4 ms·

> Are "literal" nazis only who this new rule will be applied to? White nationalists are literal Nazis, so... yes? > Could you possibly provide any examples of

> Are "literal" nazis only who this new rule will be applied to? White nationalists are literal Nazis, so... yes? > Could you possibly provide any examples of such statements on relatively mainstream sites, and also note whether you encountered it organically or found it via a google search? Were you asleep for Charlottesville or all the coverage of it? White nationalists literally marched with torches chanting "blood and soil" and "we will not be replaced." What do you think those messages mean to non-whites? What do you think they're advocating for when they say those things?

mistermann 8y ago
> White nationalists are literal Nazis, so... yes? a) No they aren't. b) Even if they were, you have no way of knowing how this rule will be applied. > Were you asleep for Charlottesville or all the coverage of it? Would you consider the Charlottesville incident "mainstream", or common enough (and manifest in some form on Facebook) that Facebook must police user-posted content on its site? Try to not treat this like an internet argument that must be won, and try not to exaggerate the frequency of rare (as far as I know, I am seeking a reasonable, fact-based argument in order to change my mind) incidents like Charlottesville, or conflate the specifics of what happened there with unsavory words that don't literally (actually) meet the claim of advocating violence. Make no mistake, I'm definitely playing Devil's advocate here, but if the facts are on your side this (making the case that literally advocating literal violence) should not be overly problematic. Or, if you would like to lower your claim to something like "frequent and possibly increasing dog whistling" (without arguing about the technical boundaries of that) on Facebook, that seems like a fairly reasonable claim.
- Veraticus 8y ago
  > a) No they aren't. Indeed they are! Or at least there's no difference meaningful enough in their political ideologies to draw a distinction. Obviously I'm not saying they're a member of a political group originating in 1930s Germany, but when someone calls someone else a "Nazi" colloquially, that's not what they mean either. > b) Even if they were, you have no way of knowing how this rule will be applied. So we shouldn't have rules because they can be misapplied? > Would you consider the Charlottesville incident "mainstream", or common enough (and manifest in some form on Facebook) that Facebook must police user-posted content on its site? Yes? Or what of Christchurch? Or the Quebec City mosque shooting? Or the Pittsburgh synagogue shooting? These incidents (and the literal dozens more like them) received tons of mainstream news coverage and the perpetrators 100% subscribed to white nationalist views, exactly the kind which Facebook seeks to deplatform. They believe that by removing these people from their site they might reduce incidents of these shootings. Do you think they're wrong? What amount of violence needs to happen connected to one ideology for Facebook to ban said ideology? Facebook has banned child pornography, doxxing, and pro-ISIS content from their platform too. How much of that has to be posted before a ban is justified? You can not like that Facebook can make decisions like this, but it is entirely their right to choose what to platform. If you don't like it, you can make your own platform. That it doesn't have the audience Facebook does is your problem, not Facebook's.
  - mistermann 8y ago
    > Indeed they are! Or at least there's no difference meaningful enough in their political ideologies to draw a distinction. Is that so? The Nazis were a large, organized group with a distinct leader, a fairly specific shared ideology, and track record of action - you would have us believe the same is true (no meaningful difference) of modern day white nationalists? And that there's evidence of this? > but when someone calls someone else a "Nazi" colloquially, that's not what they mean either col·lo·qui·al·ly adverb: colloquially in the language of ordinary or familiar conversation; informally. This is what I mean about the common misuse of the words "literal", "Nazi", "alt-right", and in my mind this excuse is similar in quality to the "I'm not really racist, I have black friends" argument. Have you ever stopped to consider if this type of "dog whistling" is contributing to the problem in any way? Do you care? > So we shouldn't have rules because they can be misapplied? Your words, not mine. The question was "Are "literal" nazis only who this new rule will be applied to?". Have you no concern for possible second order effects of poorly thought out and biased censorship? And when I say censorship, I'm not referring to the First Amendment. > Yes? Or what of Christchurch? Or the Quebec City mosque shooting? Or the Pittsburgh synagogue shooting? For every single "white nationalist" incident you cite, I can cite several similar racially/religiously motivated crimes committed by non-white people. If the incidents are the problem, why is the enforcement (and news coverage) racially biased? > These incidents (and the literal dozens more like them) received tons of mainstream news coverage The coverage was mainstream, but is this behavior or these beliefs mainstream/common? How sure are you that these incidents are caused by incitement on social media? Have you ever considered that both the incidents themselves as well as the increase in "dog-whistling" propaganda on social media (I've yet to see examples of advocating violence) might both be effects of something else? Do you care? > and the perpetrators 100% subscribed to white nationalist views, exactly the kind which Facebook seeks to deplatform. Is that so, or might that only be what you presumed or were told? I haven't read the whole manifesto, but this fellow seemed to have much more complex and nuanced beliefs than those held by "100%" of "white nationalists". I assume this is a "white nationalist" propaganda site of some sort, but to me the actual words of what this madman wrote are what actually matters, not who publishes them: https://www.thenewamerican.com/world-news/europe/item/31759-christchurch-shooter-praises-communist-china-condemns-conservatism-and-capitalism-media-call-him-a-trump-supporter https://www.thenewamerican.com/world-news/europe/item/31759-... Is what's written there mainstream white nationalist views? Personally, I have absolutely no idea, so I'm willing to consider any evidence you have supporting that idea. > They believe that by removing these people from their site they might reduce incidents of these shootings. Do you think they're wrong? They might be right, they might be wrong, unlike you I make no claim to know. What if they are wrong, and censorship aggravates these already mentally unbalanced people even more, driving them to organize (perhaps in the physical world) underground where it's difficult to see what they're up to or thinking? Is this worth considering when setting policy? > What amount of violence needs to happen connected to one ideology for Facebook to ban said ideology? Then we should be banning a lot more speech. > You can not like that Facebook can make decisions like this, but it is entirely their right to choose what to platform. I believe free speech is crucially important, and any curtailment should be carefully and logically considered, including a healthy discussion before any decisions are made. In this case, I can envision a plausible scenario where it makes the problem even worse. > If you don't like it, you can make your own platform. Again, there is a distinct difference between the First Amendment and the general principle of free speech. That so few people consider this important seems risky to me. I suspect this type of attitude is in no small part what got Donald Trump elected. > That it doesn't have the audience Facebook does is your problem, not Facebook's. And if social engineers like you are miscalculating, if you underestimate the complexity of sociology and human psychology, it might be all of our problem. For the sake of improving the quality of discourse, can you sense any legitimate concerns in what I'm saying, or do I seem to you like yet another ignorant racist, little different than those who might frequent Charlottesville rallies?

mistermann 8y ago

> White nationalists are literal Nazis, so... yes? a) No they aren't. b) Even if they were, you have no way of knowing how this rule will be applied. > Were you asleep for Charlottesville or all the coverage of it? Would you consider the Charlottesville incident "mainstream", or common enough (and manifest in some form on Facebook) that Facebook must police user-posted content on its site? Try to not treat this like an internet argument that must be won, and try not to exaggerate the frequency of rare (as far as I know, I am seeking a reasonable, fact-based argument in order to change my mind) incidents like Charlottesville, or conflate the specifics of what happened there with unsavory words that don't literally (actually) meet the claim of advocating violence. Make no mistake, I'm definitely playing Devil's advocate here, but if the facts are on your side this (making the case that literally advocating literal violence) should not be overly problematic. Or, if you would like to lower your claim to something like "frequent and possibly increasing dog whistling" (without arguing about the technical boundaries of that) on Facebook, that seems like a fairly reasonable claim.

Veraticus 8y ago
> a) No they aren't. Indeed they are! Or at least there's no difference meaningful enough in their political ideologies to draw a distinction. Obviously I'm not saying they're a member of a political group originating in 1930s Germany, but when someone calls someone else a "Nazi" colloquially, that's not what they mean either. > b) Even if they were, you have no way of knowing how this rule will be applied. So we shouldn't have rules because they can be misapplied? > Would you consider the Charlottesville incident "mainstream", or common enough (and manifest in some form on Facebook) that Facebook must police user-posted content on its site? Yes? Or what of Christchurch? Or the Quebec City mosque shooting? Or the Pittsburgh synagogue shooting? These incidents (and the literal dozens more like them) received tons of mainstream news coverage and the perpetrators 100% subscribed to white nationalist views, exactly the kind which Facebook seeks to deplatform. They believe that by removing these people from their site they might reduce incidents of these shootings. Do you think they're wrong? What amount of violence needs to happen connected to one ideology for Facebook to ban said ideology? Facebook has banned child pornography, doxxing, and pro-ISIS content from their platform too. How much of that has to be posted before a ban is justified? You can not like that Facebook can make decisions like this, but it is entirely their right to choose what to platform. If you don't like it, you can make your own platform. That it doesn't have the audience Facebook does is your problem, not Facebook's.
- mistermann 8y ago
  > Indeed they are! Or at least there's no difference meaningful enough in their political ideologies to draw a distinction. Is that so? The Nazis were a large, organized group with a distinct leader, a fairly specific shared ideology, and track record of action - you would have us believe the same is true (no meaningful difference) of modern day white nationalists? And that there's evidence of this? > but when someone calls someone else a "Nazi" colloquially, that's not what they mean either col·lo·qui·al·ly adverb: colloquially in the language of ordinary or familiar conversation; informally. This is what I mean about the common misuse of the words "literal", "Nazi", "alt-right", and in my mind this excuse is similar in quality to the "I'm not really racist, I have black friends" argument. Have you ever stopped to consider if this type of "dog whistling" is contributing to the problem in any way? Do you care? > So we shouldn't have rules because they can be misapplied? Your words, not mine. The question was "Are "literal" nazis only who this new rule will be applied to?". Have you no concern for possible second order effects of poorly thought out and biased censorship? And when I say censorship, I'm not referring to the First Amendment. > Yes? Or what of Christchurch? Or the Quebec City mosque shooting? Or the Pittsburgh synagogue shooting? For every single "white nationalist" incident you cite, I can cite several similar racially/religiously motivated crimes committed by non-white people. If the incidents are the problem, why is the enforcement (and news coverage) racially biased? > These incidents (and the literal dozens more like them) received tons of mainstream news coverage The coverage was mainstream, but is this behavior or these beliefs mainstream/common? How sure are you that these incidents are caused by incitement on social media? Have you ever considered that both the incidents themselves as well as the increase in "dog-whistling" propaganda on social media (I've yet to see examples of advocating violence) might both be effects of something else? Do you care? > and the perpetrators 100% subscribed to white nationalist views, exactly the kind which Facebook seeks to deplatform. Is that so, or might that only be what you presumed or were told? I haven't read the whole manifesto, but this fellow seemed to have much more complex and nuanced beliefs than those held by "100%" of "white nationalists". I assume this is a "white nationalist" propaganda site of some sort, but to me the actual words of what this madman wrote are what actually matters, not who publishes them: https://www.thenewamerican.com/world-news/europe/item/31759-christchurch-shooter-praises-communist-china-condemns-conservatism-and-capitalism-media-call-him-a-trump-supporter https://www.thenewamerican.com/world-news/europe/item/31759-... Is what's written there mainstream white nationalist views? Personally, I have absolutely no idea, so I'm willing to consider any evidence you have supporting that idea. > They believe that by removing these people from their site they might reduce incidents of these shootings. Do you think they're wrong? They might be right, they might be wrong, unlike you I make no claim to know. What if they are wrong, and censorship aggravates these already mentally unbalanced people even more, driving them to organize (perhaps in the physical world) underground where it's difficult to see what they're up to or thinking? Is this worth considering when setting policy? > What amount of violence needs to happen connected to one ideology for Facebook to ban said ideology? Then we should be banning a lot more speech. > You can not like that Facebook can make decisions like this, but it is entirely their right to choose what to platform. I believe free speech is crucially important, and any curtailment should be carefully and logically considered, including a healthy discussion before any decisions are made. In this case, I can envision a plausible scenario where it makes the problem even worse. > If you don't like it, you can make your own platform. Again, there is a distinct difference between the First Amendment and the general principle of free speech. That so few people consider this important seems risky to me. I suspect this type of attitude is in no small part what got Donald Trump elected. > That it doesn't have the audience Facebook does is your problem, not Facebook's. And if social engineers like you are miscalculating, if you underestimate the complexity of sociology and human psychology, it might be all of our problem. For the sake of improving the quality of discourse, can you sense any legitimate concerns in what I'm saying, or do I seem to you like yet another ignorant racist, little different than those who might frequent Charlottesville rallies?