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.
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
So are the Black Panthers and Nation of Islam going to be censored, too?
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.
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.
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
>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.
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.
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.
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
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.
...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
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!”
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.
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.
"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?"
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.
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.
"Who decides what is allowed?"
The person who owns the computer it's on, that's who.
I don't respond to AC's.
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.
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.
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!”
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.
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.
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.