7 ms·

I'm sure if Facebook existed in the 18th century people like Benjamin Franklin (not exactly a promoter of diversity, shall we say) and Thomas Paine (politically

I'm sure if Facebook existed in the 18th century people like Benjamin Franklin (not exactly a promoter of diversity, shall we say) and Thomas Paine (politically extreme by the standards of the day) would have been banned for spreading hate and advocating violence or something like that. It's very alarming that they're picking a side. It's one thing to censor violent/hateful speech above some arbitrary threshold but to openly announce you're only going to go censor it when one side does not sit well with me.

CloudNetworking 8y ago
This is a very difficult topic, however I've got a similar feeling to you. Once the news broke out that they would be doing these things, the headlines mentioned also "nationalism" would be banned. The American Revolution was a nationalistic revolution. Heck, some folks got together to found a new nation! There's nothing more nationalistic than founding a nation. Also every nation on earth is nationalistic, by pure definition of what a nation is. What do they mean when they say they would ban nationalism? Nationalisms without state-backing? e.g. Basque nationalism? We certainly have a problem with hate speech and social media, but even though I have no idea about how to solve it I fear this might not be a step in the right direction. Edit: sigh - downvoted already without a reply. Fanatism is so damaging to democracy and debate.
- wDcBKgt66V8WDs 8y ago
  We live in a globalized world, there's an argument to be had that nationalism in the cheery light you just presented it as is no longer such a good thing. I'm of the opinion that the very concept of countries is inherently violent, so there's my bias, but I don't want to get into this. What I do want to get into is all this "why ban one side and not the other", well probably because one side is significantly more violent and is only becoming more agitated? Is that not completely obvious? They're not trying to ban a school of thought, they're trying to prevent terrorist attacks by white men on non-white and immigrant people. As has been literally happening. The most violent parts of the left are responses not home grown hatred, and they're not shooting up places of worship. Go ahead, find the like 2 bad examples of left leaning violence but it doesn't take much to find 10x that from the right. One is not like the other.
  - CloudNetworking 8y ago
    > We live in a globalized world, there's an argument to be had that nationalism in the cheery light you just presented it as is no longer such a good thing. I'm of the opinion that the very concept of countries is inherently violent, so there's my bias, but I don't want to get into this. Right, nations can only exist as long as they use violence to fight (perceived) threats. > What I do want to get into is all this "why ban one side and not the other", well probably because one side is significantly more violent and is only becoming more agitated? Is that not completely obvious? They're not trying to ban a school of thought, they're trying to prevent terrorist attacks by white men on non-white and immigrant people. As has been literally happening. The most violent parts of the left are responses not home grown hatred, and they're not shooting up places of worship. Go ahead, find the like 2 bad examples of left leaning violence but it doesn't take much to find 10x that from the right. One is not like the other. We want the same and I agree we have a huge problem with right-wing extremism that does not mirror in left-wing extremism (sic). My worry is: how soon until the same people we want to deplatform are the ones in charge of the platform? Get Twitter as an example: It is usually left-leaning and minority Twitter users the ones getting the shit end of the stick. Jack Dorsey is known for being, to say the least, accepting of nazis in his platform. Edit: Again another bunch of downvotes without replies. sigh
  - cronix 8y ago
    Antifa. They promote and engage in violence all of the time. You can say x is y times worse, but violent/hateful groups are violent/hateful groups and should be treated equally. They've even been labeled a terrorist organization, but still, for some reason, have free reign over most cities.
    - cannonedhamster 8y ago
      Free reign except for the police targeting them, refusing to protect them, actively protecting proud boys, and having numerous examples of police supporting white power movements.
      - cronix 8y ago
firemancoder 8y ago
Many platforms have been doing this. It's likely because the majority of tech folks are left leaning, whether leadership in the company or audience. It's basic marketing. I'm not sad that some of these really hateful people are blocked, that's a given. But choosing sides is dangerous. Not every conservative is spewing hate speech, in fact many from the left (even celebrities) post what could be considered hate speech.
- bdhe 8y ago
  > But choosing sides is dangerous. Not every conservative is spewing hate speech, in fact many from the left (even celebrities) post what could be considered hate speech. I mean, the headline talks about far-right hate groups, and not about conservatives in general. Why is it that a lot of conservatives seem to take it personally when hate groups are banned? I think this victimhood complex is unhealthy. Facebook is not choosing sides by banning hate groups.
  - firemancoder 8y ago
    It's not that conservatives don't want hate groups banned, every reasonable person does. It's because of the ever expanding definition of what hate speech is. I'm no conservative, but I definitely see their point when "I love America" is hate speech, yet "Straight White Men should die" is not. Look at Twitter as an example.
    - didibus 8y ago
      I don't disagree that detecting hate isn't a hard problem. But I also feel it isn't as ambiguous as you make it out to be. "X loves Y" - not hate speech. "X should die" - hate speech. Now, context to these could change it. But the question is, can two random person proficient in the same language tell apart similarly the two kinds of speech? If a human can perform the task with pretty good accuracy, then it's doable. Now if we're saying that even people can't tell apart hate and violence, we're in more trouble. But as of now, I think it's a pretty strong claim to make that people can't actually decipher hateful tones in text.
Voloskaya 8y ago
This is a completely stupid analogy. How exactly is this comparable to Benjamin Franklin? The people being banned aren't banned because they are far-right. They are banned because they are spewing hate, or even worse: "Renshaw is a former spokesperson for neo-Nazi organisation National Front who plotted to murder West Lancashire MP, Rosie Cooper". Far-right political figures that don't call for violence or murder aren't threatened of being banned.
overthemoon 8y ago
This is an absurd claim. The British National Party is an explicitly fascist organization. Additionally, from the article: "Similarly, far-right activist Jack Renshaw has been banned. Renshaw is a former spokesperson for neo-Nazi organisation National Front who plotted to murder West Lancashire MP, Rosie Cooper." You might not like all the ways the term "spreading hate" gets used (I don't) but that doesn't mean it's devoid of meaning and misapplied all the time.
rhcom2 8y ago
What did Benjamin Franklin say that you think is hate speech? Because that sounds like a very tenuous claim.
- darkpuma 8y ago
  > "Palatine Boors" He had some pretty nasty things to say about anybody who wasn't an Anglo. https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Franklin/01-04-02-0080 https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Franklin/01-04-02-00... > "And since Detachments of English from Britain sent to America, will have their Places at Home so soon supply’d and increase so largely here; why should the Palatine Boors be suffered to swarm into our Settlements, and by herding together establish their Language and Manners to the Exclusion of ours? Why should Pennsylvania, founded by the English, become a Colony of Aliens, who will shortly be so numerous as to Germanize us instead of our Anglifying them, and will never adopt our Language or Customs, any more than they can acquire our Complexion." > "Which leads me to add one Remark: That the Number of purely white People in the World is proportionably very small. All Africa is black or tawny. Asia chiefly tawny. America (exclusive of the new Comers) wholly so. And in Europe, the Spaniards, Italians, French, Russians and Swedes, are generally of what we call a swarthy Complexion; as are the Germans also, the Saxons only excepted, who with the English, make the principal Body of White People on the Face of the Earth. I could wish their Numbers were increased. And while we are, as I may call it, Scouring our Planet, by clearing America of Woods, and so making this Side of our Globe reflect a brighter Light to the Eyes of Inhabitants in Mars or Venus, why should we in the Sight of Superior Beings, darken its People? why increase the Sons of Africa, by Planting them in America, where we have so fair an Opportunity, by excluding all Blacks and Tawneys, of increasing the lovely White and Red? But perhaps I am partial to the Complexion of my Country, for such Kind of Partiality is natural to Mankind." I believe the modern response to that is "Big Yikes."
  - cannonedhamster 8y ago
    I mean it's racist, but is it hate speech? It's basically the Republicans party platform for keeping the southern border closed and limiting immigration from mostly darker skinned countries.
TheOtherHobbes 8y ago
I'm sure you're wrong. The people being blocked are right-wing extremists radicalised by hate speech, not just garden-variety right-wingers. And the reason they're being blocked is because they've been involved in an increasing number of violent attacks around the world. From Anders Breivik, to the murderer of Jo Cox in the UK, to the Christchurch mosque shooter, the extreme right is doing an outstanding job of persuading everyone else it's happy to house murderous racist kooks. There's no equivalent - not even close - for anything that could be considered the far-left in the West today. Whatever you think of Bernie Sanders, AOC, or Jeremy Corbyn in the UK, they're not known for threatening to murder anyone, or inciting anyone to murder. Nor - realistically - are they ever likely to be. Free speech ends in US law - not just in opinion - where incitement to murder and violence begins. At that point it's no longer about civilised debate, it's about criminal consequences, and there's no constitutional protection for those.
- tropo 8y ago
  Leaders in the USA don't openly threaten or incite murder. It was a Bernie Sanders campaign worker who shot at Steve Scalise and other congressional republicans.
AsyncAwait 8y ago
The right likes to claim that media and soical networks have been censoring them, but they always fail to mention that there are actual laws on the books(!) that target BDS supporters, who are overwhelmingly on the left, you're likely to be fired if you speak in favor of Palestinian rights etc. This rarely gets mentioned. Much of the media also promotes a rather conservative economic agenda, constantly does smear pieces against Sanders, pretends that single payer means the same as throwing people off of insurance etc. Yes, corporations do have a 'liberal bias' when it comes to social issues, (guess what, gays are also potential customers), but they tend to be conservative on economics.
- leereeves 8y ago
  And it's important to realize that those laws passed with strong Democrat support and are still supported by the left-wing media, for example: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/clarity-on-israel-anti-boycott-act_b_598d0d5de4b0ed1f464c09c1 https://www.huffpost.com/entry/clarity-on-israel-anti-boycot... https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/its-time-to-update-americas-important-anti-boycott-law-for-israel/2017/09/12/4a196a70-9728-11e7-b569-3360011663b4_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.5c32a3ed7255 https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/its-time-to-update-a...
  - AsyncAwait 8y ago
    > And it's important to realize that those laws passed with strong Democrat support Absolutely. The Democratic establishment does not represent the views of the left in this country. Certainly not on economic issues. Paying lip service to social issues. On many issues, the Democratic and Republican parties in Washington are actually pretty aligned, their views on BDS being one of them. > are still supported by the left-wing media Which is why I tend to use the term 'neoliberal'. Left-wing they certainly are not, as the articles show. They're only left on social issues, not economics. The media tend to be pretty closely aligned with the Democratic establishment, which then gets conflated with left-wing, but figures like Nancy Polosi don't support leading left-wing economic priorities such a single-payer at all.
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
happytoexplain 8y ago
I feel like "appeal to the founding fathers" is becoming its own category of fallacious argument.
toofy 8y ago
> It’s very alarming they’re picking a side. It’s one thing to censor violent/hateful speech above some arbitrary threshold... Heres a quote from, jack renshew, one of the people they’ve banned: > Hitler was right in many senses but you know where he was wrong? He showed mercy to people who did not deserve mercy ... As nationalists we need to learn from the mistakes of the national socialists and we need to realise that, no, you do not show the Jew mercy. [0] They’re not banning your kooky ol’ conservative grandpa, these are actual hateful people who’s movements have been using Facebook to spread racism and misinformation intentionally. Facebook has become widely known as a site full of misinformation—I can’t blame them for wanting to change that reputation. If it were my web forum I’d certainly do whatever I could to change if my site were known as a racist infested misinformation brand. [0]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Renshaw_(far-right_activist) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Renshaw_(far-right_acti...
DanBC 8y ago
> but to openly announce you're only going to go censor it when one side does not sit well with me. It's important to remember that the left does not promote the quantity or severity of violence that the right does. If you get left wing groups calling for the elimination by violence of all members of a religion Facebook (and other social media networks) will happily ban them.

CloudNetworking 8y ago

This is a very difficult topic, however I've got a similar feeling to you. Once the news broke out that they would be doing these things, the headlines mentioned also "nationalism" would be banned. The American Revolution was a nationalistic revolution. Heck, some folks got together to found a new nation! There's nothing more nationalistic than founding a nation. Also every nation on earth is nationalistic, by pure definition of what a nation is. What do they mean when they say they would ban nationalism? Nationalisms without state-backing? e.g. Basque nationalism? We certainly have a problem with hate speech and social media, but even though I have no idea about how to solve it I fear this might not be a step in the right direction. Edit: sigh - downvoted already without a reply. Fanatism is so damaging to democracy and debate.

wDcBKgt66V8WDs 8y ago
We live in a globalized world, there's an argument to be had that nationalism in the cheery light you just presented it as is no longer such a good thing. I'm of the opinion that the very concept of countries is inherently violent, so there's my bias, but I don't want to get into this. What I do want to get into is all this "why ban one side and not the other", well probably because one side is significantly more violent and is only becoming more agitated? Is that not completely obvious? They're not trying to ban a school of thought, they're trying to prevent terrorist attacks by white men on non-white and immigrant people. As has been literally happening. The most violent parts of the left are responses not home grown hatred, and they're not shooting up places of worship. Go ahead, find the like 2 bad examples of left leaning violence but it doesn't take much to find 10x that from the right. One is not like the other.
- CloudNetworking 8y ago
  > We live in a globalized world, there's an argument to be had that nationalism in the cheery light you just presented it as is no longer such a good thing. I'm of the opinion that the very concept of countries is inherently violent, so there's my bias, but I don't want to get into this. Right, nations can only exist as long as they use violence to fight (perceived) threats. > What I do want to get into is all this "why ban one side and not the other", well probably because one side is significantly more violent and is only becoming more agitated? Is that not completely obvious? They're not trying to ban a school of thought, they're trying to prevent terrorist attacks by white men on non-white and immigrant people. As has been literally happening. The most violent parts of the left are responses not home grown hatred, and they're not shooting up places of worship. Go ahead, find the like 2 bad examples of left leaning violence but it doesn't take much to find 10x that from the right. One is not like the other. We want the same and I agree we have a huge problem with right-wing extremism that does not mirror in left-wing extremism (sic). My worry is: how soon until the same people we want to deplatform are the ones in charge of the platform? Get Twitter as an example: It is usually left-leaning and minority Twitter users the ones getting the shit end of the stick. Jack Dorsey is known for being, to say the least, accepting of nazis in his platform. Edit: Again another bunch of downvotes without replies. sigh
- cronix 8y ago
  Antifa. They promote and engage in violence all of the time. You can say x is y times worse, but violent/hateful groups are violent/hateful groups and should be treated equally. They've even been labeled a terrorist organization, but still, for some reason, have free reign over most cities.
  - cannonedhamster 8y ago
    Free reign except for the police targeting them, refusing to protect them, actively protecting proud boys, and having numerous examples of police supporting white power movements.
    - cronix 8y ago

firemancoder 8y ago

Many platforms have been doing this. It's likely because the majority of tech folks are left leaning, whether leadership in the company or audience. It's basic marketing. I'm not sad that some of these really hateful people are blocked, that's a given. But choosing sides is dangerous. Not every conservative is spewing hate speech, in fact many from the left (even celebrities) post what could be considered hate speech.

bdhe 8y ago
> But choosing sides is dangerous. Not every conservative is spewing hate speech, in fact many from the left (even celebrities) post what could be considered hate speech. I mean, the headline talks about far-right hate groups, and not about conservatives in general. Why is it that a lot of conservatives seem to take it personally when hate groups are banned? I think this victimhood complex is unhealthy. Facebook is not choosing sides by banning hate groups.
- firemancoder 8y ago
  It's not that conservatives don't want hate groups banned, every reasonable person does. It's because of the ever expanding definition of what hate speech is. I'm no conservative, but I definitely see their point when "I love America" is hate speech, yet "Straight White Men should die" is not. Look at Twitter as an example.
  - didibus 8y ago
    I don't disagree that detecting hate isn't a hard problem. But I also feel it isn't as ambiguous as you make it out to be. "X loves Y" - not hate speech. "X should die" - hate speech. Now, context to these could change it. But the question is, can two random person proficient in the same language tell apart similarly the two kinds of speech? If a human can perform the task with pretty good accuracy, then it's doable. Now if we're saying that even people can't tell apart hate and violence, we're in more trouble. But as of now, I think it's a pretty strong claim to make that people can't actually decipher hateful tones in text.

Voloskaya 8y ago

This is a completely stupid analogy. How exactly is this comparable to Benjamin Franklin? The people being banned aren't banned because they are far-right. They are banned because they are spewing hate, or even worse: "Renshaw is a former spokesperson for neo-Nazi organisation National Front who plotted to murder West Lancashire MP, Rosie Cooper". Far-right political figures that don't call for violence or murder aren't threatened of being banned.

overthemoon 8y ago

This is an absurd claim. The British National Party is an explicitly fascist organization. Additionally, from the article: "Similarly, far-right activist Jack Renshaw has been banned. Renshaw is a former spokesperson for neo-Nazi organisation National Front who plotted to murder West Lancashire MP, Rosie Cooper." You might not like all the ways the term "spreading hate" gets used (I don't) but that doesn't mean it's devoid of meaning and misapplied all the time.

rhcom2 8y ago

What did Benjamin Franklin say that you think is hate speech? Because that sounds like a very tenuous claim.

darkpuma 8y ago
> "Palatine Boors" He had some pretty nasty things to say about anybody who wasn't an Anglo. https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Franklin/01-04-02-0080 https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Franklin/01-04-02-00... > "And since Detachments of English from Britain sent to America, will have their Places at Home so soon supply’d and increase so largely here; why should the Palatine Boors be suffered to swarm into our Settlements, and by herding together establish their Language and Manners to the Exclusion of ours? Why should Pennsylvania, founded by the English, become a Colony of Aliens, who will shortly be so numerous as to Germanize us instead of our Anglifying them, and will never adopt our Language or Customs, any more than they can acquire our Complexion." > "Which leads me to add one Remark: That the Number of purely white People in the World is proportionably very small. All Africa is black or tawny. Asia chiefly tawny. America (exclusive of the new Comers) wholly so. And in Europe, the Spaniards, Italians, French, Russians and Swedes, are generally of what we call a swarthy Complexion; as are the Germans also, the Saxons only excepted, who with the English, make the principal Body of White People on the Face of the Earth. I could wish their Numbers were increased. And while we are, as I may call it, Scouring our Planet, by clearing America of Woods, and so making this Side of our Globe reflect a brighter Light to the Eyes of Inhabitants in Mars or Venus, why should we in the Sight of Superior Beings, darken its People? why increase the Sons of Africa, by Planting them in America, where we have so fair an Opportunity, by excluding all Blacks and Tawneys, of increasing the lovely White and Red? But perhaps I am partial to the Complexion of my Country, for such Kind of Partiality is natural to Mankind." I believe the modern response to that is "Big Yikes."
- cannonedhamster 8y ago
  I mean it's racist, but is it hate speech? It's basically the Republicans party platform for keeping the southern border closed and limiting immigration from mostly darker skinned countries.

TheOtherHobbes 8y ago

I'm sure you're wrong. The people being blocked are right-wing extremists radicalised by hate speech, not just garden-variety right-wingers. And the reason they're being blocked is because they've been involved in an increasing number of violent attacks around the world. From Anders Breivik, to the murderer of Jo Cox in the UK, to the Christchurch mosque shooter, the extreme right is doing an outstanding job of persuading everyone else it's happy to house murderous racist kooks. There's no equivalent - not even close - for anything that could be considered the far-left in the West today. Whatever you think of Bernie Sanders, AOC, or Jeremy Corbyn in the UK, they're not known for threatening to murder anyone, or inciting anyone to murder. Nor - realistically - are they ever likely to be. Free speech ends in US law - not just in opinion - where incitement to murder and violence begins. At that point it's no longer about civilised debate, it's about criminal consequences, and there's no constitutional protection for those.

tropo 8y ago
Leaders in the USA don't openly threaten or incite murder. It was a Bernie Sanders campaign worker who shot at Steve Scalise and other congressional republicans.

AsyncAwait 8y ago

The right likes to claim that media and soical networks have been censoring them, but they always fail to mention that there are actual laws on the books(!) that target BDS supporters, who are overwhelmingly on the left, you're likely to be fired if you speak in favor of Palestinian rights etc. This rarely gets mentioned. Much of the media also promotes a rather conservative economic agenda, constantly does smear pieces against Sanders, pretends that single payer means the same as throwing people off of insurance etc. Yes, corporations do have a 'liberal bias' when it comes to social issues, (guess what, gays are also potential customers), but they tend to be conservative on economics.

leereeves 8y ago
And it's important to realize that those laws passed with strong Democrat support and are still supported by the left-wing media, for example: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/clarity-on-israel-anti-boycott-act_b_598d0d5de4b0ed1f464c09c1 https://www.huffpost.com/entry/clarity-on-israel-anti-boycot... https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/its-time-to-update-americas-important-anti-boycott-law-for-israel/2017/09/12/4a196a70-9728-11e7-b569-3360011663b4_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.5c32a3ed7255 https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/its-time-to-update-a...
- AsyncAwait 8y ago
  > And it's important to realize that those laws passed with strong Democrat support Absolutely. The Democratic establishment does not represent the views of the left in this country. Certainly not on economic issues. Paying lip service to social issues. On many issues, the Democratic and Republican parties in Washington are actually pretty aligned, their views on BDS being one of them. > are still supported by the left-wing media Which is why I tend to use the term 'neoliberal'. Left-wing they certainly are not, as the articles show. They're only left on social issues, not economics. The media tend to be pretty closely aligned with the Democratic establishment, which then gets conflated with left-wing, but figures like Nancy Polosi don't support leading left-wing economic priorities such a single-payer at all.
- dragonwriter 8y ago

happytoexplain 8y ago

I feel like "appeal to the founding fathers" is becoming its own category of fallacious argument.

toofy 8y ago

> It’s very alarming they’re picking a side. It’s one thing to censor violent/hateful speech above some arbitrary threshold... Heres a quote from, jack renshew, one of the people they’ve banned: > Hitler was right in many senses but you know where he was wrong? He showed mercy to people who did not deserve mercy ... As nationalists we need to learn from the mistakes of the national socialists and we need to realise that, no, you do not show the Jew mercy. [0] They’re not banning your kooky ol’ conservative grandpa, these are actual hateful people who’s movements have been using Facebook to spread racism and misinformation intentionally. Facebook has become widely known as a site full of misinformation—I can’t blame them for wanting to change that reputation. If it were my web forum I’d certainly do whatever I could to change if my site were known as a racist infested misinformation brand. [0]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Renshaw_(far-right_activist) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Renshaw_(far-right_acti...

DanBC 8y ago

> but to openly announce you're only going to go censor it when one side does not sit well with me. It's important to remember that the left does not promote the quantity or severity of violence that the right does. If you get left wing groups calling for the elimination by violence of all members of a religion Facebook (and other social media networks) will happily ban them.