right to say it!" Stuff like that made me feel like we weren't just objectively right, but had a moral high-ground. More and more often it's feeling like a lesser of two evils.
- chipperyman573 8y agoI don't disagree with you (I mean, facebook not being required to allow free speech isn't really even something you can disagree with to begin with anyway - it's a fact). However, a while ago someone made a comment that has stuck with me: Why do you want Facebook to silence people like this? Let them identify themselves as awful people, so you know you want nothing to do with them. Instead of becoming friends with a closet racist, then finally getting to know them well enough to realize they're a terrible person, let them identify themselves outright so you waste no time involving them in your life.
- pjc50 8y agoTerrible people can organise terrible consequences that spread off facebook and into the "real world".
- shittyadmin 8y agoOkay, but what of things like cannabis or prostitution. Major legal changes in these spaces have started online and many people would seek to see things like this banned in such a system. Heck, I'm sure some people would describe those changes as "terrible consequences".
- pjc50 8y agoThat's what taking a side includes; Facebook have to listen to the politics and decide what's legitimately arguable either way and what's harmful per se. It does not mean picking a side and then only allowing that side to post. The opposite of this is iTunes' "ban all politics" policy.
- prolepunk 8y agoThe major difference here, is that people who promote cannabis or sex work aren't Nazis.
- watwat1 8y agoOr antifa
- ThrowawayR2 8y ago> Facebook is under no legal obligation to extend white ethno-nationalists (as one relevant example) a platform or support their cause in any capacity, and should do the right thing. Authoritarian liberals seem to forget the old saying that "What goes around, comes around." If the majority viewpoint shifts so that your opinions become unpopular, will you happily accept getting deplatformed yourself? Don't be so naive as to think it can't happen.
- bmarquez 8y ago> If the majority viewpoint shifts so that your opinions become unpopular, will you happily accept getting deplatformed yourself? Don't be so naive as to think it can't happen. I've seen this happen recently. The same people cheering on the deplatorming of Milo Yiannopoulos shouting "freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences" were just stunned when James Gunn was fired for his tweets.
- gowld 8y agoThey were stunned because Disney execs got trolled into footgunning their business, not because Disney chose not to work with someone they disliked or because a boycott cost Disney some sales. Deplatforming Milo's intellectually bankrupt hateful message is not at all like "Deplatforming" a movie wholly unrelated to bad jokes told long ago by the movie's director.
- bmarquez 8y agoI'd like to think that Disney execs are smarter than you give them credit for. The reason I compared Milo and Gunn is because both of them were deplatformed (by Simon and Schuster and Disney respectively) for making comments related to pedophilia. Milo says he was an abuse victim himself, Gunn says they're jokes. I don't know so I won't judge. But I'm pointing out that making shocking statements to gain popularity can be easily misused by your opponents (on all political sides), with career-ending consequences.
- ashleyn 8y ago
- hypocrisy123 8y agoThis is precisely the same argument that has been used by the right to deny service to gays and minorities. You are treading on dangerous ground by advocating for this.
- tenaciousDaniel 8y agoIt may be easy enough to identify someone as Richard Spencer as a white nationalist, but the issue is with knowing where to draw the line. That line is not clearly drawn right now.
- maym86 8y agoIt's easy to start drawing the line at the low hanging fruit. Let's start with holocaust denial which Zuckerberg raised last week. This argument that it's complex doesn't mean we can't do something and act in the most agregious and obvious cases. Facebook already censors for business reasons and draws lines. Why can't they do it in other places and make it clear where they are. Their objections are based on free speech but are likely really about cost - they don't want to spend money to do it.
- prolepunk 8y agoHow about we start with whoever is calling for extermination of people with identifiable characteristics such race/religion/etc or using a number of well known dog whistles against those groups, should be banned. The sarcasm/satire/meme defense is not a real thing. It's not that it's hard identify Nazis, it's that they make Facebook money and that's why Facebook is not willing to deal with them.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- mistermann 8y ago> How about we start with whoever is calling for extermination of people with identifiable characteristics such race/religion/etc or using a number of well known dog whistles against those groups The issue with this approach is what constitutes a dog whistle seems to be growing rapidly, and largely relies upon the imagination of the person judging. On a related note, I'm curious where you are encountering all these nazis you speak so passionately about, and what definition you're using for nazi.....might the deciding factor be the detection of a dog whistle, which is why you seem to encounter so many? Or for a more concrete approach to the question: I an an unambiguous opponent of open borders - does that make me a nazi?
- krrrh 8y agoThere are mealy-mouthed refrains on all sides of this issue. For instance, I would be happy to see Tom Metzger and his White American Resistance group banned from Facebook, however the core of his white ethno-nationalist agenda isn’t too different from the black ethno-nationalism espoused by Louis Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam. In fact Tom Metzger has been invited to talk at NOI events and collaborated with their leadership in the past. Banning NOI on Facebook would cause an uproar, but a consistent policy would require it. A lot of organizations who want to ban certain groups but don’t want to have an entire department adjudicating culture would like to rely on outside groups for certification. But even once-august groups like the Southern Poverty Law Center can lose the plot, as they did when they recently and perplexingly called liberal Muslim reformer Majid Nawaz an anti-Muslim extremist (they had to settle a lawsuit with him and issue an apology). [1] I’m not saying that a company like Facebook shouldn’t take sides at all, but you can certainly see the attraction of a simple open platform doctrine once you get into the weeds. [1] https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/10/maajid-nawaz-splc-anti-muslim-extremist/505685/ https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/10/ma...
- ashleyn 8y agoThe two of these groups advocate subjugation of minority demographics at their best, genocide at their worst. It doesn't matter who says it. Taking a stand against these ideas and refusing to support these ideas is ethically clear.
- jordigh 8y agoBad people on many sides... on many sides!
- dtornabene 8y agoThe Nawaz issue was far from an open and shut case for one thing, I'll just leave it at that for the moment. As far as the sloppy comparison of NOI and WAR its important to point out that while NOI sucks (really, really) it is not now, has never been and never will be anywhere near power. From Viktor Orban to Christian Strache to Salvimini to Trump (specifically Bannon, Anton, Miller, etc) we're seeing a very real spectrum of white supremacist leaders winning power. Salvimini literally said there needs to be a "cleansing" of Roma in Italy. If Facebook wants to facilitate that, so be it, but its on them if they do. Its important for them to recognize the social impact of the choices they make. There is no real world equivalence between Viktor Orban and Louis Farrakhan and treating them the same is democratically suicidal.
- staunch 8y agoFacebook runs the internet's de facto social network. They're a monopoly that only exists because open solutions didn't come about in time. It's an accident of history that a few companies control what should have been decentralized protocols. The internet itself permits unfettered free speech and so should the largest social networks of the internet. As private companies they're not required to by law, but they should feel required to by their own ethics. Facebook could provide tools to allow people to do whatever they want with the data. Users themselves should be in control of censoring whatever it is they don't want to see. It's extremely dangerous to have a single corporation in charge of deciding what people see. It's inherently tyrannical and paternalistic. It's a decision to remove agency from adults about what information they consume. It's hard to imagine a more damaging attack on individual freedom in a time where this is the primary source of information for many people.
- mozumder 8y agoThis is the kind of argument that makes people more dependent on Facebook. The best way to fight Facebook's monopoly is to just get people off of it and let them form their own independent social networking strategies. You are basically making the case for Facebook by arguing for them as the de facto social network. Facebook is completely unnecessary. We need to remind people of that.
- staunch 8y agoI'm stating a fact that they are the de facto social network. As such, they have an ethical duty to not deprive their users of basic human rights like freedom of speech. I absolutely do want Facebook replaced but I'd also like them to do as little damage as possible until they are. It would make a lot of sense to have laws that require massive monopolies like Facebook to abide by the same rules that constrain government organizations.
- mozumder 8y agoYah the last thing I want is for anyone to treat Facebook as necessary.
- jimmaswell 8y agoI find it anything but refreshing. If anything I find this trend alarming where people are pushing for companies to ban everyone they disagree with. Just block someone if they say things you don't want to read. That's all there is to it. It's nowhere near "the right thing to do." Aside from the fact that I believe open discourse is vital to society and that restricting it on one of the world's most important platforms is reprehensible, it's short-sighted - eventually a view you agree with will be banned too. "First they came for people I disagreed with, and I did not speak out because I disagreed with them.."
- ashleyn 8y agoAdvocacy for murder and legal subjugation (in this example, of minorities, but it really applies to anyone) is devoid of value and legitimacy. Directly or indirectly supporting people who do it by giving them a microphone seems very clearly reprehensible from an ethical perspective. The systematic explusion and extermination of innocents is not just "another opinion", like the best way to balance the budget. It is something to fight on all justifiable and effective fronts.
- watwat1 8y agoExcept when the minorities in question are literally ruining your country.
- Proziam 8y agoThe issue with this viewpoint is that you're correct - but not accounting for all the areas where other humans will hold a similar opinion about a less clear-cut issue. Abortion, 2A, etc. I want anyone who talks openly about wanting to commit murder or having others do so, to be banned. But I have to recognize others will abuse that, calling abortion murder under all circumstances and silence any women's group that discusses such things. The solution isn't an easy one. Personally, I'd be happier in a world with "No Politics" or "Everything (that isn't clearly illegal) goes" as the only options so as to avoid leveraging a tremendously powerful platform as a weapon.
- 8y ago
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- TomMckenny 8y ago>Very tired of this mealy-mouthed "free speech" refrain Where-in nudity is forbidden but holocaust denial is tolerated. Facebook obviously allows editorial decisions to supersede profit. And they come form a very particular world view about what is and is not acceptable. A world view that is not remotely universal viewed as "free speech".
- bena 8y agoI think it's because nudity gets you banned on just about any corporate webfilter, but simple text won't.
- TomMckenny 8y agoPerhaps so, and this "freedom of free speech" is really just "that which can get through a corporate web filter". Either way intentionally of not, a particular value system is being enforced. One in which dismissing genocide is acceptable but nudist vacations are not. There are places where sunbathing naked is less of a crime than wearing a tee-shirt advocating race violence. Facebook has chosen the opposite value system.
- AmericanChopper 8y agoThis all falls apart when you realize there are very few clear moral issues (and nearly all of them are already covered by laws). Preventing the election of Donald Trump, or removing him from presidency is a very clear moral issue for many people. Anybody who promotes or supports nationalism could also very easily be thrown in with the example you provided.
- hamhock666 8y agoEven though Facebook is not prohibited by law from censoring the speech of their users, they have a moral obligation to not do so. Cracking down on speech is never the answer to problems where we need to have more discussion. It only shows that we care about that speech enough to block it, which motivates them to cling tighter to their beliefs. I am all for individuals blocking other individuals or groups, but when something is blocked from the entire community without their consent, it falls under unwanted censorship. We do not want to limit free speech to just the majority opinion.
- seventhtiger 8y agoNo one has a moral obligation to enable immoral acts. In fact, it could be argued that you have a moral obligation to act against immoral acts.
- toast_coder 8y agoYou're a racist, and your racist overtly political comments dont belong on HN
- dang 8y agoPersonal attacks will get you banned here. Please don't do this again. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- ironjunkie 8y agoDo you really believe that Facebook is giving a platform to the extreme right ? If one thing should be clear to everyone is that Facebook got a very clear Leftist bias, as pretty much any company in Silicon Valley. Whenever they will make a conscious decision of censorship it will definitely be more on censoring the Right than the Left.