29 ms·

In principle, who could be opposed? In practice, how will this actually work out? True story. I have a friend who got a temporary ban from Facebook (I think

by btilly 8y ago

In principle, who could be opposed? In practice, how will this actually work out? True story. I have a friend who got a temporary ban from Facebook (I think 90 days?) for commenting on a story about a Texas billionaire paying to hunt endangered animals, "How much would it cost to hunt Texas billionaires?" That was considered a violation of their anti-bullying stance. Knowing her, it wasn't. It was sarcasm. Moving on to this policy, I'm happy to see neonazis and the KKK have a hard time. But there are people in the UK and EU who would see Brexit as being a separatist cause motivated by racial animosity. Will we see discussion of a future such measure banned by Facebook on such grounds? And remaining banned even for people who support it on economic grounds because they think that having to follow EU policies on GDPR, copyright, and so on will be a net negative for the UK? Facebook is going to have some difficult conversations ahead. And the more of these lines that they draw, the more difficult boundary cases they will run into.

Veraticus 8y ago
Because Facebook can misapply its policies does not mean it should have no policies, it merely means it should implement them better. Obviously there are other kinds of content that Facebook could ban, but merely because those things exist doesn't mean this shouldn't also be banned.
- KerryJones 8y ago
  "it merely means it should implement them better" this is the theory of every government committee, ever. In practice, generally, _it doesn't happen_. I believe private companies are usually better, but still highly dependant on size and a number of other factors. I definitely don't have faith that FB will wield this well, and the worse part is it will probably pretty hard to find out from the silenced parties when they f!@# up until much later.
- SlowRobotAhead 8y ago
  No, it means that while you can cheer this decision today, how do you know it won’t be used against you in the future? Or if the decision maker sensed your intentions or sarcasm or if you don’t beleive your speech to be hateful but someone else does. The whole point of defending speech you don’t agree with is it promises that arbitrary rules won’t be used when YOUR speech runs afoul or someone else’s feelings. Let me phrase it to you like this... if Mark Zuckerburg who you may generally agree with leaves Facebook and is replaced by let’s say Donald Trump and his assistant Mike Pence; do you still think it should be Facebook as a service provider’s policy to gauge what offensive speech is? Maybe it’s not Facebook’s job to ban legal things you personally don’t agree with.
  - Veraticus 8y ago
    > No, it means that while you can cheer this decision today, how do you know it won’t be used against you in the future? Because I'm not a white nationalist? Facebook already bans child pornography, pro-ISIS content, and doxxing. Does anyone seriously believe that Facebook is slippery sloping to banning all speech? But let's say that Trump and Pence do indeed take over Facebook and make it so they ban all users that don't loudly praise Trump. If they do, honestly, so what? Facebook can't imprison you or legally remove your property. The worst they can do is ban you from their platform. Which, well, that sucks, but there's lots of sites on the Internet. In fact, you could go ahead and legally make a non-censorship Facebook. ...of course, sites like that already exist, in this world, not in the Trump/Pence Facebook world. And they're dominated by child pornography, white nationalism, and doxxing. No one at large uses them because they're horribly toxic and disgusting. Almost like some rules about content are actually helpful for sites on the Internet.
    - SlowRobotAhead 8y ago
      It seems you and I go to different websites; and I’m quite happy about that. But I beleive my comment said legal things. Having a different opinion is still legal, for now. You jumped to all sorts of illegal things. And my context was what if “the bad people” are suddenly running these services or in positions of power and relative to them, you are the one with hate speech? Perhaps it shouldn’t be up to them, or you, or anyone to police what someone else MIGHT find offensive.
      - Veraticus 8y ago
        Pro-ISIS speech isn't illegal but it's still banned. Pornography isn't illegal but it's still banned. So the legality argument here isn't particularly compelling. > Perhaps it shouldn’t be up to them, or you, or anyone to police what someone else MIGHT find offensive. You have got to be kidding. If it's on a platform I control I can make any kind of legal judgments about the content I find acceptable. And if you're banned, again, so what? Facebook is not a government or even a government-adjacent entity: I have no right to participate on the site, and they have no obligation to platform my speech.
- carnagii 8y ago
  why not just have their policy be the first amendment and they abide by the same rules as the country that created them? Why should corporations take on censorship powers that are prohibited for the government? Why should a private for-profit corporation controlled by one man have more power than a transparent institution controlled by democracy?
  - BalinKing 8y ago
    I think the standard answer is that corporations are less restricted because they are not able to enact those policies through force. The government can fine you, imprison you, etc. regardless of what you think; however, you don't have to use Facebook in the first place.
    - carnagii 8y ago
      that is the default answer but there comes a point when you have to reconsider it in light of the facts of a particular situation. Take email for instance: first class mail is protected by the 5th amendment, and a warrant is required to open and read first class mail. Move communications to a private digital platform and the presumption of privacy is completely flipped into a presumption that all your emails will be read and stored for future reading. When all communications go online that leads to a very significant change in how the law applies to private communications and that is exploited by the government just as much as it is exploited by the corporations. After many years of there being a free-for-all where law enforcement and intelligence claimed they could view anything online without a warrant there was finally some push back by courts to reassert the rule of law, but email still has substantially less privacy than first class mail. Speech on public forums is a similar case. The 1st amendment applies to the town square but if a corporation creates a digital town square then it gets the right of censorship. Then the government applies pressure on the corporation to censor on their behalf and the government begins to exercise a power it did not previously have. That was not a problem when online platforms were small and inconsequential, but when they grow to billions of users globally, then the power to censor speech on those platforms becomes quite influential on the exercise of real world power. Corporations do not have police powers but they are subjects of governments that do, so once they get power they can always be made tools of the people that hold power over them.
smileysteve 8y ago
> That was considered a violation of their anti-bullying stance. Knowing her, it wasn't. It was sarcasm. That line is grey and I'd argue that your friend's comment, while obviously hyperbole, does not respect human life. There was an article posted about cyclists that points out the danger ous dehumanizing others; that comedy / hyperbole help group think achieve it.
- 6nf 8y ago
  So we are banning jokes now?
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - chillacy 8y ago
    Just the unfunny ones
  - Simon_says 8y ago
    Of course we are. Where have you been the last 5 years?
  - alangpierce 8y ago
    I think it's pretty reasonable to ban jokes about killing people. Maybe it was an overreaction here, but I certainly try to avoid even jokingly saying things that could be interpreted as a death threat if taken seriously, especially on the internet where it's easy for tone and context to get lost.
debacle 8y ago
In principle, Facebook has never branded itself a bastion of free speech. In practice, we've seen a lot of examples across YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter where things are blanket deplatformed under the guise of policies like these, and it's concerning. One thing is for certain - Facebook can't possibly do a worse job than YouTube has at policing content.
- ethbro 8y ago
  If only Facebook focused its products on encrypted, private conversations, they wouldn't have to worry about / could claim to be incapable of policing content...
  - hkt 8y ago
    I promise you, people would still want to police communications like the kind that are being discussed here.
staticvar 8y ago
> Knowing her, it wasn't. It was sarcasm. Did she know that the person she directed that comment to did not know her?
- btilly 8y ago
  Define "directed that comment to". I am quite sure that Texas billionaire Lacy Harber does not know her. I am also quite sure that the person who shared the post she replied to about his hunting an endangered black rhino did know her. It would also be a safe bet that some friends of friends who saw that comment did not know her. I would say that she "directed that comment to" the second. It is impossible to tell who reported her, or what they thought.
  - TheSpiceIsLife 8y ago
    > It is impossible to tell who reported her, or what they thought. Wouldn't Facebook know these things? Under what circumstances do we have a right to confront our accusers?
    - btilly 8y ago
      The whole point of an anonymous complaint system is to allow accusers who might be intimidated by the idea of confronting you to have a way to get their concerns met. Which means that anyone who has created an anonymous complaint system has traded off your right to confront an accuser with the accuser's right to not be intimidated and decided in favor of the accuser. However there is usually another counterbalance, such as having the accusation silently disappear unless a neutral third party thinks that there is a point to the accusation.
- jjeaff 8y ago
  You don't have to know anyone to read that comment as satire. I suppose Facebook would also have banned Johnathan Swift for his "Modest Proposal". https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Modest_Proposal https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Modest_Proposal
sandov 8y ago
How much would it cost to hunt [insert group of people here]? Even if someone commented that as "sarcasm" it would look pretty bully to me.
- ams6110 8y ago
  Nope. You misunderstand what bullying is. You can't bully an abstract group.
daveFNbuck 8y ago
Sarcasm and bullying aren't mutually exclusive.
- DavidSJ 8y ago
  Indeed. In fact, it's a rare bully who won't protest that they're "only kidding!" whenever they're called on their bullying. And in their mind, they probably were only kidding.
walshemj 8y ago
Or say some Spanish politicians comments re Gibralter basically right wing nationalists who want use Brexit as excuse to annex Gibraltar.
chrisseaton 8y ago
> That was considered a violation of their anti-bullying stance. Knowing her, it wasn't. It was sarcasm. That's what bullies usually say when you confront them.
- ams6110 8y ago
  A one off joke, or even mean remark, is not bullying.
  - chrisseaton 8y ago
    Why should we tolerate any mean remarks at all?
waffleguy 8y ago
“Joking” about murder or gun violence should be banned. To use satire to critic hunting when gun violence is a bigger issue is tone deaf.
- ams6110 8y ago
  That's really a perfect time to use satire.
  - waffleguy 8y ago
    If people weren’t shooting up schools and places of worship every other week... still no. It’s still callous.
refurb 8y ago
Until there are objective, rationale ways to determine what content to ban and what not to ban i’d prefer that we stay clear of using filter based on “I know it when I see it”.
- chillacy 8y ago
  If we did that with pornography we'd still be swimming in porno ads.
pvg 8y ago
In principle, who could be opposed? In practice, how will this actually work out? We've had Nazis and Klansmen effectively shut out of public discourse for decades. They aren't on TV. Their ads don't run in newspapers. If you go shopping in a pointy white hood and a swastika armband, the store (or the shoppers, more insistently) will likely ask you to leave. Facebook (and similar) are the ones with the odd new 'principle' thing they tried which is 'it's ok for the hyper-overt bigots to shit everywhere with no consequences'. In practice, it has not worked out well so they are belatedly changing it.
godshatter 8y ago
In principle, I am opposed. I don't think hiding unwanted dialogue is very helpful in the long run. It just makes it fester somewhere else that isn't as visible. If Facebook feels they have to do something about it, then I'd suggest just flagging it. That gives people more information that they can use how ever they see fit. There is also the thought of collateral damage, like your friend ran into. I also oppose it on general grounds in that I'm a big proponent of freedom of expression. Facebook can do what they want, we're not talking about the government here and I understand that, but I would rather they didn't go this route. I don't want to live in a society where what can and can't be said is strictly regulated either by force or by general consent. I seem to be one of the few that feels that way, though, any more. There is also the practical concern of what happens if the ideas of what is acceptable and what isn't changes over time? Who knows which opinions that you hold now might become anathema at a later date. For example, the opinion I'm expressing now used to be a lot more common than it is today.
- skosch 8y ago
  > It just makes it fester somewhere else that isn't as visible. Is that true? Would we have the anti-vax movement if it weren't for Facebook & co.?
  - leereeves 8y ago
    We had the anti-vax movement before Facebook. And if it were banned, they'd just spin it as the pharma companies paying to suppress the truth. It would only further confirm their beliefs.
    - Faark 8y ago
      That "spotlight is the best disinfectant" is a very convenient narrative. I do realize in the end we all want to believe in whatever is convenient for us (notably including anti vaxxers). But is there actual scientific evidence supporting that particular narrative to work? Through all of mankind we had strong mechanisms to form consensus, including social repercussions. Those don't work anymore, since what would have become outcasts in earlier generations can now easily (for example on facebook) find like-minded communities and fulfill their social needs/get approval/etc. It'll be interesting in how different realities people can believe in before society breaks apart. I'd prefer we wont let that happen. The question is what actually works. Censoring them might reinforce their believe, but I can accept giving up on some if it does effectively stops the spread.
finnthehuman 8y ago
> In principle, who could be opposed? Ends vs. means, buddy. Ends vs means. Every single political topic on HN seems to be arguments between people who can't separate the two, and those who do.
anbotero 8y ago
Blegh, the worst is coming in here and reading people criticizing and outright banning the use of sarcasm, or implying that they know your friend better than you and that she definitely literally meant what she said. This is the end of freedom and, along with Europe decisions recently, the beginning of all the worst dystopias we have already listened/read/watched about.
- BurningFrog 8y ago
  I don't like recent trends either, but you really need to read more.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
amalcon 8y ago
From the release: > Our own review of hate figures and organizations – as defined by our Dangerous Individuals & Organizations policy – further revealed the overlap between white nationalism and separatism and white supremacy. It doesn't appear that this content is being banned because Facebook surrogates find the politics in question abhorrent (though they likely do so find). It is being banned because it is acting as part of a recruitment funnel for an ideology that openly advocates violence. They collected evidence of this before acting. The line is somewhat blurry, but it does exist. On one side, we have a sensible use of editorial discretion; on the other, we have censorship. Is Facebook going to cross the line at some point? Almost certainly. Basically every individual or entity to have editorial discretion has both made mistakes and abused that power. It remains to be seen to what extent that will happen here. If anything, they've erred on the side of permissiveness so far (e.g. how long it took to ban ISIS). If that changes, we should call them out at that time.
- HereIGoAgain 8y ago
  People don't seem to understand what's really being talked about here. That's not what they are arguing. They are literally claiming merely a "gateway drug" like effect, not actual recruitment. (also see propaganda terms like "dog whistle") Those pushing this are the same type of people who have continuously been attacking any public person to the right of left-center, trying to get them deplatformed. FB is listening to and referencing the type of people who either can't or refuse to distinguish between things like legal and illegal immigration. You know the kind, people who call anyone who does, a racist! The argument being pushed here (whether they themselves understand it or not) is basically that "seeing something a little bit to the right > leads a little more to the right > then even more to the right > NAZI!" Which hilariously is a concept born almost exclusively out of modern leftist and current "_blank_ studies" thought/ideology. It's literally taking the left's (one side's) word on who should be allowed to speak! This isn't a slippery slope, but just the next level of "dangerous" speech in need of silencing. I'll also add, If this logic is true and enforced, then it's time to seriously start having a talk about leftist speech because it too must "clearly" be a gateway to worse things like socialism or even communism. (only some of the most oppressively totalitarian and authoritarian, not to mention murderously deadly, ideologies in all of human history!) Ideologies that curiously also happen to be widely tolerated and accepted in the very same places as the people demanding censorship here.
chrononaut 8y ago
Corporations and organizations always had the ability to police their content to their own desires. A more interesting question is when does that become perhaps ethically wrong; Are people against the big companies policing content _in general_ (and thus likely against the first statement), or at people against the big companies policing content that violates popular definition of free speech once they reach a certain size? I mean, we're discussing this topic on a site that highly polices content, albeit in one that does in different ways, but such different ways that it attracts the very commenters in this thread to read and respond to content rather than visiting other sites -- or any at all.
arp242 8y ago
> Moving on to this policy, I'm happy to see neonazis and the KKK have a hard time. But there are people in the UK and EU who would see Brexit as being a separatist cause motivated by racial animosity. No one is confused about the difference between "I want to kill all Jews" and "I think the British economy would be better off with fewer Polish plumbers". > And remaining banned even for people who support it on economic grounds because they think that having to follow EU policies on GDPR, copyright, and so on will be a net negative for the UK? This is a non-issue and just scaremongering, not all that different from "they allow sex with children next!" from the anti-gay idiots (no one is confused between gay rights and "pedo rights").
- HereIGoAgain 8y ago
  >No one is confused about the difference between "I want to kill all Jews" and "I think the British economy would be better off with fewer Polish plumbers". You clearly haven't been paying attention to modern day discourse over issues like illegal immigration and such. If you listened to some people (unironically the same people pushing for stuff like this) having an issue with illegal immigration is basically treated like a confession to guilt. And that's even ignoring some of the newer types of arguments they are making.. That merely holding an opinion that could be seen (solely determined by them) as problematic or a "whistle" (in effect anything to the right of left-of-center or non-PC) and thus a "gateway to extremism". So "hate speech" needing to be banned next.
  - arp242 8y ago
    I have been paying a great deal of attention, and it turns out that there is more than an insignificant overlap between actual "kill all Jews" Nazis and regular anti-immigration crowd. Furthermore, as soon as the literal neo-Nazis get criticized the anti-immigration crowd either outright jumps to their defence or shrugs any concerns of. Trump's "very fine people" remark is a good example of that, or a recent article which "proved" anti-conservative bias on Twitter by pointing out that people like David Duke (former KKK grand wizard) or Richard Spencer (literal neo-Nazi who wants to forcibly eject all Jews and Blacks from US) got banned from Twitter.[1] So, if you don't want to be treated like a duck, then don't walk and quack like one. How else am I supposed to interpret an article defending literal neo-Nazis as "Conservatives treated harshly on Twitter"? Look at the data that is presented[2], it literally includes the the American Nazi Party. Now, if you want to make the argument that we should allow these people because "muh free peach" then okay, but read that article again, it just talks about "Conservatives" and "Trump supporters" (aside: there are other problems with this "study" as well, such as not including various Liberal accounts that were banned for unstated reasons). I also agree that sometimes anti-immigration views are brushed aside as "racist" far too quickly, and it annoys me as well. But this kind of confusion is a bed of your own making. I am not as pro-immigration as you'd might think based on the above, I think there are some real problems caused by both legal and illegal immigration, and that they should be addressed. But it's plenty evident that the anti-immigration right has long since been infested by some very nasty people, which is doing a great disservice to anyone else, especially those with anti-immigration views. I suggest you first take so effort to purge the toxicity before complaining about "PC". [1]: https://quillette.com/2019/02/12/it-isnt-your-imagination-twitter-treats-conservatives-more-harshly-than-liberals/ https://quillette.com/2019/02/12/it-isnt-your-imagination-tw... [2]: https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/88a74d_d231bdbfb13c4b9ab7742204fa736d29.xlsx?dn=Censorship%2C%20Data.2.14.19.xlsx https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/88a74d_d231bdbfb13c4b9ab77422...
paulddraper 8y ago
> In principle, who could be opposed? I am opposed in principle. White nationalism (or black nationalism, or yellow nationalism) should be able to speak on a social platform like Facebook.
antpls 8y ago
Seriously tho, how much would it cost to hunt Texas billionaires? And world billionaires?

by btilly 8y ago

Veraticus 8y ago

Because Facebook can misapply its policies does not mean it should have no policies, it merely means it should implement them better. Obviously there are other kinds of content that Facebook could ban, but merely because those things exist doesn't mean this shouldn't also be banned.

KerryJones 8y ago
"it merely means it should implement them better" this is the theory of every government committee, ever. In practice, generally, _it doesn't happen_. I believe private companies are usually better, but still highly dependant on size and a number of other factors. I definitely don't have faith that FB will wield this well, and the worse part is it will probably pretty hard to find out from the silenced parties when they f!@# up until much later.
SlowRobotAhead 8y ago
No, it means that while you can cheer this decision today, how do you know it won’t be used against you in the future? Or if the decision maker sensed your intentions or sarcasm or if you don’t beleive your speech to be hateful but someone else does. The whole point of defending speech you don’t agree with is it promises that arbitrary rules won’t be used when YOUR speech runs afoul or someone else’s feelings. Let me phrase it to you like this... if Mark Zuckerburg who you may generally agree with leaves Facebook and is replaced by let’s say Donald Trump and his assistant Mike Pence; do you still think it should be Facebook as a service provider’s policy to gauge what offensive speech is? Maybe it’s not Facebook’s job to ban legal things you personally don’t agree with.
- Veraticus 8y ago
  > No, it means that while you can cheer this decision today, how do you know it won’t be used against you in the future? Because I'm not a white nationalist? Facebook already bans child pornography, pro-ISIS content, and doxxing. Does anyone seriously believe that Facebook is slippery sloping to banning all speech? But let's say that Trump and Pence do indeed take over Facebook and make it so they ban all users that don't loudly praise Trump. If they do, honestly, so what? Facebook can't imprison you or legally remove your property. The worst they can do is ban you from their platform. Which, well, that sucks, but there's lots of sites on the Internet. In fact, you could go ahead and legally make a non-censorship Facebook. ...of course, sites like that already exist, in this world, not in the Trump/Pence Facebook world. And they're dominated by child pornography, white nationalism, and doxxing. No one at large uses them because they're horribly toxic and disgusting. Almost like some rules about content are actually helpful for sites on the Internet.
  - SlowRobotAhead 8y ago
    It seems you and I go to different websites; and I’m quite happy about that. But I beleive my comment said legal things. Having a different opinion is still legal, for now. You jumped to all sorts of illegal things. And my context was what if “the bad people” are suddenly running these services or in positions of power and relative to them, you are the one with hate speech? Perhaps it shouldn’t be up to them, or you, or anyone to police what someone else MIGHT find offensive.
    - Veraticus 8y ago
      Pro-ISIS speech isn't illegal but it's still banned. Pornography isn't illegal but it's still banned. So the legality argument here isn't particularly compelling. > Perhaps it shouldn’t be up to them, or you, or anyone to police what someone else MIGHT find offensive. You have got to be kidding. If it's on a platform I control I can make any kind of legal judgments about the content I find acceptable. And if you're banned, again, so what? Facebook is not a government or even a government-adjacent entity: I have no right to participate on the site, and they have no obligation to platform my speech.
carnagii 8y ago
why not just have their policy be the first amendment and they abide by the same rules as the country that created them? Why should corporations take on censorship powers that are prohibited for the government? Why should a private for-profit corporation controlled by one man have more power than a transparent institution controlled by democracy?
- BalinKing 8y ago
  I think the standard answer is that corporations are less restricted because they are not able to enact those policies through force. The government can fine you, imprison you, etc. regardless of what you think; however, you don't have to use Facebook in the first place.
  - carnagii 8y ago
    that is the default answer but there comes a point when you have to reconsider it in light of the facts of a particular situation. Take email for instance: first class mail is protected by the 5th amendment, and a warrant is required to open and read first class mail. Move communications to a private digital platform and the presumption of privacy is completely flipped into a presumption that all your emails will be read and stored for future reading. When all communications go online that leads to a very significant change in how the law applies to private communications and that is exploited by the government just as much as it is exploited by the corporations. After many years of there being a free-for-all where law enforcement and intelligence claimed they could view anything online without a warrant there was finally some push back by courts to reassert the rule of law, but email still has substantially less privacy than first class mail. Speech on public forums is a similar case. The 1st amendment applies to the town square but if a corporation creates a digital town square then it gets the right of censorship. Then the government applies pressure on the corporation to censor on their behalf and the government begins to exercise a power it did not previously have. That was not a problem when online platforms were small and inconsequential, but when they grow to billions of users globally, then the power to censor speech on those platforms becomes quite influential on the exercise of real world power. Corporations do not have police powers but they are subjects of governments that do, so once they get power they can always be made tools of the people that hold power over them.

smileysteve 8y ago

> That was considered a violation of their anti-bullying stance. Knowing her, it wasn't. It was sarcasm. That line is grey and I'd argue that your friend's comment, while obviously hyperbole, does not respect human life. There was an article posted about cyclists that points out the danger ous dehumanizing others; that comedy / hyperbole help group think achieve it.

6nf 8y ago
So we are banning jokes now?
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- chillacy 8y ago
  Just the unfunny ones
- Simon_says 8y ago
  Of course we are. Where have you been the last 5 years?
- alangpierce 8y ago
  I think it's pretty reasonable to ban jokes about killing people. Maybe it was an overreaction here, but I certainly try to avoid even jokingly saying things that could be interpreted as a death threat if taken seriously, especially on the internet where it's easy for tone and context to get lost.

debacle 8y ago

In principle, Facebook has never branded itself a bastion of free speech. In practice, we've seen a lot of examples across YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter where things are blanket deplatformed under the guise of policies like these, and it's concerning. One thing is for certain - Facebook can't possibly do a worse job than YouTube has at policing content.

ethbro 8y ago
If only Facebook focused its products on encrypted, private conversations, they wouldn't have to worry about / could claim to be incapable of policing content...
- hkt 8y ago
  I promise you, people would still want to police communications like the kind that are being discussed here.

staticvar 8y ago

> Knowing her, it wasn't. It was sarcasm. Did she know that the person she directed that comment to did not know her?

btilly 8y ago
Define "directed that comment to". I am quite sure that Texas billionaire Lacy Harber does not know her. I am also quite sure that the person who shared the post she replied to about his hunting an endangered black rhino did know her. It would also be a safe bet that some friends of friends who saw that comment did not know her. I would say that she "directed that comment to" the second. It is impossible to tell who reported her, or what they thought.
- TheSpiceIsLife 8y ago
  > It is impossible to tell who reported her, or what they thought. Wouldn't Facebook know these things? Under what circumstances do we have a right to confront our accusers?
  - btilly 8y ago
    The whole point of an anonymous complaint system is to allow accusers who might be intimidated by the idea of confronting you to have a way to get their concerns met. Which means that anyone who has created an anonymous complaint system has traded off your right to confront an accuser with the accuser's right to not be intimidated and decided in favor of the accuser. However there is usually another counterbalance, such as having the accusation silently disappear unless a neutral third party thinks that there is a point to the accusation.
jjeaff 8y ago
You don't have to know anyone to read that comment as satire. I suppose Facebook would also have banned Johnathan Swift for his "Modest Proposal". https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Modest_Proposal https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Modest_Proposal

sandov 8y ago

How much would it cost to hunt [insert group of people here]? Even if someone commented that as "sarcasm" it would look pretty bully to me.

ams6110 8y ago
Nope. You misunderstand what bullying is. You can't bully an abstract group.

daveFNbuck 8y ago

Sarcasm and bullying aren't mutually exclusive.

DavidSJ 8y ago
Indeed. In fact, it's a rare bully who won't protest that they're "only kidding!" whenever they're called on their bullying. And in their mind, they probably were only kidding.

walshemj 8y ago

Or say some Spanish politicians comments re Gibralter basically right wing nationalists who want use Brexit as excuse to annex Gibraltar.

chrisseaton 8y ago

> That was considered a violation of their anti-bullying stance. Knowing her, it wasn't. It was sarcasm. That's what bullies usually say when you confront them.

ams6110 8y ago
A one off joke, or even mean remark, is not bullying.
- chrisseaton 8y ago
  Why should we tolerate any mean remarks at all?

waffleguy 8y ago

“Joking” about murder or gun violence should be banned. To use satire to critic hunting when gun violence is a bigger issue is tone deaf.

ams6110 8y ago
That's really a perfect time to use satire.
- waffleguy 8y ago
  If people weren’t shooting up schools and places of worship every other week... still no. It’s still callous.

refurb 8y ago

Until there are objective, rationale ways to determine what content to ban and what not to ban i’d prefer that we stay clear of using filter based on “I know it when I see it”.

chillacy 8y ago
If we did that with pornography we'd still be swimming in porno ads.

pvg 8y ago

In principle, who could be opposed? In practice, how will this actually work out? We've had Nazis and Klansmen effectively shut out of public discourse for decades. They aren't on TV. Their ads don't run in newspapers. If you go shopping in a pointy white hood and a swastika armband, the store (or the shoppers, more insistently) will likely ask you to leave. Facebook (and similar) are the ones with the odd new 'principle' thing they tried which is 'it's ok for the hyper-overt bigots to shit everywhere with no consequences'. In practice, it has not worked out well so they are belatedly changing it.

godshatter 8y ago

In principle, I am opposed. I don't think hiding unwanted dialogue is very helpful in the long run. It just makes it fester somewhere else that isn't as visible. If Facebook feels they have to do something about it, then I'd suggest just flagging it. That gives people more information that they can use how ever they see fit. There is also the thought of collateral damage, like your friend ran into. I also oppose it on general grounds in that I'm a big proponent of freedom of expression. Facebook can do what they want, we're not talking about the government here and I understand that, but I would rather they didn't go this route. I don't want to live in a society where what can and can't be said is strictly regulated either by force or by general consent. I seem to be one of the few that feels that way, though, any more. There is also the practical concern of what happens if the ideas of what is acceptable and what isn't changes over time? Who knows which opinions that you hold now might become anathema at a later date. For example, the opinion I'm expressing now used to be a lot more common than it is today.

skosch 8y ago
> It just makes it fester somewhere else that isn't as visible. Is that true? Would we have the anti-vax movement if it weren't for Facebook & co.?
- leereeves 8y ago
  We had the anti-vax movement before Facebook. And if it were banned, they'd just spin it as the pharma companies paying to suppress the truth. It would only further confirm their beliefs.
  - Faark 8y ago
    That "spotlight is the best disinfectant" is a very convenient narrative. I do realize in the end we all want to believe in whatever is convenient for us (notably including anti vaxxers). But is there actual scientific evidence supporting that particular narrative to work? Through all of mankind we had strong mechanisms to form consensus, including social repercussions. Those don't work anymore, since what would have become outcasts in earlier generations can now easily (for example on facebook) find like-minded communities and fulfill their social needs/get approval/etc. It'll be interesting in how different realities people can believe in before society breaks apart. I'd prefer we wont let that happen. The question is what actually works. Censoring them might reinforce their believe, but I can accept giving up on some if it does effectively stops the spread.

finnthehuman 8y ago

> In principle, who could be opposed? Ends vs. means, buddy. Ends vs means. Every single political topic on HN seems to be arguments between people who can't separate the two, and those who do.

anbotero 8y ago

Blegh, the worst is coming in here and reading people criticizing and outright banning the use of sarcasm, or implying that they know your friend better than you and that she definitely literally meant what she said. This is the end of freedom and, along with Europe decisions recently, the beginning of all the worst dystopias we have already listened/read/watched about.

BurningFrog 8y ago
I don't like recent trends either, but you really need to read more.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]

amalcon 8y ago

From the release: > Our own review of hate figures and organizations – as defined by our Dangerous Individuals & Organizations policy – further revealed the overlap between white nationalism and separatism and white supremacy. It doesn't appear that this content is being banned because Facebook surrogates find the politics in question abhorrent (though they likely do so find). It is being banned because it is acting as part of a recruitment funnel for an ideology that openly advocates violence. They collected evidence of this before acting. The line is somewhat blurry, but it does exist. On one side, we have a sensible use of editorial discretion; on the other, we have censorship. Is Facebook going to cross the line at some point? Almost certainly. Basically every individual or entity to have editorial discretion has both made mistakes and abused that power. It remains to be seen to what extent that will happen here. If anything, they've erred on the side of permissiveness so far (e.g. how long it took to ban ISIS). If that changes, we should call them out at that time.

HereIGoAgain 8y ago
People don't seem to understand what's really being talked about here. That's not what they are arguing. They are literally claiming merely a "gateway drug" like effect, not actual recruitment. (also see propaganda terms like "dog whistle") Those pushing this are the same type of people who have continuously been attacking any public person to the right of left-center, trying to get them deplatformed. FB is listening to and referencing the type of people who either can't or refuse to distinguish between things like legal and illegal immigration. You know the kind, people who call anyone who does, a racist! The argument being pushed here (whether they themselves understand it or not) is basically that "seeing something a little bit to the right > leads a little more to the right > then even more to the right > NAZI!" Which hilariously is a concept born almost exclusively out of modern leftist and current "_blank_ studies" thought/ideology. It's literally taking the left's (one side's) word on who should be allowed to speak! This isn't a slippery slope, but just the next level of "dangerous" speech in need of silencing. I'll also add, If this logic is true and enforced, then it's time to seriously start having a talk about leftist speech because it too must "clearly" be a gateway to worse things like socialism or even communism. (only some of the most oppressively totalitarian and authoritarian, not to mention murderously deadly, ideologies in all of human history!) Ideologies that curiously also happen to be widely tolerated and accepted in the very same places as the people demanding censorship here.

chrononaut 8y ago

Corporations and organizations always had the ability to police their content to their own desires. A more interesting question is when does that become perhaps ethically wrong; Are people against the big companies policing content _in general_ (and thus likely against the first statement), or at people against the big companies policing content that violates popular definition of free speech once they reach a certain size? I mean, we're discussing this topic on a site that highly polices content, albeit in one that does in different ways, but such different ways that it attracts the very commenters in this thread to read and respond to content rather than visiting other sites -- or any at all.

arp242 8y ago

> Moving on to this policy, I'm happy to see neonazis and the KKK have a hard time. But there are people in the UK and EU who would see Brexit as being a separatist cause motivated by racial animosity. No one is confused about the difference between "I want to kill all Jews" and "I think the British economy would be better off with fewer Polish plumbers". > And remaining banned even for people who support it on economic grounds because they think that having to follow EU policies on GDPR, copyright, and so on will be a net negative for the UK? This is a non-issue and just scaremongering, not all that different from "they allow sex with children next!" from the anti-gay idiots (no one is confused between gay rights and "pedo rights").

HereIGoAgain 8y ago
>No one is confused about the difference between "I want to kill all Jews" and "I think the British economy would be better off with fewer Polish plumbers". You clearly haven't been paying attention to modern day discourse over issues like illegal immigration and such. If you listened to some people (unironically the same people pushing for stuff like this) having an issue with illegal immigration is basically treated like a confession to guilt. And that's even ignoring some of the newer types of arguments they are making.. That merely holding an opinion that could be seen (solely determined by them) as problematic or a "whistle" (in effect anything to the right of left-of-center or non-PC) and thus a "gateway to extremism". So "hate speech" needing to be banned next.
- arp242 8y ago
  I have been paying a great deal of attention, and it turns out that there is more than an insignificant overlap between actual "kill all Jews" Nazis and regular anti-immigration crowd. Furthermore, as soon as the literal neo-Nazis get criticized the anti-immigration crowd either outright jumps to their defence or shrugs any concerns of. Trump's "very fine people" remark is a good example of that, or a recent article which "proved" anti-conservative bias on Twitter by pointing out that people like David Duke (former KKK grand wizard) or Richard Spencer (literal neo-Nazi who wants to forcibly eject all Jews and Blacks from US) got banned from Twitter.[1] So, if you don't want to be treated like a duck, then don't walk and quack like one. How else am I supposed to interpret an article defending literal neo-Nazis as "Conservatives treated harshly on Twitter"? Look at the data that is presented[2], it literally includes the the American Nazi Party. Now, if you want to make the argument that we should allow these people because "muh free peach" then okay, but read that article again, it just talks about "Conservatives" and "Trump supporters" (aside: there are other problems with this "study" as well, such as not including various Liberal accounts that were banned for unstated reasons). I also agree that sometimes anti-immigration views are brushed aside as "racist" far too quickly, and it annoys me as well. But this kind of confusion is a bed of your own making. I am not as pro-immigration as you'd might think based on the above, I think there are some real problems caused by both legal and illegal immigration, and that they should be addressed. But it's plenty evident that the anti-immigration right has long since been infested by some very nasty people, which is doing a great disservice to anyone else, especially those with anti-immigration views. I suggest you first take so effort to purge the toxicity before complaining about "PC". [1]: https://quillette.com/2019/02/12/it-isnt-your-imagination-twitter-treats-conservatives-more-harshly-than-liberals/ https://quillette.com/2019/02/12/it-isnt-your-imagination-tw... [2]: https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/88a74d_d231bdbfb13c4b9ab7742204fa736d29.xlsx?dn=Censorship%2C%20Data.2.14.19.xlsx https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/88a74d_d231bdbfb13c4b9ab77422...

paulddraper 8y ago

> In principle, who could be opposed? I am opposed in principle. White nationalism (or black nationalism, or yellow nationalism) should be able to speak on a social platform like Facebook.

antpls 8y ago

Seriously tho, how much would it cost to hunt Texas billionaires? And world billionaires?