5 ms·
Why not ban all racism, all hate, everything? Doing just one is PR only.
by ProAm 8y ago
Why not ban all racism, all hate, everything? Doing just one is PR only.
- untog 8y agoRead the article.
- vernie 8y agoBut I wanna be mad.
- ProAm 8y agoI did, this is so selectively enforced its comical. That's my point.
- untog 8y agoI guess you must have brushed over the part where it says: > Our policies have long prohibited hateful treatment of people based on characteristics such as race, ethnicity or religion – and that has always included white supremacy. We didn’t originally apply the same rationale to expressions of white nationalism and separatism because we were thinking about broader concepts of nationalism and separatism – things like American pride and Basque separatism, which are an important part of people’s identity. Very specifically, it points out that they are not just "doing one", they are bringing one in line with a broader policy that is applied to many different types of hate. So I'm really not sure what point you're trying to make.
- ProAm 8y agoWhy not just ban all nationalism or nationalistic posts? Depending on ones relative position it's hateful towards others. But regardless: > Our policies have long prohibited hateful treatment of people based on characteristics such as race, ethnicity or religion I'm just saying this has always been selectively enforced at FB, the reason they are speaking to white nationalism now is because of recent current events and they are in the spotlight. I feel this is purely this is a convenient PR campaign. Not that it's an easy topic to control or address all the platforms have issues with this, but FB is being opportunistic for press.
- Dylan16807 8y agoMost "nationalism" is based on physical location and community and you're not going to get a lot of support for banning that.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- Ascetik 8y ago>all hate This is the problem with this type of censorship, who get's to decide what is defined as "hate" speech. Facebook, who is run by it's own set of individuals with their own set of beliefs. It is their platform, their servers, they can do what they want, but Facebook as a company should not be defining what constitutes "hate" because we obviously have a stratification of morals in this country and what could be considered hate to one person could be considered perfectly charitable to another.
- xeromal 8y agoThey did. They just said before this, they considered white nationalism and white supremacy as different. Now it isn't
- EpicEng 8y agoI imagine that's because it's sometimes subjective and difficult to define. We tend to focus on the obvious cases, but not all of them are. What about the discussion of e.g. race and it's correlation to IQ? How about discussion of trans issues and viewpoints which contradict what trans activists want to hear? Are we allowed to talk about biological differences between men and women which some find offensive? They are all valid topics to discuss civilly, but some believe that even having a discussion is racist/homophobic/sexist. My fear is that it will move beyond what we've legally defined as hate speech and into "don't hurt people's feelings" territory.
- ProAm 8y agoI agree, it's near impossible to be a global communication platform and enforce 'goodness' and kindess for your users/audience.