4 ms·

> I have no comment on the specific groups being censored. I am sure that Facebook will be making a handful of mistakes on all sides. Agree that Facebook will

> I have no comment on the specific groups being censored. I am sure that Facebook will be making a handful of mistakes on all sides. Agree that Facebook will likely make mistakes regardless, but I think saying you have no comment on individual groups is missing the point. If Facebook is banning any groups, there should be individually specific reasons behind those banning. The stated reasons for Qanon crackdowns was disinformation. The stated reason w.r.t. the New Mexico Civil Guard is promotion of violence that puts groups of people in active danger. Neither were shutdown "because they're right wing"; that's incidental. The flip side is the apparent reason for listed left-wing groups being targeted is just that they're left-wing, rather than them spreading disinformation, promoting violence, or any other valid violations. > if Facebook is going to be censoring right-wing extremists, then they had better be censoring left-wing extremists as well This is exactly the type of tit-for-tat "balance" argument that leads to this kind of appeasement strategy on Facebook's part: the idea that both "sides" need to be punished equally when one "side" is violating terms, for fear of appearance of bias. It's a very effective strategy on the part of any oppressive movement, to sell the idea that the sides are equivalent purely by nature of a spectrum existing, therefore they should be given equal treatment regardless of the realities of what either "side" is actually doing in practice. Do you have any examples of so-called "left wing extremists" listed in the intercept's article actually doing anything worth censoring or is it purely a tit-for-tat response: right group was punished for genuine reasons, ergo we must find some reasons to punish left groups too. For. Balance.

fighterpilot 5y ago
> I think saying you have no comment on individual groups is missing the point It's not missing the point, which is that this page/website is being hypocritical (I admit that I didn't communicate this clearly in my first post). Even if I grant the article's argument that none of those particular groups should have been banned (which I do not, they have the burden of proof, as they're making a positive claim, and they haven't satisfied it in that article), my claim of hypocrisy still stands, because this website ignores the examples of innocent right-wing groups and individuals being wrongly banned, such as Ron Paul. > This is exactly the type of tit-for-tat "balance" argument I made it clear that I'm not making a both-sides argument. I'm not saying that left-wing violent extremism is as bad or as common as right-wing violent extremism. I'm merely stating that it does exist (at least according to the FBI), and to the extent that it does exist, it should be blocked by Facebook on the same grounds that Facebook is blocking right-wing extremism.
- lucideer 5y ago
  > they have the burden of proof, as they're making a positive claim The positive action here is the initial banning, the burden of proof lies with Facebook. The Intercept's claim is a contradictory one, and only asks for reasons from Facebook, so I don't see how it can be framed as a "positive claim". > I'm merely stating that it does exist (at least according to the FBI), and to the extent that it does exist, it should be blocked by Facebook on the same grounds that Facebook is blocking right-wing extremism I 100% agree. I just don't see any evidence that this is an example of them doing that. > this website ignores the examples of innocent right-wing groups and individuals being wrongly banned, such as Ron Paul That is a valid criticism; I was actually unaware of the Ron Paul story (and can't find a huge amount about it searching tbh, other than it happened - is it still in place?). Someone should probably add that to the OP separately.

fighterpilot 5y ago

> I think saying you have no comment on individual groups is missing the point It's not missing the point, which is that this page/website is being hypocritical (I admit that I didn't communicate this clearly in my first post). Even if I grant the article's argument that none of those particular groups should have been banned (which I do not, they have the burden of proof, as they're making a positive claim, and they haven't satisfied it in that article), my claim of hypocrisy still stands, because this website ignores the examples of innocent right-wing groups and individuals being wrongly banned, such as Ron Paul. > This is exactly the type of tit-for-tat "balance" argument I made it clear that I'm not making a both-sides argument. I'm not saying that left-wing violent extremism is as bad or as common as right-wing violent extremism. I'm merely stating that it does exist (at least according to the FBI), and to the extent that it does exist, it should be blocked by Facebook on the same grounds that Facebook is blocking right-wing extremism.

lucideer 5y ago
> they have the burden of proof, as they're making a positive claim The positive action here is the initial banning, the burden of proof lies with Facebook. The Intercept's claim is a contradictory one, and only asks for reasons from Facebook, so I don't see how it can be framed as a "positive claim". > I'm merely stating that it does exist (at least according to the FBI), and to the extent that it does exist, it should be blocked by Facebook on the same grounds that Facebook is blocking right-wing extremism I 100% agree. I just don't see any evidence that this is an example of them doing that. > this website ignores the examples of innocent right-wing groups and individuals being wrongly banned, such as Ron Paul That is a valid criticism; I was actually unaware of the Ron Paul story (and can't find a huge amount about it searching tbh, other than it happened - is it still in place?). Someone should probably add that to the OP separately.