4 ms·

> 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 no

> 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?
- Veraticus 8y ago
  > common misuse of the words "literal", "Nazi", "alt-right" It's not misuse if it's common usage, it's simply usage you disagree with. Obviously when people say "Nazi" they don't mean "members of a 1930s political party," they're making a statement about something else. If you find the usage of these words confusing that's on you, not the words or the people using them. > Have you no concern for possible second order effects of poorly thought out and biased censorship? Not particularly: if those things happen, let's protest those instead of wringing our hands and worrying about the poor slippery slope. > And when I say censorship, I'm not referring to the First Amendment. Deplatforming is not censorship. You are not guaranteed an audience for your speech. White nationalists can still say whatever they want, and they can even say it legally. But they can't say it on Facebook, and it's not Facebook's responsibility to let them any more than it is to let pro-ISIS people post their content. > If the incidents are the problem, why is the enforcement (and news coverage) racially biased? This is irrelevant to the discussion at best and disingenuous at worst. Facebook can ban multiple kinds of content, including pro-ISIS content (and it does). White nationalism being banned is what we're discussing here. > How sure are you that these incidents are caused by incitement on social media? I believe that social media is helping incite these incidents, so I do legitimately believe the amount of people participating in hate crimes will be reduced as a result of this. Do you really think that people aren't radicalized by communities on the Internet? Communities that might exist on Facebook? Of course, I also think it doesn't matter if that's true or not. No discourse of value is being lost by banning white nationalism, and Facebook already bans a plethora of other (totally legal) content because they don't think is appropriate on their platform. If you want to read white nationalist speech, it still exists. This merely means you can't read it on Facebook anymore. How this is a tragedy I simply cannot understand. > Is that so, or might that only be what you presumed or were told? Yes, it's so. Read the manifesto. > Is this worth considering when setting policy? No. People can (and will) do anything in response to anything; maybe white nationalist groups will make Zuck their #1 enemy over this. You can't control the actions of other people, especially crazy people, so catering your policies to them seems absurd. > 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? I don't really see many legitimate concerns arising from banning white nationalism from Facebook. As I've said multiple times, Facebook already bans other kinds of speech they disagree with. I get defending free speech is a thing, but Facebook is not the government and they can ban whatever speech they like. They don't control the entire Internet or even a majority of it, and they can't prevent you from hosting your content somewhere else, so... I just don't see what's being lost here, except white nationalist content on Facebook. And even if they do go ahead and decide to ban other content, I mean, A) let's cross that bridge if we come to it and B) who cares? It's just Facebook, they don't control the entire Internet. Make another site if you want to discuss what they deplatform.

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?

Veraticus 8y ago
> common misuse of the words "literal", "Nazi", "alt-right" It's not misuse if it's common usage, it's simply usage you disagree with. Obviously when people say "Nazi" they don't mean "members of a 1930s political party," they're making a statement about something else. If you find the usage of these words confusing that's on you, not the words or the people using them. > Have you no concern for possible second order effects of poorly thought out and biased censorship? Not particularly: if those things happen, let's protest those instead of wringing our hands and worrying about the poor slippery slope. > And when I say censorship, I'm not referring to the First Amendment. Deplatforming is not censorship. You are not guaranteed an audience for your speech. White nationalists can still say whatever they want, and they can even say it legally. But they can't say it on Facebook, and it's not Facebook's responsibility to let them any more than it is to let pro-ISIS people post their content. > If the incidents are the problem, why is the enforcement (and news coverage) racially biased? This is irrelevant to the discussion at best and disingenuous at worst. Facebook can ban multiple kinds of content, including pro-ISIS content (and it does). White nationalism being banned is what we're discussing here. > How sure are you that these incidents are caused by incitement on social media? I believe that social media is helping incite these incidents, so I do legitimately believe the amount of people participating in hate crimes will be reduced as a result of this. Do you really think that people aren't radicalized by communities on the Internet? Communities that might exist on Facebook? Of course, I also think it doesn't matter if that's true or not. No discourse of value is being lost by banning white nationalism, and Facebook already bans a plethora of other (totally legal) content because they don't think is appropriate on their platform. If you want to read white nationalist speech, it still exists. This merely means you can't read it on Facebook anymore. How this is a tragedy I simply cannot understand. > Is that so, or might that only be what you presumed or were told? Yes, it's so. Read the manifesto. > Is this worth considering when setting policy? No. People can (and will) do anything in response to anything; maybe white nationalist groups will make Zuck their #1 enemy over this. You can't control the actions of other people, especially crazy people, so catering your policies to them seems absurd. > 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? I don't really see many legitimate concerns arising from banning white nationalism from Facebook. As I've said multiple times, Facebook already bans other kinds of speech they disagree with. I get defending free speech is a thing, but Facebook is not the government and they can ban whatever speech they like. They don't control the entire Internet or even a majority of it, and they can't prevent you from hosting your content somewhere else, so... I just don't see what's being lost here, except white nationalist content on Facebook. And even if they do go ahead and decide to ban other content, I mean, A) let's cross that bridge if we come to it and B) who cares? It's just Facebook, they don't control the entire Internet. Make another site if you want to discuss what they deplatform.