10 ms·
I don't have a strong opinion on this particular issue, but I don't think your comment gets to the core of it. If Facebook decided to ban all Chinese, Islamic,
by chubot 8y ago
I don't have a strong opinion on this particular issue, but I don't think your comment gets to the core of it.
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".
Obviously they have to make a value judgement, and they have done so here and said as much (which I appreciate). In other words, they made a considered and conscious decision that's beyond my expertise. But it's still a value judgement about particular content. The decision really can't be made on an abstract "free speech" basis.
- fixermark 8y agoIf we're limiting our discussion to US law and mores, then at least in the context of banning African-American content, there's specific federal law they'd be tripping over. That same law has not been (and probably should not be) extended to protect white supremacy or white separatism, which are political ideologies.
- caprese 8y ago> then at least in the context of banning African-American content, there's specific federal law they'd be tripping over which specific federal law would that be? I can't think of any law protecting content about specific groups
- fixermark 8y agoDepending on how you turn your head and squint, Title II of the Civil Rights Act (assuming we can interpret Facebook as a public accommodation engaging in interstate commerce). ... though it's unclear whether it's more of a private club.
- caprese 8y agoTitle II's definition of public accommodation is limited to "any inn, hotel, motel, or other establishment which provides lodging to transient guests"
- fixermark 8y agoI was looking at (3) "...or other place of exhibition or entertainment." But still: lots of head-turning and squinting, so may not apply.
- ceejayoz 8y agoThe ADA expands it substantially. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/12181 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/12181
- dragonwriter 8y agoThe ADA definition of a public accommodation only applies in the application of the ADA, not the Civil Rights Act.
- DuskStar 8y agoI think the obvious analogy would be banning things like the Black Panthers. Should Facebook be allowed to do that?
- fixermark 8y agoThat would likely depend heavily on whether the BP is calling for black nation separatism.
- hannasanarion 8y agoAnd if they'd racked up over a hundred killings in a series of terrorist attacks in just three years.
- dd36 8y agoIf they were regularly being implicated in terrorist attacks, yes.
- drewrv 8y agoThe obvious analogy would be banning jihadi content, which it does.
- dominotw 8y agoWhite nationalism doesn't advocate killing all non-white nationalists. Bad take.
- fixermark 8y agoAny white nationalism that advocates "a nation of their own" implicitly advocates such killing, because we're out of land. ... unless that philosophy explicitly states "... and we'll build that nation on the shores of Antarctica," there's a genocide implied.
- RubberbandSoul 8y ago
- stcredzero 8y ago* it's still a value judgement about particular content. The decision really can't be made on an abstract "free speech" basis.* In other words, they abrogated the Free Speech rights of others by imposing their own values. Free Speech also includes the right to hear. If there are those who would want to hear/read the speech which is being de-platformed, then by definition, Free Speech has been interrupted.
- russdpale 8y agoIt seems disingenuous for you to compare all Chinese, Islamic, and African American content to very specific bigotry spewed by white nationalists.
- ada1981 8y agoIt’s interesting that you seem to equate African-American content with White Nationalist content. Facebook isn’t banning content from white people, it’s banning content that is racist by design.
- chubot 8y agoThey said they already ban "white supremacy" because it falls under their existing guidelines. That's what I take to be the "racist" content. But now they are banning "white nationalism and separatism" in addition. I guess I don't know enough about white nationalism to say if it's racist or not. Like I said, it's a value judgement (and an issue of categorization) that's beyond my expertise. I don't think separatism is by definition racist. There was the separatist movement in Spain a year ago. The movement is obviously based on race or ethnic background, but it's not obviously racist. There were probably some racists in the movement, but the entire movement may not be racist. I think they probably made the right decision -- it looks like they considered it carefully. But my point was that the grandparent's framing of the post as a free speech issue is misleading. Facebook ITSELF framed it as a value judgement.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- simmanian 8y agoWhite nationalists and separatists are racists because they want an ethnostate. I don't think it should be difficult to tell why these ideas are racist, and I hope you would make the same judgement. Also, the separatist movement in Spain was not racist because any number of races can live in the region that called for separation. An ethnostate is racist.
- repolfx 8y agoOne thing I genuinely don't understand about all this is how Israel fits into it. From wikipedia: The primary principles of Israeli citizenship is jus sanguinis (citizenship by descent) for Jews and jus soli (citizenship by place of birth) for others.[2] Citizenship by descent? Lots of Jewish people are white, or at least all the Jews I've ever met looked just like me. Israel is without a doubt intended for ethnically Jewish people, and is thus an 'ethno-state' by any reasonable definition. So does that make the Israeli people collectively racist? They elected the government that wrote those citizenship laws after all. Is it a white nationalist movement? Or if someone's going to argue that Jews aren't white, OK, why isn't it a racist non-white nationalist movement then? If advocating for a country to be reserved for specific kinds of people is no longer allowed on Facebook, what happens to Israeli election-related material? Sure, advocate against white nationalism, they sure have a powerful platform to do it. Banning all discussion of it seems like it puts Facebook in a position of terrible hypocrisy to me.
- joshuamorton 8y ago>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.
- ramblerouser 8y agoSo chinese people who are proud of their heritage and promote it can be discriminated against because being proud of your race is just a view one can hold?
- joshuamorton 8y agoThere's a difference between celebration of heritage and white supremacy. Please don't conflate celebration of Oktoberfest with calling for an ethnostate. They're different goals.
- ramblerouser 8y agoGood point there most certainly is. And Facebook recognizes that: >Going forward, while people will still be able to demonstrate pride in their ethnic heritage, we will not tolerate praise or support for white nationalism and separatism. However, Facebook even now is ok with white people advocating for seperation. They claim there is a connection of white seperatism to white supremacy that made them ban it, while not banning other groups like the Basque from wanting independence. >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. >But over the past three months our conversations with members of civil society and academics who are experts in race relations around the world have confirmed that white nationalism and separatism cannot be meaningfully separated from white supremacy and organized hate groups.
- 8y ago
- chillacy 8y agoThey ban a subset of Islamic content at least: the terrorist propaganda that leads to terrorist acts. If you assume that white nationalist content leads to terrorist acts too, then it only makes sense to ban it as well.
- neuronexmachina 8y agoFacebook already actively deletes ISIS and Al Qaeda-related propaganda: https://venturebeat.com/2018/11/08/facebook-claims-it-deleted-3-million-pieces-of-isis-and-al-qaeda-propaganda-in-q3-2018/ https://venturebeat.com/2018/11/08/facebook-claims-it-delete...
- dragonwriter 8y ago> If Facebook decided to ban all Chinese, Islamic, or African-American content, then the conversation would be completely different. Also, if they decided to ban all White content, it would be different. White and White nationalist aren't the same thing; please stop insulting White people that aren't racists by implicitly equating them.
- justinmchase 8y agoI don't think he was doing that. He was trying to say that racial discrimination would not be an acceptable reason, I believe. I didn't take it the way you are suggesting at least.
- sadris 8y agoBut they're not banning Zionist (Jewish nationalist) content, only White natl content. So they're engaging in illegal discrimination due to disparate impact.
- dragonwriter 8y ago> But they're not banning Zionist (Jewish nationalist) content True. > So they're engaging in illegal discrimination due to disparate impact. Disparate impact discrimination is illegal under Title VII (employment) but not Title II (public accommodation), so even assuming FB is covered by Title II (which is dubious), and even assuming this would be found to be disparate impact discrimination (which is difficult to assess because the test for that is narrowly tailored to Title VII context), it would not be illegal on that basis.
- chubot 8y agoYes, I should have said the "analogous" Chinese, Islamic, or African-American content, e.g. like the sibling suggests with Zionist content. The thread this spawned reminds me of why I don't usually chime in on these issues. But what many replies are missing is that Facebook says they already ban "white supremacist" content under existing rules. They don't need a special rule for that. Just like they don't need a special rule for terrorist content that's violent. But they ARE adding a special rule for "white nationalism", for the reasons given in the post. I'm not saying they are wrong. I'm just saying that you can't really use the argument "they can go set up their own servers" to justify it, as the grandparent did. I suspect that there's simply a LOT of white nationalist content, and it has a practical damaging effect, but nationalist content of other kinds isn't that widespread or damaging, and they want to allow it for free speech reasons (and probably because they aren't qualified to make fine judgements about various nationalist movements). That seems reasonable. Anyway, Facebook gives the "right" reason for the ban (a value judgement), while the parent comment was pushing a reason that's besides the point, IMO. It felt like a "backward rationalization". But yeah it's more of a nitpick, so I regret spawning this thread, which became very political :-/ ----- Even so, let me throw something else onto the pile. A few days ago I watched this documentary on Netflix: Struggle: The Life and Lost Art of Szukalski https://www.netflix.com/title/80109551 https://www.netflix.com/title/80109551 It's too complex to summarize, but it's about a very talented sculptor who was also a Polish nationalist (for a significant period). It came out in December and was produced by Leo DiCaprio, because his father was a friend of the artist in LA. I googled for reviews afterward, and this was one of the best summaries that I found: https://www.counter-currents.com/2019/01/a-patriot-without-a-country/ https://www.counter-currents.com/2019/01/a-patriot-without-a... Only after reading the whole article did I realize that it's from a white nationalist site (if you read "about this site", it's very clear). The long and short of it is that it's a subtle issue, but most people seem to view it in black and white. If Facebook banned this content, it would be a mistake IMO (although I don't use facebook). But their decision might be the right thing overall. They have a hard job, and people like the parent were trying to apply some strict principle to it, when in reality there's no such thing.
- dang 8y agoThis subthread started as a reply to https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19503270 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19503270.