7 ms·

Facebook's new policy bans blackface and some Jewish stereotypes

28 points by the-dude 6y ago

tasogare 6y ago
> The social network will also prohibit stereotypes about Jewish people running the world or “controlling major institutions such as media networks, the economy or the government.” Sure, the most well known social media founded by a Jewish person censuring conspiracy theories about Jewish controlling the media will absolutely not fuel the said theories... /s
- MattGaiser 6y ago
  Another wave of unpleasantness heading over to Voat. At a certain point you just write people off.
- Darmody 6y ago
  It's as stupid as it gets. They are literally censoring the truth. Not that I have anything against Jewish people controlling/owning big corporations, I actually admire them because despite of everything they're still strong on the game. But you can't tell me that censoring talking about them won't have a backlash. I can already see it. "See, they own everything and have so much power that now they won't let us even talk about it".
  - tasogare 6y ago
    > But you can't tell me that censoring talking about them won't have a backlash. Yes, exactly my point. I find it very strange to fight a stereotype by acting in a way that could easily be casted into the said stereotype. If anything this will even make it stronger.
    - aadsadad 6y ago
      Goes to a neighborhood with many XXX Tells them: "all of you XXX are violent, uneducated, and stupid" <gets slapped> responds: "Yes, exactly my point. I find it very strange to fight a stereotype by acting in a way that could easily be casted into the said stereotype. If anything this will even make it stronger." <gets slapped again> ------ Sometimes people should be slapped, censored or jailed, who cares if that is part of the stereotypical way people view the CEO of the the global company that enforce the policy in their company. Moreover, the fact that you are reiterating a stereotype that has nothing to do with Mark or Facebook. "If anything this will even make <facebook's case> stronger."
    - WrongThinkerNo5 6y ago
      I think that is the very reason that Fb has resisted this kind of action. Just alone the term "stereotype" is a gaslighting term invented by a Jewish person in order to gaslight and psychologically abuse people. Reality is that fb executives are wildly disproportionately Jewish and they are well aware of that, so the act of censoring the literal truth, so close to home, made them quite self-aware. But I think a combination of desperation/panic (people are increasingly noticing), buckling under the relentless pressure by Jewish groups, and hubris and drunken power has made them now relent/act. Even though the self-evident extreme abuse of the censorship they were self-aware of before remains. "No, in fact, all these Jewish people you see everywhere in control and involved in everything while only being about 1.5% of the US population, is only a "stereotype" (pavlovian bell rings) and a figment of your imagination." Let's see how Jewish YC reacts to this discussion topic. The good thing about digital censorship from the censor's perspective, is that there will remain no evidence of the censorship once thoughts and accounts have been disappeared. Poof… they're gone and the next person that loads the page will never know that this post or these conversations existed. It's like being a tyrant demigod; powers no other tyrant in human history has ever had at their disposal.
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
      - dang 6y ago
        We've banned this account. Breaking HN's rules like you've been doing will eventually get your main account banned as well, so please stop. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - raxxorrax 6y ago
    It is the reiteration of an old mistake. Some say doing the same and expecting different results is madness. There has been content like this since the inception of the net and it was always a side issue and got new prominence exactly as there were attempts to ban 'hateful' content. True, there are some idiots actually trying to shoot up synagogues, religious Jews get the flak from thinks that are primarily associated with secular Jews, but that is to abstract for people insane enough to believe it. It just makes you so indescribably mad if content is banned in an effort to allegedly protect you. It also will increase animosity. Why not just ignore it? It worked extremely well... Jews were not oppressed because people had too much venues to utter their opinions, stupid as they may be. That is a complete inversion of conclusions that can be drawn from historical events.
  - amitport 6y ago
    "They are literally censoring the truth" Far from it. The Jewish people don't control "the media" or facebook, there may be a person that happen to be Jewish that have a role or a job somewhere. Mentioning the "Jewish people" in this context does not make any sense beyond perpetuating stereotypes and the fact that you don't even seem to understand this makes Facebook's decision even more obvious.
    - WrongThinkerNo5 6y ago
      Weird, because considering that wildly disproportionate numbers of fb executives are Jewish, your point seems extremely manipulative, abusive, and gaslighting. So you are saying that reality is lying to us and you are telling the truth? Funny enough is that the very term "stereotype" was invented by a Jewish person as a trigger word to gaslight in the very same way. The very word "stereotype" is an abusive gaslighting ... "don't trust reality, believe what I am telling you".
      - amitport 6y ago
        Great. I learned that the modern usage of the word 'stereotype' was coined in 1922 by Walter Lippmann, a German of Jewish descent [1]. I do not find this reference 'Funny', but IMO the fact that you do demonstrates your bias. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereotype#Etymology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereotype#Etymology
      - dsadsadsad 6y ago
        No. 'extremely manipulative, abusive, and gaslighting" would be, for example: To suggest that a disproportionate number of executives at CNN have German descent (just to be clear, I have no idea what is the descent of executives in FB or CNN, nor do I care). So talking about the German-controlled CNN is just an important relevant fact for every discussion. Now, every time don't like an article I can just reference this "fact" that CNN are controlled by the people that also tried to commit a genocide and if someone argues, I'll just gaslight about gaslight.
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
  - dsadsadsad 6y ago
    This policy is about the generalization: "Jewish people control media networks, the economy or the government" There is a literal difference between saying "German people are Nazis" and saying "Hitler was a Nazi", the latter shouldn't be censored, but context matter. Given a specific German person that happen to be a Nazi and using that fact to insinuate that Germans are Nazis, would not be OK.
    - dang 6y ago
      Please don't use sockpuppet accounts like this.
- WrongThinkerNo5 6y ago
  Something similar struck me about the article. It does not list the "external partners" facebook is working with that are largely Jewish organizations that have been relentlessly hammering Facebook; founded by and largely led by Jewish people, to control speech, in direct violation of the US Constitution, in order to suppress the notion that Jewish people control things. It is unfortunately extremely abusive gaslighting behavior.
the-dude 6y ago
With all the fuzz about FB, I find it remarkable when I engage with millenials : FB is irrelevant to them. So, what gives?
- MattGaiser 6y ago
  Instagram isn’t though.
  - searchableguy 6y ago
    What will make people switch anyway? They don't care much about security (evident by the recent twitter hack). They don't care much about privacy. They don't care much about functionality. Increasingly, I don't think people even care about the content or relationship/social aspect of the social media. My dad has like maximum number of friends on Facebook and I really doubt he actually engages with them. His feed is full of bullshit that he sometimes tell me about and is even self aware of a lot. Why do you use facebook despite that? He doesn't have an answer. I fear he is just addicted to scrolling when he has nothing to do. He is also using Facebook and whatsapp because of peer pressure. A weird phenomenon in india is how easily bullshit spreads on whatsapp. The reason is most people forward without even consuming the content. It's almost like they are getting rewarded for a completely different thing than the intended or well communicative purpose of the medium.
    - MattGaiser 6y ago
      > It's almost like they are getting rewarded for a completely different thing than the intended or well communicative purpose of the medium. I suspect they find the engagement sufficient. They forward and someone comments. The dinging of the phone itself is exciting.
- dcow 6y ago
  > “We've consulted with many of our external partners over the past year to better understand implicit speech that has historically been used to disparage, intimidate or exclude people based on protected characteristics like race or religion,” said Facebook VP of Content Policy Monika Bickert in a phone call with the press. What gives is that the VP of Content Policy at a multi-billion dollar company has fallen victim to the rhetoric of a post-modernist black power cult. Abstractly, a business executive is leveraging their position of power to play activist for a political-social agenda rather than set policy shaped by a desire to build a neutral and open social platform. This is at best ethically shady and at worst an abuse of power. How this prevents the spread of misinformation and counters bubble-think, I fail to see. On top of that, if you actually examine the rhetoric it's 100% inconsistent. Critical thinking has fallen by the wayside in favor of the virtuous critical race theory. Nobody is thinking anymore and we're literally electing to censor truths, ugly as they may be, in order to push a totalitarian narrative. This should piss you off, fundamentally, not only because it's certifiably a bad idea, but because it is working to unravel our sense of objectivity which is required in most disciplines outside of sociology. We've seen it before. History will not look kindly back upon the movement we're experiencing. It's rather unsettling to see it play out if you ask me.
hundredand10 6y ago
How can you ban a stereotype, especially when it's based on a fact so easily proven and incontrovertible that you can simply wait for 3 seconds after the latest Hollywood film and note all the -bergs, -steins, and precious-metal-laden surnames as the credits roll by. Am I a conspiracy theorist if I dare to read what they put right in front of my face? Is observing the world around me now tantamount to hate speech?
- Ono-Sendai 6y ago
  Yes, they are known as hate-facts.
- kingkawn 6y ago
  Just because there are jews in media does not mean that “Jews control the media.” You are casually stepping into a history of discrimination that has continuously led back to genocide, each time beginning as just these sort of indignant observations.
  - Nesco 6y ago
    I totally agree with you, but you have also to agree then (to stay coherent) that the fact some structures of powers are predominantly held by white men does not necessary mean there is a systemic racism and a white privilege. Otherwise the same reasoning could be applied to say that “the J00s control the media and Hollywood”
  - luckylion 6y ago
    > Just because there are jews in media does not mean that “Jews control the media.” It's a matter of how you define "control" and "Jews", I suppose. "Jews" as in "all jewish people"? Obviously not. "Control" as in "total control over all media companies" also obviously not. Individual Jews in powerful positions of plenty of powerful companies at disproportionate rates? Probably yes, at least for the US, less so in Europe for obvious reasons. In the end, I guess Facebook should simply outlaw all blanket statements. None of them are true, all of them are oversimplifying complex issues and are, if believed, harmful. But then again, what would remain if they did so?
realusername 6y ago
> Dutch outlet NU.nl reported that a Facebook spokesperson clarified to them that the ban extends to Zwarte Piet, also known as Black Peter, a folk character that accompanies St. Nicholas on Christmas. And here is exactly why it's a stupid idea, different countries have different culture and history. We also celebrate the exact same event in my place and it's just a part of kindergarten, nothing related about US culture. People needs to be less stubborn and understand that not everywhere is the same as the place they grew up. Edit: Although I've just learned that the Dutch & German versions look indeed different compared to my place. The massive black-beard ones we have in my place would still be okay for Facebook I believe, but it's the same concept really.
- the-dude 6y ago
  I have talked about the word neger ( Dutch variant of negro ) with all my known black acquaintances and also with some whom I didn't know before. Nobody had any problems with the word neger. "Of course I am a neger they said, and you are a white guy. So what, just don't call me zwarte ( black ).". This is in NL.
  - luckylion 6y ago
    That's interesting, the word is very taboo in Germany, essentially only used by very old people, relatively far right-wing folks and some Africans (though much, much less so than in the US).
  - sebazzz 6y ago
    That is interesting, because one of the black (should I call him that, I find "black" polarising) comedians here, Steven Brunswijk, used to call himself Braboneger which is a combination of his province and the mentioned word. However he stopped calling himself that because it wouldn't help his career (which I suppose means: others find it offensive). [0] [0]: https://www.ad.nl/tilburg/braboneger-laat-bijnaam-vallen-en-wordt-weer-steven-brunswijk~a041d8b3/?referrer=https://nl.m.wikipedia.org/ https://www.ad.nl/tilburg/braboneger-laat-bijnaam-vallen-en-...
    - 6y ago
tibbydudeza 6y ago
More non nonsensical half baked measures from the Zuck.
sneeuwpopsneeuw 6y ago
In the Netherlands there have been big discussions and protests for and against one of our national holidays called "sinterklaas" (a second Christmas) Where there is a figure called "Zwarte piet" a blackface character that will bring the kids candy's, "pepernoten" and chocolate when they where nice that year. When the news broke out that FB would start removing these kind of images from there platform both sides of the discussion mostly reacted here in the Netherlands that removing it completely is not the way to go. So i'm wondering how this news is received everywhere else in the world? Here is was the headline of most newspapers and our national television news yesterday.
- raxxorrax 6y ago
  In Germany we often paint someone black for the christmas story (Holy Three Kings). I think that will also be cancelled because of the failed American educational system. Of course if you happen to be black, your role is determined if the story gets performed. Such is the weight of oppression...
  - WrongThinkerNo5 6y ago
    It has nothing to do with the failed US "education" system. But it has everything to do with the people who do not control anything having pushed a relentless campaign against out-group competition using psychological manipulation and abuse. It is a war on Europeans that has been waged for centuries even. They are in control of us and our lives the world over and they are our masters and we are their slaves. We also have no means for changing that as we slide ever deeper into their control through a kind of new aristocratic feudalism, where you are not allowed to even look at, let alone question the lord, queen, king, emperor … or you will swiftly be dealt with through immense violence that will shock others around you to subjugate themselves. They are now also using the African as their enforcer, as a type of mercenary in this war, that is motivated by promises of spoils and plunder for serving their masters. As a German, you will be well aware of that fact that you are not allowed to even think, let alone question your lords that command you to believe what they authorize you to believe and any deviation from that will result in your being made an example of in front of your fellow peasants, lest they too think they can question their masters.
bencollier49 6y ago
This is interesting. It'll ban some forms of Morris Dancing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_Morris https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_Morris https://www.facebook.com/silurianbordermorrismen/ https://www.facebook.com/silurianbordermorrismen/
- bencollier49 6y ago
  And an example of how far back this goes (from the Wiki page decribing the origins of the custom): "An event which took place in the autumn of 1450 illustrates well the way in which the often separate activities of poaching and protest could on occasion conflate. On October 1450 a large group of men entered the duke of Buckingham's park at Penshurst in Kent and carried off eighty-two deer. Thirty-two men, nineteen of them yeomen, were named in subsequent indictment which made clear that a good number had escaped by its claim that there had been a total of a hundred present (not a figure to be taken too literally). These armed men had charcoaled faces, wore long false beards and withheld their names, calling themselves servants of the Queen of the Fairies."
- DanBC 6y ago
  Many Morris dancers have switched to different forms of face paint. Some have moved to soot marks, some use shapes, some use different colours. Whatever the origin of blackface in border morris it ended up as pretty racist, with direct links to minstrelsy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_Morris#19th-century_minstrelsy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_Morris#19th-century_min...
turboturbo 6y ago
As a Belgian born in the late ’80s, this is both very understandable and slightly bewildering. I can perfectly understand Facebook’s decision in the context of blackface being racist. On the other hand, I have fond memories of watching a show for kids (on the public TV station) called “Dag Sinterklaasje”, which featured “Zwarte Piet” (Black Pete) in each of its episodes. This show invariably had a warm, charming and cosy atmosphere. I completely agree with the decision, it’s just bewildering to realise that progress in social justice (if only symbolic progress) can catch you off-guard and forces you to reconsider parts of your youth.
- raxxorrax 6y ago
  If it doesn't look like progress, it probably isn't. Since the demographic change of the net, content is actually regressing back to a mean. There are some people that see racism everywhere because they have been told that they are victims. This is no road to anything that can be called progress.
wwwwwwwww 6y ago
I will probably get more downvoted than answers, but I'll try anyway: could anybody explain why "blackface" is seen as "racist"? Especially in the context of an event where everybody is wearing a costume. I lived (among some other continents) in Africa for some years, and you have tribes where people use a "whiteface" in some celebrations. Are we supposed to get upset about their "racism" as well? Also, how will this in any way help socially disadvantages people, regardless their skin tone, anywhere in the world? To me, this seems like just another made-up topic, so that people can yell and hate each other.
- dcow 6y ago
  It doesn't make any sense when you actually think about it. The problem is people don't actually think about it. Blackface was actually one of the few avenues available to black comedians at a time when they were actually oppressed. None of this fits the post-modernist narrative though so it's ignored because blackface is obviously racist, rite?
- ephextom 6y ago
  The historical links to minstrel shows are valid grounds for the offensiveness. But sometimes you have to wonder about the validity of the outrage when a case has no links to this whatsoever, and where it is done out of pure admiration and celebration of a person of color. A few years ago in Australia, a young kid and his mother were nationally shamed when the kid went to a school dress-up day as his favourite footballer, who is a dark-skinned man of Fijian descent [1]. He wore dark skin paint and a dreadlock wig, obviously because he idolises this footballer and wanted to look as much like him as possible. The footballer then had to comment on the matter, and admitted that he himself had endorsed people dressing up this way in the past, and that even he had to be educated that it was not a cool thing to do. [1] https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/its-a-shame-nic-naitanui-responds-to-blackface-outrage-20160826-gr1jlf.html https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/its-a-shame-nic-...
- sebazzz 6y ago
  > To me, this seems like just another made-up topic, so that people can yell and hate each other. Well, it does distract a bit from the real issues like systematic racism, COVID-19 and global climate chance.
homami 6y ago
It seems to me that Facebook instead of battling racism and other problems in the information bubbles that it has created, is doing some kind of straw man. "Look here we are banning black face!" Don't get me wrong, symbols matter. But this is not even remotely the most consequential thing that Facebook can do to fight disinformation and racism. They should make a fix for their echo chambers.
ed_balls 6y ago
Is it a global policy? Are they gonna ban pictures and videos of kids signing Christmas carols in my country? Or saying the name of the 3rd biggest river in Africa (in my language) https://static.deon.pl/storage/image/core_files/2012/1/5/5afeebc817d734db5b3728f52770942b/jpg/deon/articles-thumb-xlarge-breakpoint-default/kolednicy-misyjni-i-dobra-nowina.jpg https://static.deon.pl/storage/image/core_files/2012/1/5/5af...
kstenerud 6y ago
This is unfortunately going to end badly. We're still in a fairly decent position on the diminishing returns curve for banning offensive content, but it's already a far cry from what people were talking about censoring even a year ago. The logical extreme for this sort of thing would be the censoring of anything that isn't as bland and boring as a history textbook (for exactly the same reasons). I expect there will be stronger and stronger pushback before it goes this far into the ridiculous, but this will be the general direction that every offence-taking group pushes things in. The left can't take a joke. The right can't take criticism of orthodoxy.
- dcow 6y ago
  2+2=5
  - raxxorrax 6y ago
    There is a saying in my country that you sometimes need to let 5 be even. But it mainly a suggestion for a laissez faire approach.
burfog 6y ago
Too conveniently, it bans a photo of Virginia governor Ralph Northam. It protects him. The infamous photo shows him in blackface, with his then-girlfriend beside him in full KKK gear. (and uh, did they just have KKK gear lying around the house???) It doesn't get covered much in the news. He is being protected because of his party affiliation as a democrat. He is still in office to this day. Imagine if such a photo had been discovered with a republican. It would be headline news for months.

28 points by the-dude 6y ago

> The social network will also prohibit stereotypes about Jewish people running the world or “controlling major institutions such as media networks, the economy or the government.” Sure, the most well known social media founded by a Jewish person censuring conspiracy theories about Jewish controlling the media will absolutely not fuel the said theories... /s

MattGaiser 6y ago
Another wave of unpleasantness heading over to Voat. At a certain point you just write people off.
Darmody 6y ago
It's as stupid as it gets. They are literally censoring the truth. Not that I have anything against Jewish people controlling/owning big corporations, I actually admire them because despite of everything they're still strong on the game. But you can't tell me that censoring talking about them won't have a backlash. I can already see it. "See, they own everything and have so much power that now they won't let us even talk about it".
- tasogare 6y ago
  > But you can't tell me that censoring talking about them won't have a backlash. Yes, exactly my point. I find it very strange to fight a stereotype by acting in a way that could easily be casted into the said stereotype. If anything this will even make it stronger.
  - aadsadad 6y ago
    Goes to a neighborhood with many XXX Tells them: "all of you XXX are violent, uneducated, and stupid" <gets slapped> responds: "Yes, exactly my point. I find it very strange to fight a stereotype by acting in a way that could easily be casted into the said stereotype. If anything this will even make it stronger." <gets slapped again> ------ Sometimes people should be slapped, censored or jailed, who cares if that is part of the stereotypical way people view the CEO of the the global company that enforce the policy in their company. Moreover, the fact that you are reiterating a stereotype that has nothing to do with Mark or Facebook. "If anything this will even make <facebook's case> stronger."
  - WrongThinkerNo5 6y ago
    I think that is the very reason that Fb has resisted this kind of action. Just alone the term "stereotype" is a gaslighting term invented by a Jewish person in order to gaslight and psychologically abuse people. Reality is that fb executives are wildly disproportionately Jewish and they are well aware of that, so the act of censoring the literal truth, so close to home, made them quite self-aware. But I think a combination of desperation/panic (people are increasingly noticing), buckling under the relentless pressure by Jewish groups, and hubris and drunken power has made them now relent/act. Even though the self-evident extreme abuse of the censorship they were self-aware of before remains. "No, in fact, all these Jewish people you see everywhere in control and involved in everything while only being about 1.5% of the US population, is only a "stereotype" (pavlovian bell rings) and a figment of your imagination." Let's see how Jewish YC reacts to this discussion topic. The good thing about digital censorship from the censor's perspective, is that there will remain no evidence of the censorship once thoughts and accounts have been disappeared. Poof… they're gone and the next person that loads the page will never know that this post or these conversations existed. It's like being a tyrant demigod; powers no other tyrant in human history has ever had at their disposal.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - dang 6y ago
      We've banned this account. Breaking HN's rules like you've been doing will eventually get your main account banned as well, so please stop. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- raxxorrax 6y ago
  It is the reiteration of an old mistake. Some say doing the same and expecting different results is madness. There has been content like this since the inception of the net and it was always a side issue and got new prominence exactly as there were attempts to ban 'hateful' content. True, there are some idiots actually trying to shoot up synagogues, religious Jews get the flak from thinks that are primarily associated with secular Jews, but that is to abstract for people insane enough to believe it. It just makes you so indescribably mad if content is banned in an effort to allegedly protect you. It also will increase animosity. Why not just ignore it? It worked extremely well... Jews were not oppressed because people had too much venues to utter their opinions, stupid as they may be. That is a complete inversion of conclusions that can be drawn from historical events.
- amitport 6y ago
  "They are literally censoring the truth" Far from it. The Jewish people don't control "the media" or facebook, there may be a person that happen to be Jewish that have a role or a job somewhere. Mentioning the "Jewish people" in this context does not make any sense beyond perpetuating stereotypes and the fact that you don't even seem to understand this makes Facebook's decision even more obvious.
  - WrongThinkerNo5 6y ago
    Weird, because considering that wildly disproportionate numbers of fb executives are Jewish, your point seems extremely manipulative, abusive, and gaslighting. So you are saying that reality is lying to us and you are telling the truth? Funny enough is that the very term "stereotype" was invented by a Jewish person as a trigger word to gaslight in the very same way. The very word "stereotype" is an abusive gaslighting ... "don't trust reality, believe what I am telling you".
    - amitport 6y ago
      Great. I learned that the modern usage of the word 'stereotype' was coined in 1922 by Walter Lippmann, a German of Jewish descent [1]. I do not find this reference 'Funny', but IMO the fact that you do demonstrates your bias. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereotype#Etymology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereotype#Etymology
    - dsadsadsad 6y ago
      No. 'extremely manipulative, abusive, and gaslighting" would be, for example: To suggest that a disproportionate number of executives at CNN have German descent (just to be clear, I have no idea what is the descent of executives in FB or CNN, nor do I care). So talking about the German-controlled CNN is just an important relevant fact for every discussion. Now, every time don't like an article I can just reference this "fact" that CNN are controlled by the people that also tried to commit a genocide and if someone argues, I'll just gaslight about gaslight.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
- dsadsadsad 6y ago
  This policy is about the generalization: "Jewish people control media networks, the economy or the government" There is a literal difference between saying "German people are Nazis" and saying "Hitler was a Nazi", the latter shouldn't be censored, but context matter. Given a specific German person that happen to be a Nazi and using that fact to insinuate that Germans are Nazis, would not be OK.
  - dang 6y ago
    Please don't use sockpuppet accounts like this.
WrongThinkerNo5 6y ago
Something similar struck me about the article. It does not list the "external partners" facebook is working with that are largely Jewish organizations that have been relentlessly hammering Facebook; founded by and largely led by Jewish people, to control speech, in direct violation of the US Constitution, in order to suppress the notion that Jewish people control things. It is unfortunately extremely abusive gaslighting behavior.

the-dude 6y ago

With all the fuzz about FB, I find it remarkable when I engage with millenials : FB is irrelevant to them. So, what gives?

MattGaiser 6y ago
Instagram isn’t though.
- searchableguy 6y ago
  What will make people switch anyway? They don't care much about security (evident by the recent twitter hack). They don't care much about privacy. They don't care much about functionality. Increasingly, I don't think people even care about the content or relationship/social aspect of the social media. My dad has like maximum number of friends on Facebook and I really doubt he actually engages with them. His feed is full of bullshit that he sometimes tell me about and is even self aware of a lot. Why do you use facebook despite that? He doesn't have an answer. I fear he is just addicted to scrolling when he has nothing to do. He is also using Facebook and whatsapp because of peer pressure. A weird phenomenon in india is how easily bullshit spreads on whatsapp. The reason is most people forward without even consuming the content. It's almost like they are getting rewarded for a completely different thing than the intended or well communicative purpose of the medium.
  - MattGaiser 6y ago
    > It's almost like they are getting rewarded for a completely different thing than the intended or well communicative purpose of the medium. I suspect they find the engagement sufficient. They forward and someone comments. The dinging of the phone itself is exciting.
dcow 6y ago
> “We've consulted with many of our external partners over the past year to better understand implicit speech that has historically been used to disparage, intimidate or exclude people based on protected characteristics like race or religion,” said Facebook VP of Content Policy Monika Bickert in a phone call with the press. What gives is that the VP of Content Policy at a multi-billion dollar company has fallen victim to the rhetoric of a post-modernist black power cult. Abstractly, a business executive is leveraging their position of power to play activist for a political-social agenda rather than set policy shaped by a desire to build a neutral and open social platform. This is at best ethically shady and at worst an abuse of power. How this prevents the spread of misinformation and counters bubble-think, I fail to see. On top of that, if you actually examine the rhetoric it's 100% inconsistent. Critical thinking has fallen by the wayside in favor of the virtuous critical race theory. Nobody is thinking anymore and we're literally electing to censor truths, ugly as they may be, in order to push a totalitarian narrative. This should piss you off, fundamentally, not only because it's certifiably a bad idea, but because it is working to unravel our sense of objectivity which is required in most disciplines outside of sociology. We've seen it before. History will not look kindly back upon the movement we're experiencing. It's rather unsettling to see it play out if you ask me.

hundredand10 6y ago

How can you ban a stereotype, especially when it's based on a fact so easily proven and incontrovertible that you can simply wait for 3 seconds after the latest Hollywood film and note all the -bergs, -steins, and precious-metal-laden surnames as the credits roll by. Am I a conspiracy theorist if I dare to read what they put right in front of my face? Is observing the world around me now tantamount to hate speech?

Ono-Sendai 6y ago
Yes, they are known as hate-facts.
kingkawn 6y ago
Just because there are jews in media does not mean that “Jews control the media.” You are casually stepping into a history of discrimination that has continuously led back to genocide, each time beginning as just these sort of indignant observations.
- Nesco 6y ago
  I totally agree with you, but you have also to agree then (to stay coherent) that the fact some structures of powers are predominantly held by white men does not necessary mean there is a systemic racism and a white privilege. Otherwise the same reasoning could be applied to say that “the J00s control the media and Hollywood”
- luckylion 6y ago
  > Just because there are jews in media does not mean that “Jews control the media.” It's a matter of how you define "control" and "Jews", I suppose. "Jews" as in "all jewish people"? Obviously not. "Control" as in "total control over all media companies" also obviously not. Individual Jews in powerful positions of plenty of powerful companies at disproportionate rates? Probably yes, at least for the US, less so in Europe for obvious reasons. In the end, I guess Facebook should simply outlaw all blanket statements. None of them are true, all of them are oversimplifying complex issues and are, if believed, harmful. But then again, what would remain if they did so?

realusername 6y ago

> Dutch outlet NU.nl reported that a Facebook spokesperson clarified to them that the ban extends to Zwarte Piet, also known as Black Peter, a folk character that accompanies St. Nicholas on Christmas. And here is exactly why it's a stupid idea, different countries have different culture and history. We also celebrate the exact same event in my place and it's just a part of kindergarten, nothing related about US culture. People needs to be less stubborn and understand that not everywhere is the same as the place they grew up. Edit: Although I've just learned that the Dutch & German versions look indeed different compared to my place. The massive black-beard ones we have in my place would still be okay for Facebook I believe, but it's the same concept really.

the-dude 6y ago
I have talked about the word neger ( Dutch variant of negro ) with all my known black acquaintances and also with some whom I didn't know before. Nobody had any problems with the word neger. "Of course I am a neger they said, and you are a white guy. So what, just don't call me zwarte ( black ).". This is in NL.
- luckylion 6y ago
  That's interesting, the word is very taboo in Germany, essentially only used by very old people, relatively far right-wing folks and some Africans (though much, much less so than in the US).
- sebazzz 6y ago
  That is interesting, because one of the black (should I call him that, I find "black" polarising) comedians here, Steven Brunswijk, used to call himself Braboneger which is a combination of his province and the mentioned word. However he stopped calling himself that because it wouldn't help his career (which I suppose means: others find it offensive). [0] [0]: https://www.ad.nl/tilburg/braboneger-laat-bijnaam-vallen-en-wordt-weer-steven-brunswijk~a041d8b3/?referrer=https://nl.m.wikipedia.org/ https://www.ad.nl/tilburg/braboneger-laat-bijnaam-vallen-en-...
  - 6y ago

tibbydudeza 6y ago

More non nonsensical half baked measures from the Zuck.

sneeuwpopsneeuw 6y ago

In the Netherlands there have been big discussions and protests for and against one of our national holidays called "sinterklaas" (a second Christmas) Where there is a figure called "Zwarte piet" a blackface character that will bring the kids candy's, "pepernoten" and chocolate when they where nice that year. When the news broke out that FB would start removing these kind of images from there platform both sides of the discussion mostly reacted here in the Netherlands that removing it completely is not the way to go. So i'm wondering how this news is received everywhere else in the world? Here is was the headline of most newspapers and our national television news yesterday.

raxxorrax 6y ago
In Germany we often paint someone black for the christmas story (Holy Three Kings). I think that will also be cancelled because of the failed American educational system. Of course if you happen to be black, your role is determined if the story gets performed. Such is the weight of oppression...
- WrongThinkerNo5 6y ago
  It has nothing to do with the failed US "education" system. But it has everything to do with the people who do not control anything having pushed a relentless campaign against out-group competition using psychological manipulation and abuse. It is a war on Europeans that has been waged for centuries even. They are in control of us and our lives the world over and they are our masters and we are their slaves. We also have no means for changing that as we slide ever deeper into their control through a kind of new aristocratic feudalism, where you are not allowed to even look at, let alone question the lord, queen, king, emperor … or you will swiftly be dealt with through immense violence that will shock others around you to subjugate themselves. They are now also using the African as their enforcer, as a type of mercenary in this war, that is motivated by promises of spoils and plunder for serving their masters. As a German, you will be well aware of that fact that you are not allowed to even think, let alone question your lords that command you to believe what they authorize you to believe and any deviation from that will result in your being made an example of in front of your fellow peasants, lest they too think they can question their masters.

bencollier49 6y ago

This is interesting. It'll ban some forms of Morris Dancing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_Morris https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_Morris https://www.facebook.com/silurianbordermorrismen/ https://www.facebook.com/silurianbordermorrismen/

bencollier49 6y ago
And an example of how far back this goes (from the Wiki page decribing the origins of the custom): "An event which took place in the autumn of 1450 illustrates well the way in which the often separate activities of poaching and protest could on occasion conflate. On October 1450 a large group of men entered the duke of Buckingham's park at Penshurst in Kent and carried off eighty-two deer. Thirty-two men, nineteen of them yeomen, were named in subsequent indictment which made clear that a good number had escaped by its claim that there had been a total of a hundred present (not a figure to be taken too literally). These armed men had charcoaled faces, wore long false beards and withheld their names, calling themselves servants of the Queen of the Fairies."
DanBC 6y ago
Many Morris dancers have switched to different forms of face paint. Some have moved to soot marks, some use shapes, some use different colours. Whatever the origin of blackface in border morris it ended up as pretty racist, with direct links to minstrelsy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_Morris#19th-century_minstrelsy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_Morris#19th-century_min...

turboturbo 6y ago

As a Belgian born in the late ’80s, this is both very understandable and slightly bewildering. I can perfectly understand Facebook’s decision in the context of blackface being racist. On the other hand, I have fond memories of watching a show for kids (on the public TV station) called “Dag Sinterklaasje”, which featured “Zwarte Piet” (Black Pete) in each of its episodes. This show invariably had a warm, charming and cosy atmosphere. I completely agree with the decision, it’s just bewildering to realise that progress in social justice (if only symbolic progress) can catch you off-guard and forces you to reconsider parts of your youth.

raxxorrax 6y ago
If it doesn't look like progress, it probably isn't. Since the demographic change of the net, content is actually regressing back to a mean. There are some people that see racism everywhere because they have been told that they are victims. This is no road to anything that can be called progress.

wwwwwwwww 6y ago

I will probably get more downvoted than answers, but I'll try anyway: could anybody explain why "blackface" is seen as "racist"? Especially in the context of an event where everybody is wearing a costume. I lived (among some other continents) in Africa for some years, and you have tribes where people use a "whiteface" in some celebrations. Are we supposed to get upset about their "racism" as well? Also, how will this in any way help socially disadvantages people, regardless their skin tone, anywhere in the world? To me, this seems like just another made-up topic, so that people can yell and hate each other.

dcow 6y ago
It doesn't make any sense when you actually think about it. The problem is people don't actually think about it. Blackface was actually one of the few avenues available to black comedians at a time when they were actually oppressed. None of this fits the post-modernist narrative though so it's ignored because blackface is obviously racist, rite?
ephextom 6y ago
The historical links to minstrel shows are valid grounds for the offensiveness. But sometimes you have to wonder about the validity of the outrage when a case has no links to this whatsoever, and where it is done out of pure admiration and celebration of a person of color. A few years ago in Australia, a young kid and his mother were nationally shamed when the kid went to a school dress-up day as his favourite footballer, who is a dark-skinned man of Fijian descent [1]. He wore dark skin paint and a dreadlock wig, obviously because he idolises this footballer and wanted to look as much like him as possible. The footballer then had to comment on the matter, and admitted that he himself had endorsed people dressing up this way in the past, and that even he had to be educated that it was not a cool thing to do. [1] https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/its-a-shame-nic-naitanui-responds-to-blackface-outrage-20160826-gr1jlf.html https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/its-a-shame-nic-...
sebazzz 6y ago
> To me, this seems like just another made-up topic, so that people can yell and hate each other. Well, it does distract a bit from the real issues like systematic racism, COVID-19 and global climate chance.

homami 6y ago

It seems to me that Facebook instead of battling racism and other problems in the information bubbles that it has created, is doing some kind of straw man. "Look here we are banning black face!" Don't get me wrong, symbols matter. But this is not even remotely the most consequential thing that Facebook can do to fight disinformation and racism. They should make a fix for their echo chambers.

ed_balls 6y ago

Is it a global policy? Are they gonna ban pictures and videos of kids signing Christmas carols in my country? Or saying the name of the 3rd biggest river in Africa (in my language) https://static.deon.pl/storage/image/core_files/2012/1/5/5afeebc817d734db5b3728f52770942b/jpg/deon/articles-thumb-xlarge-breakpoint-default/kolednicy-misyjni-i-dobra-nowina.jpg https://static.deon.pl/storage/image/core_files/2012/1/5/5af...

kstenerud 6y ago

This is unfortunately going to end badly. We're still in a fairly decent position on the diminishing returns curve for banning offensive content, but it's already a far cry from what people were talking about censoring even a year ago. The logical extreme for this sort of thing would be the censoring of anything that isn't as bland and boring as a history textbook (for exactly the same reasons). I expect there will be stronger and stronger pushback before it goes this far into the ridiculous, but this will be the general direction that every offence-taking group pushes things in. The left can't take a joke. The right can't take criticism of orthodoxy.

dcow 6y ago
2+2=5
- raxxorrax 6y ago
  There is a saying in my country that you sometimes need to let 5 be even. But it mainly a suggestion for a laissez faire approach.

burfog 6y ago

Too conveniently, it bans a photo of Virginia governor Ralph Northam. It protects him. The infamous photo shows him in blackface, with his then-girlfriend beside him in full KKK gear. (and uh, did they just have KKK gear lying around the house???) It doesn't get covered much in the news. He is being protected because of his party affiliation as a democrat. He is still in office to this day. Imagine if such a photo had been discovered with a republican. It would be headline news for months.