Facebook to ban white nationalist, separatist content -- is it going too far?

by Ben Reilly Mon Apr 01, 2019 9:44 pm

Much as I am loathe to support either ideology, check this out:

Facebook Inc. will ban content that references white nationalism and white separatism, taking a major step toward curbing racism and hate speech on the site.

The social media giant’s policies have long excluded posts on white supremacy, but Facebook said it didn’t apply the same lens to expressions of white nationalism because it wanted to be able to include “broader concepts” of nationalism such as American pride and Basque separatism, which are linked to people’s identity.

After an investigation by tech publication Motherboard and conversations with experts in race and civil rights groups, Facebook said in a blog post Wednesday that it concluded “white nationalism and separatism cannot be meaningfully separated from white supremacy and organized hate groups.”

The problem of white nationalism on Facebook was magnified in 2017 after a deadly neo-Nazi rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, where white nationalists used the social networking site as a way to fuel hatred and to connect far-right groups in a protest of the removal of a Confederate statue. The killer responsible for the deaths of 50 people in New Zealand earlier this month also used Facebook to post a racist manifesto before recording the massacre at two mosques live on the platform.

Going forward, people who search for terms associated with white supremacy will be directed to resources that combat hate groups, such as Life After Hate, an organization founded by former violent extremists that provides crisis intervention, education, support groups and outreach, San Francisco-based Facebook said.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-03-27/facebook-to-ban-white-nationalism-separatism-website-reports

Many people conflate white supremacy with nationalism and separatism, but (at least if you take their supporters at face value) nationalism means "a nation for this group of people" and separatism means "this group of people should live separately from other groups."

Is this an infringement upon the freedom of speech of people who nominally may very well not be advocating violence?

Is this going to backfire?

Discuss.

I said fucking discuss!!!!

by Original Quill Mon Apr 01, 2019 11:06 pm

Ben wrote:Facebook to ban white nationalist, separatist content -- is it going too far?

The poor Klan. Their tears are wetting their sheets.

by Ben Reilly Mon Apr 01, 2019 11:09 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Ben wrote:Facebook to ban white nationalist, separatist content -- is it going too far?

The poor Klan. Their tears are wetting their sheets.

I have no sympathy for them, but isn't it a liberal value to protect the right to free speech of even those you disagree with?

The alternative is a bit too authoritarian for my taste.

by Original Quill Mon Apr 01, 2019 11:19 pm

>THE Ben Reilly< wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

The poor Klan. Their tears are wetting their sheets.

I have no sympathy for them, but isn't it a liberal value to protect the right to free speech of even those you disagree with?

The alternative is a bit too authoritarian for my taste.

I have a simple answer that doesn't involve any judgment or recrimination: set the south (where most white nationalists are) adrift. Let their little racist souls feed them their contentment.

I call that full State's Rights. Ta-ta...come visit us in California, then go home.

by Cass Tue Apr 02, 2019 1:44 am

Good. This isn’t about free speech so much as hate speech. White nationalism is just a code word for white supremacy. You cannot separate one from the others. This is nothing different to them removing Alex Jones.

Besides Facebook and all the others are private companies and not a government entity trying to stop someone from speaking their abhorrent views. Big difference. The white nationalists are welcome to go start their own social media platform.

by Original Quill Tue Apr 02, 2019 2:38 am

Ben wrote:I have no sympathy for them, but isn't it a liberal value to protect the right to free speech of even those you disagree with?

Cass wrote:Good. This isn’t about free speech so much as hate speech. White nationalism is just a code word for white supremacy. You cannot separate one from the others. This is nothing different to them removing Alex Jones.

Besides Facebook and all the others are private companies and not a government entity trying to stop someone from speaking their abhorrent views. Big difference. The white nationalists are welcome to go start their own social media platform.

Absolutely correct. The First Amendment--indeed the entire Constitution--is an admonition only on the US, and in some cases, on the State governments (ie, those that have been 'incorporated').

There is no application upon private persons or entities. You cannot enforce a provision based upon a “liberal value" system.

by Eilzel Tue Apr 02, 2019 3:49 am

Cass wrote:Good. This isn’t about free speech so much as hate speech. White nationalism is just a code word for white supremacy. You cannot separate one from the others. This is nothing different to them removing Alex Jones.

Besides Facebook and all the others are private companies and not a government entity trying to stop someone from speaking their abhorrent views. Big difference. The white nationalists are welcome to go start their own social media platform.

Spot on!

If we were talking about 'censoring' certain voices or views from ALL platforms, private and public, I'd speak out against that. But Zuckerberg, the folks at Google and the rest have absolutely NO compulsion to allow the hateful views of a vicious minority to flourish in THEIR domains.

I know if I had an influential internet site with hundreds of millions of users then I personally would not want that to become a breeding ground or 'safe space' for racism, nationalism, Islamism, or whatever else. No way. You come to MY ground you play by MY rules.

Again, in the sphere of publicly owned spaces there is a stronger case for ALL voices - but Facebook, Youtube, Twitter etc. are not among them.

It isn't our fault that no conservative has even come CLOSE to matching the success of liberal providers Laughing

On a wider note - simply allowing ALL kinds of views an equal footing in all areas does have its own risks. The Weimer Republic was a pretty free society which allowed all views to be expressed - and it birthed arguably the worst regime in human history.

by Ben Reilly Tue Apr 02, 2019 4:27 am

Original Quill wrote:
>THE Ben Reilly< wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

The poor Klan. Their tears are wetting their sheets.

I have no sympathy for them, but isn't it a liberal value to protect the right to free speech of even those you disagree with?

The alternative is a bit too authoritarian for my taste.

I have a simple answer that doesn't involve any judgment or recrimination: set the south (where most white nationalists are) adrift. Let their little racist souls feed them their contentment.

I call that full State's Rights. Ta-ta...come visit us in California, then go home.

Then you're a separatist as well.

by Original Quill Tue Apr 02, 2019 4:34 am

>THE Ben Reilly< wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

I have a simple answer that doesn't involve any judgment or recrimination: set the south (where most white nationalists are) adrift. Let their little racist souls feed them their contentment.

I call that full State's Rights. Ta-ta...come visit us in California, then go home.

Then you're a separatist as well.

Yes...without the racism. Indeed, because of the racism of the south.

by Ben Reilly Tue Apr 02, 2019 4:35 am

Is it nothing, then, to live up to your own professed values?

If someone isn't advocating violence, should he/she be allowed to speak? Facebook is, after all, a de facto utility -- it's the preeminent venue for online speech. Does the fact that it's privately owned change things that much?

What if instead of Facebook, we said the Internet as a whole? Would someone then argue that the Internet, in terms of its platforms, is largely privately owned, and thus the opinions we express -- whether on Mark Z's platform or anywhere else -- are subject to censorship?

This is how people communicate these days! Should we force people to go to protests, and to beg for media coverage, in order to have their voices heard?

All I'm hearing is a loss of faith in the most liberal of all values -- the free market of ideas. The notion that if all ideas are allowed an equal chance to compete, the best ideas will win.

And if we've lost faith in the notion that the best ideas will win, well, then ... we've lost faith in the ability of the human race to chart its own course. And that makes me want to jump off a fucking skyscraper, because if we've lost that, we've lost everything.

Not to be overly dramatic, of course. Wink

by Ben Reilly Tue Apr 02, 2019 4:38 am

Original Quill wrote:
>THE Ben Reilly< wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

I have a simple answer that doesn't involve any judgment or recrimination: set the south (where most white nationalists are) adrift. Let their little racist souls feed them their contentment.

I call that full State's Rights. Ta-ta...come visit us in California, then go home.

Then you're a separatist as well.

Yes...without the racism. Indeed, because of the racism of the south.

That seems so short-sighted to me. Like deciding to drive off one side of the cliff instead of the other.

by Eilzel Tue Apr 02, 2019 6:06 am

>THE Ben Reilly< wrote:Is it nothing, then, to live up to your own professed values?

If someone isn't advocating violence, should he/she be allowed to speak? Facebook is, after all, a de facto utility -- it's the preeminent venue for online speech. Does the fact that it's privately owned change things that much?

What if instead of Facebook, we said the Internet as a whole? Would someone then argue that the Internet, in terms of its platforms, is largely privately owned, and thus the opinions we express -- whether on Mark Z's platform or anywhere else -- are subject to censorship?

This is how people communicate these days! Should we force people to go to protests, and to beg for media coverage, in order to have their voices heard?

All I'm hearing is a loss of faith in the most liberal of all values -- the free market of ideas. The notion that if all ideas are allowed an equal chance to compete, the best ideas will win.

And if we've lost faith in the notion that the best ideas will win, well, then ... we've lost faith in the ability of the human race to chart its own course. And that makes me want to jump off a fucking skyscraper, because if we've lost that, we've lost everything.

Not to be overly dramatic, of course.

I can't speak for others, but me personally, I would not agree with censorship on the internet since it does not have a single organisation at its helm. It is 'owned' (not in the traditional sense) by various organisations and governments. So it would not be appropriate to censor net-wide.

And if we get into the debate of 'Facebook is a de facto public utility' due to its immense user base, then doesn't that in effect penalise people for creating something that does well by then forcing it be treated as though publicly owned?

Should we allow extremist factions and terrorist organisations free run on these platforms, too?

The internet is an open market place for all, no one can do anything about that. But if a single entity 'owns' something, it should be down to that entity (individual or collective) to decide what is and isn't allowed. Newsfix is of course tiny, but as a comparison, if YOU decided you didn't want people promoting the EDL on here, or espousing views of racial superiority, that would be YOUR call. And if Newsfix suddenly gained a user base the size of a large nation, that would STILL be YOUR call.

The voices aren't being censored, they are being asked to find another mouth piece. That isn't censorship, that's one company telling people that they aren't allowed to use their megaphone Smile

by veya_victaous Tue Apr 02, 2019 9:35 am

yeah Facebook is just a company
this is not a free speech issue at all, as Free speech is to allow you to criticize the gov't and prevents them penalizing you for it, but it in no way forces a private company to allow you to break their terms and conditions.

Like Les said they can go create a forum or some other format site to post their opinions.

by veya_victaous Tue Apr 02, 2019 9:40 am

>THE Ben Reilly< wrote:Is it nothing, then, to live up to your own professed values?

If someone isn't advocating violence, should he/she be allowed to speak? Facebook is, after all, a de facto utility -- it's the preeminent venue for online speech. Does the fact that it's privately owned change things that much?

What if instead of Facebook, we said the Internet as a whole? Would someone then argue that the Internet, in terms of its platforms, is largely privately owned, and thus the opinions we express -- whether on Mark Z's platform or anywhere else -- are subject to censorship?

This is how people communicate these days! Should we force people to go to protests, and to beg for media coverage, in order to have their voices heard?

All I'm hearing is a loss of faith in the most liberal of all values -- the free market of ideas. The notion that if all ideas are allowed an equal chance to compete, the best ideas will win.

And if we've lost faith in the notion that the best ideas will win, well, then ... we've lost faith in the ability of the human race to chart its own course. And that makes me want to jump off a fucking skyscraper, because if we've lost that, we've lost everything.

Not to be overly dramatic, of course.

the majority of the internet is subject to censorship ... this ship has already sailed a long time a go Wink

And your liberal values are not in line with UK or Oz Liberal values.
we care more for the common good than personal rights, personal rights is the Right Wing platform Neutral

the Left Wing position here is more like
"All markets are subject to Corruption and must be regulated for the good of society of a whole"

by Original Quill Tue Apr 02, 2019 1:55 pm

>THE Ben Reilly< wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

Yes...without the racism. Indeed, because of the racism of the south.

That seems so short-sighted to me. Like deciding to drive off one side of the cliff instead of the other.

Reduced to functional terms, that's the way you get a job done.

I'm thru getting too subtle. Let's simplify: south = bad; California = good; ergo: Make your life better = separate the two.

Not too complicated, eh?

by Victorismyhero Tue Apr 02, 2019 5:55 pm

veya_victaous wrote:
>THE Ben Reilly< wrote:Is it nothing, then, to live up to your own professed values?

If someone isn't advocating violence, should he/she be allowed to speak? Facebook is, after all, a de facto utility -- it's the preeminent venue for online speech. Does the fact that it's privately owned change things that much?

What if instead of Facebook, we said the Internet as a whole? Would someone then argue that the Internet, in terms of its platforms, is largely privately owned, and thus the opinions we express -- whether on Mark Z's platform or anywhere else -- are subject to censorship?

This is how people communicate these days! Should we force people to go to protests, and to beg for media coverage, in order to have their voices heard?

All I'm hearing is a loss of faith in the most liberal of all values -- the free market of ideas. The notion that if all ideas are allowed an equal chance to compete, the best ideas will win.

And if we've lost faith in the notion that the best ideas will win, well, then ... we've lost faith in the ability of the human race to chart its own course. And that makes me want to jump off a fucking skyscraper, because if we've lost that, we've lost everything.

Not to be overly dramatic, of course.

the majority of the internet is subject to censorship ... this ship has already sailed a long time a go

And your liberal values are not in line with UK or Oz Liberal values.
we care more for the common good than personal rights, personal rights is the Right Wing platform
the Left Wing position here is more like
"All markets are subject to Corruption and must be regulated for the good of society of a whole"

And, of course the LEFT will determine...soley...what is "good for society"...even if it isnt

by Original Quill Tue Apr 02, 2019 6:41 pm

Greed turns markets sour. Left, right or indifferent, stop greed and you stop corruption.

by Guest Tue Apr 02, 2019 9:13 pm

Eilzel wrote:
>THE Ben Reilly< wrote:Is it nothing, then, to live up to your own professed values?

If someone isn't advocating violence, should he/she be allowed to speak? Facebook is, after all, a de facto utility -- it's the preeminent venue for online speech. Does the fact that it's privately owned change things that much?

What if instead of Facebook, we said the Internet as a whole? Would someone then argue that the Internet, in terms of its platforms, is largely privately owned, and thus the opinions we express -- whether on Mark Z's platform or anywhere else -- are subject to censorship?

This is how people communicate these days! Should we force people to go to protests, and to beg for media coverage, in order to have their voices heard?

All I'm hearing is a loss of faith in the most liberal of all values -- the free market of ideas. The notion that if all ideas are allowed an equal chance to compete, the best ideas will win.

And if we've lost faith in the notion that the best ideas will win, well, then ... we've lost faith in the ability of the human race to chart its own course. And that makes me want to jump off a fucking skyscraper, because if we've lost that, we've lost everything.

Not to be overly dramatic, of course.

I can't speak for others, but me personally, I would not agree with censorship on the internet since it does not have a single organisation at its helm. It is 'owned' (not in the traditional sense) by various organisations and governments. So it would not be appropriate to censor net-wide.

-

Weak argument

For example both twitter and facebook, are the platform, for millions around the world and to start going down the path to politicise themselves over policies. Will break these companies. As they are supposed to be open to free speech.

The moment companies start to censur, is going down the poor slippery slope

I agree with Ben on this completely and think its going to far. As next more and more people or groups could be wrongfully classified within this remit and also banned. That is the slippery slope that this leads to and who decides what is?

Many people on the right are already labelled wrong in this category.

Not only that other hateful ideology is prevalent on them, so this seems more a gut reaction to the attack in New Zealand

They maybe privately owned, but are public spaces for everyone

Better to challenge those people online, than have more go under ground within the dark web.

People need to have their views challenged and this smakcs in the face of secular principles

by Ben Reilly Tue Apr 02, 2019 9:42 pm

Original Quill wrote:
>THE Ben Reilly< wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

Yes...without the racism. Indeed, because of the racism of the south.

That seems so short-sighted to me. Like deciding to drive off one side of the cliff instead of the other.

Reduced to functional terms, that's the way you get a job done.

I'm thru getting too subtle. Let's simplify: south = bad; California = good; ergo: Make your life better = separate the two.

Not too complicated, eh?

Have you ever actually been to the South? Because I've been to California, and I'll tell you the big difference I saw in racism.

In Texas, I had Latino colleagues at the newspaper, and for a while I reported to a boss who is of Mexican descent.

I knew Latino business owners, mayors, pastors, lawyers, artists, etc.

When I visited Pasadena, the only jobs I saw Latinos working were menial labor -- hotel workers, restaurant workers, retail, etc. I didn't see one person of Latin ancestry in any sort of successful career.

I do think you have to look and learn beyond the headlines and pundits and see something for yourself before you can say you have any kind of understanding of it.

Getting a bit back on topic, Donald Trump is from New York City. Rep. Devin Nunes, the Republican water boy for Trump, is from Tulare in California.

Texas alone can boast Beto, Wendy Davis, the Castro brothers and, going back, Anne Richards and freakin' LBJ!

by Original Quill Tue Apr 02, 2019 10:41 pm

I was married to a woman from New Orleans. Doesn't get more south than that.

by Eilzel Wed Apr 03, 2019 1:11 am

phildidge wrote:
Eilzel wrote:
>THE Ben Reilly< wrote:Is it nothing, then, to live up to your own professed values?

If someone isn't advocating violence, should he/she be allowed to speak? Facebook is, after all, a de facto utility -- it's the preeminent venue for online speech. Does the fact that it's privately owned change things that much?

What if instead of Facebook, we said the Internet as a whole? Would someone then argue that the Internet, in terms of its platforms, is largely privately owned, and thus the opinions we express -- whether on Mark Z's platform or anywhere else -- are subject to censorship?

This is how people communicate these days! Should we force people to go to protests, and to beg for media coverage, in order to have their voices heard?

All I'm hearing is a loss of faith in the most liberal of all values -- the free market of ideas. The notion that if all ideas are allowed an equal chance to compete, the best ideas will win.

And if we've lost faith in the notion that the best ideas will win, well, then ... we've lost faith in the ability of the human race to chart its own course. And that makes me want to jump off a fucking skyscraper, because if we've lost that, we've lost everything.

Not to be overly dramatic, of course.

I can't speak for others, but me personally, I would not agree with censorship on the internet since it does not have a single organisation at its helm. It is 'owned' (not in the traditional sense) by various organisations and governments. So it would not be appropriate to censor net-wide.

-

Weak argument

For example both twitter and facebook, are the platform, for millions around the world and to start going down the path to politicise themselves over policies. Will break these companies. As they are supposed to be open to free speech.

The moment companies start to censur, is going down the poor slippery slope

I agree with Ben on this completely and think its going to far. As next more and more people or groups could be wrongfully classified within this remit and also banned. That is the slippery slope that this leads to and who decides what is?

Many people on the right are already labelled wrong in this category.

Not only that other hateful ideology is prevalent on them, so this seems more a gut reaction to the attack in New Zealand

They maybe privately owned, but are public spaces for everyone

Better to challenge those people online, than have more go under ground within the dark web.

People need to have their views challenged and this smakcs in the face of secular principles

So, you want to begin heavily regulating the rules of a private company in order to ensure they allow things they might not agree with?

You want pretty major government interference into a service which is not providing a basic right (like gas, water or transport).

How socialist of you Laughing

As said, if a hard Right conservative wants to make a public forum that challenges FBs supremacy, let them try. But don't be telling private companies what people can and cannot say in their house.

by 'Wolfie Wed Apr 03, 2019 1:19 am

Victorismyhero wrote:
veya_victaous wrote:

the majority of the internet is subject to censorship ... this ship has already sailed a long time a go

And your liberal values are not in line with UK or Oz Liberal values.
we care more for the common good than personal rights, personal rights is the Right Wing platform
the Left Wing position here is more like
"All markets are subject to Corruption and must be regulated for the good of society of a whole"

And, of course the LEFT will determine...soley...what is "good for society"...even if it isnt

What a load of ignorant ultra-conservative bullshit...

by 'Wolfie Wed Apr 03, 2019 1:23 am

veya_victaous wrote:
>THE Ben Reilly< wrote:Is it nothing, then, to live up to your own professed values?

If someone isn't advocating violence, should he/she be allowed to speak? Facebook is, after all, a de facto utility -- it's the preeminent venue for online speech. Does the fact that it's privately owned change things that much?

What if instead of Facebook, we said the Internet as a whole? Would someone then argue that the Internet, in terms of its platforms, is largely privately owned, and thus the opinions we express -- whether on Mark Z's platform or anywhere else -- are subject to censorship?

This is how people communicate these days! Should we force people to go to protests, and to beg for media coverage, in order to have their voices heard?

All I'm hearing is a loss of faith in the most liberal of all values -- the free market of ideas. The notion that if all ideas are allowed an equal chance to compete, the best ideas will win.

And if we've lost faith in the notion that the best ideas will win, well, then ... we've lost faith in the ability of the human race to chart its own course. And that makes me want to jump off a fucking skyscraper, because if we've lost that, we've lost everything.

Not to be overly dramatic, of course.

the majority of the internet is subject to censorship ... this ship has already sailed a long time a go

And your liberal values are not in line with UK or Oz Liberal values.
we care more for the common good than personal rights, personal rights is the Right Wing platform
the Left Wing position here is more like
"All markets are subject to Corruption and must be regulated for the good of society of a whole"

What veya said...

by Ben Reilly Wed Apr 03, 2019 1:38 am

Original Quill wrote:I was married to a woman from New Orleans. Doesn't get more south than that.

Also doesn't get more one-person than that. But it's fine if you don't want to answer my question.

by Original Quill Wed Apr 03, 2019 2:19 am

>THE Ben Reilly< wrote:
Original Quill wrote:I was married to a woman from New Orleans. Doesn't get more south than that.

Also doesn't get more one-person than that. But it's fine if you don't want to answer my question.

Well, she had a family. It was niggers this, and niggers that...out in public, or home at dinner. It wasn't person, but a real slice of life in the south.

by Guest Wed Apr 03, 2019 3:44 am

Eilzel wrote:
phildidge wrote:
-

Weak argument

For example both twitter and facebook, are the platform, for millions around the world and to start going down the path to politicise themselves over policies. Will break these companies. As they are supposed to be open to free speech.

The moment companies start to censur, is going down the poor slippery slope

I agree with Ben on this completely and think its going to far. As next more and more people or groups could be wrongfully classified within this remit and also banned. That is the slippery slope that this leads to and who decides what is?

Many people on the right are already labelled wrong in this category.

Not only that other hateful ideology is prevalent on them, so this seems more a gut reaction to the attack in New Zealand

They maybe privately owned, but are public spaces for everyone

Better to challenge those people online, than have more go under ground within the dark web.

People need to have their views challenged and this smakcs in the face of secular principles

So, you want to begin heavily regulating the rules of a private company in order to ensure they allow things they might not agree with?

You want pretty major government interference into a service which is not providing a basic right (like gas, water or transport).

How socialist of you

As said, if a hard Right conservative wants to make a public forum that challenges FBs supremacy, let them try. But don't be telling private companies what people can and cannot say in their house.

Oh dear and yet again the left invent things not said

Not once did I claim that I want to see regulation of private companies. Showing how the point went over your head.

Companies like facebook and Twitter have said that they are not political, but taking such a stance is being political.

The moment said platforms, become political, they lose their view point as a place free to discuss any topic

What you seem to be happy is for both companies to take political stances, where again they certainly do not censur antisemitism, which is rife on both and leftist extremism. FB has said it will not censur Holocaust denial. Which shows a contradiction in terms from FB here. Now I challenge Holocaust denial all the time, but do not think it should be censured

Twitter for example has Antifa them use twitter as a hotbed of hate, but no such regulation is being made against them.

I do not want to see anything censured, as that goes against everything that liberalism and secularism stands for

Like I said, what happens. Is this opens the door to abuse, where then people get wrongly classed within extreme groups, based on something that can easily be taken out of context

At the end of the day FB and twitter and losing more and more people all the time.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EbTXqrS9l5E&t=783s

by Eilzel Wed Apr 03, 2019 4:14 am

phildidge wrote:
Eilzel wrote:
phildidge wrote:
-

Weak argument

For example both twitter and facebook, are the platform, for millions around the world and to start going down the path to politicise themselves over policies. Will break these companies. As they are supposed to be open to free speech.

The moment companies start to censur, is going down the poor slippery slope

I agree with Ben on this completely and think its going to far. As next more and more people or groups could be wrongfully classified within this remit and also banned. That is the slippery slope that this leads to and who decides what is?

Many people on the right are already labelled wrong in this category.

Not only that other hateful ideology is prevalent on them, so this seems more a gut reaction to the attack in New Zealand

They maybe privately owned, but are public spaces for everyone

Better to challenge those people online, than have more go under ground within the dark web.

People need to have their views challenged and this smakcs in the face of secular principles

So, you want to begin heavily regulating the rules of a private company in order to ensure they allow things they might not agree with?

You want pretty major government interference into a service which is not providing a basic right (like gas, water or transport).

How socialist of you

As said, if a hard Right conservative wants to make a public forum that challenges FBs supremacy, let them try. But don't be telling private companies what people can and cannot say in their house.

Oh dear and yet again the left invent things not said

Not once did I claim that I want to see regulation of private companies. Showing how the point went over your head.

Companies like facebook and Twitter have said that they are not political, but taking such a stance is being political.

The moment said platforms, become political, they lose their view point as a place free to discuss any topic

What you seem to be happy is for both companies to take political stances, where again they certainly do not censur antisemitism, which is rife on both and leftist extremism. FB has said it will not censur Holocaust denial. Which shows a contradiction in terms from FB here. Now I challenge Holocaust denial all the time, but do not think it should be censured

Twitter for example has Antifa them use twitter as a hotbed of hate, but no such regulation is being made against them.

I do not want to see anything censured, as that goes against everything that liberalism and secularism stands for

Like I said, what happens. Is this opens the door to abuse, where then people get wrongly classed within extreme groups, based on something that can easily be taken out of context

At the end of the day FB and twitter and losing more and more people all the time.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EbTXqrS9l5E&t=783s

Well if they lose too many, I'm sure they'll correct themselves; that's the beauty of the market, right?

Facebook and Twitter aren't 'promoting' a particular view. There is plenty of conservatism, Islamism, homophobia, racism, SJW nonsense, religious zealotry etc. to be found on Facebook even now. They are simply removing something they believe could allow something worse to grow.

Those views can still be expressed on a wide range of online platforms.

Facebook and Twitter remain unpolitical. They aren't removing one side entirely, they are removing what they see as dangerous elements. Whether we agree with them or not, they can, and should be allowed to, do as they like in that regard.

Using social media is not a human right, it is not a public necessity.

by Cass Wed Apr 03, 2019 5:09 am

Eilzel wrote:
phildidge wrote:

Oh dear and yet again the left invent things not said

Not once did I claim that I want to see regulation of private companies. Showing how the point went over your head.

Companies like facebook and Twitter have said that they are not political, but taking such a stance is being political.

The moment said platforms, become political, they lose their view point as a place free to discuss any topic

What you seem to be happy is for both companies to take political stances, where again they certainly do not censur antisemitism, which is rife on both and leftist extremism. FB has said it will not censur Holocaust denial. Which shows a contradiction in terms from FB here. Now I challenge Holocaust denial all the time, but do not think it should be censured

Twitter for example has Antifa them use twitter as a hotbed of hate, but no such regulation is being made against them.

I do not want to see anything censured, as that goes against everything that liberalism and secularism stands for

Like I said, what happens. Is this opens the door to abuse, where then people get wrongly classed within extreme groups, based on something that can easily be taken out of context

At the end of the day FB and twitter and losing more and more people all the time.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EbTXqrS9l5E&t=783s

Well if they lose too many, I'm sure they'll correct themselves; that's the beauty of the market, right?

Facebook and Twitter aren't 'promoting' a particular view. There is plenty of conservatism, Islamism, homophobia, racism, SJW nonsense, religious zealotry etc. to be found on Facebook even now. They are simply removing something they believe could allow something worse to grow.

Those views can still be expressed on a wide range of online platforms.

Facebook and Twitter remain unpolitical. They aren't removing one side entirely, they are removing what they see as dangerous elements. Whether we agree with them or not, they can, and should be allowed to, do as they like in that regard.

Using social media is not a human right, it is not a public necessity.

Bingo.

by Guest Wed Apr 03, 2019 5:23 am

Eilzel wrote:
phildidge wrote:

Oh dear and yet again the left invent things not said

Not once did I claim that I want to see regulation of private companies. Showing how the point went over your head.

Companies like facebook and Twitter have said that they are not political, but taking such a stance is being political.

The moment said platforms, become political, they lose their view point as a place free to discuss any topic

What you seem to be happy is for both companies to take political stances, where again they certainly do not censur antisemitism, which is rife on both and leftist extremism. FB has said it will not censur Holocaust denial. Which shows a contradiction in terms from FB here. Now I challenge Holocaust denial all the time, but do not think it should be censured

Twitter for example has Antifa them use twitter as a hotbed of hate, but no such regulation is being made against them.

I do not want to see anything censured, as that goes against everything that liberalism and secularism stands for

Like I said, what happens. Is this opens the door to abuse, where then people get wrongly classed within extreme groups, based on something that can easily be taken out of context

At the end of the day FB and twitter and losing more and more people all the time.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EbTXqrS9l5E&t=783s

Well if they lose too many, I'm sure they'll correct themselves; that's the beauty of the market, right?

Facebook and Twitter aren't 'promoting' a particular view. There is plenty of conservatism, Islamism, homophobia, racism, SJW nonsense, religious zealotry etc. to be found on Facebook even now. They are simply removing something they believe could allow something worse to grow.

Those views can still be expressed on a wide range of online platforms.

Facebook and Twitter remain unpolitical. They aren't removing one side entirely, they are removing what they see as dangerous elements. Whether we agree with them or not, they can, and should be allowed to, do as they like in that regard.

Using social media is not a human right, it is not a public necessity.

Yes they are clearly promoting political stances and backing certainly ideology themselves

I mean now many politicians use social media.

We see this with them policing people who do not buy into the gender ideology.

So you say they allow islamism, which as seen allows for some of the worst terrorism we see world wide and yet they take a stance only on one extreme ideology. Hence its going down a slippery slope which again you are supposed to stand for secular values.

This is not secualrism, but totalitarianism, so I suggest you check your secualar values

Its up to twitter and facebook if they go down this, road, but then they best be universal within this

Then any view perceived to be extreme, that leads to hate, would have to be removed

Just think about that for a minute, because countless groups, ideologies would be banned.Even though not extreme, but based on the views that some hold who are extreme.

That is what happens, when people go down the slippery slope of censurship and many innocent people get labbeled and tarred alongside countless extreme ideologies

by Eilzel Wed Apr 03, 2019 5:48 am

phildidge wrote:
Eilzel wrote:
phildidge wrote:

Oh dear and yet again the left invent things not said

Not once did I claim that I want to see regulation of private companies. Showing how the point went over your head.

Companies like facebook and Twitter have said that they are not political, but taking such a stance is being political.

The moment said platforms, become political, they lose their view point as a place free to discuss any topic

What you seem to be happy is for both companies to take political stances, where again they certainly do not censur antisemitism, which is rife on both and leftist extremism. FB has said it will not censur Holocaust denial. Which shows a contradiction in terms from FB here. Now I challenge Holocaust denial all the time, but do not think it should be censured

Twitter for example has Antifa them use twitter as a hotbed of hate, but no such regulation is being made against them.

I do not want to see anything censured, as that goes against everything that liberalism and secularism stands for

Like I said, what happens. Is this opens the door to abuse, where then people get wrongly classed within extreme groups, based on something that can easily be taken out of context

At the end of the day FB and twitter and losing more and more people all the time.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EbTXqrS9l5E&t=783s

Well if they lose too many, I'm sure they'll correct themselves; that's the beauty of the market, right?

Facebook and Twitter aren't 'promoting' a particular view. There is plenty of conservatism, Islamism, homophobia, racism, SJW nonsense, religious zealotry etc. to be found on Facebook even now. They are simply removing something they believe could allow something worse to grow.

Those views can still be expressed on a wide range of online platforms.

Facebook and Twitter remain unpolitical. They aren't removing one side entirely, they are removing what they see as dangerous elements. Whether we agree with them or not, they can, and should be allowed to, do as they like in that regard.

Using social media is not a human right, it is not a public necessity.

Yes they are clearly promoting political stances and backing certainly ideology themselves

I mean now many politicians use social media.

We see this with them policing people who do not buy into the gender ideology.

So you say they allow islamism, which as seen allows for some of the worst terrorism we see world wide and yet they take a stance only on one extreme ideology. Hence its going down a slippery slope which again you are supposed to stand for secular values.

This is not secualrism, but totalitarianism, so I suggest you check your secualar values

Its up to twitter and facebook if they go down this, road, but then they best be universal within this

Then any view perceived to be extreme, that leads to hate, would have to be removed

Just think about that for a minute, because countless groups, ideologies would be banned.Even though not extreme, but based on the views that some hold who are extreme.

That is what happens, when people go down the slippery slope of censurship and many innocent people get labbeled and tarred alongside countless extreme ideologies

Really, which ideology are they back then?

And I'm afraid a single organisation, which people can choose NOT to use, cannot be 'totalitarian', at least not in the way you describe. They are not forcing people to do anything, they have absolutely not tangible hold over people's lives. Again, if this was a government doing this, I'd agree with you, and that would be totalitarian. But a website for people to keep in touch with others cannot be described in such OTT terms.

Finally, I have a question - what do YOU think Facebook (or other social media sites) ACTUALLY do, and would you agree with forcing them to do anything?

by Guest Wed Apr 03, 2019 5:56 am

Eilzel wrote:
phildidge wrote:

Yes they are clearly promoting political stances and backing certainly ideology themselves

I mean now many politicians use social media.

We see this with them policing people who do not buy into the gender ideology.

So you say they allow islamism, which as seen allows for some of the worst terrorism we see world wide and yet they take a stance only on one extreme ideology. Hence its going down a slippery slope which again you are supposed to stand for secular values.

This is not secualrism, but totalitarianism, so I suggest you check your secualar values

Its up to twitter and facebook if they go down this, road, but then they best be universal within this

Then any view perceived to be extreme, that leads to hate, would have to be removed

Just think about that for a minute, because countless groups, ideologies would be banned.Even though not extreme, but based on the views that some hold who are extreme.

That is what happens, when people go down the slippery slope of censurship and many innocent people get labbeled and tarred alongside countless extreme ideologies

Really, which ideology are they back then?

And I'm afraid a single organisation, which people can choose NOT to use, cannot be 'totalitarian', at least not in the way you describe. They are not forcing people to do anything, they have absolutely not tangible hold over people's lives. Again, if this was a government doing this, I'd agree with you, and that would be totalitarian. But a website for people to keep in touch with others cannot be described in such OTT terms.

Finally, I have a question - what do YOU think Facebook (or other social media sites) ACTUALLY do, and would you agree with forcing them to do anything?

Well for starters, as we see on Twitter, they back gender ideology, by banning people for misgendering. This replicates people now being questioned by the police for backing biology

Its governments that are pusing Facebook and twitter to censur, the point you are missing. Whilst not making the same stance on other extreme beliefs. So yes they can be very much totalitariam, when the social media sites are being used by the political elite .

I mean dont you read about Governements now presenting fines to these companies? They are forcing their hands and influencing them on policies by pressure

The point is, you as a proponent of secular values, should be speaking out against any censurship and sadly you think its a great idea

What a double standard

What do these medias sites actually do? Use gambling methods in order to make people addicted to their sites and I am against them being forced to do anything

I think they should stay by their policiy of a place for free speech, that is how they advertised themselves

That is what people signed up to

by Guest Wed Apr 03, 2019 5:59 am

Anyway, have to get ready for work

laters

by Eilzel Wed Apr 03, 2019 6:00 am

phildidge wrote:
Eilzel wrote:
phildidge wrote:

Yes they are clearly promoting political stances and backing certainly ideology themselves

I mean now many politicians use social media.

We see this with them policing people who do not buy into the gender ideology.

So you say they allow islamism, which as seen allows for some of the worst terrorism we see world wide and yet they take a stance only on one extreme ideology. Hence its going down a slippery slope which again you are supposed to stand for secular values.

This is not secualrism, but totalitarianism, so I suggest you check your secualar values

Its up to twitter and facebook if they go down this, road, but then they best be universal within this

Then any view perceived to be extreme, that leads to hate, would have to be removed

Just think about that for a minute, because countless groups, ideologies would be banned.Even though not extreme, but based on the views that some hold who are extreme.

That is what happens, when people go down the slippery slope of censurship and many innocent people get labbeled and tarred alongside countless extreme ideologies

Really, which ideology are they back then?

And I'm afraid a single organisation, which people can choose NOT to use, cannot be 'totalitarian', at least not in the way you describe. They are not forcing people to do anything, they have absolutely not tangible hold over people's lives. Again, if this was a government doing this, I'd agree with you, and that would be totalitarian. But a website for people to keep in touch with others cannot be described in such OTT terms.

Finally, I have a question - what do YOU think Facebook (or other social media sites) ACTUALLY do, and would you agree with forcing them to do anything?

Well for starters, as we see on Twitter, they back gender ideology, by banning people for misgendering. This replicates people now being questioned by the police for backing biology

Its governments that are pusing Facebook and twitter to censur, the point you are missing. Whilst not making the same stance on other extreme beliefs. So yes they can be very much totalitariam, when the social media sites are being used by the political elite .

I mean dont you read about Governements now presenting fines to these companies? They are forcing their hands and influencing them on policies by pressure

The point is, you as a proponent of secular values, should be speaking out against any censurship and sadly you think its a great idea

What a double standard

What do these medias sites actually do? Use gambling methods in order to make people addicted to their sites and I am against them being forced to do anything

I think they should stay by their policiy of a place for free speech, that is how they advertised themselves

That is what people signed up to

I apologise, my question was meant to read what SHOULD these websites actually do (but forgot to type 'should' lol)?

And should they be forced to do it?

by Guest Wed Apr 03, 2019 6:09 am

Eilzel wrote:
phildidge wrote:

Well for starters, as we see on Twitter, they back gender ideology, by banning people for misgendering. This replicates people now being questioned by the police for backing biology

Its governments that are pusing Facebook and twitter to censur, the point you are missing. Whilst not making the same stance on other extreme beliefs. So yes they can be very much totalitariam, when the social media sites are being used by the political elite .

I mean dont you read about Governements now presenting fines to these companies? They are forcing their hands and influencing them on policies by pressure

The point is, you as a proponent of secular values, should be speaking out against any censurship and sadly you think its a great idea

What a double standard

What do these medias sites actually do? Use gambling methods in order to make people addicted to their sites and I am against them being forced to do anything

I think they should stay by their policiy of a place for free speech, that is how they advertised themselves

That is what people signed up to

I apologise, my question was meant to read what SHOULD these websites actually do (but forgot to type 'should' lol)?

And should they be forced to do it?

As I already stated and answered both questions

Stay as they adverstised themselves as . As a place for free speech. Which was what drew people to them and made them popular. They should simple moderate people on an individual bases for rule breaking.

Already answered the second question, read back, as highlighted. So no they should not be forced.

Seriously read properly what i said

Laters

by Eilzel Wed Apr 03, 2019 6:23 am

phildidge wrote:
Eilzel wrote:
phildidge wrote:

Well for starters, as we see on Twitter, they back gender ideology, by banning people for misgendering. This replicates people now being questioned by the police for backing biology

Its governments that are pusing Facebook and twitter to censur, the point you are missing. Whilst not making the same stance on other extreme beliefs. So yes they can be very much totalitariam, when the social media sites are being used by the political elite .

I mean dont you read about Governements now presenting fines to these companies? They are forcing their hands and influencing them on policies by pressure

The point is, you as a proponent of secular values, should be speaking out against any censurship and sadly you think its a great idea

What a double standard

What do these medias sites actually do? Use gambling methods in order to make people addicted to their sites and I am against them being forced to do anything

I think they should stay by their policiy of a place for free speech, that is how they advertised themselves

That is what people signed up to

I apologise, my question was meant to read what SHOULD these websites actually do (but forgot to type 'should' lol)?

And should they be forced to do it?

As I already stated and answered both questions

Stay as they adverstised themselves as . As a place for free speech. Which was what drew people to them and made them popular. They should simple moderate people on an individual bases for rule breaking.

Already answered the second question, read back, as highlighted. So no they should not be forced.

Seriously read properly what i said

Laters

So you think they should do that for no reason other than upholding the principles you think they should subscribe to?

Which is fine, but they have no obligations there.

I know I wouldn't accept racism or homophobia in my house. Nor would I allow white nationalists to promote themselves on my website if I had one. I wouldn't expect the same of Facebook (in fact I'd go further, but then I am political in a way Facebook is not).

by Guest Wed Apr 03, 2019 9:39 am

Eilzel wrote:
phildidge wrote:

As I already stated and answered both questions

Stay as they adverstised themselves as . As a place for free speech. Which was what drew people to them and made them popular. They should simple moderate people on an individual bases for rule breaking.

Already answered the second question, read back, as highlighted. So no they should not be forced.

Seriously read properly what i said

Laters

So you think they should do that for no reason other than upholding the principles you think they should subscribe to?

Which is fine, but they have no obligations there.

I know I wouldn't accept racism or homophobia in my house. Nor would I allow white nationalists to promote themselves on my website if I had one. I wouldn't expect the same of Facebook (in fact I'd go further, but then I am political in a way Facebook is not).

For goodness sake

Its not me, is what they advertised theirselves as, to garner buisness

If this is not the case, then it was false advertising

Well; here is the difference, I have met and known people who hold racist or homophobic views. I challenged them on these views and have over the years seen people change their views foi the better.

Your way continues the fact people are racist and homophobic, by trying to brush it under the carpet. I challenge people all the time on youtube on the comments section. Its how you dispell the crap they believe in

So I guess you want facebook to ban most religious groups, being as they see homosexuality as a sin?

See what happens when you go down this path and how then many groups become banned?

You are certainly not a secularist or liberal

by Eilzel Wed Apr 03, 2019 9:58 am

phildidge wrote:
Eilzel wrote:
phildidge wrote:

As I already stated and answered both questions

Stay as they adverstised themselves as . As a place for free speech. Which was what drew people to them and made them popular. They should simple moderate people on an individual bases for rule breaking.

Already answered the second question, read back, as highlighted. So no they should not be forced.

Seriously read properly what i said

Laters

So you think they should do that for no reason other than upholding the principles you think they should subscribe to?

Which is fine, but they have no obligations there.

I know I wouldn't accept racism or homophobia in my house. Nor would I allow white nationalists to promote themselves on my website if I had one. I wouldn't expect the same of Facebook (in fact I'd go further, but then I am political in a way Facebook is not).

For goodness sake

Its not me, is what they advertised theirselves as, to garner buisness

If this is not the case, then it was false advertising

Well; here is the difference, I have met and known people who hold racist or homophobic views. I challenged them on these views and have over the years seen people change their views foi the better.

Your way continues the fact people are racist and homophobic, by trying to brush it under the carpet. I challenge people all the time on youtube on the comments section. Its how you dispell the crap they believe in

So I guess you want facebook to ban most religious groups, being as they see homosexuality as a sin?

See what happens when you go down this path and how then many groups become banned?

You are certainly not a secularist or liberal

Stop telling me what I want Facebook to do.

I don't want Facebook to 'do' anything. And in case you failed to notice, I pretty regularly argue against bigotry on here Rolling Eyes

This is a debate about whether or not WE THINK that Facebook should be allowed to stop certain views being presented on their website.

I say they should be, since it is 'their' website. No one else's. Just theirs.

You say they shouldn't, but wouldn't force them to do anything.

Not really much else to be said.

by Guest Wed Apr 03, 2019 10:21 am

Eilzel wrote:
phildidge wrote:

For goodness sake

Its not me, is what they advertised theirselves as, to garner buisness

If this is not the case, then it was false advertising

Well; here is the difference, I have met and known people who hold racist or homophobic views. I challenged them on these views and have over the years seen people change their views foi the better.

Your way continues the fact people are racist and homophobic, by trying to brush it under the carpet. I challenge people all the time on youtube on the comments section. Its how you dispell the crap they believe in

So I guess you want facebook to ban most religious groups, being as they see homosexuality as a sin?

See what happens when you go down this path and how then many groups become banned?

You are certainly not a secularist or liberal

Stop telling me what I want Facebook to do.

I don't want Facebook to 'do' anything. And in case you failed to notice, I pretty regularly argue against bigotry on here

This is a debate about whether or not WE THINK that Facebook should be allowed to stop certain views being presented on their website.

I say they should be, since it is 'their' website. No one else's. Just theirs.

You say they shouldn't, but wouldn't force them to do anything.

Not really much else to be said.

You mean like you saying that I wanted the Government to regulate them? When I never made any such view.

See, its annoying is it not. When people wrongly make up crap to to things not said

Go figure

The moment facebook starts banning beliefs, opens the door to any belief being banned

Which again is a slippery slope

by Eilzel Wed Apr 03, 2019 10:23 am

phildidge wrote:
Eilzel wrote:
phildidge wrote:

For goodness sake

Its not me, is what they advertised theirselves as, to garner buisness

If this is not the case, then it was false advertising

Well; here is the difference, I have met and known people who hold racist or homophobic views. I challenged them on these views and have over the years seen people change their views foi the better.

Your way continues the fact people are racist and homophobic, by trying to brush it under the carpet. I challenge people all the time on youtube on the comments section. Its how you dispell the crap they believe in

So I guess you want facebook to ban most religious groups, being as they see homosexuality as a sin?

See what happens when you go down this path and how then many groups become banned?

You are certainly not a secularist or liberal

Stop telling me what I want Facebook to do.

I don't want Facebook to 'do' anything. And in case you failed to notice, I pretty regularly argue against bigotry on here

This is a debate about whether or not WE THINK that Facebook should be allowed to stop certain views being presented on their website.

I say they should be, since it is 'their' website. No one else's. Just theirs.

You say they shouldn't, but wouldn't force them to do anything.

Not really much else to be said.

You mean like you saying that I wanted the Government to regulate them? When I never made any such view.

See, its annoying is it not. When people wrongly make up crap to to things not said

Go figure

The moment facebook starts banning beliefs, opens the door to any belief being banned

Which again is a slippery slope

Because you came in this thread talking about what Facebook 'should' do - the implication is you want something done about it. I got the wrong implication, clearly.

In my case, I simply said Facebook can do what they want - that does not mean I agree or disagree with their particular actions, it just means I think they can allow whatever they want on their website.

If Facebook banned too many 'beliefs' being expressed, they'd die. That's the nature of the market and the internet.
Facebook banning certain views is not a major issue though.

by Original Quill Wed Apr 03, 2019 12:22 pm

To what extent does tolerance become acceptance? Let us mine the depths of the subconscious.

I don't like bigoted people, ok? My answer is to remove them from my life. I don't censor them. I just leave.

My Pacific States of America is such a leaving. They can have all the freedom of speech they want...just not in my space. Otherwise, freedom of speech becomes enforced participation...which I find to be a form of coercion and imprisonment.

by eddie Wed Apr 03, 2019 8:46 pm

I like free speech. Let people say what they want. People should be able to skip past something they don’t like.

Besides, let the idiots speak out and show themselves to be the tossers that they are.

by Original Quill Wed Apr 03, 2019 10:12 pm

eds wrote:People should be able to skip past something they don’t like.

Which is what we are doing with the Pacific States of America. We're skipping past...and out.

by Guest Wed Apr 03, 2019 10:30 pm

>THE Ben Reilly< wrote:Much as I am loathe to support either ideology, check this out:

Facebook Inc. will ban content that references white nationalism and white separatism, taking a major step toward curbing racism and hate speech on the site.

The social media giant’s policies have long excluded posts on white supremacy, but Facebook said it didn’t apply the same lens to expressions of white nationalism because it wanted to be able to include “broader concepts” of nationalism such as American pride and Basque separatism, which are linked to people’s identity.

After an investigation by tech publication Motherboard and conversations with experts in race and civil rights groups, Facebook said in a blog post Wednesday that it concluded “white nationalism and separatism cannot be meaningfully separated from white supremacy and organized hate groups.”

The problem of white nationalism on Facebook was magnified in 2017 after a deadly neo-Nazi rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, where white nationalists used the social networking site as a way to fuel hatred and to connect far-right groups in a protest of the removal of a Confederate statue. The killer responsible for the deaths of 50 people in New Zealand earlier this month also used Facebook to post a racist manifesto before recording the massacre at two mosques live on the platform.

Going forward, people who search for terms associated with white supremacy will be directed to resources that combat hate groups, such as Life After Hate, an organization founded by former violent extremists that provides crisis intervention, education, support groups and outreach, San Francisco-based Facebook said.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-03-27/facebook-to-ban-white-nationalism-separatism-website-reports

Many people conflate white supremacy with nationalism and separatism, but (at least if you take their supporters at face value) nationalism means "a nation for this group of people" and separatism means "this group of people should live separately from other groups."

Is this an infringement upon the freedom of speech of people who nominally may very well not be advocating violence?

Is this going to backfire?

Discuss.

I said fucking discuss!!!!

is this fucking satire??

by Ben Reilly Wed Apr 03, 2019 10:39 pm

smelly-bandit wrote:
>THE Ben Reilly< wrote:Much as I am loathe to support either ideology, check this out:

Facebook Inc. will ban content that references white nationalism and white separatism, taking a major step toward curbing racism and hate speech on the site.

The social media giant’s policies have long excluded posts on white supremacy, but Facebook said it didn’t apply the same lens to expressions of white nationalism because it wanted to be able to include “broader concepts” of nationalism such as American pride and Basque separatism, which are linked to people’s identity.

After an investigation by tech publication Motherboard and conversations with experts in race and civil rights groups, Facebook said in a blog post Wednesday that it concluded “white nationalism and separatism cannot be meaningfully separated from white supremacy and organized hate groups.”

The problem of white nationalism on Facebook was magnified in 2017 after a deadly neo-Nazi rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, where white nationalists used the social networking site as a way to fuel hatred and to connect far-right groups in a protest of the removal of a Confederate statue. The killer responsible for the deaths of 50 people in New Zealand earlier this month also used Facebook to post a racist manifesto before recording the massacre at two mosques live on the platform.

Going forward, people who search for terms associated with white supremacy will be directed to resources that combat hate groups, such as Life After Hate, an organization founded by former violent extremists that provides crisis intervention, education, support groups and outreach, San Francisco-based Facebook said.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-03-27/facebook-to-ban-white-nationalism-separatism-website-reports

Many people conflate white supremacy with nationalism and separatism, but (at least if you take their supporters at face value) nationalism means "a nation for this group of people" and separatism means "this group of people should live separately from other groups."

Is this an infringement upon the freedom of speech of people who nominally may very well not be advocating violence?

Is this going to backfire?

Discuss.

I said fucking discuss!!!!

is this fucking satire??

Um ... what do you think?

by Guest Wed Apr 03, 2019 10:44 pm

>THE Ben Reilly< wrote:
smelly-bandit wrote:

is this fucking satire??

Um ... what do you think?

I think it's safer to keep my opinions to myself where you're concerned

by Ben Reilly Wed Apr 03, 2019 11:09 pm

smelly-bandit wrote:
>THE Ben Reilly< wrote:
smelly-bandit wrote:

is this fucking satire??

Um ... what do you think?

I think it's safer to keep my opinions to myself where you're concerned

Then why did you comment in the first place, if you're so afraid of what I'm going to say?

by eddie Wed Apr 03, 2019 11:14 pm

smelly-bandit wrote:
>THE Ben Reilly< wrote:
smelly-bandit wrote:

is this fucking satire??

Um ... what do you think?

I think it's safer to keep my opinions to myself where you're concerned

Nobody has ever censored your opinions smelly, you’ve only been basemented for the comment about monkeys.
So don’t tell lies and let yourself down. That’s just not sensible.

by Ben Reilly Wed Apr 03, 2019 11:32 pm

eddie wrote:
smelly-bandit wrote:
>THE Ben Reilly< wrote:
smelly-bandit wrote:

is this fucking satire??

Um ... what do you think?

I think it's safer to keep my opinions to myself where you're concerned

Nobody has ever censored your opinions smelly, you’ve only been basemented for the comment about monkeys.
So don’t tell lies and let yourself down. That’s just not sensible.

He's dying to be banned, run back to his Flab friends and say he got banned because he's too real for us or whatever.

Funny enough (this is for everyone else, eddie already knows) I tried logging in over there to check out smelly's little martyr act -- and found I'd been banned! I have no idea why -- not that I care.

by Guest Wed Apr 03, 2019 11:44 pm

>THE Ben Reilly< wrote:
smelly-bandit wrote:

I think it's safer to keep my opinions to myself where you're concerned

Then why did you comment in the first place, if you're so afraid of what I'm going to say?

i was asking a question, are you posting this in satire??

by Ben Reilly Thu Apr 04, 2019 12:15 am

smelly-bandit wrote:
>THE Ben Reilly< wrote:
smelly-bandit wrote:

I think it's safer to keep my opinions to myself where you're concerned

Then why did you comment in the first place, if you're so afraid of what I'm going to say?

i was asking a question, are you posting this in satire??

But if you're so afraid of what I have to say, then why did you ask?

by Sponsored content