5 ms·

From the release: > Our own review of hate figures and organizations – as defined by our Dangerous Individuals & Organizations policy – further revealed the ov

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.
- nl 8y ago
  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!" But it's not at all! Viewing racism as a left/right thing is wrong altogether. While it isn't obvious in US politics today, the left has often had a problem with race too. Racism should be abhorrent to both left and right, and that should be independent of immigration views. Which hilariously is a concept born almost exclusively out of modern leftist and current "_blank_ studies" thought/ideology. Well actually Facebook has data showing this, so I don't think that's correct.
int_19h 8y ago
> It is being banned because it is acting as part of a recruitment funnel for an ideology that openly advocates violence. That would be believable, if it was applied as such across the board - e.g. also removing Christian Dominionists, Stalinists, Salafi Muslims, NoI etc.
- laughinghan 8y ago
  I don't know about Salafi Muslims specifically, but Facebook already does censor radical Islamist groups like ISIS. This move is trying to be more across-the-board by including white supremacy under more of its aliases. As for the others--when's the last time a Stalinist drove a car into a crowd or committed a mass shooting?
- nl 8y ago
  Facebook already deplatforms radical Islamic preachers on a regular basis. I doubt that have enough data to show the links for the other groups.
  - cannedslime 8y ago
    Are you sure about that? Try searching for "الموت للغرب" on facebook (Death to the west)
    - nl 8y ago
      Yes. https://www.cnbc.com/2018/08/20/social-media-sites-may-only-get-one-hour-to-remove-terror-content.html https://www.cnbc.com/2018/08/20/social-media-sites-may-only-... https://techcrunch.com/2018/11/08/facebook-removed-14-million-pieces-of-terrorist-content-this-year-and-the-numbers-are-rising/ https://techcrunch.com/2018/11/08/facebook-removed-14-millio...
      - int_19h 8y ago
        This is "terror content" though, not the ideology behind it. I tried looking around, and there are plenty of pages preaching the ideology. It sounds like they're okay so long as they don't directly call for violence, showcase violence (execution videos etc), or try to recruit for either of those, even though the end goals are inherently violent. Most white supremacist content is similar in that regard.

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.

nl 8y ago
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!" But it's not at all! Viewing racism as a left/right thing is wrong altogether. While it isn't obvious in US politics today, the left has often had a problem with race too. Racism should be abhorrent to both left and right, and that should be independent of immigration views. Which hilariously is a concept born almost exclusively out of modern leftist and current "_blank_ studies" thought/ideology. Well actually Facebook has data showing this, so I don't think that's correct.

int_19h 8y ago

> It is being banned because it is acting as part of a recruitment funnel for an ideology that openly advocates violence. That would be believable, if it was applied as such across the board - e.g. also removing Christian Dominionists, Stalinists, Salafi Muslims, NoI etc.

laughinghan 8y ago
I don't know about Salafi Muslims specifically, but Facebook already does censor radical Islamist groups like ISIS. This move is trying to be more across-the-board by including white supremacy under more of its aliases. As for the others--when's the last time a Stalinist drove a car into a crowd or committed a mass shooting?
nl 8y ago
Facebook already deplatforms radical Islamic preachers on a regular basis. I doubt that have enough data to show the links for the other groups.
- cannedslime 8y ago
  Are you sure about that? Try searching for "الموت للغرب" on facebook (Death to the west)
  - nl 8y ago
    Yes. https://www.cnbc.com/2018/08/20/social-media-sites-may-only-get-one-hour-to-remove-terror-content.html https://www.cnbc.com/2018/08/20/social-media-sites-may-only-... https://techcrunch.com/2018/11/08/facebook-removed-14-million-pieces-of-terrorist-content-this-year-and-the-numbers-are-rising/ https://techcrunch.com/2018/11/08/facebook-removed-14-millio...
    - int_19h 8y ago
      This is "terror content" though, not the ideology behind it. I tried looking around, and there are plenty of pages preaching the ideology. It sounds like they're okay so long as they don't directly call for violence, showcase violence (execution videos etc), or try to recruit for either of those, even though the end goals are inherently violent. Most white supremacist content is similar in that regard.