Slashdot Mirror
Facebook Says it Will Now Block White-Nationalist, White-Separatist Posts (washingtonpost.com)
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.
Don't worry, it's only being used against people who disagree with us
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.
So are the Black Panthers and Nation of Islam going to be censored, too?
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.
Everything , and I mean everything on the internet is basically a simulacrum of the real world. /Uber will probably be regulated like regular taxis, because of issues that occurred in Taxis over time
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
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.
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.
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.
...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
"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?"
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.
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
"Who decides what is allowed?"
The person who owns the computer it's on, that's who.
I don't respond to AC's.
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.
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.