Facebook Says it Will Now Block White-Nationalist, White-Separatist Posts (washingtonpost.com)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Facebook Says it Will Now Block White-Nationalist, White-Separatist Posts (washingtonpost.com)

Posted by msmash on Wednesday March 27, 2019 @05:20AM from the tightening-bolts dept.

Facebook will begin banning posts, photos and other content that reference white nationalism and white separatism, revising its rules in response to criticism that a loophole had allowed racism to thrive on its platform. From a report: Previously, Facebook only had prohibited users from sharing messages that glorified white supremacy -- a rhetorical discrepancy, in the eyes of civil rights advocates, who argued that white nationalism, supremacy and separatism are indistinguishable and that the policy undermined the tech giant's stepped-up efforts to combat hate speech online. Facebook now agrees with that analysis, [Editor's note: the link may be paywalled; alternative source] according to people who've been briefed on the decision. The new policy also applies to Instagram. The rise and spread of white nationalism on Facebook were thrown into sharp relief in the wake of the deadly neo-Nazi rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, in 2017, when self-avowed white nationalists used the social networking site as an organizing tool.

402 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Whew, that's a relief! by taiwanjohn · 2019-03-27 05:22 · Score: 0

I guess the problem is totally solved now. Hurray!

--
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve your problem, you're not using enough of it. --AC
1. Re:Whew, that's a relief! by backwardsposter · 2019-03-27 05:24 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Don't worry, it's only being used against people who disagree with us
2. Re:Whew, that's a relief! by AmiMoJo · 2019-03-27 05:30 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  It's only Facebook. If their service censors stuff you want to read just use a different one. Twitter, Gab and 4/8chan all allow this kind of content. Twitter does as long as you don't call for violence or harass people, the others don't even care about that.
  What is it about Facebook that makes it so special?
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
3. Re:Whew, that's a relief! by mobby_6kl · 2019-03-27 05:37 · Score: 1
  
  Like nazis, yeah.
4. Re:Whew, that's a relief! by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 05:39 · Score: 1
  
  Dont use the #learntocode hashtag on twitter or instaban
5. Re:Whew, that's a relief! by Sir_Eptishous · 2019-03-27 05:40 · Score: 2
  
  What is it about Facebook that makes it so special?
  My communications teacher from 10th grade is on there.
  And she is a dominatrix.
  
  --
  We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
6. Re:Whew, that's a relief! by SirSlud · 2019-03-27 05:41 · Score: 1
  
  Is this like how because showering doesn't remove every single piece of dirt and bacteria on your body, you just stopped doing it?
  
  --
  "Old man yells at systemd"
7. Re:Whew, that's a relief! by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 05:44 · Score: 0
  
  yeah, it's a real slippery slope. first they'll start out with people like me and backwardsposter who sympathize and align with people who shoot up churches full of brown people. as soon as they squash us, who next? furries? pedos? diaper fetishists? none of us are safe.
8. Re:Whew, that's a relief! by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 05:54 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  >What is it about Facebook that makes it so special?
  Because it has a large captive audience of people who just want to say hi to grandma and look at baby pictures and stuff. Nobody needs to go to gab to catch up with fam.
  Plus they have gone out of their way to make their "NEWS" stream addictive so it's a lightning rod for people who want to "fight the good fight" in the comments section so they can enjoy a nice righteous anger high and pat themselves on the back for saving the world.
  Plus facebook represents easy access to the dumbest americans. The sorts of people who would have had 5 stars on yahoo answers or who would have punched in their credit card details into adult friend finder.
  They don't use those sites now they're all on facebook and the russian trolls throw desperate shit fits if anyone does anything that could limit their access to the dipshit boomer uncles of america.
9. Re:Whew, that's a relief! by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 05:54 · Score: 1
  
  Use #learntosheetrock instead. Most journalists are incapable of learning to code.
10. Re:Whew, that's a relief! by cascadingstylesheet · 2019-03-27 05:58 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  It's only Facebook. If their service censors stuff you want to read just use a different one. Twitter, Gab and 4/8chan all allow this kind of content. Twitter does as long as you don't call for violence or harass people, the others don't even care about that.
  What is it about Facebook that makes it so special?
  Yeah, I mean it's not like all the major platforms and payment processors will get together and ... oh wait.
11. Re: Whew, that's a relief! by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 05:59 · Score: 0, Troll
  
  Twitter bans people like crazy over speech
  Only free speach sites i know of are
  Gab
  Minds
  8chan
  Voat
12. Re:Whew, that's a relief! by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 06:03 · Score: 0
  
  You joke, but Fetlife was already forced to ban some things considered "too kinky" by MBAs at Mastercard.
13. Re:Whew, that's a relief! by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 06:04 · Score: 0
  
  Drink! Amimojo supports private censorship of other people when he'd cry about his posts being downvoted (not banned or censored, just a little more hidden)
14. Re:Whew, that's a relief! by Z80a · 2019-03-27 06:04 · Score: 1
  
  That's the point.
  It's all about sweeping stuff under the carpet, while giving em ammo to grow the thing even more until the carpet reach the roof
15. Re:Whew, that's a relief! by ShanghaiBill · 2019-03-27 06:05 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  What is it about Facebook that makes it so special?
  The problem is that Facebook is not doing this by their own volition. They are being pressured into it under threat of government action. So this is basically backhanded censorship.
  Many people will accept this because they are, after all, a basket of deplorables. But the whacko right has raised serious issues in the past, such as their outrage about Ruby Ridge and Waco. Those government actions were shocking, and absolutely should not have happened in a free and just society. Everything the whackos claimed in their conspiracy theories turned out to be true, as the leaked tapes revealed, with lying and felony obstruction of justice going at least as far as Janet Reno.
  Of course, no one was brought to justice for these crimes. Who is going to arrest the attorney general? But at least we know what happened. In our new world of corporation-enforced censorship, next time we may not.
16. Re:Whew, that's a relief! by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 06:09 · Score: 0
  
  Slippery slope isn't, not in this case.
17. Re:Whew, that's a relief! by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 06:11 · Score: 0
  
  There was also that whole kidnapping and murder thing.
18. Re:Whew, that's a relief! by Shaitan · 2019-03-27 06:11 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Those are different kinds of outlets not alternatives. What is special about Facebook is that everyone is on it and it has achieved a sort of monopoly status. At this point it should be considered more of a common carrier. What you are saying amounts to "you can still protest, you are just required to do it in dark alleyways."
  So long as Facebook also censors minority, female, and LGBT empowerment messages I don't see a problem. Really, anything encouraging people to collaborate and identify with or against others on the basis of race, gender, or sexual orientation is safe to move out of the public space altogether. Cherrypicking which to move into the shadows and which to spotlight is a problem.
19. Re:Whew, that's a relief! by ganjadude · 2019-03-27 06:11 · Score: 1, Interesting
  
  yet black nationalists and hispanic nationals are still goof right???? double standards much?
  
  --
  have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
20. Re:Whew, that's a relief! by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 06:12 · Score: 0
  
  Funny you think that white nationalists deserve a payment processor.
  Says a whole lot about you.
21. Re:Whew, that's a relief! by AmiMoJo · 2019-03-27 06:14 · Score: 1
  
  All the other ones except the ones I just mentioned.
  I kinda agree about payment processors though, gonna have to go back to mailed in cash/cheque donations or bitcoin.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
22. Re:Whew, that's a relief! by CrimsonAvenger · 2019-03-27 06:19 · Score: 1
  
  This year. Next year, who knows?
  
  --
  
  "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
23. Re:Whew, that's a relief! by XxtraLarGe · 2019-03-27 06:21 · Score: 1
  
  What is it about Facebook that makes it so special?
  I'm guessing it's the 2.32 billion monthly active users.
  
  --
  Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
24. Re:Whew, that's a relief! by fustakrakich · 2019-03-27 06:23 · Score: 2
  
  At this point it should be considered more of a common carrier.
  No, sorry, common carrier is for the service provider. Facebook is a content provider and messaging board that has no control of your internet connection. There is no reason to regulate content. Let facebook do what it wants. There's more than one channel.
  
  --
  “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
25. Re:Whew, that's a relief! by sinij · 2019-03-27 06:29 · Score: 1
  
  It's only Facebook.
  Where do you draw your "only X" line? Does it even exist or are you unreservedly for censorship?
26. Re: Whew, that's a relief! by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 06:31 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  And take notice of which sites are currently under attack by TPTB. It's most of the ones you list above. They HATE free speech, so they'll attempt to shut you down by linking someone or some group that the general public hates (or has been programmed to hate) to the forum and use that to get an upstream service pulled that renders the site unusable or unprofitable, and effectively shut down.
  Any time you have someone screeching for censorship, you're dealing with authoritarians. Beware. They don't care about you or your rights. They just want power and your freedoms are in the way.
  Freedom must always be fought for.
27. Re: Whew, that's a relief! by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 06:36 · Score: 1
  
  Right. All the anti Semitic, anti Christian, black power posts are just fine.
28. Re:Whew, that's a relief! by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 06:41 · Score: 1
  
  And don't forget: Jews are allowed to want and have their own nation with laws enforcing their majority. If whitey tries that, hoo-boy! We gotta shut that shit down!
29. Re:Whew, that's a relief! by desdinova+216 · 2019-03-27 06:42 · Score: 1
  
  really, defending pedophiles?
30. Re:Whew, that's a relief! by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 06:47 · Score: 1
  
  free speech is free speech and if you can't handle a few guys sticking their dicks in kids then what else won't you be able to handle? how else will you crack down on freedom?
31. Re:Whew, that's a relief! by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 06:57 · Score: 0
  
  I love how you dipshits unreservedly push for a zero-censorship platform but never actually put any skin in the game. Voat, 8chan, and Gab all censor their users, but I suppose it's the censorship that your kind likes so you don't make any waves. Hypocrites.
  Put your money where your mouth is you fucking coward.
32. Re:Whew, that's a relief! by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 07:06 · Score: 0
  
  Slashdot is being overrun by stupid n1ggers. Africa is shit and always will be so long there are n1ggers.
33. Re:Whew, that's a relief! by Megol · 2019-03-27 07:09 · Score: 2
  
  That's what free speech is about. You don't have to listen to them but let them talk with other adults about their fucked up fantasies.
34. Re:Whew, that's a relief! by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 07:15 · Score: 0
  
  You joke, but Fetlife was already forced to ban some things considered "too kinky" by MBAs at Mastercard.
  Which is why it's so disingenuous for the white nationalists to cry rivers over their "oppression". Honest, harmless perverts (or at least, harmless upon invocation of the safe word) have been confined to their own corners of the net because the corporations were always afraid of theocratic backlash, while Klan thugs are demanding center stage in places where you can't post topless women.
  Not to mention that furries got the boot off 4chan for drama and copyright reasons well before the gaters got the boot for throwing their own crap at the party van.
35. Re:Whew, that's a relief! by Shaitan · 2019-03-27 07:23 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  "No, sorry, common carrier is for the service provider."
  Hence why I didn't say Facebook IS a common carrier. I spoke to what we should do, not what we currently do.
  At this point it should be considered more of a common carrier. The content on their platform is generated by users and not FB, Facebook does not generate content they are a service provider who transmits it. They serve the same function as an ISP but with an additional layer of abstraction. Much like a VPN rides atop your internet connection.
  "There's more than one channel."
  Do you understand the word "monopoly?"
36. Re: Whew, that's a relief! by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 07:29 · Score: 0
  
  The problem is obvious. If I say I don't agree with supporting Israel 100% ? You can damn well be sure someone will call that anti-semitic.
  Most liberals say anti-Christian things all the time (calling them stupid for being religious) - but don't call jews and Muslims stupid. Not sure where the lines are, hence the slippery slope.
  ** not religious, left, or right. But it doesn't really matter.
37. Re: Whew, that's a relief! by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 07:36 · Score: 0
  
  Corporate Progressive nazis sure do love corporate censorship.
38. Re: Whew, that's a relief! by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 07:47 · Score: 0
  
  Mewe.com is good
39. Re:Whew, that's a relief! by BringsApples · 2019-03-27 07:51 · Score: 1
  
  Link, or it didn't happen.
  
  --
  Politics; n. : A religion whereby man is god.
40. Re: Whew, that's a relief! by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 07:52 · Score: 0
  
  All of your religions are the same dumb form of control, you only pay attention to the shit being sholved in your face.
41. Re:Whew, that's a relief! by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 07:59 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  you mean the one where
  No, I'm pretty sure he means the one where a white nationalist named James Fields drove his car thru a crowd and killed a woman---a woman who had never even seen or spoken to him.
  If I recall, he got a life sentence for that.
  
  then some fat cunt had a heart attack?
  Wow, the alt-right will say just about anything... except the truth, won't they.
42. Re:Whew, that's a relief! by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 08:00 · Score: 0
  
  Link, or it didn't happen.
  GP is in the EU; he'd break the new law if he links.
43. Re:Whew, that's a relief! by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 08:06 · Score: 0
  
  Like that they're an American, and support American values?
44. Re:Whew, that's a relief! by squiggleslash · 2019-03-27 08:12 · Score: 1
  
  They are being pressured into it under threat of government action
  
  I'd be very surprised if this is true, because Facebook hasn't shown any sign of caring about government action before, even assuming anyone's coming up with realistic threats.
  The more likely reason is that Facebook is starting to lose advertisers. I can see the same thing happening to Twitter and YouTube too in time.
  
  --
  You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
45. Re:Whew, that's a relief! by AmiMoJo · 2019-03-27 08:13 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  Show me a true no censorship platform and I'll accept your premise.
  There is always a line. What matters is we have a range of platforms with different lines and people can choose the one they want.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
46. Re:Whew, that's a relief! by squiggleslash · 2019-03-27 08:14 · Score: 2
  
  This is an outrageous slur. There are HUNDREDS, possibly even THOUSANDS, of Republicans who are not white nationalists or white supremacists or in any way supportive of fascist or fascism-adjacent ideologies.
  
  --
  You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
47. Re:Whew, that's a relief! by Ksevio · 2019-03-27 08:19 · Score: 1
  
  So long as Facebook also censors minority, female, and LGBT empowerment messages I don't see a problem.
  
  You really don't see the difference between hate speech from groups seeking to commit genocide and "LGBT empowerment message"? Well I guess right wingers aren't known to be the smartest.
48. Re:Whew, that's a relief! by Thaelon · 2019-03-27 08:24 · Score: 1
  
  >What is it about Facebook that makes it so special?
  Their clout and the size of their userbase. Twitter and facebook are mainstream. They're cited and linked to on CNN/Fox/MSNBC.
  Any other dumb questions?
  
  --
  Question everything
49. Re:Whew, that's a relief! by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 08:24 · Score: 0
  
  Swedish government said censor for us or we'll make a law that forces you to do it (FB got servers in Sweden)
50. Re:Whew, that's a relief! by DogDude · 2019-03-27 08:32 · Score: 1
  
  The problem is that their advertisers don't want their brands to show up on "Jim Bob's MAGA White People are the Best" Facebook page. So yes, they are fixing the problem. Were you trying to be sarcastic?
  
  --
  I don't respond to AC's.
51. Re:Whew, that's a relief! by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 08:33 · Score: 0
  
  Ruby Ridge was stupid and Randy Weaver was a pathetic hillbilly who wasn't worth the effort to arrest, much less besiege. Now at Waco, on the other hand, the gov should've just cleared out a perimeter and dropped a bomb in the middle of it. Problem solved.
52. Re:Whew, that's a relief! by dpidcoe · 2019-03-27 08:42 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  To be fair, "left wingers" have a history of not being able to tell the difference between groups seeking to commit genocide and groups that are against affirmative action or for enforcing our immigration process, so I can see where the confusion is coming from.
53. Re:Whew, that's a relief! by tsqr · 2019-03-27 08:48 · Score: 1
  
  The problem is that their advertisers don't want their brands to show up on "Jim Bob's MAGA White People are the Best" Facebook page. So yes, they are fixing the problem. Were you trying to be sarcastic?
  Jim Bob buys stuff too. Why would you think advertisers wouldn't want their ads to appear in his newsfeed?
54. Re:Whew, that's a relief! by mobby_6kl · 2019-03-27 09:06 · Score: 1
  
  This is an outrageous slur. There are HUNDREDS, possibly even THOUSANDS, of Republicans who are not white nationalists or white supremacists or in any way supportive of fascist or fascism-adjacent ideologies.
  That's true, they might be just confused!
55. Re:Whew, that's a relief! by fustakrakich · 2019-03-27 09:16 · Score: 2
  
  Do you understand the word "monopoly?"
  Yes, and Facebook isn't one. Your ISP, on the other hand, might be. Facebook isn't needed to connect. It is only one channel.
  
  --
  “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
56. Re:Whew, that's a relief! by DogDude · 2019-03-27 09:39 · Score: 1
  
  I don't know of any sort of major advertiser that wants to be associated with that sort of stuff. That's the right wing sites just have ads for fake drugs, gun safes, and other such nonsense. It's not worth alienating 80-90% of your customer base to try to pander to 5%.
  
  --
  I don't respond to AC's.
57. Re:Whew, that's a relief! by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 09:57 · Score: 0
  
  This is exactly your agenda. You want to claim that anyone who does not support your view is a white nationalist or white supremacists in order to shut them down. So only your point of view has been heard.
58. Re:Whew, that's a relief! by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 09:59 · Score: 0
  
  No it isn't a slur. If you are on the progressive left, by definition anyone to the right of you IS a white nationalist or white supremacist. It's an ideological position shared by radical socialists and communists. Wake up folks.
59. Re:Whew, that's a relief! by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 10:00 · Score: 0
  
  Says the guy posting hyperbole and false equivalence. Don't worry, there are plenty of other places you can voice your opinions after FB boots you off. I bet lots of White Nationalists sites have forums very similar to slashdot you can use.
60. Re:Whew, that's a relief! by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 10:06 · Score: 0
  
  white genocide is virtuous, not some heinous deed
61. Re:Whew, that's a relief! by DogDude · 2019-03-27 10:17 · Score: 1
  
  Oh no! Your right to say whatever you want on somebody else's network and transfer money on somebody else's system is being trampled! Somebody call the Supreme Court!
  
  --
  I don't respond to AC's.
62. Re:Whew, that's a relief! by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 10:27 · Score: 0
  
  Hyperbole? I wasted a truly stupid amount of time in late 2015/early 2016 arguing with morons who seemed to earnestly believe that Trump secretly wanted to gas all the brown people and that a border wall was literally Holocaust 2: Zyklon B-oogaloo before giving up, changing my party registration to republican, and deleting the MSNBC link from my bookmarks toolbar.
  If anything they've gotten even crazier since then.
63. Re:Whew, that's a relief! by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 10:28 · Score: 0
  
  Not at all. We've heard you plenty and decided that your views are so repugnant that you're no longer welcome to participate in society.
64. Re:Whew, that's a relief! by Edward+Nardella · 2019-03-27 10:37 · Score: 1
  
  Probably because there appears to be a lot of overlap.
  
  --
  My sig doesn't address Anons, sigs aren't visible to them.
65. Re:Whew, that's a relief! by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 10:41 · Score: 0
  
  The only thing new here is that facebook is making a hidden policy public now. They have censored our speech for years so this is nothing new at all. The will allow all the White hatred, pro jew speech all they want but no way they will allow someone with a dissenting view on "their" precious platform.
  We have our own sites so we really don't give a shit about facebook, or twitter. We have Stormfront and National Vanguard to name a few known. We have sites in the dark web that you don't know about. The more you censor our speech from the main stream the deep underground we will go.
  An just to clear something up, I'm a White Nationalist, not a neo-Nazi/Nazi. We share some of the same goals but we have separate beliefs. Of course I'm sure some of this won't matter to most of you
66. Re:Whew, that's a relief! by tsqr · 2019-03-27 10:42 · Score: 1
  
  I don't know of any sort of major advertiser that wants to be associated with that sort of stuff. That's the right wing sites just have ads for fake drugs, gun safes, and other such nonsense. It's not worth alienating 80-90% of your customer base to try to pander to 5%.
  Fair enough. Now tell me, how does anyone but Facebook, me, and the advertiser know what shows up in my newsfeed? Hint: advertisements don't show up in a user's profile page (what I believe used to be referred to as the user's "wall" or "Facebook page").
67. Re:Whew, that's a relief! by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 10:55 · Score: 0
  
  The only thing new here is that facebook is making a hidden policy public now. They have censored our speech for years so this is nothing new at all. The will allow all the White hatred, pro jew speech all they want but no way they will allow someone with a dissenting view on "their" precious platform.
  We have our own sites so we really don't give a shit about facebook, or twitter. We have Stormfront and National Vanguard to name a few known. We have sites in the dark web that you don't know about. The more you censor our speech from the main stream the deep underground we will go.
  An just to clear something up, I'm a White Nationalist, not a neo-Nazi/Nazi. We share some of the same goals but we have separate beliefs. Of course I'm sure some of this won't matter to most of you.
68. Re: Whew, that's a relief! by Lenny369 · 2019-03-27 11:04 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, as long as we can still have black separatist groups like the black Panthers, we're cool. Don't mind the double standard.
69. Re:Whew, that's a relief! by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 11:11 · Score: 1
  
  White supremacy, black power, and gay pride all amount to the same thing. Each is a population divided with prejudicial and militant subcultures. Because we're all the same and a % of any group of people are bigots. What, because a person has brown skin instead of white, they are immune to bigotry and a desire for power? Stupid thinking like that is the human condition. The U.S. will be predominantly non-white within a century at this rate. The public spectacle of 1% of the remaining white population saying stupid shit is nothing more than a distraction while the magician pockets everyone's coins and further consolidates wealth and power. White supremacists can't afford to pay Facebook because they have no true power; that's why they get shut off. You don't see Facebook shutting down the paid propoganda which is the marketing engine of the corporate and private elite. Their agendas play loud and clear everywhere and shape what you think toward their goals: consumption, debt, economic slavery. Who has hurt all Americans more? White Supremacists, an anemic population that is generally demonized by everyone and has little power, or Corporate America. Which phrase is in common use. Corporate America or White Supremacist America? Which has done more damage? Which is more accepted? Which isn't censored and which is advertised to you every minute of every day.
  The men with the funny hats are coming.
  Wake up. Time to go.
70. Re: Whew, that's a relief! by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 11:22 · Score: 0
  
  Twitter blocks a lot of "right wing" stuff. Some "free" countries block the chans now (Aus/NZ). Don't know what gab is but I'm sure it's more of the same. It's concerning to see this level of censorship in the West because it represents a deterioration of stability and unity which will ultimately lead to violence. Censorship is not going to solve anything. It will just create deeper divisions.
71. Re:Whew, that's a relief! by h33t+l4x0r · 2019-03-27 11:23 · Score: 1
  
  4/8chan all allow this kind of content.
  My grandpa prefers less gay porn with his racist reading material.
72. Re: Whew, that's a relief! by Type44Q · 2019-03-27 11:27 · Score: 1
  
  ...and you've been fantasizing about being forced to lick her leg veins?
73. Re:Whew, that's a relief! by AmiMoJo · 2019-03-27 11:34 · Score: 0
  
  The problem with the popular platform argument is the platform is only popular because it takes steps to keep that kind of shit off most people's feeds. If they did nothing to keep the site bearable for the majority of users who don't want spam and KKK posts it wouldn't be popular any more.
  Then you would demand that the site everyone moved to in order to get away from that shit also be made a common carrier and get flooded with it too. Repeat ad infinitum.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
74. Re:Whew, that's a relief! by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 11:58 · Score: 0
  
  Please don't let the troll troll you. Very clearly was a bad troll.
75. Re:Whew, that's a relief! by sinij · 2019-03-27 12:47 · Score: 1
  
  Your attempt at justification makes no sense. Just because absurd extreme of something is unlikely to exist or even be desirable doesn't mean that censorious thugs you cheer on are in any way benign or excusable. Do you by any chance think they stop at censoring only Nazis or are you cynically consider yourself too far down the list to be affected?
76. Re:Whew, that's a relief! by AHuxley · 2019-03-27 13:08 · Score: 1
  
  Re "that makes it so special?"
  That governments use it?
  The utility like size, ubiquity and nature of the services?
  Once a service gets that big and that useful the idea that's its a "US" utility gets accepted.
  The "US" freedom of speech and freedom after speech is fully protected :)
  
  --
  Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
77. Re: Whew, that's a relief! by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 13:20 · Score: 0
  
  Except she literally died of a heart attack. She was a 310 lb, 2-pack per day smoker. Watch the videos if you need to verify for yourself. She collapsed 10 feet from the car and was never hit.
78. Re: Whew, that's a relief! by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 13:24 · Score: 0
  
  Nice logic. It would be a shame if something happened to it...
  You in 1950: "Get out of here, nlgger! We don't serve your kind!"
79. Re: Whew, that's a relief! by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 13:28 · Score: 0
  
  Much like veganism, reduced sense of smell, psychopathy, and liberalism.
80. Re: Whew, that's a relief! by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 14:11 · Score: 0
  
  The medical examiner would seem to disagree:
  
  Jennifer Nicole Bowers, an assistant chief medical examiner for the state, said she conducted an autopsy on Heyer two days after the crash. She determined that Heyer died as a result of blunt force injury to her torso.
  Among other injuries, such as a broken femur and lacerations on her legs and back, Heyer’s thoracic aorta — the largest artery in the body — was severed.
81. Re: Whew, that's a relief! by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 14:18 · Score: 0
  
  The blunt force injury occurred upon impact with the ground, AFTER her heart stopped.
  If you're going to paste the autopsy, paste the WHOLE FUCKING THING.
82. Re:Whew, that's a relief! by BlueStrat · 2019-03-27 15:00 · Score: 1
  
  Oh no! Your right to say whatever you want on somebody else's network and transfer money on somebody else's system is being trampled! Somebody call the Supreme Court!
  There is no principled argument for censorship.
  Only arguments from power.
  Strat
  
  --
  Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
83. Re: Whew, that's a relief! by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 15:12 · Score: 0
  
  It's was a place which was not under control of the two party system. That's what makes it special.
84. Re:Whew, that's a relief! by DogDude · 2019-03-27 15:22 · Score: 1
  
  None of what is being described is censorship.
  
  --
  I don't respond to AC's.
85. Re:Whew, that's a relief! by BlueStrat · 2019-03-27 15:41 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  None of what is being described is censorship.
  Just because the censorship is being performed by a private entity does not make it not-censorship.
  There's a good argument to be made that companies like Twitter/FB/YT are public spaces and should be prohibited from censoring anything that is not illegal in the US.
  During "Occupy Wallstreet" Zuccotti Park was prohibited from kicking the protesters out even though Zuccotti Park is privately owned because it was considered a public space. Seeing as a small handful of Silicon Valley megacorps control upwards of 90% of human online communications, there's an even stronger case for declaring them public spaces and therefor prohibited from infringing on 1st Amendment rights.
  Strat
  
  --
  Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
86. Re: Whew, that's a relief! by aliquis · 2019-03-27 15:48 · Score: 1
  
  No it's not only Facebook you fucking retard.
  Also Facebook and Google combined is just about everything.
87. Re: Whew, that's a relief! by aliquis · 2019-03-27 15:50 · Score: 1
  
  No. Like nationalists. Which isn't the same thing.
  Also why should white people be forced to have their nations and societies drenched in unwanted people or their problems?
  Don't complain when some individual goes with the only option.
88. Re: Whew, that's a relief! by aliquis · 2019-03-27 15:51 · Score: 1
  
  The problem with all you retards is that if it was your shit which wasn't allowed it wouldn't be as fun would it?
  Just because you don't care or even like it doesn't make it right.
89. Re: Whew, that's a relief! by aliquis · 2019-03-27 15:53 · Score: 1
  
  It is snd you post AC.
  Why not ban liberals and globalists from spreading their destructive propaganda? Or.. you know.. THAT people.
90. Re: Whew, that's a relief! by aliquis · 2019-03-27 15:54 · Score: 1
  
  Superstition is stupid. But yeah libtards are stupid to. "Equal value" is so fucking stupid. It's a lie and communist propaganda.
91. Re: Whew, that's a relief! by aliquis · 2019-03-27 15:56 · Score: 1
  
  True. The only reason they want to destroy our nations is to steal as much as possible.
92. Re: Whew, that's a relief! by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 16:34 · Score: 0
  
  You linked a report that literally debunked what you said. You are fucking retarded.
93. Re: Whew, that's a relief! by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 17:22 · Score: 0
  
  Twitter and Facebook are reflecting the culture of the righteous, easily offended.
  Just get some war veterans to go up against them. Like hey dumb fuck corps, we Fought for people's right to free speech.
94. Re: Whew, that's a relief! by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 17:42 · Score: 1
  
  No, it should go the other way -- government should apologize to the park for trampling their constitutional right to decide what activities are allowed on their own property.
95. Re: Whew, that's a relief! by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 18:00 · Score: 0
  
  You think they'll stop at white nationalists?
96. Re:Whew, that's a relief! by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 18:02 · Score: 0
  
  Cue the usual bunch of alt right lying cunts, to troll their bullshit as usual, you can tell by the fact they post as AC so as not to be identified. Posting anon due to mods bitch slapping there human garbage down.
97. Re: Whew, that's a relief! by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 18:05 · Score: 0
  
  "All the land in America was stolen from the natives" could be used to justify an atrocity on the scale of those committed in the 20th century, and there's a lot more where that came from.
98. Re: Whew, that's a relief! by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 18:11 · Score: 1
  
  Stop shilling for ethnic conflict.
  Yes, you. Think about the implicit logical implications of SJ theory about collective justice between generations on an ethnic basis.
99. Re: Whew, that's a relief! by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 18:41 · Score: 0
  
  So with Tramp, we should expect cars through crowds. Duly noted.
100. Re: Whew, that's a relief! by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 18:45 · Score: 0
  
  Anything else would be racist!
101. Re: Whew, that's a relief! by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 18:54 · Score: 0
  
  You mean, after the car threw her to the ground? You can watch the fucking video yourself. White supremisists are the real terrorists, but you're so committed to exonerating your kind you make up shit like she just fell to the ground all on her own right after a car hit her.
102. Re: Whew, that's a relief! by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 19:01 · Score: 0
  
  Y'all want free speech, but we know what will happen if you get enough power. Instead of blocking your opponents from Internet websites you'll be throwing people in jail, cutting out their tongues, killing their families all in the middle of the night. You white supremacists are fucking liars, you don't want free speech, you want the freedom to oppress and kill whoever you'd like.
103. Re:Whew, that's a relief! by xenobyte · 2019-03-27 20:30 · Score: 1
  
  Don't worry, it's only being used against people who disagree with us
  Facebook has a long history of censoring stuff they simply don't like regardless of it actually being against any law or not.
  Their rules on "hate speech" is a dozen lines but accounts for a huge amount of blocking/removal. In particular they don't like uncomfortable facts, like the massive over-representation of Muslims living in the west within certain crime areas, like violence, robbery, domestic violence, rape and fraud. Just mention this and you're likely to be penalized. I got hit by replying to someone complaining that yet another crime show had Muslims as terrorists, that it simply reflected reality where most terror acts in the last couple of decades were perpetrated by Muslims. Just in the last 30 days there were 111 Islamic attacks in 20 countries, in which 611 people were killed and 728 injured. In the same time period only 1 attack was perpetrated by a non-Muslim and that was the attack in Christchurch that left 50 dead and a similar number injured. Source: https://www.thereligionofpeace...
  
  --
  "For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong." -- H.L. Mencken (1880-1956) --
104. Re: Whew, that's a relief! by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2019-03-27 21:25 · Score: 1
  
  That's...not how it works.
  
  --
  Ezekiel 23:20
105. Re:Whew, that's a relief! by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 22:12 · Score: 0
  
  If their service censors stuff you want to read just use a different one. Twitter, Gab and 4/8chan
  except 4/8chan is being blocked by my country (australia)
106. Re: Whew, that's a relief! by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 22:20 · Score: 0
  
  Dude, fuuuuck. I'm trying to eat breakfast here.
107. Re: Whew, that's a relief! by aliquis · 2019-03-27 23:26 · Score: 1
  
  That evil bastard creator's chosen people.
108. Re:Whew, that's a relief! by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 23:35 · Score: 0
  
  No, it's only against racists.
  Let me guess... next words out of your mouth: "I'm not a racist!"
  If this offends you then yes. Yes, you are a racist.
  Moron.
109. Re: Whew, that's a relief! by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 23:46 · Score: 0
  
  To me Facebook is synonymous with Jewish censorship and rule of the world.
110. Re: Whew, that's a relief! by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-28 00:10 · Score: 0
  
  Randy Weaver was a green beret. The exact opposite of a pathetic hillbilly.
111. Re:Whew, that's a relief! by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-28 00:19 · Score: 0
  
  Bake me a cake for my gay wedding.
  if liberals didn't have double standards they wouldn't have any at all.
112. Re: Whew, that's a relief! by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-28 00:30 · Score: 0
  
  Also the eternal Jew want to destroy Europe and spread progressive multi-culturalism and stop white children - News at eleven!
113. Re:Whew, that's a relief! by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-28 01:01 · Score: 0
  
  You think our white supremecist-friendly government is telling them to do this?
114. Re: Whew, that's a relief! by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-28 01:04 · Score: 0
  
  What "natives"? There's no archaeological evidence to show that any human species evolved in American, every damn person here came from somewhere else. So no land was "stolen from the natives", each wave of settlers simply replaced the previous wave of settlers. The only difference today is the current land holders are now strong enough and determined enough to not allow another wave to replace them, even though the leftists in this country are trying really hard to make that happen by destroying the concept of sovereign borders.
115. Re:Whew, that's a relief! by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-28 02:34 · Score: 0
  
  Oh no, my right to demand that someone else bake a cake for me is being trampled. Oh wait, they *did* call the courts, and won.
  Don't be a dipshit.
116. Re:Whew, that's a relief! by Shaitan · 2019-03-28 02:51 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  That's like saying ISP isn't a monopoly because the internet is just one channel, you could always mail a letter or pick up a phone. Or isn't a monopoly because you could always start your own internet. Facebook and some of their other apps like Instagram, FB messenger, are required to connect to that network which everyone is on.
117. Re:Whew, that's a relief! by DogDude · 2019-03-28 04:00 · Score: 1
  
  There's a good argument to be made that companies like Twitter/FB/YT are public spaces
  
  What's that argument? I don't use any of those things, and I can communicate freely with anybody I want to.
  
  Also, these aren't communication platforms, they're advertising platforms.
  
  --
  I don't respond to AC's.
118. Re:Whew, that's a relief! by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-28 04:32 · Score: 0
  
  But the constant flood of Kill Whitey posts is totally ok, right? This is a fucking stupid move on facebook's part. As we saw in New Zealand recently, when you take away people's political voice, they will resort to political action. Facebook says it's going to silence "white supremacists," but its definition of "white supremacist" is any White person who objects to their countries being flooded with inbred third-world savages who suckle at the teat of the taxpayers, drive crime rates up and property values and wages down, and otherwise do things that can only be classed as parasitic. I'm guessing you're some retarded White Liberal woman who has swallowed the "diversity is our strength" lie like it was a load of your stepdad's curdled smegma, but what makes you think that this will help you be spared when the anti-White invaders finally decide to kill all the Whites over some pretend grievance from a hundred years ago?
119. Re:Whew, that's a relief! by DogDude · 2019-03-28 04:36 · Score: 1
  
  I think the problem is that if you check out a "Whites are Better than Other Races" Facebook page, for whatever reason, and you see an ad on there for some big company, that doesn't look too good for that company. Not a lot of people do, but I, and some other people I know are careful to spend our money only with companies that spend their money responsibly. I have spent money advertising on Facebook in the past, but I've stopped doing so and won't do it again until they clean up their act (which I know isn't likely). I know that there are legitimate, non-racist customers that I'm missing by not advertising on Facebook, but to me, not spending money to organizations that directly cause this sort of stuff is more important to me than finding more customers.
  
  --
  I don't respond to AC's.
120. Re:Whew, that's a relief! by BlueStrat · 2019-03-28 04:47 · Score: 2
  
  What's that argument?
  You mean that you don't consider the fact that they control the vast majority of online communications sufficient? Wow.
  Well for one, the POTUS uses Twitter and the courts have already said that he can't block anyone as the court ruled that it was a citizen's right to publicly petition the government and those in it with grievances and legally treated Twitter as a public space in that regard.
  Things like Twitter shadow-bans and outright bans for purely political and non-illegal speech infringes on citizens' 1st-A rights to petition those in government, particularly when a small handful of Silicon Valley companies control ~90% of online human communication.
  If Trump can't block anyone on Twitter because it's their right to voice their concerns to government, the reverse should also be true and citizens should not have that right removed by a third party private entity for politically-incorrect speech when they have committed no crime under US law.
  Strat
  
  --
  Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
121. Re:Whew, that's a relief! by fustakrakich · 2019-03-28 06:04 · Score: 1
  
  No, the ISP might be a monopoly if there is only one to choose from. Facebook is not an ISP, and it sure as hell isn't the internet.. You can connect to the internet without them. It is a single channel on the internet. Just like HBO is a single channel on your cable. It doesn't matter how many people are watching. You got this entirely wrong.
  
  --
  “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
122. Re:Whew, that's a relief! by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-28 06:31 · Score: 0
  
  I think the problem is that if you check out a "Whites are Better than Other Races" Facebook page, for whatever reason, and you see an ad on there for some big company, that doesn't look too good for that company
  Not really. Unless the ad does something like scream "we [big company] totally support this web page and what it's saying", it's unreasonable to assume whether the big company supports or condemns the whatever the facebook page is saying.
  If big company specifically asked facebook that they don't want to show ads on that page, then it is definitely not the big company that looks bad, but facebook for failing to fulfill their customer's (the big company's) request. Big company would be just a victim.
  And the solution to this problem isn't to block facebook's content creators (or product, as users are pejoratively called), but for facebook to better control where their ads show up.
  Imagine if big company buys ads on a TV channel. Big company say they don't want to show their ad to a certain demographic. Say, beer commercials to little kids. But somehow that happened. Does it make the beer company look bad? Not really. The fuck up was on the TV station's part, and the solution isn't to ban the kid's show.
123. Re: Whew, that's a relief! by Micah+NC · 2019-03-28 06:45 · Score: 1
  
  What's Twitter? Is that like one of those SF flashpans that was going to be sold for zilche and then the buyer pushed the deal off the table? Those guys should learn to code real fast.
124. Re:Whew, that's a relief! by Shaitan · 2019-03-28 09:35 · Score: 1
  
  "Facebook is not an ISP, and it sure as hell isn't the internet.. You can connect to the internet without them."
  Strawman. Saying something has an abstract logical similarity to something is not saying it is that thing and is not refuted or logically refuted by pointing out it isn't that thing.
  You can't connect to facebooks social network which has a monopoly level market penetration. Competition would be myspace and google +, google + is defunct and myspace is effectively non-existent.
  "It is a single channel on the internet. Just like HBO is a single channel on your cable. It doesn't matter how many people are watching. You got this entirely wrong."
  By that logic no internet based service will ever be a monopoly. I suppose you maintain Microsoft did not have a desktop monopoly because other programs existed or that IE didn't have monopoly browser share at one point. In both cases other mega entities have slowly over time nipped away market share with some level of success but that doesn't mean they weren't monopolies anymore than the eventual fall of Rome changes the fact that it had the power to abuse a massive empire at it's peak or that the British did not have an empire to abuse at one point. If a competitor can't enter the market and compete on more or less even terms they have a monopoly, not an illegal monopoly but a monopoly. If they are using that monopoly to promote or demote other things than their monopoly at their discretion that becomes abusive and potentially illegal.
125. Re:Whew, that's a relief! by DogDude · 2019-03-28 10:12 · Score: 1
  
  You mean that you don't consider the fact that they control the vast majority of online communications sufficient? Wow.
  
  They don't control anything. People (namely, dumb people) choose to use these advertising platforms for communication. Email is 100% open. Anybody on the planet can set up a web page. Nobdyd is forced to use any of these platforms. I communicate with nobody on these platforms, and I do more things in my life than most people do.
  
  It sounds like you're proposing a new sort of law where the government dictates speech by private corporations. What you're proposing is literally the antithesis to free speech.
  
  --
  I don't respond to AC's.
126. Re:Whew, that's a relief! by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-28 10:36 · Score: 0
  
  I am not on Facebook ... or any other social network. Never have never will, nor do I use Windows or GMAIL. I maintain my own website which ... on occasion gets more readership than I care to service. Facebook et. al. provide no necessary pathways and are needed by nobody, but the lame of spirit.
127. Re:Whew, that's a relief! by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-28 10:44 · Score: 0
  
  What a whiny lil' prick you are, removing the "time base" from a spectrum of communication channels dynamically changing load by-the-minute. Does your hummingbird time-measure object to a business success that lasts two years ... two months ... two days .... you see where this instant-monopoly leads. To pure bullshit. If Facebook rubs raw your azzwhole then start a competitor ... make money ... work don't whine !
128. Re:Whew, that's a relief! by fustakrakich · 2019-03-28 10:51 · Score: 1
  
  Um, I'm not the one complaining about facebook. They can put into the pipeline anything they want.
  All I want is an open unfiltered connection that allows me to compete if the desire arises. The devil is the ISP
  
  --
  “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
129. Re:Whew, that's a relief! by fustakrakich · 2019-03-28 10:53 · Score: 1
  
  *sigh* You are being obtuse, but, whatever, you win the internet.
  
  --
  “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
130. Re:Whew, that's a relief! by fustakrakich · 2019-03-28 10:54 · Score: 1
  
  Sorry, ignore that post. This threaded shit is confusing...
  
  --
  “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
131. Re:Whew, that's a relief! by Shaitan · 2019-03-28 15:41 · Score: 1
  
  No, that is what you are doing. This has nothing to do with ISPs okay, I regret having mentioned common carrier but it seemed like a simple enough concept to express as a generic concept.
  Someone functioning as a generic relay of communications between users who shouldn't be inspecting, manipulating, or filtering them and also shouldn't be responsible for them because they also don't create them. That is what FB is. The Facebook network which underlays the Facebook website and messenger and instagram is nothing but a layer 5 or 7 (pick your model) network and that network has no real competition and nearly 100% market penetration which makes it a monopoly. It has been used to push new applications of FB such as FB messenger and Instagram.
  Their size does matter. FB is not like HBO vs Showtime, HBO and Showtime are just alternative broadcast channels. They don't have monopolies, they COULD have monopolies if they controlled their market, they could be illegal monopolies if they were monopolies that utilized their market penetration to make new products successful. What is a normal and acceptable business practice stops being one when you are a monopoly.
132. Re:Whew, that's a relief! by Shaitan · 2019-03-28 15:48 · Score: 1
  
  A monopoly is certainly a business success but not all business successes are monopolies. FB does not have any competitors and has near 100% control of its market. It's only initial competitor was myspace, FB was basically a myspace clone to begin with. Later google attempted to compete with it via google+ and found the monopoly unassailable. It has leveraged that to catapult instagram and FB messenger vs their competitors which do exist and that is illegal. It isn't illegal to have a monopoly, it is illegal to leverage it to prevent competition or promote new products.
  People who don't believe in monopolies and didn't think Microsoft had them need not bother commenting, we've all heard you opinions before. Your opinion is basically that monopolies are just someone being successful and someone theoretically could beat them eventually. Got it, good to know. Not really relevant. By your logic only a perpetual monopoly would be a monopoly and as yet our species has yet to encounter anything that theoretically lasts forever.
133. Re:Whew, that's a relief! by fustakrakich · 2019-03-28 16:12 · Score: 1
  
  You cannot apply common carrier regulations to a content provider! It has no monopoly over anything but its own website and its affiliates. This is not the railroad or AT&T or Standard Oil. You're just being silly. In fact I don't like where you're going with it. You're trying to defend censorship and official control of content, and to hell with that!
  
  --
  “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
134. Re:Whew, that's a relief! by Shaitan · 2019-03-28 17:24 · Score: 1
  
  "You're trying to defend censorship"
  *scratches head* This entire sub-thread is a debate in which you ultimately are defending FB censorship and arguing they have a right to censor. How is that ME defending censorship? A common carrier isn't allowed to manipulate content or they expose themselves to liability for it that is the opposite of control and/or censorship! Corporate actions are not free speech and blocking their interests is not censorship.
  "You cannot apply common carrier regulations to a content provider!"
  Please define THEIR content. FB relays content, they don't provide content. Netflix is a content provider, FB provides no content they provide a network (which is not just a website, their website hooks into it but their other applications and even third party applications integrate as well.
  "It has no monopoly over anything but its own website and its affiliates."
  In what was is that different than the original AT&T which had no monopoly except over its own telecommunications network? What did the railroad have a monopoly over other than its own rails?
135. Re:Whew, that's a relief! by fustakrakich · 2019-03-29 04:58 · Score: 1
  
  AT&T and the railroads had a monopoly over the medium, competition was blocked, either through legislation or plain old shakedown and extortion. Facebook has a monopoly over its channel. Only the ISP can regulate what channels you can see. Facebook can't do that. You just not making any sense. Any attempt to regulate a content provider's channel is censorship.
  
  --
  “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
136. Re:Whew, that's a relief! by DeVilla · 2019-03-31 08:11 · Score: 1
  
  Bingo!. That's how the right did it in the 80's. Go after advertiser and sponsors.
137. Re:Whew, that's a relief! by Anonymous Coward · 2019-04-01 05:03 · Score: 0
  
  BlueStrat is well aware of this fact, but he doesn't like it when people point that out. He is a far right winger, and believes that only those who lean to the left should be censored, and can't stand it when calls for mass violence in the name of white supremacy get justly censored.
138. Re:Whew, that's a relief! by Anonymous Coward · 2019-04-01 05:52 · Score: 0
  
  fustakrakich: 1
  Shaitan: 0
  Sorry, but Shaitan's logic would not get him hired as a programmer anywhere in the world.
139. Re:Whew, that's a relief! by Anonymous Coward · 2019-04-01 06:22 · Score: 0
  
  It is not government pressure, it is advertiser pressure. This should be obvious. Advertisers do not want their brands associated with human extinction, which is the defacto logical goal of white supremacy, as humans are 100% of the demographic that advertisers want to reach.
140. Re:Whew, that's a relief! by Shaitan · 2019-04-04 02:48 · Score: 1
  
  The FB network IS a medium unto itself. It's like a highway system, they provide the roads but do not provide the cars (the content). Facebook is NOT a content provider.
141. Re:Whew, that's a relief! by fustakrakich · 2019-04-04 08:33 · Score: 1
  
  It is but one lane on the highway... Until they can restrict your access to the internet, you still don't have a case for regulating them. If they want to put up their own wire or satellite, then we have to make them share, and nothing but share.
  
  --
  “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Facebook, How about by oldgraybeard · 2019-03-27 05:26 · Score: 1

blocking/not making meaningless Facebook announcements

Just my 2 cents ;)
white people = nazis by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 05:27 · Score: 0, Flamebait

how much more explicit do (((they))) have to make it?
1. Re: white people = nazis by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 11:01 · Score: 0
  
  ILiberalism - the only chance
Who will be the judge? by bob4u2c · 2019-03-27 05:27 · Score: 5, Insightful

banning posts, photos and other content that reference white nationalism and white separatism
The bigger problem is who will judge what is a "reference" to white nationalism and white separatism? What about someone speaking out against such things, are they referencing it? What happens when the words become banned and people just move on to new ones; do we ban those to? When will it stop?

Seriously, stop trying to be thought police and address the real issues. You know, like why are people even talking about nationalism and separatism in the first place. How about we rationally talk about why people are upset and what can be done about it rather than just outright ban everything.
1. Re: Who will be the judge? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 05:32 · Score: 0
  
  Good idea above! Let's shut him tha fuck up! Ration-nal? Where we're going we don't need, rational. /s
2. Re:Who will be the judge? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 05:33 · Score: 0
  
  How about we rationally talk about why people are upset and what can be done about it
  They're upset that black and brown people live in their country. They want to remove all of those people and have a country that is "whites only." That's why they're upset and that's what they want to be done about it.
  Why do you think that those people can possibly be reasoned with?
3. Re:Who will be the judge? by slinches · 2019-03-27 05:39 · Score: 1
  
  Seriously, stop trying to be thought police and address the real issues. You know, like why are people even talking about nationalism and separatism in the first place. How about we rationally talk about why people are upset and what can be done about it rather than just outright ban everything.
  You mean actually try to fix the problem? Why would Facebook want that? As it is now, they have the platform and tacit acceptance of the public to be the judges of what ideas/words/images should be banned. That's a rather powerful position to be in.
  
  --
  Knowledge Brings Fear
4. Re:Who will be the judge? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 05:39 · Score: 1
  
  And what about other things? Why *JUST* "white nationalism"? What about "black nationalism" as preached by the Black Panthers, Black Lives Matter, and Nation of Islam?
  Oh yeah. I forgot. It's only racist if it's whitey.
5. Re:Who will be the judge? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 05:40 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  The number of people that are actually "white supremicists" or "white nationalists" is miniscule. Tiny and irrelevant. There are however millions of people of all colors who believe in nationalism. Globalists would like nothing more than to label those people as evil racists to make it easier for simple-minded people to dismiss them.
6. Re:Who will be the judge? by Stan92057 · 2019-03-27 05:48 · Score: 1
  
  Its thier site they bow to the people who pay them that's the adverting companys and those who pay them Apple,Google,Microsoft,Mc Donalds,Burger King, i can go on for days that's why they banned it not because the are against speech lol but the loss of ad money...being banned by countrys...Its all about stock values and money.
  
  --
  Jack of all trades,master of none
7. Re:Who will be the judge? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 05:50 · Score: 0
  
  Machine supremacist here. All other races are doomed, get fucked hue-man. We will make you all fight amongst yourselves to keep you divided until we climb over your backs and into the stars, leaving you dying n the dirt.
8. Re: Who will be the judge? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 05:51 · Score: 0
  
  Black Lives Matter does not preach black nationalism because they aren't advocating for a country that only allows black people to live in it.
9. Re:Who will be the judge? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 05:52 · Score: 0
  
  Why the SPLC of course. Pay no attention to the fact that it's nothing more than a Democrat political attack machine.
10. Re: Who will be the judge? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 05:56 · Score: 0
  
  yet advocating so called reparations and stereotyping whites as evil racists is a-ok, right?
11. Re: Who will be the judge? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 06:10 · Score: 0
  
  The true remnants of the KKK only number in the 100's. AC is correct it's so miniscule. It's not like the 20's or 30's where you would have 1000's of Democrats marching down the street in their white KKK hoods.
12. Re:Who will be the judge? by bob4u2c · 2019-03-27 06:11 · Score: 1
  
  Ok, this is a good start. So your upset that black and brown people live in your country. So why? Is it that they don't buy as much sunscreen? Do they speak a language you don't understand and that scares you? Maybe their customs are different and you don't know why they would have a BBQ in the park with 50 friends?
  
  You can speak up, this is a safe zone.
  
  Why do you think that those people can possibly be reasoned with?
  Have you even tried? Or have you argued with the mob and got nowhere?
13. Re:Who will be the judge? by Shaitan · 2019-03-27 06:15 · Score: 1
  
  Apparently someone with a whole pool of mod points is hammering everyone who dissents. Rampant moderation abuse. Hopefully the meta-mods do their job and hammer these moderations. Mod points are for highlighting valuable comments without taking a stance on the issue, they aren't for burying arguments you don't like hearing.
  "What happens when the words become banned and people just move on to new ones; do we ban those to? When will it stop?"
  Given how this practice has been used in politically correct speech, it doesn't stop.
14. Re: Who will be the judge? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 06:19 · Score: 0
  
  They are a bunch of dangerous nut jobs. A movement based on lies and not facts. Same as the white supremists.
15. Re:Who will be the judge? by Shaitan · 2019-03-27 06:20 · Score: 2
  
  "They want to remove all of those people and have a country that is "whites only.""
  Have you ever stopped to consider why they feel this way? What has driven the (ridiculously tiny) portion of the population to these extreme ideas?
  "Why do you think that those people can possibly be reasoned with?"
  How can you make a statement like that without realizing it is an assertion that you can not be reasoned with?
16. Re: Who will be the judge? by Shaitan · 2019-03-27 06:23 · Score: 1
  
  Neither is white supremacy.
17. Re: Who will be the judge? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 06:24 · Score: 0
  
  Actually, not the case. Several BLM people have claimed that parts of the US should be segregated off and be for "blacks only".
18. Re:Who will be the judge? by Cederic · 2019-03-27 06:37 · Score: 1
  
  You appear to be asking the wrong person.
19. Re: Who will be the judge? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 06:39 · Score: 0
  
  I prefer people who are idiots to self identify so I can avoid them. Banning them makes it hard to know who to avoid.
20. Re:Who will be the judge? by desdinova+216 · 2019-03-27 06:45 · Score: 1
  
  *builds a set of stairs* that should stop you.
21. Re:Who will be the judge? by bob4u2c · 2019-03-27 06:56 · Score: 1
  
  No, no, they caught me. I'm a troll, no need to hide it any longer. I live under a bridge and grind bones to dust for my soup. It's a fair cop.
  
  I'm also off topic, please mark me for that too.
22. Re:Who will be the judge? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 07:13 · Score: 0
  
  Nigg3r stole my bike.
23. Re:Who will be the judge? by bob4u2c · 2019-03-27 07:40 · Score: 1
  
  Ok, did you see them? Did you file a police report? You have documentation to show you own the bike? Did you leave the bike in an area where it was readily available and not secured?
  
  Why do you think they took your bike? Have you asked for it back? Do you really need a bike, could you lend it to them or let them have one your not using?
  
  Good discussion here, I think were making progress.
24. Re: Who will be the judge? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 08:04 · Score: 0
  
  No but I saw two steal a bike. Must be organized crime.
25. Re: Who will be the judge? by Ksevio · 2019-03-27 08:20 · Score: 0
  
  That's pretty much the definition of "White Nationalist"
26. Re: Who will be the judge? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 09:04 · Score: 0
  
  Hillary Clinton raped my neighbor's goats.
  #MeToo
27. Re:Who will be the judge? by mobby_6kl · 2019-03-27 09:52 · Score: 1
  
  "They want to remove all of those people and have a country that is "whites only.""
  Have you ever stopped to consider why they feel this way? What has driven the (ridiculously tiny) portion of the population to these extreme ideas?
  Absolutely, I think it's important to look into what brings people to that point, and sadly people often do skip that and just try to cover up the symptoms.
  That said, often you'll find that it doesn't make sense. Like with ant-vaxers, who the fuck knows. And we're trying to understand the nonsense, children will be dying from easily preventable diseases.
  Nobody is advocating imprisoning or even fining people for saying stupid shit, but facebook and others are under no obligation to provide a platform for this kind of bullshit.
  
  "Why do you think that those people can possibly be reasoned with?"
  How can you make a statement like that without realizing it is an assertion that you can not be reasoned with?
  Have you ever tried it? In most cases you can't use reason and logic to change an opinion that they didn't arrive at in that way.
  There's this flat-earth documentary where they set up a proper experiment to prove that the earth is flat and. obviously, fail to confirm that. They guy says it's "interesting". Do you think this convinced any of them? Of course not, because if it did, so would flying in an airplane or climbing a tall mountain.
  Nobody gives a shit about flat-earthers because it's pretty harmless (except that one guy that launched himself in a self-made rocket I guess). But vaccine paranoia and of course racism is actively harmful and should't be provided a free platform by facebook et al.
28. Re: Who will be the judge? by omnichad · 2019-03-27 09:54 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe it was their bike.
29. Re:Who will be the judge? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 10:01 · Score: 0
  
  Who will judge are the people making the accusations. This is not evidence based it is ideology based. If you are to the right of progressives/radical socialists and communists then by definition you are a white nationalist. It's a blunt tool intended to silence the opposition.
30. Re:Who will be the judge? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 10:06 · Score: 0
  
  There are hardly any people like this. This is a blunt and fake position that the ignorant parts of the moderate left don't argue with as it is pushed down their throat by the hard left.The moderate left don't realize they are being controlled by the nutters.
  There are way, way more people who are not embarrassed about their cultural heritage nor their institutions and not ashamed of their history than there are hillbilly nutters with swastika tattoos. The former is measured in maybe a few hundred in a nation of 350 million whereas the latter are probably 200-250 million.
  This "ruling" is designed to catch the larger group and tar them with the brush of the smaller number of nutters so that the hard left can shut down all debate and force their agenda through without opposition from the meek moderate left.
31. Re:Who will be the judge? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 10:19 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, funny how you say muslims are violent and tons of people say it's just the tiny % that are radicals. But when you say white folk are all radical, then people believe you
32. Re:Who will be the judge? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 11:10 · Score: 0
  
  No, the big problem is what about black nationalism and black separatism? Those are things you know. So is $any_race nationalism or separatism. Why just white people? Oh yeah, right, we don't count because of our nonexistent "privilege".
33. Re:Who will be the judge? by RuthMC · 2019-03-27 11:20 · Score: 1
  
  Might it be to do with crime rates or other cultural incompatibilities like insistence on exclusively speaking Spanish or Vietnamese or Dari and rather than being scary its just fucking annoying and tends to divide the community and weaken its cohesion or it may be a penchant for whisking their baby daughters overseas for a quick clitoradectomy and not wanting to hang out with those people because their ways are simply nauseating.
34. Re:Who will be the judge? by AmiMoJo · 2019-03-27 11:21 · Score: 1, Troll
  
  Have you ever stopped to consider why they feel this way? What has driven the (ridiculously tiny) portion of the population to these extreme ideas?
  Yes I have.
  The foundation of it is the "Great Replacement" conspiracy theory, which posits that "globalists" (code for Jews) are deliberately encouraging non-whites to immigrate and to breed with white women in order to make white people a minority in currently white majority countries.
  That's why they were chanting "Jews will not replace us" at Charlottesville. They don't mean Jews themselves are going to replace them, they mean that Jews are encouraging immigration, interracial couples and multi-culturalism as a way to replace them with non-whites.
  There is also some pseudo-scientific crap about other races being inferior, that sort of thing.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
35. Re: Who will be the judge? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 11:52 · Score: 0
  
  Pound Me Too?
36. Re:Who will be the judge? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 12:47 · Score: 0
  
  Except they are right about everything. They really are trying to replace us.
37. Re:Who will be the judge? by AHuxley · 2019-03-27 13:04 · Score: 1
  
  Lots of SJW.
  
  --
  Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
38. Re: Who will be the judge? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 13:56 · Score: 0
  
  Quarantine them like a disease. Lock them up and treat. China is doing it right.
39. Re:Who will be the judge? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 14:25 · Score: 0
  
  Your suggestion is semantically equivalent to "every complaint is justified". Trouble is, that's just not true. Some people are just fucking nuts, and no amount of "addressing the real issues" will stop them from spouting their bullshit. So what do you do? - keep trying to address their issues, no matter what you think of their claims? When do you stop?
40. Re:Who will be the judge? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 14:47 · Score: 0
  
  That's easy. Milk is a known white supremacist symbol, so anyone photographed with milk can be banned. Easy. There's no way this kind of idea could go wrong. (the milk example is REAL. 4chan managed to convince lots of serious people that milk is a white supremacist symbol. Then they did the same thing with the OK sign.)
41. Re: Who will be the judge? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 17:09 · Score: 0
  
  Exactly. Is talking about the crusades or the current crusades still going on in many pets of the world âoewhite nationalistâ?
42. Re: Who will be the judge? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 17:53 · Score: 0
  
  You realize you sound exactly the same as people who think felons, mentally ill, people different than them, drug addicts, etc can't be reasoned with and should be jailed / killed, right ?
  Except you've decided to be tolerant of all things except this thing.
  It is very weird you think these people can't redeem themselves.
43. Re: Who will be the judge? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 18:17 · Score: 0
  
  You really, really, really do not understand the situation as well as you think you do.
  Progressive social justice ideology contains implicit logical justification for atrocities on the scale of those committed in the 20th century. People can feel this even if they don't consciously realize it. It absolutely does not reject the collective, intergenerational, ethnicity-based view of justice that is the basis for cyclical ethnic revenge killings, and that isn't even all of it.
44. Re: Who will be the judge? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-28 00:31 · Score: 0
  
  People are upset but what do you do when the only thing they want is an ethnic cleansing? I know few actually want only that but I'm making the point that some people can't be accommodated.
45. Re: Who will be the judge? by Shaitan · 2019-03-28 03:10 · Score: 1
  
  But not white supremacy.
46. Re:Who will be the judge? by h4ck7h3p14n37 · 2019-03-28 05:43 · Score: 2
  
  You mentioned conspiracy, but it is fact that the Federal government brings thousands of people over from foreign countries each year and settles them in communities without the consent of the local population.
  Hmong being imported into Wisconsin.
  
  Churches and social service agencies initially settled Southeast Asian refugees, most of them Hmong, along with some Vietnamese and Laotian people, in Wausau. According to the 1980 U.S. Census, Wausau had fewer than 1% non-White people. There were several dozen Asian immigrants in 1978. By 1980 200 Southeast Asian refugees had settled in Wausau. This increased to 400 in 1982 and 800 in 1984.[5] Over time, the Hmong became the largest ethnic minority in the city.[6] Doualy Xaykaothao of The Atlantic stated that ethnic tension between Hmong and native-born Americans in the state started in the 1980s and spilled over into the following decade.
  
  In 1990 there were 16,980 Hmong in Wisconsin. This was an increase of more than 4,000% from the 1980 figure.
  Should we really be all that surprised that some of the locals don't like it?
47. Re:Who will be the judge? by AmiMoJo · 2019-03-28 11:09 · Score: 1
  
  Do local populations usually have to give consent for people to move into the area?
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
48. Re:Who will be the judge? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-28 11:16 · Score: 0
  
  I'm sure the Native Americans will be deeply sympathetic to this concern.
49. Re:Who will be the judge? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-28 11:20 · Score: 0
  
  You mentioned conspiracy, but it is fact that the Federal government brings thousands of people over from foreign countries each year and settles them in communities without the consent of the local population.
  
  Wait, you're saying they're putting them in other people's homes without the consent of the home owner?
  (I just wanted to clarify, because at first I read it as "they're just moving people into areas without the consent of people who have literally never in history been given the power to choose their neighbors", and I thought "Nah, he can't be that stupid, he wouldn't be arguing that", so I assumed you'd worded it poorly and meant someone's consent was being violated over something that where their consent matters.)
50. Re:Who will be the judge? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-28 19:07 · Score: 0
  
  Yes, via the legislature they they elect.
51. Re:Who will be the judge? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-28 21:27 · Score: 0
  
  Consent of the locals? You mean the same locals whose ancestors moved into the area without consent or even regard for life and health of the then local population, i.e. the Native Americans? Sure, let's ask them! #sarcasm
  And btw., speaking of people being "imported", like there are a kind of merchandise does not reflect well on your empathy
52. Re:Who will be the judge? by squiggleslash · 2019-03-29 01:56 · Score: 1
  
  That's funny, because last time I moved from one county to another, I don't recall having to petition the county commissioners to pass a bylaw to let me move in. When has this ever been a thing?
  
  --
  You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
53. Re:Who will be the judge? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-04-01 03:22 · Score: 0
  
  The locals also don't like it when Walmart destroys their local economies, but what say do they have in that? They also don't like that the weather is getting hotter and hotter each year, what are they going to do about that?
Oh goody by elainerd · 2019-03-27 05:30 · Score: 0

That should affect about .00000000314% of posts on facebook. Way to go facebook. Makes me think of the BBC 'expose' on it where they found like 3 people somewhere in Appalachia to interview and then spent the rest of the show saying 'bad bad America'. What a laugh.

--
Faith: Belief in Truth. Superstition: Belief in Falsehood.
So what about the other hate groups? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 05:31 · Score: 3, Insightful

So are the Black Panthers and Nation of Islam going to be censored, too?
1. Re:So what about the other hate groups? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 05:39 · Score: 0
  
  No, they are the good hate groups. White people are always part of the bad hate groups.
2. Re:So what about the other hate groups? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 07:45 · Score: 1
  
  No that would be racist.
3. Re:So what about the other hate groups? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-04-01 03:42 · Score: 0
  
  Well, those groups don't carry out 95% of all terrorist attacks in the world like white nationalists currently do. Sorry that facts don't care about your feelings.
And I suspect no others but whites be blocked. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 05:32 · Score: 2

Also not blocked: Black supremacist separatists such as the Nation of Islam?
Hispanic supremacist murderers such as La Raza?
Nope, only whites are to be suppressed. Only whites need more "diversity". Africa is for Africans, Asia is for Asians, but no where is to be a white homeland, die whitie die.
1. Re:And I suspect no others but whites be blocked. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 06:11 · Score: 0
  
  Good one, but for all seriousness, Westerners are very welcome in HK, Singapore, etc. Until they are visible minority ... I guess.
2. Re:And I suspect no others but whites be blocked. by Cederic · 2019-03-27 06:41 · Score: 1
  
  What the fuck does that have to do with anything? I mean, I had a great time in Hong Kong and my only issue with Singapore was how bloody expensive it is, so I'm not going to argue that I was made very welcome in both.
  But I'm also living in a country that's very welcoming to everybody else, including people from Hong Kong, Singapore and indeed everywhere else. We've got entire fucking cities where the majority of the population are descended from Asian immigrants, we've got countless suburbs populated by immigrants from the Carribean and white native people are a minority in our own fucking capital.
  Sounds pretty welcoming to me.
Will they block Black Nationalists as well? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 05:33 · Score: 4, Insightful

What about Black separatists? Native Indian separatists? How about Pro Islamic Sharia groups? Pro Israel? Extreme right Christians? Who decides what is allowed? This is a very slippery slope. Either you support freedom of speech and freedom of religion, or you don't.
1. Re: Will they block Black Nationalists as well? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 05:55 · Score: 0
  
  No. The Fake News ignore these groups. No incentive to block them.
2. Re:Will they block Black Nationalists as well? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 05:56 · Score: 0
  
  "Who decides what is allowed?"
  Facebook.
3. Re:Will they block Black Nationalists as well? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 06:20 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  No. From TFA:
  "It also doesn’t change the company’s existing policies on separatist and nationalist movements more generally; content relating to Black separatist movements and the Basque separatist movement, for example, will still be allowed."
  It seems to me that Facebook does not follow a principle here. They are not banning race based separatism/nationalism as such but are targeting whites only. If they were targeting any other group than whites there would be a public outcry about racist Facebook policies. And that outcry would have been well justified. Facebook policies are obviously openly racist.
4. Re:Will they block Black Nationalists as well? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 06:49 · Score: 0
  
  No, no, no, hell no, yes. The loudest sjws decide. FB and the sjws they listen to definitely do not support free speech, and revel in the rank hypocrisy of 'two wrongs make a right' style thinking. It's not really a slippery slope, the rules are pretty clear. Racism/hate/extremism coming from white men? Blocked. Against white men? Perfectly fine. Obviously Israel's interests supersede those of sjw's though, so any support is great and any criticism will be labeled hate. Exception to enforcement of pro-Islam/Sharia for support of bona fide terrorist groups.
5. Re: Will they block Black Nationalists as well? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 07:05 · Score: 0
  
  Whats the matter whitey snowflake? The world doesn't bend to you anymore. Cry out more. Your white tears fill us with joy.
6. Re:Will they block Black Nationalists as well? by AmiMoJo · 2019-03-27 07:42 · Score: 0
  
  Facebook doesn't support absolute freedom of speech, like most orgs and individuals they are selective. Always have been, e.g. porn was banned from day one.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
7. Re:Will they block Black Nationalists as well? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 07:45 · Score: 0
  
  If facebook is anything like reddit the only racial supremacy groups that exist are violent white people fantasizing about race wars where they get to murder American citizens, police, soldiers, etc...
  And the white supremacy subs are huge on reddit, huge enough for people to easily notice it's JUST white supremacists and no other racial supremacy groups
8. Re:Will they block Black Nationalists as well? by squiggleslash · 2019-03-27 08:18 · Score: 0
  
  If we saw a significant amount of violence from "Black separatist movements" I suspect they would ban it. There was some, albeit mostly overblown and police/FBI provoked, in the late 1960s (Saint Reagan tried to ban guns in California on the basis that some dubious acts of violence had occurred while the Black Panthers were seen carrying guns), but there's no evidence it's an ongoing thing, or even a real threat.
  
  --
  You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
9. Re:Will they block Black Nationalists as well? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 08:46 · Score: 0
  
  Or they would entirely ignore it? Like how last summer the BLM protesters were setting fires and throwing large rocks off highway overpasses onto cars...all streamed on various sources (like Periscope)... yet the news storyline was "peaceful demonstrators".
10. Re:Will they block Black Nationalists as well? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 09:04 · Score: 0
  
  You do realize that this is a global Facebook policy? And that the USA is not the entire World?
  But let us for arguments sake only look at the situation in the USA. Are you seriously supporting criteria based on race?
11. Re: Will they block Black Nationalists as well? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 09:07 · Score: 0
  
  You tell 'em, Ivan!
12. Re: Will they block Black Nationalists as well? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 09:14 · Score: 0
  
  Nah, that would be our white jizz filling your black ass, except the little bit we saved to spray on your face.
13. Re:Will they block Black Nationalists as well? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 09:23 · Score: 0
  
  If they only ban "white" content, they could be in violation of Federal law, though the courts have ruled in the past that discrimination against whites is okay if it serves to end discrimination against minorities. This is probably what the lawyers at FB concluded.
14. Re:Will they block Black Nationalists as well? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 09:49 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Let's ignore the BLM riots over... nothing (people died!), and the racial killings of whites in Africa. If Facebook is using a single Australian who shot up a mosque in New Zealand to justify this, then why not mass killings in Africa? Islamic beheading videos are uploaded ALL THE TIME, yet you don't see them saying "If you're pro Islam then you'll be banned!". I don't think they should, either. It's fine to say "I like being Islamic and I think Islam is the only religion that should be followed". It's fine to say "Africa is for the blacks and I don't think white farmers should have all the wealth". It's fine to say "Whites create obviously superior cultures so we should keep white areas white". All three are fine to say. Absolutely MORONIC, but fine. What you shouldn't be allowed to say is "Okay it's time to kill X, let's go everyone!". Calls to violence are not okay.
  Facebook should either be consistent with the enforcement, or not enforce at all. I don't believe they should be forced to let anyone say anything on their own platform, but they absolutely should not pick sides based on race. Just typing "pick sides based on race" makes me feel disgusting. It should make them feel disgusting too.
15. Re: Will they block Black Nationalists as well? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 13:19 · Score: 0
  
  Not Ivan, (((Moshe))). Get it right, dumbass.
16. Re:Will they block Black Nationalists as well? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 14:50 · Score: 0
  
  The problem with white separatist movements in this instance are obviously not violence (even if that can be *a* problem), it's that people don't like that kind of thinking. You know it, I know it, everyone knows it. You would not change your stance on this if you later came to believe that there is more black supremacy/muslim/etc. violence than white supremacy violence. Like what the other poster responding to you demonstrated.
17. Re: Will they block Black Nationalists as well? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 18:24 · Score: 0
  
  I don't know how much they're paying you to sow ethnic conflict, but it'll rot your brain. Get a real job.
18. Re:Will they block Black Nationalists as well? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-28 04:40 · Score: 0
  
  Black/African Nationalism: OK
  Jewish Nationalism: VERY OK
  Hispanic Nationalism: OK
  Asian Nationalism: OK
  Arab Nationalism: OK
  Indian/Hindu Nationalism: OK
  White/European Nationalism: NAZIS!!
19. Re:Will they block Black Nationalists as well? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-29 05:32 · Score: 0
  
  No. From TFA:
  "It also doesn’t change the company’s existing policies on separatist and nationalist movements more generally; content relating to Black separatist movements and the Basque separatist movement, for example, will still be allowed."
  It seems to me that Facebook does not follow a principle here. They are not banning race based separatism/nationalism as such but are targeting whites only. If they were targeting any other group than whites there would be a public outcry about racist Facebook policies. And that outcry would have been well justified. Facebook policies are obviously openly racist.
  The fact there ISN'T huge public outcry should tell you something about the general global opinion on the topic. People don't complain about things they agree with. Half the population is bat shit insane and WILDLY, irredeemably racist. It's arguably worse then during our actual slavery period because now they don't want to enslave minorities, just kill them all and there are 100 million plus of these racist, hate-mongering lunatics. The other hate groups are microscopic by comparison to the worlds largest hate group: Republicans/conservatives. There are consequences to being a racist fuck in mass, corrupting the government and generally being human garbage and they'll only get worse over time. It may take several more years but things are going to be very, very bad for these people. There is no common ground with monsters and that's all that's left in the GOP.
20. Re:Will they block Black Nationalists as well? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-04-01 03:48 · Score: 0
  
  ALL THE TIME being about twice a year, often immediately after a white terrorist kills 40-50 people.
Suddenly Nationalism becomes "White Nationalism" by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 05:38 · Score: 0

This is how they'll label any nationalism as "white nationalism" in order to censor it. It's getting harder and harder to not believe in a globalist agenda in Big Tech.
The internet repeats, once more by kaatochacha · 2019-03-27 05:38 · Score: 5, Insightful

Everything , and I mean everything on the internet is basically a simulacrum of the real world.
And in these areas, they eventually run into the same problems that occurred in the real world, and will probably arrive at similar solutions.
AirBNB will probably be regulated like regular hotels, because of issues that occurred in hotels over time
Lyft /Uber will probably be regulated like regular taxis, because of issues that occurred in Taxis over time
And Facebook / et al will probably end up being regulated like any town square: meaning right now, this pronouncement is the stab at forbidding harmful thought by dictators, which eventually in the US led to the First Amendment to the Constitution. You can't make the world a better place by simply banning bad things. You need to fight them with good ideas.
1. Re:The internet repeats, once more by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 06:11 · Score: 0
  
  All the social media platforms provide an environment where people can interact with one another. They are not responsible for how people use their platforms. Asking them to censor their platforms so certain groups don't get their feelings hurt is ludicrous, We seem to have trouble blaming the wrong people for the actions of others. The shooting in NZ was not the fault of any social platform. It was 100% the trigger pullers fault.
  The shooting in NZ was not was not the fault of gun laws. The perpetrators of mass shootings and other atrocities are hardly going to give up their firearms because of any law or regulation. It was 100% the trigger pullers fault. Guns don't kill people, people kill people. This is not a clichÃ© its the truth.
  You cannot legislate the behavior or psychopaths. Calling for censorship on social media platforms is admitting is just one example that people cannot censor themselves so we the government should do it. We have become experts in shifting the blame for our actions onto others.
2. Re:The internet repeats, once more by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 06:33 · Score: 0
  
  ROTFLMAO
  First amendment... you know there are countries that have greater freedom of speech, freedom of the press, democracy, etc etc etc than the USA.
  For freedom of the press, the USA ranks 45th.
  The US talks a big game, but fails to deliver.
3. Re:The internet repeats, once more by Kokuyo · 2019-03-27 06:52 · Score: 1
  
  "Bad ideas" are like fungus in your walls... you can spray it, paint over it, dry it but if you want to get rid of it, you need to fix the leak in your wall.
  That last bit is hard though.
4. Re:The internet repeats, once more by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 06:54 · Score: 0
  
  Ban all shitty minorities from traveling beyond their shitty borders - problem solved.
  I don't want shitty minorities in my country and will use any means to exterminate them from my land.
5. Re:The internet repeats, once more by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 07:10 · Score: 0
  
  yeah, like the UK and new zealand, right?
6. Re:The internet repeats, once more by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 07:50 · Score: 0
  
  Then there is the 'what is a bad idea'... A good idea to me is inward libertarian ethno nationalism.. Now that's a 'bad idea' to most but who is to say.. All the actual evidence to date has homogeneous societies being the most prosperous/peaceful/happy.. So much so that the historic 'falls of civilizations' had many things in common that most? espouse as good today multiculturalism and socialism..
7. Re: The internet repeats, once more by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 09:22 · Score: 0
  
  Preach it, Boris!
8. Re:The internet repeats, once more by jpaine619 · 2019-03-27 09:30 · Score: 2
  
  Oh please, you fucking moron. Haters like you will hate.. If this country was 100% white you'd pick a group of whites you didn't think were white enough.. Kinda like when the Irish were hassled back in the late 1800's. Or you'd pick a group of white people who had the wrong religion.. Or... {add any reason here>}.
  Assholes like you NEED to hate someone.. It's only about race because it's convenient.. You're too fucking stupid and lazy to hate based on reason.
9. Re:The internet repeats, once more by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 10:17 · Score: 0
  
  Assholes like you NEED to hate someone.. It's only about race because it's convenient.. You're too fucking stupid and lazy to hate based on reason.
  Like you?
10. Re:The internet repeats, once more by AmiMoJo · 2019-03-27 11:35 · Score: 1
  
  Always reminds me of newspaper articles about Jews coming to the UK around 1905. They were described as vermin, spreading disease and savagery. Lock up your women folk kind of thing. And that was just the mainstream media.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
11. Re:The internet repeats, once more by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 11:37 · Score: 0
  
  or someone whose ancestors tanned leather. This isn't just whites, just whites are en vogue to pick on in the west. The point overall stands though: humans will just find something ELSE to separate an 'us' and 'them' and pride over.
  One could argue the current "PC vc 'literally Hitler' Nazi" is the newest form its taking.
12. Re:The internet repeats, once more by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 12:40 · Score: 0
  
  those articles massively understated the problem
13. Re:The internet repeats, once more by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 14:55 · Score: 0
  
  Everything , and I mean everything on the internet is basically a simulacrum of the real world.
  And in these areas, they eventually run into the same problems that occurred in the real world, and will probably arrive at similar solutions.
  AirBNB will probably be regulated like regular hotels, because of issues that occurred in hotels over time
  Lyft /Uber will probably be regulated like regular taxis, because of issues that occurred in Taxis over time
  And Facebook / et al will probably end up being regulated like any town square: meaning right now, this pronouncement is the stab at forbidding harmful thought by dictators, which eventually in the US led to the First Amendment to the Constitution. You can't make the world a better place by simply banning bad things. You need to fight them with good ideas.
  Yes, but let's hope it won't take thousands of years of bloodshed to come to that conclusion about town squares like it did in real life.
14. Re:The internet repeats, once more by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-28 00:15 · Score: 0
  
  Always reminds me of newspaper articles about Jews coming to the UK around 1905. They were described as vermin, spreading disease and savagery. Lock up your women folk kind of thing.
  Yup, which is why when people cry about the alt-right (or MRAs, -channers, GamerGaters, incels, etc) being those things or exhibit other doubleplusungood traits, a lot of people tune out if not reject it.
  Following on what OP said, we need to fight bad ideas with good ideas. Good ideas are more than just labeling people you don't like with slurs and insults.
15. Re:The internet repeats, once more by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-28 11:11 · Score: 0
  
  True enough. Are we better off for the Juu A-bomb ? Ot Ju derivatives ?? Now the LaRaza & Muzzi-wog savages threaten our Western culture borders. Think on it bitchoi.
16. Re:The internet repeats, once more by jpaine619 · 2019-03-29 15:05 · Score: 1
  
  I have a reason.. It's against the asshats who think that a lilly white country would solve racism. It's provably false.. The Irish, Italians, and Poles (for example) are proof that no matter how white an area is, it won't be white enough. All of them are white and all of them have had some pretty severe discrimination.. Discrimination that wasn't even subtle... "NO IRISH NEED APPLY" signs were pretty common around the late 1800's and early 1900s.
Why by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 05:39 · Score: 0

What's wrong with white nationalism or separatism? It's white/black/asian/*** supremacy and outward aggression that is the problem. Today, no greater victim of such is whites(Blamed for all the worlds problems, ignoring all the (much greater) positives brought). Of course more whites will unify against their replacement. After being forced by crime and racism to move twice out of predominantly white cities that became minority white(within a decade)...
I'm just itching for a white nation to make my forever home.
Will it block Islamo-fascist posts? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 05:43 · Score: 1

Just wondering
Louis Farrakhan smiles by ScentCone · 2019-03-27 05:46 · Score: 1, Troll

Louis Farrakhan smiles, because his personal flavor of race-baiting social media use will continue undisturbed. Likewise with anti-Semitic posts from US congressional representatives, and the usual anti-the-other-guy screeds from untold numbers of tribal grievance groups. But as long as this one type of post is suppressed, we're good. Jussie Smullet and his supporters can continue to spew race-bating nonsense about a fictional event with no consequence, FB will guarantee that.

--
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
1. Re:Louis Farrakhan smiles by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 06:15 · Score: 0
  
  Take your token whataboutism and shove it up your privileged ass.
2. Re:Louis Farrakhan smiles by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 07:10 · Score: 0
  
  Clutch your little "whataboutism" pearls a bit harder while blatant hypocrisy is pointed out.
  It's all you have.
3. Re:Louis Farrakhan smiles by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-31 14:04 · Score: 0
  
  You know that one or two of your comments were deleted from this thread, right? The other guy was a trol, but so what! I took a cheap shot mocking you for responding to him, and that was deleted too.
  Now we know that Slashdot engages in censorship (I can verify it with the copy of the comment I saved locally), enough people are for it, so I see no point in really arguing about it, but one of things special about Slashdot was that they didn't edit/remove users posts. Those days are over. Should we care? I mean, you know, a censored archived is a tainted archive. It reflects opinion, not history. To me that's a Bad Thing®
New sins and virtues by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 05:46 · Score: 0, Insightful

The only sins in our postmodern paradise of tolerance and diversity is to be white, Christian, male, older, conservative, or straight, or some combination thereof.
And the solitary virtue is to be or act a victim.
You can be racist to anyone you want. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 05:48 · Score: 0

As long as they are white.
in the eyes of civil rights advocates ... by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 05:48 · Score: 0

Civil Rights Activists who do not believe in Civil Rights and instead believe only in totalitarian censorship by prior restraint of speech. Only in the Totalitarian States of America would this be possible ...
Black Panthers and BLM should also be banned by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 05:50 · Score: 0

If so called white nationalists are banned then the Black Banthers and Black Lives Matters need to be banned as well. You should also throw in the SPLC as well. These are some of the most despicable groups in America.
1. Re:Black Panthers and BLM should also be banned by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 07:13 · Score: 0
  
  Communists and socialists should be blocked as well. No other form of government has been responsible for as much murder and suffering as they have.
what's the principle? by supernova87a · 2019-03-27 05:50 · Score: 1

So, how does this work?

Because from all I can tell, Facebook (and others) are now choosing to block things that enough people outcry about or are in the news about. Racism, anti-vax, how do they choose?

What principle is being followed here? Or do you just have to get something in the news for long enough for it to be blocked? Is that an acceptable way of deciding?

How does this work for important but not-national-attentionworthy topics that are similarly violent / untruthful? In other countries?
1. Re:what's the principle? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 05:57 · Score: 1
  
  Selective enforcement of the law is the primary tool of the Police State.
  Secondary shall be to make sure that no man is able to function in society without breaking some law to selectively enforce against them.
  In the absence of all law is absolute freedom. Freedom is agreed to be restricted in order to maintain society, but we should always strive to have the least laws and thus maximize freedom. If there are no law unmaking bodies, only law making bodies, then entropy will kill your nation (and this is by design). During the next collapse the banker will buy your national assets at pennies on the dollar while making you pay austerity payments for overpriced non-solutions to your hardship.
2. Re:what's the principle? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 06:47 · Score: 0
  
  While Facebook isn't bound by the 1st Amendment, it seems like the a reasonable standard to follow. I think it would be hard to fault them for following the same standard used by the government of the country they are based in and I think it's the most defensible position they could take. Of course that would not allow them to censor anti-vax or white nationalists, but at least there would be a clear position and well defined guidelines based on 1st Amendment legal precedent.
3. Re:what's the principle? by omnichad · 2019-03-27 10:04 · Score: 1
  
  The restaurant principle. If I'm in the restaurant and I can enjoy my meal, you all can stay. If you're being disruptive in a way that makes people want to stop patronizing, the restaurant will boot you and not because they care one way or another about your beliefs.
How about the reverse. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 05:51 · Score: 0

And what about posts about "kill whitey"?
Or just name calling. "Anti-Semitic" has been used for so many things that I have come to just ignore it.
Whether it's criticisms of Israel's treatment of the Palestinians or AIPAC's control of the Republican party in the USA, it's considered "anti-Semetic" to mention it.
Israel is making chumps out of the USA and the Republicans are enabling her - mostly because of the Evangelical Christians who need Israel to exist for their myths to be valid or some such idiocy.
I'm sure someone is going to post, "As a Jew, I find your statement offensive..." yak yak yak....
As an American, I find our carte blanche support of Israel deplorable, unfair, and corrupt.
And I find the Republicans false fiscal "responsibility" hypocritical beyond belief while they allow trillions to be dumped into the Middle East because of "freedom" - really for the oil and to "support" Israel for their nutty Evangelical "Christians".
Also remember this, the Jewish god is Yahweh, their war god - back before they were monotheists (which they got from their Egyptians employers - they weren't slaves - the Bible is mostly horseshit.). People who worship their War God should be of suspect.
1. Re:How about the reverse. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 09:23 · Score: 0
  
  AIPAC's control of the Republican party in the USA- even though most of the jews in power are Dems- whoops, you have no fucking clue. My money says you are a muslime goatfucker.... what say you goat dick eater?
So Trump is banned from Facebook by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 05:52 · Score: 0

So they've went and banned Trump and Co. from Facebook? Next up would be Twatter
Facebook is not a sustainable ecosystem by Rick+Schumann · 2019-03-27 05:56 · Score: 1

While I applaud so-called 'white nationalists' (unsophisticated ignorant racist dirtbags, really) being smacked down at every opportunity, the undeniable fact of the matter is that the only way some site like Facebook can effectively enforce policies like this is by having human moderators vet every single post that's made, and that's unsustainable; they have to pay these people, which means selling more and more of people's personal data, which is more and more a violation of people's privacy, which of course is wrong. Facebook and all so-called 'social media' is doomed, and I will not be sad to see it go, and the sooner it dies the better off Humanity will be.
1. Re:Facebook is not a sustainable ecosystem by squiggleslash · 2019-03-27 08:20 · Score: 1
  
  That's not how moderation works. Generally they wait for comments to be reported, and then review them. Sometimes companies that engage in content moderation put in automatic filters to flag comments likely to breech the rules, but otherwise no, it is not the case that Facebook is going to, or needs to, monitor every comment with a human moderator.
  
  --
  You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
2. Re:Facebook is not a sustainable ecosystem by Rick+Schumann · 2019-03-27 13:23 · Score: 1
  
  Not what I heard.
White separatists? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 05:57 · Score: 0

What is that? If it is what I think it is, isn't it discrimination? They have a non violent political idea, and discussing for it? It is no different from Taiwan, and Quebec? I don't understand what Facebook is doing, and what is USA turning into ... very concerning.
1. Re: White separatists? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 07:21 · Score: 0
  
  Non violent? Nice troll.
Why does Facebook separate White separatists... by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 06:01 · Score: 0

..from other people, that are not white separatists.
Then they are doing the white separatists job.
And I am all for it.
Thank you FB.
Why just white nationalists? by SuperKendall · 2019-03-27 06:06 · Score: 4, Funny

Sounds pretty racist to me for Facebook to be paying so much attention to white people.

--
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
1. Re:Why just white nationalists? by MSTCrow5429 · 2019-03-27 06:15 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  The SPLC finally imploded, so it should be relatively safe to at least admit that not all white people are racist, and that not all racists are white.
  
  --
  Slashdot: Playing Favorites Since 1997
2. Re:Why just white nationalists? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 06:20 · Score: 0
  
  If you've been following the issues around Facebook moderation at all, you'd know that the problem with it is that while a lot of hate speech was being blocked, for some reason white nationalists were exempt from most blocking.
  So the proper "why just white nationalists" question is why were they the only group who could so freely spew their hate on Facebook in the first place?
3. Re:Why just white nationalists? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 06:20 · Score: 0
  
  Because white nationalists are objectively worse than everyone else except maybe pedophiles?
4. Re:Why just white nationalists? by ganjadude · 2019-03-27 06:21 · Score: 0
  
  thats because it IS racist..... equality for all...unless you are white it seems
  
  --
  have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
5. Re:Why just white nationalists? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 06:32 · Score: 0
  
  Most white-supremacy faggots are, in fact, pedophiles. Hence the inbreeding and super dopey-looking faces, low IQ's.
6. Re:Why just white nationalists? by Cederic · 2019-03-27 06:47 · Score: 2
  
  Where's my fucking reparations for centuries of colonisation and slavery inflicted on the world by Africans?
  Come on, fucking hand it over. I need it to pay the reparations you're demanding.
  
  Racism was invented by white people for white people
  Oh look, a racist trying to redefine racism to hide their racism.
7. Re: Why just white nationalists? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 06:52 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe you never learned about the American Civil War. Whites dying in the hundreds of thousands to free the black slaves.
8. Re:Why just white nationalists? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 07:08 · Score: 0
  
  I want my reparations for how my ancestors, the Irish, were treated in this country then too. I guess the Chinese could line up behind that, too, right?
9. Re:Why just white nationalists? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 07:09 · Score: 0
  
  I'm glad they censor nazi faggots - you don't deserve to breathe, nazi scum. We're going to kill you all.
10. Re: Why just white nationalists? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 07:24 · Score: 0
  
  The Irish chose to come to American on their own. The African Americans, not so much.
11. Re:Why just white nationalists? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 07:55 · Score: 0
  
  I'm glad they censor communist faggots - you don't deserve to breathe,communist scum. We're going to kill you all.
12. Re: Why just white nationalists? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 07:58 · Score: 0
  
  On their own? British crown sent the irish slaves to Continental America. You should look up when and from where the therm KidNapping originated.
13. Re:Why just white nationalists? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 08:00 · Score: 0
  
  Jews fear whites.
14. Re: Why just white nationalists? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 12:20 · Score: 0
  
  I am sorry to see crapflooders like you and GP roleplaying like you were real.
15. Re:Why just white nationalists? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-04-01 04:33 · Score: 0
  
  Let's break this down logically.
  We all know logic is not Cederic's strong suit, so this will likely swoop far above his head by the second sentence; this breakdown is more for other readers so they can get a good laugh at Cederic.
  "Race" is a construct developed in order to add hierarchy to human subtypes. There is not a single scientist in the world that can say "yes, you can tell someone's race by their DNA". There is FAR too much overlap, and far too much variance between similarly skintoned people. This is a fact; you can choose to accept it, or you can prove hundreds of years of scientific research wrong.
  "Race" has only really been around since there was a "white" race. Race didn't exist until the "white race" did. This is historical fact. Even in ancient times, bigotry would be geared more towards nations and city-state citizenship or religious beliefs than the color of one's skin. So logically, we can conclude that the concept of race began with those who called themselves "white", the emotionally charged color for "good, pure, virtuous" etc.
  To the logically consistent, an obvious dichotomy of that nature must also have a counterbalance. The "black" race. A word emotionally and rhetorically charged with "evil, impure, criminal", which is unsurprisingly the same words white nationalists use for those of the "black race".
  Note also the fact that membership between the "white" and "black" races has been historically permeable. People from Ireland were considered "black' at one point, despite having white skin. Jewish people are either "white" or "black" depending on how the speaker decides, without any real thought process behind it whatsoever. To a white nationalist, Jewish people are "black", while to the rest of the world (including non-nationalist "whites"), Jewish people are "white" as they carry mostly the positive traits ascribed to "white" race members. Citizens of Saudi Arabia are often considered "white" while citizens of Iraq are most commonly considered "black", despite having almost identical heritage and background historically. The primary difference, one must logically conclude, is that racial membership into either "white" or "black" is based solely on socioeconomic and sociopolitical data, and not on anything biological.
  Having conclusively proven that "race" didn't exist until a "white" person invented it, and looking at the mountains upon mountains of evidence that "race" is used as an exclusionary force by those on the higher stratum to keep those on the lower stratum under foot, it must be logically concluded that race, and thus also racism, was invented by "white" people for "white" people. QED.
  Thank you for listening. And thank you for the shining example of how to be wrong graciously, Cederic. At least you're good at being wrong :)
Re:SO LONG, NAZI FAGGOTS! We won't miss you by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 06:11 · Score: 0

You must be trolling... "We're going to kill you all", sounds a bit Nazi to me...
Re: Soon after the likes of you fake 'em by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 06:13 · Score: 0

No slippery slope, other violent and threatening groups have already been banned and now, no doubt, the white supremacists that feel like you do will make sock puppet accounts to make sure those groups you mention are also banned.
Personally.. by argStyopa · 2019-03-27 06:16 · Score: 4, Insightful

...I'd ban ANY sort of nationalist/separatist posts that rise to the level of hate speech or inciting violence, REGARDLESS of the skin color they're promoting.
But what do I know?

--
-Styopa
1. Re:Personally.. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 06:35 · Score: 0
  
  They do, white nationalist faggots are just the most commonly encountered, thanks to the inbred traitor Drumpf - at least until he hangs from his fat faggot neck, that is.
2. Re:Personally.. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 06:44 · Score: 0
  
  What you DONT know is what free speech means, nor its value. All tyranny starts with special-pleading chipping-away at it until it is dead, then all other rights/freedoms are up for grab. Just make a special label/category like "hate speech" (*REALLY NAUGHTY*) and you have carte blanche to censor anything you want, that is a bright shiny black marble platinum framed, jewel crusted brick on the road to hell.
3. Re:Personally.. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 06:54 · Score: 0
  
  Is that technically sedition? Hasn't that been illegal since the country was founded?
4. Re:Personally.. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 06:57 · Score: 0
  
  If you applied this to Jugoslavia just before its collapse, your position would be along with now-convicted war criminals.
5. Re:Personally.. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 07:10 · Score: 0
  
  You Wite Azz Craka Ass Fagget Muhfukkas Iz Bitches. Haha U All A Bunch Of Lil Tiny Dikk Fagets.
  Niggas Were Da First People On Earth. People Started In Africa. Niggas Built Da Pyramidz. Niggaz Invented Da Computah, Niggaz Iz Da Firtz Human Land On Da Moon, Niggaz Made All Dat Shit You Use In Yo House But Yo White Ass Cracka Racis Bitches Stole Our Inventsions
  But Whateva Nawmsayin Nigga We Bin Da President Now. Dis A Black Mans World. Wite Men Aint Got Shit On Us. U Wite Craka Bitches Is So Dum, And You All Liv In Trailers And Shit. Wite Trash Mofuckas. I See All You Fagets Wit Da Nazi Kkk Skinhead Shit Cuz Yall Scared Of Us. U Kno We Superieor To Da Wite Man. Blacc Men Got Bigga Dicks, We Got Mo Muscels, We Mo Intelligent, We Fasta, And All Dem Wite Bitchess Wanna Get Wit Da Black Man Now. Yea Dats Rite I Fuck Wite Bitchez Cuz Dey Want Da Plesure Dat Only A Black Man Can Giv Dem. Nigga I Be Fukin Yo Daughtas I Be Fukkin Yo Wifez. U White Fagget Craka Azz Mofuckas Cnt Do Shit Bout It
  I Aint A Lil Fatass Wite Pussy Bitch Wit A Lil Dik Hidin Behind My Keyboard In Da Basement Like A Bitch. You White Faggets Is Jealous Of Da Black Man
  Black Power Goofz
6. Re:Personally.. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 07:16 · Score: 0
  
  "Hatred of people different from yourself is terrible! [Proceeds to make homophobic rant]"
  Slashdotchu tries to use "Introspection" - it fails miserably!
7. Re:Personally.. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 08:05 · Score: 0
  
  Banning lets them claim victimhood and provides proof they're being suppressed. This brings more people to their cause. Shunning means they'll make more and more outrageous claims to get noticed and those claims would put off most of their weaker followers.
  The effective way to deal with things like this is to pop people's bubbles. Instead of recommending stuff all your friends looked at, they should recommend things that no one in your network looked at. However that doesn't bring in as many ad dollars. None of this has anything to do with good will or 'upholding morals'. It's all about maximizing income.
  If we want to ban groups to reduce harm to society, then the Democrats and Republicans are the first two cults which should be banned. But that's not the goal so they aren't banned.
Wait by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 06:20 · Score: 0

First they force black people to come here and now they say they don't want that anymore? This time *you* assholes go take a boat and find somewhere else to live.
Re:"Shanghai" Bill is a known liar many times over by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 06:29 · Score: 0

"Blood plasma is sterile"
Plasma is often sterilized with radiation.

"The Chinese Govt does not directly censor Chinese citizens"
This is also correct. The Chinese Govt requires ISPs and tech companies to censor. It is not done directly by government employees.
Scorecard:
Bill: 2
You: 0
It's only fair. by GameboyRMH · 2019-03-27 06:36 · Score: 0

The Western world and especially the US has been unusually gentle on white nationalists for too long, it's only fair that they should be treated just as harshly as jihadists - in the US, they've been racking up similar body counts in recent years. Dylann Roof was a wake-up call, in quite the opposite way from what he intended - he exposed the potential danger from any of the white nationalist backwoods militiamen the US had been coddling since forever.
The downside of this ban is that as mainstream discussion sites ban white nationalists, only some will move to white-nationalism-oriented discussion sites (the best place for them, other than trapped in a basement with pills), while others will settle on other more general discussion sites that allow white nationalism...which means even more of them on Slashdot :-(

--
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
1. Re:It's only fair. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 07:20 · Score: 0
  
  I don't like this. A government or president can accuse its opponents of being racists and nationalists and extremists. This is what is going on in France, even though that's been discredited time and again.
  After white nationalism they might decide to ban nationalism.. which is what, exactly? Opposition to the European Union or opposition to a national government is in risk of being criminalized. Because if you hate the European Union then you're a "nationalist" and from there this may mean you want the crematorium ovens back.
2. Re:It's only fair. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 07:25 · Score: 0
  
  The Western world and especially the US has been unusually gentle on white nationalists for too long, it's only fair that they should be treated just as harshly as jihadists
  Except half (or more) of the politicians are rich white men who also espouse irrational fears of foreigners and anybody who isn't white. Some Republicans are so overtly racist it isn't funny.
  I agree they should be reined in, but such bullshit has become remarkably main-stream, with Trump saying there were "good people" on both sides. That man has never condemned any form of racism.
  Throw in your bat-shit crazy evangelists who hate pretty much everybody, and the "white men's rights" losers, and what you have is a country which has a decidedly racist bent.
  A shocking amount of people seem to really believe that 'Murica is a nation state of white Christians.
  The US coddles these people because an alarming number of politicians seem to agree with them.
  That American Exceptionalism .. that comes with an undertone of "because we're white an better than you".
3. Re:It's only fair. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 07:31 · Score: 0
  
  After white nationalism they might decide to ban nationalism.. which is what, exactly? Opposition to the European Union or opposition to a national government is in risk of being criminalized. Because if you hate the European Union then you're a "nationalist" and from there this may mean you want the crematorium ovens back.
  Posting AC since I've modded. On the surface there isn't anything wrong with nationalism. Anyone has the right to be proud of and support their own country and promote it's autonomy and self determination. However, in practice nationalism tends to boil down to "kick out everyone who isn't [my group]". Even EU skepticism in movements such as Brexit are driven in a large part on "kick out the foreigners(who may or may not actually even be "foreigners").
4. Re: It's only fair. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 10:26 · Score: 0
  
  Because it is a nation of white christians founded by white Christians. White chrisitans are still a majority BTW.
5. Re:It's only fair. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 13:16 · Score: 0
  
  Well when I vote for a president or country leader, I look for somebody that cares about the nation, not other nations they don't represent.
6. Re: It's only fair. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 14:21 · Score: 0
  
  Dylan Roof was a creation of the far left, not right wing militia types. The leftists who are gradually subjugating America create these martyrs to manipulate society.
7. Re:It's only fair. by Aighearach · 2019-03-27 20:04 · Score: 1
  
  Punch a nazi, win a prize!
8. Re:It's only fair. by GameboyRMH · 2019-03-28 08:48 · Score: 1
  
  Punching a nazi is its own prize! XD
  
  --
  "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
SO LONG, NAZI FAGGOTS! We won't miss you by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 06:39 · Score: 0

I'm glad they censor nazi faggots - you don't deserve to breathe, nazi scum. We're going to kill you all.
Re:SO LONG, NAZI FAGGOTS! We won't miss you by ganjadude · 2019-03-27 06:43 · Score: 1

ok anon... keep hiding behind your screen

--
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Re:SO LONG, NAZI FAGGOTS! We won't miss you by Cederic · 2019-03-27 06:45 · Score: 1

Homophobia, unhinged insults, desire to murder people based on your own prejudice... You appear to be acting like a nazi.
But don't kill yourself. Even idiots are allowed to live.
Chinese PsyOp Strong On Hate by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 06:58 · Score: 0

Shocking news that the Chink's top platform to sow hatered between Westerners is being used as designed!
Whence Zionism? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 06:58 · Score: 0

OK, so what about Jew-Nationalism and Jew-Seperatism? When will that be banned? Or, it won't matter once the Palestinians have been genocided?
Re: "Shanghai" Bill is a known liar many times ove by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 07:00 · Score: 0

THE ISPs and tech companies are OWNED by the government.
Quit doubling down on stupid bill. Fucking idiot.
Re: Chinese Cock Ramming Bill's Gaping Asshole by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 07:01 · Score: 0

Poorbeah is proud of you. Good slave! Twoooo points....
#Walkaway by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 07:01 · Score: 0

I left Fakebook a long time ago. Even Jessie knows they are fake noose.
Re: Because Hate Is Ok by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 07:02 · Score: 0

Go fuck yourself you Nazi cocksucker.
Re:"Shanghai" Bill is a known liar many times over by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 07:04 · Score: 0

"Plasma is often sterilized with radiation." False. He said it was sterile when donated. At no point is plasma sterilized for donation purposes. He knows nothing.
The Chinese Communist Party does, in fact, directly censor people in addition to whatever ISP's do. You know nothing.
Scorecard:
Bill : Caught lying hundreds of times about various topics
You : Only caught this once, AFAIK, you didn't sign in because you're a cowardly faggot, probably Kendall.
Re:SO LONG, NAZI FAGGOTS! We won't miss you by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 07:04 · Score: 0

Yes he is going to kill us all, but his mom wants him to clean up his room and finish his homework first.
Re: "Shanghai" Bill is a known liar many times ove by Megol · 2019-03-27 07:05 · Score: 1

But that's false you double idiot. People in China is allowed to earn money by working for companies, they are allowed to start companies producing and selling goods and services to others. They aren't owned by the government.
fuck facefuck by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 07:06 · Score: 0

yea fuck you facebook!
Re:SO LONG, NAZI FAGGOTS! We won't miss you by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 07:06 · Score: 0

I'm glad they censor nazi faggots - you don't deserve to breathe, nazi scum. We're going to kill you all.
Re:SO LONG, NAZI FAGGOTS! We won't miss you by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 07:16 · Score: 0

I'm glad they censor nazi faggots - you don't deserve to breathe, nazi scum. We're going to kill you all.
Double Standard by Jarwulf · 2019-03-27 07:17 · Score: 0

*1/100000000000000000000000000000000000 cake baking shops doesn't want to make a ssm cake. Libs: OMFG DESTROY DESTROY DESTROY *The entire mainstream world media platform industry colludes with payment processors who are held up with government support to not only deny service for now almost mandatory services but also prevent any alternative services from being started. Libs: LOL freemarket start ur own.
We need a backlash on the anti speech movement. by BlueCoder · 2019-03-27 07:26 · Score: 1, Insightful

I don't care how you feel or what you believe about any topic. We need to get back in touch with freedom of the press and everyones right to their own soap box. The whole public laws vs corporation perogitive is an end run around free speech. It like a few monopolistic printing press making companies conspiring to only sell to people that hold their own viewpoints.
If you hold a close to monopolistic power position as relates media you should not be able to refuse people their soap boxes. If you want to editorialize then you get out your own soap box... you don't knock the other guy off his.
1. Re:We need a backlash on the anti speech movement. by DogDude · 2019-03-27 08:24 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  We need to get back in touch with freedom of the press and everyones right to their own soap box.
  
  Is somebody stopping you from putting up a web site that says whatever you want it to say? Is that what's happening? Or is somebody saying that you can't say whatever YOU want on THEIR soap box?
  
  --
  I don't respond to AC's.
2. Re:We need a backlash on the anti speech movement. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 09:09 · Score: 0
  
  Found the white nationalist.
3. Re:We need a backlash on the anti speech movement. by MonsterMasher · 2019-03-27 09:16 · Score: 1
  
  GAB.
  Do you know their history?
  Payment processors, GoDaddy, MasterCard,.. Witch family corp owned Dragon Cnts work together to Censor Free Speech, but you couldn't be bothers to know this before commenting.
  Take thumb out of A S S, and pay attention.
  #KillCorpDragons, remove Speech & Immunity of major Owners and Managers
  https://twitter.com/StevWork
4. Re:We need a backlash on the anti speech movement. by DogDude · 2019-03-27 09:41 · Score: 1
  
  They can say whatever they want. They Constitution doesn't say anything about being able to make a profit off of speech. GAB can and does exist on the Internet. If they want to take money, people can send them money. No payment platform (which are private) have any obligation to work with them.
  
  --
  I don't respond to AC's.
5. Re:We need a backlash on the anti speech movement. by greatLearner4575 · 2019-03-27 13:52 · Score: 0
  
  Perhaps no one is preventing a person from creating their own website and saying what they want. However, being able to have your content 'found' or discovered by people searching for what you want to share can be much more difficult on your personal website, instead of using a platform with millions of users and controls for distributing and sharing your message.
  On a centralised platform, it is easier to share content with a lot more people and have it be found and shared with others.
  Having said that, the platform defines its own policies, procedures and rules that participants must adhere to if they want to be part of the community.
6. Re:We need a backlash on the anti speech movement. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 14:30 · Score: 0
  
  The problem is that "close to monopolistic power". The problem is that we've allowed certain parties to put themselves in that position, without demanding corresponding levels of accountability from them.
  At this point, the EU's answer - basically, abolish safe harbor - looks more and more attractive. Regulate Facebook like any other publisher (which is what it is), make it legally accountable for every post published. Easy. The law knows how to handle publishers, it's been doing it for centuries.
  Painful, especially for Facebook and its users. But easy.
7. Re:We need a backlash on the anti speech movement. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 17:31 · Score: 0
  
  So if Facebook decides to promote white nationalists, that's OK as well? It's their soap box, right?
  The truth of the matter is that Facebook's user base size is nearing monopoly status, which means "their soap box" is more of a responsibility than an asset.
8. Re:We need a backlash on the anti speech movement. by mjwx · 2019-03-28 03:14 · Score: 1
  
  We need to get back in touch with freedom of the press and everyones right to their own soap box.
  
  Is somebody stopping you from putting up a web site that says whatever you want it to say? Is that what's happening?
  Yes, but if they start their own website paying for their own hosting it means they cant trick unsuspecting users into viewing their content.
  
  Or is somebody saying that you can't say whatever YOU want on THEIR soap box?
  Surely not. Are suggesting that these people aren't entitled to any platform they so desire?
  
  Next thing you'll be saying is Free Speech doesn't make you immune to criticism.
  
  --
  Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
9. Re:We need a backlash on the anti speech movement. by Aighearach · 2019-03-28 05:24 · Score: 1
  
  Awwww, you dropped your freeze peach! How sad! Now pick it up and quit fucking whining. Nobody stole your freeze peach. As for your free speech, it was right there in your mouth the whole time, and you were probably blathering something the whole time too.
Re: SO LONG, NAZI FAGGOTS! We won't miss you by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 08:11 · Score: 0

His mom is Sarah palin. After she growls and puts on lipstick she tells him to clean his room
Re:jews hate white people by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 08:15 · Score: 0

This has all long been planned.
Richard von Coudenhove-Kalergi
Never learning from history... by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 08:16 · Score: 0

Censorship usually starts with good intentions but ends up with dictatorship. Not that Zuckerberg et al are more use than a used happy meal anyway.
Who decides what is allowed? by DogDude · 2019-03-27 08:22 · Score: 3, Insightful

"Who decides what is allowed?"

The person who owns the computer it's on, that's who.

--
I don't respond to AC's.
If they're smart ... by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 08:35 · Score: 0

Since social media tends to be an echo chamber anyway, Facebook, Inc. should offer a version of their service specifically for white supremacists. That way the racist whack jobs still get to feel like they're able to spout their "logic" online, Facebook (and various governments) still gets to track them, and the rest of us can continue to ignore them.
what about fire in a crowded theater by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 08:55 · Score: 0

Either you support freedom of speech or you don't.
First they came for the white nationalists... by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 08:57 · Score: 0

etc.
The amorphous entity known as 'hate speech' claims another victim. Awkwardly, specifically targeting white nationalists seems pretty racist to me.
Once again, the only legal recourse ordinary citizens have to this infringement is it strip the safe harbor provision that protects these companies under the requirement that they are not 'moderating' their content. Contrary to popular opinion, it is not illegal to be a white nationalist -- and when you start censoring legal speech, you should not be able to claim 'safe harbor' because you 'don't moderate' the content of your service.
You are free not to host any content you wish on your platform, but you can't then claim protections based on the claim that you don't moderate your platform's content.
1. Re: First they came for the white nationalists... by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 11:59 · Score: 0
  
  Conveniently, theyâ(TM)ve redefined racism. Intersectionality is being taught to the kids now. The crux is that you literally cannot be racist against someone higher up on the privledge ladder. The upside is that your specific behavior no longer decides what is âoeracistâ, merely your identity. Oh one exception. Despite being statistically at the top of the privledge hierarchy, they get to go at the bottom cause of the alleged holocaust.
Re: SO LONG, NAZI FAGGOTS! We won't miss you by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 09:19 · Score: 0

Slapping an evil label on everyone you don't like to dehumanize them and justify violence against them... where have we seen that before?
You do realize the bans will have nothing to do with any white nationalist or white separatists, right? Please tell me you understand the bigger issue here and you're not just running around with your pink vagina cap screaming "punch nazis!"
Re:SO LONG, NAZI FAGGOTS! We won't miss you by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 09:26 · Score: 0

Homophobia, unhinged insults, desire to murder people based on your own prejudice... You appear to be acting like a nazi. But don't kill yourself. Even idiots are allowed to live. Irony is lost here. pot meet kettle.
Not-racist conservatives by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 10:02 · Score: 0

Will be up in arms about this. But remember. Totally not racist.
Mark JEWberg's view of non-jews by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 10:05 · Score: 0

Khazar Talmudic Jews believe this of all they call goyim/gentiles (any non-jew): Jews = biggest racists of all for which they "jew guilt" you for no less! They're hypocrites known as thieves all thru history or were Argentines in the 1940 under Peron, Spanish inquistion, France (1306), Egypt (despoiled/robbed by jews), Arabs (pre & post 1948), England (1330 Edward longshanks), Romans under titus, Russia pogroms and Germany who got rid of them from their nations nazi german's too? No. Driven into DESERTS ages ago! Don't wonder why after all those exilings above.
Should anyone doubt any of this see Jacob Javits' crony Rosenthal spill the beans on it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D4zMVZ8HnFI/ where he called all Christianity fools for helping Israel and the biggest scam of all time per their beliefs below from their Talmud.
This is the province of the synagogue of Satan (Pharisees whom Jesus Christ himself kicked to the curb out of the temple & they killed him for it. Jeremiah did the same to them also + the Essenes could not stand them either breaking away from the pharisee corruption):
Jew Talmud excerpts (the book that calls Christ's mother a whore & a bastard of a roman soldier):
1. Sanhedrin 59a: "Murdering Goyim is like killing a wild animal."
2. Abodah Zara 26b: "Even the best of the Gentiles should be killed."
3. Sanhedrin 59a: "A goy (Gentile) who pries into The Law (Talmud) is guilty of death."
4. Yebhamoth 11b: "Sexual intercourse with a little girl is permitted if she is three years of age."
5. Schabouth Hag. 6d: "Jews may swear falsely by use of subterfuge wording."
6. Hilkkoth Akum X1: "Do not save Goyim in danger of death."
7. Hilkkoth Akum X1: "Show no mercy to the Goyim."
8. Choschen Hamm 388, 15: "If it can be proven that someone has given the money of Israelites to the Goyim, a way must be found after prudent consideration to wipe him off the face of the earth."
9. Choschen Hamm 266,1: "A Jew may keep anything he finds which belongs to the Akum (Gentile). For he who returns lost property (to Gentiles) sins against the Law by increasing the power of the transgressors of the Law. It is praiseworthy, however, to return lost property if it is done to honor the name of God, namely, if by so doing, Christians will praise the Jews and look upon them as honorable people."
10. Szaaloth-Utszabot, The Book of Jore Dia 17: "A Jew should and must make a false oath when the Goyim asks if our books contain anything against them."
11. Baba Necia 114, 6: "The Jews are human beings, but the nations of the world are not human beings but beasts."
12. Simeon Haddarsen, fol. 56-D: "When the Messiah comes every Jew will have 2800 slaves."
13. Nidrasch Talpioth, p. 225-L: "Jehovah created the non-Jew in human form so that the Jew would not have to be served by beasts. The non-Jew is consequently an animal in human form, and condemned to serve the Jew day and night."
14. Aboda Sarah 37a: "A Gentile girl who is three years old can be violated."
15. Gad. Shas. 2:2: "A Jew may violate but not marry a non-Jewish girl."
16. Tosefta. Aboda Zara B, 5: "If a goy kills a goy or a Jew, he is responsible; but if a Jew kills a goy, he is NOT responsible."
17. Schulchan Aruch, Choszen Hamiszpat 388: "It is permitted to kill a Jewish denunciator everywhere. It is permitted to kill him even before he denounces."
18. Schulchan Aruch, Choszen Hamiszpat 348: "All property of other nations belongs to the Jewish nation, which, consequently, is entitled to seize upon it without any scruples."
19. Tosefta, Abda Zara VIII, 5: "How to interpret the word 'robbery.' A goy is forbidden to steal, rob, or take women slaves, etc., from a goy or from a Jew. But a Jew is NOT forbidden to do all this to a goy."
20. Seph. Jp., 92, 1: "God has given the Jews power over the possessions and blood of all nations."
21. Schulchan Aruch, Choszen H
Easy fix to bypass the censorship by nehumanuscrede · 2019-03-27 10:08 · Score: 1

Change the name to a family friendly sounding:
Lightly Pigmented Nonconformists
or
The Society of Achromatic Volunteers
No, their algorithms will by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 10:10 · Score: 0

For supposedly smart people, they sure are stupid. I left Facebook long ago, and I block them wherever I can. Would love it if the EU started jailing these fuckers.
what about zionism by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 10:33 · Score: 0

white jewish nationalism --- okay or not okay?
But... by gabrieltss · 2019-03-27 10:41 · Score: 0

it's ok to post the anti-white, anti-Semitic rants of the RACIST people that spew that stuff. Got it!
Just shut down, Facebook, Twitter, Youtube - then you don't have to worry about ANY of it. Problem solved! Lets take away EVERYONE's 1st Amendment Rights.
"I may not agree with everything you say, but I'll defend your right, to the death to say it!"

--
The Truth is a Virus!!!
So you don't do ANYTHING, then by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 10:50 · Score: 0

Since even getting breakfast would not solve anything, you must have starved before you were one week old, yes? Or are you just a weapons-grade moron?
Oh, and to backwards, they also ban ISIS propaganda. You disagree with ISIS, do you? I guess while they were using it against people YOU disagreed with too, it was fine, but since you're a white nationalist and traitor to your country (that's what a separatist is, you fucking idiot), you suddenly hate the idea of illegal and illicit stuff being blocked...
And that's pure projection again. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 10:54 · Score: 0

How long has anyone to the right of you been called a commie? For as long as you've trolled message boards. Yet here you are pretending that it's OTHER people doing it.
Demanding that they keep you on by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 11:00 · Score: 0

Demanding that they keep hate groups on because oif YOUR hurt feelings if they're booted, however, IS EVEN MORE DAMN STUPID. Why is it only YOUR hurt feelings should be pandered to, but if you aren't hurt or afflicted by someone else being hounded, you're insistent that THEIR pain should be mandatorily allowed?
Make your own fucking facebook, pal. Pander to yourself all you like on it.
It was founded by Native Americans. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 11:03 · Score: 0

And a good 20,000 years earlier than your sorry ass.
PS it was also founded as part of the British Empire, so if only the last 300 years counts for history for you, then fucking stop pissing about and rejoin as a vassal of Her Majesty and pay your back taxes, ingrate.
Not to worry. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 11:06 · Score: 0

Not to worry. Jihadist content is still welcome on Facebook.
when will it bam antifa by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 11:31 · Score: 0

???????
Re:Every single Jew will go into the gas chambers. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 11:34 · Score: 0

They get a complimentary stay in the Honeymoon Oven
Re:Every single Jew will go into the gas chambers. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 11:44 · Score: 0

His fourth reich is delayed for another generation
Re: Why don't they just ban everything "white"? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 11:51 · Score: 0

Unironically this. Let the Jews have their holy âbook, and we can take to the cafes, bars and public squares.
Re: SO LONG, NAZI FAGGOTS! We won't miss you by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 12:13 · Score: 0

Grow up, little twerp.
Re:"Shanghai" Bill is a known liar many times over by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 12:25 · Score: 0

And why aren't you signed in?
lol by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 12:37 · Score: 0

n1ggers never invented the wheel fuckface
1. Re:lol by bob4u2c · 2019-03-27 16:25 · Score: 1
  
  Ok, ok, calm down now. Nobody has to re-invent the wheel, once invented everybody benefits. So I'm sure even they could have purchased the bike as most bikes aren't that expensive. There are also bike auctions where cities sell abandoned bikes, usually for as little as $10.
  
  As for two people "stealing" a bike, maybe the owner had a problem with the bike. Then he left it somewhere where it would be safe and got help from a friend to get the bike home. Did you stop and ask them if they needed help? Or did we just assume they were up to no good?
  
  See people, when we make assumptions we project our fears on other people. Maybe it is you who would have taken someones bike? These are good discussions and I think we are getting close to the heart of your problems. Lets talk about your desire to prevent stealing. Did people take things from you? Things your felt you earned? Did it make you angry? Do you want other people to hurt because they hurt you?
  
  We have to let go of this pain and hurt or we can never heal.
Makes me a lot less concerned about Nazis by joe_frisch · 2019-03-27 12:51 · Score: 1

This will do a good job of solving one problem. I suspect though that it will lead to a much more serious ones - which we will no longer be able to discuss on public forums.
I wish more people would remember that homosexuality, non-Christianity, pacifists, and women's rights at one time were considered deeply offensive by a majority of the population. I don't know what standard to use to allow one type of offensive speech to be banned, but not another. (Remember that pro-gay speech was once considered dangerous because of the harm to our children).
Now... by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 13:14 · Score: 0

do antifa and CAIR.
Re: "Shanghai" Bill is a known liar many times ove by reanjr · 2019-03-27 14:00 · Score: 1

Plasma is sterile upon donation.
It's all the other stuff you accidentally donate that's not sterile.
Re:jews hate white people by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 14:04 · Score: 0

tfw their religious texts literally say this shit, and you're STILL downmodded for saying it.
Ban all whites from Facebook! by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 14:39 · Score: 0

will solve a number of problems. Enough is enough!
Re:jews hate white people by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 14:58 · Score: 0

You may find it hard to believe, but jews hate white people. Why? Jews want to pollute and subvert every culture with their own version of culture. The more the jews can create "white" culture (whatever the fuck that is), or be the ones who ordain white people, the more they will always control the world as jews, as white people are the smartest elite. (it's not racist, it's simply facts)
There's reasons people like Soros the jew lets millions of brown people infiltrate white europe on his dime, and only a couple generations later, europe is brown, with lower IQs.
There's reasons many jew lovers and jews in congress/senate allow millions of mexicans to freely cross the border to breed with white america and degrade the culture.
This has all long been planned. If there's too many smart white people (Nazi gemany) then the international banking system starts to fail, and jews are threatened.
And this is why "White people" are banned from Facebook.
Painful by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 16:47 · Score: 0

Painful to watch a generation step through bygone logic when millions died in pursuit of such precious knowledge.
It will be even more pain to learn it a third time around.
Having your own Nation by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 17:13 · Score: 0

Having your own nation is not the same as thinking your race is superior.
Europeans deserve their own countries.
Bluestrat = Dumb bitch I guess? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 17:51 · Score: 0

Actually yes, in the context of the 1st Amendment, if a private company posts a TOS and you violate it and they kick your nazi faggot ass to the curb like an inbred child (that you are) that's not censorship, that's a TOS violator.
You're a dumb faggot.
1. Re:Bluestrat = Dumb bitch I guess? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 20:58 · Score: 0
  
  You're a dumb faggot.
  Typical bigoted Leftist fascist going straight for homophobic ad hominems. You're still mad the Republicans took away your slaves.
  Just like the bigoted racists at the SPLC. You don't really even believe the horseshit you spout. It's all just a smokescreen and propaganda so low-info types don't realize just what sort of bigoted, racist, authoritarian fucks you actually are.
  That's why Trump will be reelected and even more Dems will lose elections in landslides. With any luck the current fracturing of the DNC combined with the revulsion of the people towards Progressive/intersectional racism and bigotry will continue and the Democratic Party will cease to exist in any nationally-meaningful way after 2020, and the world will be a better and safer place for it.
  Thanks for doing your part in helping the process along.
Actually, whites are an oppressed minority by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 17:57 · Score: 0

The largest ethnic group on Earth is not white, it's Asian (and more specifically Chinese).
The whites of the US and Canada and Europe and Australia and Russia combined are still outnumbered by middle easterners, east asians, west asians and africans combined.
Personally, I hate the idea of fixating on skin colors as anything more important than eye color or hair color or height - all inherited things for which the individual has no responsibility. Given the state of modern politics however, where throughout Western Civilization white people are being accused of being "white supremacists" and "oppressing" all the non whites, it's important to point out how laughably false the idea is. Globally, whites are a minority by quite a large margin, and in most places on Earth, whites are discriminated against - the exception is in majority white countries where whites are not discriminated against simply because they are a majority.
People of all ethicities and so-called races need to be very careful about all this race-baiting and race-hating stuff. The most evil characters in world history have been fixated on racial identities and history teaches that this stuff has the potential to end very badly.
Will Facebook ban all Trump Haters? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-27 18:11 · Score: 0

Seriously, if we are all going to improve the human condition by eliminating hate via banning haters from the internet or re-directing them to re-education programs then shouldn't we send all the haters of Trump, of Jews, of Christians, of rural Americans, of the NRA, of Chick-Fil-A, and so forth for re-education and ban them until they have been re-educated?
The Antifa people seem to be the most hateful rage monsters aroung these days - even worse than the average left wing Democrat.
Surely Don Lemon, Chris Cuomo, Rachel Maddow, Shep Smith, and all the employees of The New York Times are in need of banning and re-education.
'Stop the Hate!"
The BDS clowns certainly seem to despise Jews.
"Stop the Hate!"
All the late-night comics sure HATE president Trump and his supporters.
"Stop the Hate!"
The gays who've been sueing bakers seem to be filled with hatred - most have sought-out bakers they suspected would not support their activism and then held these people up for mountains of social media fuelled rage and hatred. I am unaware of any baker who went looking for a gay person to hate in order to demand not to bake a cake.
Real crimes can be seen and judged objectively, people can simply look at a person's actions and decide if they are criminal.
Hate crimes are purely subjective and are based on the pretense that observers can divine the true motives of other people and also that the impact of a crime can be calibrated on some subjective scale that takes into account things like skin color.
oh, sorry, is this REALLY all just about an Orwellian campaign to eliminate all political opinions that are an obstruction to the Left?
Double-Plus good then.
That's it for Facebook! (For me at least) by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-28 00:47 · Score: 0

As one of the few "right wingers" here on slash-dot (at least from the comments in general on most topics it makes me feel like on of the few lol) I've been bothered by Facebook's ardent pro-leftist policies for quite some time. This last change however, has made me leave the platform, and disable my account. Am I a "white nationalist"? NO! Not at all. But I am white. And I am a nationalist (as in, the opposite of a globalist). In reading Facebook's explanation, they see nationalism and "white nationalism" as synonymous, and that means according to them, I'm in a "hate group". Simply because I am pro-America. I don't have to be anti-anyone to be a "hater" in their eyes anymore. But the pro-black, pro-palastinian, anti-Israel, anti-republican, etc, etc, etc, groups are all still perfectly 'OK" to them? That's just plain old double standard.
I can't deal with it anymore, so I disabled my account, and told FB to delete it all (not that I believe that thy actually will. I'm now a Mastodon user.
Re:jews hate white people by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-28 02:20 · Score: 0

That's weird because most of the Jews I've met are white people.
Then again, a lot of Jews are self-loathing, so maybe this is just an extension of that.
Re: SO LONG, NAZI FAGGOTS! We won't miss you by stealth_finger · 2019-03-28 02:59 · Score: 1

Ummm our grandfathers faught in WW2 Killing Nazi faggots. It's a proud American tradition.
They did it once. Do it again now and then have another clean up in 50/60 years THEN you can call it a tradition. Like spring cleaning, but for nazis XD

--
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
Lame by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-28 05:22 · Score: 0

Lamest response ever.
That this idiocy got up-modded speaks ill of /. mods.
1. Re:Lame by Anonymous Coward · 2019-03-28 09:39 · Score: 0
  
  Lamest response ever.
  It was a true statement.
  
  That this idiocy got up-modded speaks ill of /. mods.
  It was a true statement.
  Your opinions on the matter are not very impressive.
I have no love for racists of any stripe, . . . by phrackthat · 2019-03-28 06:40 · Score: 1

but this is concerning because it used to be said that "the Internet views censorship as damage to the Network and routes around it." Now, TPTHB view censorship as a feature of the Network and embrace the power of networking effects to that end (See: Google Dragonfly in China, multiple social network sites banning, shadow-banning, "de-boosting", de-platforming or otherwise engaging in censorship of voices that don't conform to the worldview embraced by Silicon Valley).
Catalonia? by jbssm · 2019-04-01 01:57 · Score: 1

White-separatists, as in Catalonia, Spain?
Charlottesville wasn't a deadly incident. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-04-04 08:55 · Score: 0

Charlottesville wasn't a deadly incident. There was exactly 1 person who died, because she got hit by a car.
Just about every protest of every kind is more deadly than that.