Lies are free speech, and protected as such. Only threats and statements made to intimidate are 'nor free speech'. Censorship is censorship, even when the recipient is an unrepentant asshole.
Regardless of what you think of him, I think that the press has a right to know about trials that are going on. There should not be press blackouts and media bans on reporting ongoing trials that are underway. I do think he is a racist, but in the US, the thing that rocketed him to recent fame would never have happened. In the US we are allowed to know about trials and the media is allowed report on them when they are happening.
I don't see how the act of one man filming the outside of a courthouse from the street can cause a trial to collapse. And nothing I see online backs up that claim. In the US there is no danger of a trial collapsing if I film a courthouse from the sidewalk outside of it, it is my absolute right to do so.
Could you supply a bit more reason and/or argument than just "he's wrong" and "the account is five minutes old, with a name that seems fishy to me". So far you have said exactly nothing that looks even remotely persuasive.
My account isn't 5 minutes old, but I still agree with what parent post said. Making something taboo makes it coveted or people more interested in it than if it wasn't. Pull the straw man out and try another argument please.
I look forward to Alex Jones becoming the kind of forbidden knowledge that the flat earthers had to distribute using flyers & home-printed tabloids in the pre-internet days.
And who defines “hate speech” and how do we know we’ll still agree with them tomorrow?
I realize that this is specifically talking about UK groups and that even in the US the 1st only applies to the government and not to any private person or entity, but it amazes me how many people complain about the massive amount of information Facebook has about them, complain about how Facebook has misused or sold that data, and then complain that Facebook hasn’t banned someone they find offensive.
Communication has become insanely centralized in recent years. Facebook can’t be trusted to have or use your information, but you’re fine with them being the free speech police?
>Communication has become insanely centralized in recent years. Facebook can’t be trusted to have or use your information, but you’re fine with them being the free speech police?
I talked with some friends at the weekend over pints. We didn't need facebook to act as a middleman.
Absolutely. Unfortunately the rest of the world has and now I’m a million miles away from my friends in a country that doesn’t speak the same language and there’s this great thing called the internet that makes it feel like I’m not so far away anymore...
This is why the internet was invented and why there were free and open protocols invented to communicate using it. Unfortunately then AOL and AIM started and it was downhill after that... now we all rely on Facebook or Google or Twitter to relay our messages and that’s not great for anyone.
They're not the "free speech police", they're the "speech on their own platform which they own and operate" police. Why are you pretending not to understand the difference?
Wait, what would be the problem of operating under their own political leanings? That's exactly the point--Facebook has decided that they oppose hate speech and will not host it. That's a political decision, and that's okay.
And when their ads in some hypothetical way influence an election, is that still ok? What if something something Russia something too?
They’re free to place any demands on their platform as they see fit. I have no problem with anything they’ve done.
The problem arises when you insist that Facebook do things according to your political leanings, but then suddenly your political leanings don’t line up with everyone else’s anymore and you’re the odd one out and now people are demanding that you be banned.
Yes, for 99.999999% of people that’s never going to be a problem. The crap they post on FB is so worthless I’m sure it’d be a negligible loss to the world if they were, but that’s the point - banning them isn’t the right way to get them to change their minds or to improve their posts.
They’re free to place any demands on their platform as they see fit. I have no problem with anything they’ve done.
Great, I'm glad we agree!
The problem arises when you insist that Facebook do things according to your political leanings, but then suddenly your political leanings don’t line up with everyone else’s anymore and you’re the odd one out and now people are demanding that you be banned.
Yes, for 99.999999% of people that’s never going to be a problem.
Including me, because I do not advocate for harming, killing, or stripping the civil rights from others, unlike the folks who are being banned. :-)
banning them isn’t the right way to get them to change their minds or to improve their posts.
Who wants to change their minds or improve their posts? I want them the hell out of my face, permanently, and I'm happy that Facebook agrees.
Everyone has a right to spout whatever crap they want. Online or on a soapbox on a street corner. You also have the right to ignore them. Exercise it and be happier in your daily life.
Free speech is an awesome civil right! But weren't we talking about Facebook essentially "kicking people out of their living room for shouting the N word"? What does that have to do with free speech?
You don't have the right to shout hate speech in my living room or on Facebook, but you do have the right to do so on your own platform or soapbox--and so do the far-right groups that got banned from facebook (they're also banned from my living room, they just don't know it yet).
The internet is not a protected platform, you do not have a right to free speech on other people's websites. The 'safe harbor' excuse that Cloudflare is known for using isn't going to cut it, and Facebook sees the writing on the wall.
If you think deleting viral lies on the internet is censorship, then you're really not going to like how social media is going to develop over the next 5 years.
To be fair, it is literally censorship. It isn't government censorship, but it is a body of people making decisions about what topics and ideas are not allowable. I see a danger in that, and you are right — I'm not going to like the direction social media and communication in general seem likely to go.
"It seems to me something of a scandal that it is even necessary to debate these issues two centuries after Voltaire defended the right of free expression for views he detested. It is a poor service to the memory of the victims of the holocaust to adopt a central doctrine of their murderers."
True, but... do you approve of that? Do you think people should be free to use social media for threats and intimidation?
Facebook is shutting down what it considers the most prominent, aggressive, and dangerous of those who do such things. That is not, in itself, bad.
If they proceed to shut down the right but not the left, if they start deciding that mainstream right positions are "hate speech", that's going to be a problem. But if they have kind of a threshold, and anybody else who crosses that threshold (no matter what their position) gets shut down, that's a good thing. (The threshold may be higher than many of us like. That's probably also a good thing.)
Yes, if they could establish an objective threshold that'd be great. Probably simplest is to restrict to actual threats.
But, someone saying transgenderism might be a mental disorder is not a threat, so should not be banned. Likewise saying capitalism has led to overpopulation, environmental destruction and cultural imperialism is not a threat and should not be banned, regardless of whether it is true or not.
I also think some sort of enforcement of etiquette that is content agnostic would be great, but that's a bit trickier to draw the line.
"Obviously the media portrayal of Tiananmen square is a lie. Tank man never happened, protesters were never harmed or killed. Anyone who posts this is spreading lies!"
Open your favorite grammar book and read the full usage of quotation marks which includes a usage as so called scare quotes or shudder quotes which indicates the author is using words in a way not genuinely intended.
So we've got to make private industry (facebook has never and will never have the obligation to enforce first amendment rights on their platform, that's for the government) harbor any and all hate groups because if we don't ? happens and suddenly we live in the PRC?
Assuming we all support capitalism here, it should be a pretty simple calculus for Facebook. Does having (neo)Nazis on their site represent more users than they lose for having them.
What if your ISP doesn't care for security researchers or journalists, and therefore would like to terminate their internet access? Can a telephone company do the same? What about the electric company - they are often times privately owned after all.
What if they don't care for people who are gay, or from a specific country?
Could Facebook say, choose to ban all Christians or anyone who believes in a two state solution in the middle east?
You've got a couple different ideas going on there.
First, you make a fantastic argument for regulating ISPs as common carriers, bummer that's up in flames, one step forward two steps back.
Secondly, at least in the US, the whole idea of the "protected class" is to combat over reaches just like most of your examples[0]. This is also why civil rights groups are general fighting to expand the definition of protected class (though I doubt fascists ever will be included) since private companies are very happy to act against gay and trans people, for example.
As for non-protected classes ( having opinions on Israel fall pretty firmly into that) Facebook has the opportunity for the same calculus as they have with neo Nazis and the other alt-right menagerie. Are two-state proponents driving away more people than their removal will?
Is this system perfect, I don't think so, but the idea of "forced free speech" is more distastful to me. Individuals or companies are free to curate the experience they want for their users (up and to current laws around protected classes). If the consumers don't like that they're free to set up their own network (this is why Im a huge proponent for federation).
But you miss the underlying point. If one of a dozen restaurants ban you because of a trait, that's distasteful. If every bank in your town or the electric company does, that's a problem.
Are you serious? Lies are and should be protected under free speech.
There was a time that the scientific community believed the earth was flat and the sun revolved around the earth. People with different opinions should not be forcefully silenced. The government should not be able to decide which ideas are "lies."
In this case, Facebook can ban anyone they want, but that has nothing to do with free speech.
Because our country has lost 6 million people in WW2 and the holocaust, estimated 1/5th of total population. Saying that it hasn't happened is more than just a lie - it's attacking the core being of our identity and denying the atrocities that were done against us. It should be illegal and luckily it is.
Like - imagine if US was attacked and the attacker killed 60 million Americans. I can almost guarantee that no matter how strongly Americans believe in the 1st amendment, saying that it hasn't happened would be made illegal.
> Like - imagine if US was attacked and the attacker killed 60 million Americans. I can almost guarantee that no matter how strongly Americans believe in the 1st amendment, saying that it hasn't happened would be made illegal.
Why would scale change people's values compared to say 9/11? It's important to me that we're the deciders of truth for ourselves. I believe people fighting in those wars have fought for my right to believe what I choose and not what a government tells me.
Think about this in the context China, even today and I think you'll see why I feel this is an incredibly valuable right. Governments can lie too, the American one has many times throughout history and we should and do demand a right to question it.
No kidding. Remember all those U.S. laws enacted to censor 9/11 conspiracy theorists? Oh wait. That didn't happen because such laws would be unconstitutional.
Like I said in my other reply - if 60 million(5th of current population) instead of 3000 people died in those attacks, I strongly believe even US would reconsider such position.
If your values change based on the magnitude of an atrocity then I suggest considering whether you hold those values at all. I certainly feel for the Polish people and the extreme suffering endured in the 20th century. But in my experience, suffering builds resolve, and it may jus be that Poland does not consider free speech a fundamental right. My homeland doesn't either, much to my disappointment.
I very much agree. I'm personally of the opinion that anti-climate change propaganda needs to be made illegal as well. I consider the failure to allow anti-climate change speech as an act of hatred against future generations.
200 years ago, I understand the need for free speech, particularly when powers were so evenly spread, socially, between the church and other powers. Limiting speech would have most likely meant limiting scientific and social development. That process has now reversed, I think, and currently unlimited free speech aids in producing one of the most sophisticated and powerful propaganda systems that has ever existed.
I don't think that humans can deal with this in any natural, social way. The parts of the human brain that it takes advantage of is so pervasive that without extensive personal training, most people can't actually work their way around it.
EDIT: I think I should clarify. I don't mind the person on the street saying whatever they please, but no one person deserves a soap box on which to lie. The powers of the FCC regarding propaganda need to be expanded so that news organizations are required to inform the truth.
You're a climate hysteric. It's not illegal to challenge that hysteria but it is made difficult by overwhelming propaganda. People don't argue with you because it is a religion now. You believe the shit data and the shit models predictions. Why? Because it's been drilled into your head. Settled science?, a consensus?--that's all unscientific religious talk.
I mostly agree with you that lying is generally considered speech (and I wouldn't want the government to necessarily censor in the way Facebook is doing here) but lying that causes panic is not considered speech: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_t...
> "The phrase is a paraphrasing of Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.'s opinion in the United States Supreme Court case Schenck v. United States in 1919, which held that the defendant's speech in opposition to the draft during World War I was not protected free speech under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. "
Hmm. Call me crazy, but I think that should be legal.
So oblivious. Lots of things that were deemed to be lies have been proven true. We don't allow the government or privately owned platforms to be the arbitrator of truth.
We have a free marketplace of ideas and let everyone decide on their own.
> We don’t allow...privately owned platforms to be the arbitrator of truth.
Sure we do, we allow every other privately ran website on the planet to pick and choose what or who it allows, why should this be different for YouTube or Facebook or whatever other website bans racists next. The most prominent racist forum on the internet doesn’t have a hosting space for left media, we don’t expect fox news to give unfettered and free streaming on their website to every liberal protest group in the country, the very forum we’re posting on right now has moderation, they don’t let random trolls spew whatever they want here. Sites care about their reputation and who/what they’re associated with, why is this suddenly a bad thing?
Sites and forums have branding to be concerned about, they have reputations they’re trying to curate, all of them.
Facebook has become widely known as a misinformation hellsite, who in their right mind can blame them for trying to clear that reputation? In my opinion it’s probably too late, but I certainly can’t blame them for trying..
The entire country of Venezuela is far from politically unified, unlike what you seem to suggest. In fact the opposition is not particularly more popular over there than Maduro.
People so often forget the shooting of a sitting congressmen at a baseball game just a short time ago. It didn't last as long in the news cycle as the white nationalist that ran over a woman in Charlottesville did. Granted, nobody died at the baseball game that i'm aware of.
...on April 18 [2017], Kori Ali Muhammad, a 39-year-old African-American man, was arrested and charged with killing three people in a shooting in Fresno, California. Police said they believed race was a factor in the murders and Muhammad's social media presence included Black Nationalist posts. Muhammad's father said his son believed he was part of a war between whites and blacks and that "a battle was about to take place."
Does a nationalist group constitute left wing? Honest question. It's usually associated with right wing activities but ideologically it's kind of its own thing best I can tell.
The Berkley bike-lock ethics professor. The Las Vegas shooter was definitely left-wing. James Hodgkinson shot at some legilators. Oh, and this little group called Antifa that shuts down anyone they don't like violence.
It's telling that this is the extent of a list we can come up with (even if we allow the dubious Vegas claim) compared to the constant, extreme acts of violence, killing, and omnipresent, explicit calls to violence and killing the groups banned engage in.
There's a lot to the reporting. Jussie Smollett has really highlighted how the media works these stories.
Do you think it's a coincidence, really, that the Las Vegas shooter's motivation wasn't dug into that much? There's violence on both sides. Antifa is still much bigger than the Proud Boys ever was, but oddly enough only one group was shut down. Both sides have assholes, why is that so hard for some of you to believe?
As others have mentioned, the Las Vegas shooter is one recent example. Congressman being shot down on a baseball field. Dismissing facts by calling it "rambling" doesn't make it any less true.
Then what do you intend to contribute by just saying yes? The congressman is a totally fair example IMO, even though he's technically not in the scope of my question. He was thoroughly covered in the news, however. Las Vegas isn't really a good example in my mind as I haven't seen any credible sources indicating it was a left wing attack or otherwise politically motivated. Either way, he too was obviously covered by the media.
You asked a question, and I gave you the answer. If you choose the believe the far left is harmless and has never killed/hurt anyone, there's nothing I can do to stop you. Enjoy your day.
I don't know about kill, but antifa have certain been violent recently, at least here in the UK.
I'd also say that it tends to be the oppressed who resort to violence first because it's there only option. For example, it could be argued the Black Panthers movement required some level of "violence" to make a point. If a group is resorting to violence it tends not to be because they enjoy violence, but because they feel they have no other option. I'm not trying to draw any moral comparisons here, just want to point out that you don't need to be violent when the state and ruling class are on your side. There's simply no need when the state (or in this case, private corporations) will restrict your opponent's freedoms for you.
OK, but it does not follow that those who resort to violence must therefore be the oppressed. They could just as easily be the oppressors, or former oppressors who resent their loss of power and privilege. The KKK, for example, was not because white people were oppressed, but because they had lost their ability to oppress through legally-accepted channels.
The 'far-left', (left of establishment Democrats), is being targeted as well, people like Rania Khalek, Max Blumenthal etc. were targeted some time ago. You just never hear about it because the far-left has nowhere near as massaged victimhood spreading machine as the far-right and the so-called 'free speech' advocates on the right are not willing to speak against targeting the left's support for BDS etc.
I'm sure if Facebook existed in the 18th century people like Benjamin Franklin (not exactly a promoter of diversity, shall we say) and Thomas Paine (politically extreme by the standards of the day) would have been banned for spreading hate and advocating violence or something like that. It's very alarming that they're picking a side. It's one thing to censor violent/hateful speech above some arbitrary threshold but to openly announce you're only going to go censor it when one side does not sit well with me.
This is a very difficult topic, however I've got a similar feeling to you. Once the news broke out that they would be doing these things, the headlines mentioned also "nationalism" would be banned.
The American Revolution was a nationalistic revolution. Heck, some folks got together to found a new nation! There's nothing more nationalistic than founding a nation.
Also every nation on earth is nationalistic, by pure definition of what a nation is. What do they mean when they say they would ban nationalism? Nationalisms without state-backing? e.g. Basque nationalism?
We certainly have a problem with hate speech and social media, but even though I have no idea about how to solve it I fear this might not be a step in the right direction.
Edit: sigh - downvoted already without a reply. Fanatism is so damaging to democracy and debate.
We live in a globalized world, there's an argument to be had that nationalism in the cheery light you just presented it as is no longer such a good thing. I'm of the opinion that the very concept of countries is inherently violent, so there's my bias, but I don't want to get into this.
What I do want to get into is all this "why ban one side and not the other", well probably because one side is significantly more violent and is only becoming more agitated? Is that not completely obvious? They're not trying to ban a school of thought, they're trying to prevent terrorist attacks by white men on non-white and immigrant people. As has been literally happening. The most violent parts of the left are responses not home grown hatred, and they're not shooting up places of worship. Go ahead, find the like 2 bad examples of left leaning violence but it doesn't take much to find 10x that from the right. One is not like the other.
> We live in a globalized world, there's an argument to be had that nationalism in the cheery light you just presented it as is no longer such a good thing. I'm of the opinion that the very concept of countries is inherently violent, so there's my bias, but I don't want to get into this.
Right, nations can only exist as long as they use violence to fight (perceived) threats.
> What I do want to get into is all this "why ban one side and not the other", well probably because one side is significantly more violent and is only becoming more agitated? Is that not completely obvious? They're not trying to ban a school of thought, they're trying to prevent terrorist attacks by white men on non-white and immigrant people. As has been literally happening. The most violent parts of the left are responses not home grown hatred, and they're not shooting up places of worship. Go ahead, find the like 2 bad examples of left leaning violence but it doesn't take much to find 10x that from the right. One is not like the other.
We want the same and I agree we have a huge problem with right-wing extremism that does not mirror in left-wing extremism (sic).
My worry is: how soon until the same people we want to deplatform are the ones in charge of the platform? Get Twitter as an example: It is usually left-leaning and minority Twitter users the ones getting the shit end of the stick. Jack Dorsey is known for being, to say the least, accepting of nazis in his platform.
Edit: Again another bunch of downvotes without replies. sigh
Antifa. They promote and engage in violence all of the time. You can say x is y times worse, but violent/hateful groups are violent/hateful groups and should be treated equally. They've even been labeled a terrorist organization, but still, for some reason, have free reign over most cities.
But that's exactly my point. Antifa is definitely a bad thing, but it is literally a response to the other side. If right wing extremists didn't exist FIRST, antifa wouldn't exist AT ALL. If nationalist extremists don't exist, antifa has nothing to fight.
edit: to be clear, I think antifa etc should be banned as well and I do not condone their actions or think they are a good response.
But they didn't start the problem. They haven't killed dozens of people on multiple continents.
Or they will invent enemies where none exist, or they will expand the boundaries of who qualifies as an enemy. There are other routes for this kind of group to appear and stay in motion.
Letting violent groups that hate everyone who doesn't line up with them persist because they're fighting people we don't like more has not had a successful track record.
Illegal violent responses are still illegal and not justifiable. It doesn't matter who did it first or started it. If that is the prevailing attitude, I think we're in for a really large battle where everybody will lose. Antifa is turning the public against them, because it's affecting regular average people who don't want a part of this fight. Most of us just want to be able to visit downtown, shop, and walk around with our families in peace.
Free reign except for the police targeting them, refusing to protect them, actively protecting proud boys, and having numerous examples of police supporting white power movements.
In Portland, it's the citizens that the police refuse to protect. They let antifa and proud boys duke it out, while the regular people without a bone in the fight are left to defend themselves. Literally sit there a block away watching as antifa steps into the streets, redirects traffic, and beats citizens and cars that don't obey their instructions. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sq-dcJrnGTM
Many platforms have been doing this. It's likely because the majority of tech folks are left leaning, whether leadership in the company or audience. It's basic marketing.
I'm not sad that some of these really hateful people are blocked, that's a given. But choosing sides is dangerous. Not every conservative is spewing hate speech, in fact many from the left (even celebrities) post what could be considered hate speech.
> But choosing sides is dangerous. Not every conservative is spewing hate speech, in fact many from the left (even celebrities) post what could be considered hate speech.
I mean, the headline talks about far-right hate groups, and not about conservatives in general. Why is it that a lot of conservatives seem to take it personally when hate groups are banned? I think this victimhood complex is unhealthy. Facebook is not choosing sides by banning hate groups.
It's not that conservatives don't want hate groups banned, every reasonable person does. It's because of the ever expanding definition of what hate speech is.
I'm no conservative, but I definitely see their point when "I love America" is hate speech, yet "Straight White Men should die" is not. Look at Twitter as an example.
I don't disagree that detecting hate isn't a hard problem. But I also feel it isn't as ambiguous as you make it out to be.
"X loves Y" - not hate speech.
"X should die" - hate speech.
Now, context to these could change it. But the question is, can two random person proficient in the same language tell apart similarly the two kinds of speech?
If a human can perform the task with pretty good accuracy, then it's doable.
Now if we're saying that even people can't tell apart hate and violence, we're in more trouble. But as of now, I think it's a pretty strong claim to make that people can't actually decipher hateful tones in text.
I think the enforcement is way more imbalanced than you realize.
Here's an example, how about instead of "X should die", it's "lol, can all X just die?". They give it a little jocular spin with the "Lol", but it's effectively the same comment.
Here's the deal: if X in that comment is "black people", you get banned on Twitter. If it's "white people" you don't get banned.
Now personally, I don't mind the comment in either form. I don't believe it's an actual threat to anyone. It's kind of edgelordy, but whichever. And beyond that, I'd be very unhappy if someone got banned for something like that, because it just stomps over whatever other, more legitimate commentary they might've had.
I'm interested in having conversations, even imperfect ones. All conversations are imperfect.
But OK, let's move past "X should die".
But it's not just that. Any discussion where one side can be spun as a vulnerable minority (merit be damned), that minority status can be used to silence the other side.
So for example, consider transwomen in women's sports. There's a not-insignificant push among trans activists to claim that transwomen are "biologically female". I think the logic with that is: 1. sex is fuzzier than most people realize (debatable) and 2. hormone treatments are sufficient to tip someone over the line into the other biological sex (also debatable).
Referring to a trans woman as male for the sake of argument runs you a serious risk of getting permabanned from Twitter if the person you're arguing with is particularly ornery.
Hum, you make claims of this will get you banned and this won't. What are those assumptions built on?
I'm not saying it's not the case, I don't use Twitter and don't know their processes.
That said, in my work, we deal with similar scenarios. Normally, you look for trends and you have different levels of enforcement for different risks.
So say you have automated systems doing monitoring which flags and alerts of possible bad behavior. Normally these are scored and categorized. For some score and category, you might take an automatic actions. Say, block the comment from posting at all and tell the user to reword in a non hateful manner their idea. Or you delete the comment. Now these infractions go towards the account. When there's many if them, indicating a trend, it promotes the account for manual review.
At that point, a person does a holistic overview of the account and its infractions. If they can reverse some if them, feeding back into the automated monitoring and alerting to improve its false positive rates, and they can confirm them, to add weight to those labels. Finally, they can choose to contact the account holder to justify themselves, give them a warning, take partial enforcement like deleting certain posts, or outright ban them.
Even the ban has degrees. You could have the account ban, but be allowed to create a new account. Or you can be banned with cross account detection, so your IP, email, address, credit cards etc. are all banned to make it hard for you to even sign up again.
And the processes in place and their rules are constantly adjusted and reevaluated. And there's even backfill mechanisms, so if rules are relaxed in the future, prior enforcement can be reversed if they no longer hold against the new rules for example.
Would you find that if say Facebook or Twitter were to operate in a somewhat similar fashion that it would seem reasonable?
The issue is that there is a far-right and not a far-left. When you say: this is what is acceptable to us, there has to be a way to look at a side and say there is the limit.
The other issue is that the approach these days to minimize or eliminate opposition by making them a “hate group.”
I have a standard test for this based on a very simple hypothesis: Hate is hate regardless who is targeted. If someone write a hate speech about the Jewish people and rewrite every mentioning of Judaism to Islam, then it is still hate speech. The target of hate doesn't change the fact that it is hate.
So I apply the same to feminism and rewrite every mentioning of men to immigrants and women to nationalists. Simple word for word rewrite. Hate being hate, if the rewrite look like hate speech then the original text must also be hate speech.
If Facebook is not choosing sides then such test should work to determine if something is hate or not.
Not every conservative is getting banned, either. "Fascist parties and neo nazis are getting banned, therefore ordinary conservatives are also being targeted" really makes no sense.
Then perhaps conservatives shouldn't make it so easy to be conflated with far right extremists? I mean it's not hard to say white supremacists shouldn't be in government, but mainstream conservatives literally voted a white supremacist into government. They almost voted a pedophile into government. Sure there are jerks on the Democratic side but we tend to remove them from authority until they've shown appropriate contrition for an extended period of time. Republicans double down that everyone else is to blame and the bringing up the fact that they did something crappy is somehow censoring them. Facebook is a public company they can remove any speech that they think detracts from their platform.
I believe the term for what you just did is 'victim-blaming'.
The alt-right label, for example, has fuzzy boundaries, and this is leveraged to apply that label to anyone without feeling the need to verify the accused's position or statements in more detail. It could be argued that the right has similar issues around applying the label of 'communist', 'socialist', etc.
The intent in these cases is to cordon the accused off, lighting a signal flare that their ideas are too extreme to be worth considering. This causes real harm to real ability to discuss things in the moderate spectrum if everyone is being labeled as being at the edges.
Can you provide a couple of examples of this? In particular, I don't recognize who you're referring to in this section:
> [M]ainstream conservatives literally voted a white supremacist into government. They almost voted a pedophile into government.
--
> Sure there are jerks on the Democratic side but we tend to remove them from authority until they've shown appropriate contrition for an extended period of time.
Is it possible that you're seeing this through you own political biases? I freely admit that I generally see the issues with left-wing figures more easily than those on the right, so please don't think I'm being "whataboutist", because that's not my intention at all.
When I read the above, the first reactive thought I had was "What about Ralph Northam? He is in his college yearbook either in blackface or a Klan robe. What about Justin Fairfax? He's been accused of multiple sexual assaults. Both of them are still in their elected positions"
Of course, this isn't to say the GOP doesn't have its own members with serious problems - instead, my point is that it isn't any easier to conflate conservatives with far right extremists than it is to conflate progressives with far left extremists. From where I stand, it seems to be completely a matter of what biases the viewer holds.
>When I read the above, the first reactive thought I had was "What about Ralph Northam? He is in his college yearbook either in blackface or a Klan robe. What about Justin Fairfax? He's been accused of multiple sexual assaults. Both of them are still in their elected positions"
Therein lies the danger of bias and silencing "one side" of a politicial conversation. Because the mainstream media does not blast the story everywhere and call for their heads, bad people are allowed to do bad things, even if they're members of a party that does a lot of good things.
Just my perspective, but I thought the Northam story got blasted for days. That he's still in office is staggering to me.
That being said, The Democratic party absolutely does not take their own medicine on this one. They're just as likely to circle the wagons, I just think they're more susceptible to a particular kind of shame (though not due to any kind of moral conviction, I'd chalk it up to something more like vanity.) I'm more or less as left as they come, but the idea that the Democrats have the moral high ground when it comes to keeping their people in line doesn't square with what I've seen.
> It's likely because the majority of tech folks are left leaning, whether leadership in the company or audience
I agree. I don't think it's being done out of malice, just that tech is so politically homogeneous that not enough people realize this is out of line to keep these sorts of projects from going forward. The ball gets rolling and there's not enough people voicing a strong enough objection to stop it. I think in the future we'll see this as a failure to acknowledge that tech is not as diverse as the population in general. Car companies aren't stupid. They know they don't know everything so they do customer research, get focus groups, etc, etc, to help them determine how to tune things to be attractive to the target audience. Tech's target audience is the global population but tech mostly fails to account for all the customers that don't live on the West coast or Northeast of the US. We saw the same thing when music was somewhat democratized by the internet in the 2000s. Country and hip-hop surged in popularity because a bunch of well of white music producers in a few cities on the coasts didn't have the perfect picture of what everyone wanted.
How is tech "politically homogenous"? If anything, tech folks are a bit more likely to skew away from the political center, but it's not like they consistently lean "left" as a group.
I don't know if the people that make up tech lean left over all if you summed them up but the ones that don't lean left sure seem to keep their mouth shut in the workplace which has the same effect.
Tech culture is somewhat homogeneous, especially in LA and SF - but I certainly wouldn't say tech itself is homogenous.
I'm fairly extreme politically, as an anarcho-capitalist - though it's important to note that despite the "anarchist" root, I'm as peaceful a person as can be and my views are literally founded upon the premise that forcing others to do something is immoral. I'm also happy to discuss my philosophy and do so under my real name. If you search me, you'll find years of posts across multiple communities where I actively discuss my views and the views of others. It's enough of a part of my life that I've decided that I can never completely separate it from my profession life because it influences the way I think about the world so thoroughly. As a result, I've even been asked about it multiple times in job interviews.
I give the above as background; my point in it is to say that I've been approached privately by many people who are outside the mainstream orthodoxy of tech. Some want to say they approve of some parts of what I profess, others want to pit their ideas against mine in a private and safe way. Others still seem to just want to be able to admit to someone that they feel that they have to hide who they are at work.
There is absolutely something of a chilling effect on political speech in tech. One of the reasons it's so difficult to discuss is because the people who are made examples of seem to go one of two ways - they flee the scene of the controversy and try to minimize the impact of the controversy (e.g. Brenden Eich), or they embrace it and push hard in the opposite direction, which makes them end up being seen as skewing very hard to the extreme right (e.g. Andrew Torba).
I don't have data to support my assertion, but my experience leads me to believe that there are more right-wing people in tech than it appears, and that there is a significantly higher number of libertarians of all flavors in tech than the general population.
This is a completely stupid analogy.
How exactly is this comparable to Benjamin Franklin?
The people being banned aren't banned because they are far-right. They are banned because they are spewing hate, or even worse: "Renshaw is a former spokesperson for neo-Nazi organisation National Front who plotted to murder West Lancashire MP, Rosie Cooper".
Far-right political figures that don't call for violence or murder aren't threatened of being banned.
This is an absurd claim. The British National Party is an explicitly fascist organization. Additionally, from the article: "Similarly, far-right activist Jack Renshaw has been banned. Renshaw is a former spokesperson for neo-Nazi organisation National Front who plotted to murder West Lancashire MP, Rosie Cooper." You might not like all the ways the term "spreading hate" gets used (I don't) but that doesn't mean it's devoid of meaning and misapplied all the time.
> "And since Detachments of English from Britain sent to America, will have their Places at Home so soon supply’d and increase so largely here; why should the Palatine Boors be suffered to swarm into our Settlements, and by herding together establish their Language and Manners to the Exclusion of ours? Why should Pennsylvania, founded by the English, become a Colony of Aliens, who will shortly be so numerous as to Germanize us instead of our Anglifying them, and will never adopt our Language or Customs, any more than they can acquire our Complexion."
> "Which leads me to add one Remark: That the Number of purely white People in the World is proportionably very small. All Africa is black or tawny. Asia chiefly tawny. America (exclusive of the new Comers) wholly so. And in Europe, the Spaniards, Italians, French, Russians and Swedes, are generally of what we call a swarthy Complexion; as are the Germans also, the Saxons only excepted, who with the English, make the principal Body of White People on the Face of the Earth. I could wish their Numbers were increased. And while we are, as I may call it, Scouring our Planet, by clearing America of Woods, and so making this Side of our Globe reflect a brighter Light to the Eyes of Inhabitants in Mars or Venus, why should we in the Sight of Superior Beings, darken its People? why increase the Sons of Africa, by Planting them in America, where we have so fair an Opportunity, by excluding all Blacks and Tawneys, of increasing the lovely White and Red? But perhaps I am partial to the Complexion of my Country, for such Kind of Partiality is natural to Mankind."
I believe the modern response to that is "Big Yikes."
I mean it's racist, but is it hate speech? It's basically the Republicans party platform for keeping the southern border closed and limiting immigration from mostly darker skinned countries.
The people being blocked are right-wing extremists radicalised by hate speech, not just garden-variety right-wingers. And the reason they're being blocked is because they've been involved in an increasing number of violent attacks around the world. From Anders Breivik, to the murderer of Jo Cox in the UK, to the Christchurch mosque shooter, the extreme right is doing an outstanding job of persuading everyone else it's happy to house murderous racist kooks.
There's no equivalent - not even close - for anything that could be considered the far-left in the West today.
Whatever you think of Bernie Sanders, AOC, or Jeremy Corbyn in the UK, they're not known for threatening to murder anyone, or inciting anyone to murder. Nor - realistically - are they ever likely to be.
Free speech ends in US law - not just in opinion - where incitement to murder and violence begins. At that point it's no longer about civilised debate, it's about criminal consequences, and there's no constitutional protection for those.
The right likes to claim that media and soical networks have been censoring them, but they always fail to mention that there are actual laws on the books(!) that target BDS supporters, who are overwhelmingly on the left, you're likely to be fired if you speak in favor of Palestinian rights etc. This rarely gets mentioned.
Much of the media also promotes a rather conservative economic agenda, constantly does smear pieces against Sanders, pretends that single payer means the same as throwing people off of insurance etc.
Yes, corporations do have a 'liberal bias' when it comes to social issues, (guess what, gays are also potential customers), but they tend to be conservative on economics.
> And it's important to realize that those laws passed with strong Democrat support
Absolutely. The Democratic establishment does not represent the views of the left in this country. Certainly not on economic issues. Paying lip service to social issues.
On many issues, the Democratic and Republican parties in Washington are actually pretty aligned, their views on BDS being one of them.
> are still supported by the left-wing media
Which is why I tend to use the term 'neoliberal'. Left-wing they certainly are not, as the articles show. They're only left on social issues, not economics. The media tend to be pretty closely aligned with the Democratic establishment, which then gets conflated with left-wing, but figures like Nancy Polosi don't support leading left-wing economic priorities such a single-payer at all.
> And it's important to realize that those laws passed with strong Democrat support
The dominant faction of the Democratic Party has for decades been center-right. (There are signs that a center-left faction may displace it soon, but that's uncertain.)
> and are still supported by the left-wing media,
Neither HuffPost nor, especially the Washington Post are “left-wing media”. WaPo is right of the dominant center-right faction of the Democratic Party, HuffPo is pretty much in line with it. And neither of those pieces you cite from those sources is even an editorial from the media outlet stating their position, they are outside opinion pieces of the type print and print-like online outlets that aren't narrow propaganda outlets tend to carry from a range of viewpoints that the outlet itself doesn't necessarily endorse.
The actual left-wing, or even center-left, media doesn't support anti-BDS laws, and it's not even clear to me that the non-left outlets you try to suggest do even support them.
While the Democratic Party, WaPo or HuffPost might not seem particularly left-wing relative to, say, Europe, they certainly are left of center in the US.
And what you're calling center-left or actual left-wing is far-left in American terms.
Not really. I mean, you can use them that way and it has some value for some uses, but you lose a lot of insight particularly into natural strategic rather than tactical political alignment.
The left favors the interests of the working class, the right favors the interest of the capitalist class. The “center-” of each does so while still favoring preserving some protection for the distinct interests of the opposing class; there is a natural strategic alignment across the right (and similarly the left), even if there might be a tactical alignment between, say, the left and center-right in a nation with an electoral system favoring duopoly and a somewhat right-leaning political culture.
That line of thought leads to dismissing the experience of working people who are hurt by leftist policies (and know it) and claiming they are voting against their own interests when they vote Republican.
But the left made healthcare worse for people who have health insurance. They lower wages for American workers by expanding immigration. They raise taxes to pay for benefits for people who choose not to work.
Your comment shows the problem with assuming that the Democratic Party == left. It does not, at least not on the economic front, not since FDR, which is why you get the sort of compromise 'centrist' solution that is Obamacare, which actually takes a lot of cues from what were right-wing proposals, (i.e. Romney).
The left wants single payer/medicare for all, which polls extremely well, not crappy compromises. There should have been at least a public option, but precisely because Obama was no leftist, he took even that out.
Bernie Sanders actually polls well among the working class people you're talking about.
P.S. The notion that there is some significant amount of people who 'choose not to work' is... laughable. Life on benefits its not the comfortable sort of life you seem to imagine it being. In fact many people on benefits DO WORK, and they're struggling despite it. You can blame them for working minimum wage jobs, (like everyone can be an entrepreneur), however the real problem might be that the minimum wage has not kept up with the increases in productivity and inflation.
I'm not imagining anything; I'm speaking from personal knowledge. I grew up in poverty. Poor people aren't a distant mystery to me; they've been my friends, family, classmates, and neighbors most of my life. (Not so much coworkers because I was fortunate to enter the tech industry.)
I've known many people who prefer to live on benefits and take pride in their ability to work the system. That life may not seem comfortable by SV standards, but they like it. They have no intention of working hard and earning a more expensive life.
Of course, I've also known many poor people who worked hard to improve their lives. People who advanced by going to night school while working full time, or through hard work and loyalty for an employer, or by living simply and investing what money they had. But I rarely see policies that help that kind of person from either party.
> I've known many people who prefer to live on benefits and take pride in their ability to work the system.
Yeah, sure, but there's always going to be people taking advantage of any system. Does that mean no system is worth having? I mean there's a tremendous amount of waste at the Pentagon, for example, yet the right always seems to rather be focusing on punching down, rather than up.
Some systems are worth having. Taxing idle wealth instead of productive work would be a good system. Rewarding work instead of cutting off benefits would be a good system.
The system we have helps people who don't work but does little to help poor working people and IMO isn't worth having.
> That line of thought leads to dismissing the experience of working people who are hurt by leftist policies
No, it doesn't. First, because It's quite possible to recognize that people fail in what they seek to favor. And, second and more importantly, because it leads to noticing that there's virtually no leftist policy in the US, since the dominant factions for the two parties have for decades been right and center-right.
> But the left made healthcare worse for people who have health insurance.
No, the left didn't. Aside from the question of whether the ACA made healthcare worse for people have insurance (which is a complicated mixed bag), the ACA didn't come from the left, it came from the center-right faction of the Democratic Party, following an outline earlier used at the state level by Republicans, and which actually was first suggested by a group of Republican politicians and insurance industry figures as a better (from a conservative standpoint) alternative to the (also from the center-right faction of the Democratic Party) Clinton healthcare reform effort in the 1990s.
> They lower wages for American workers by expanding immigration.
When and how have leftists fine this?
> They raise taxes to pay for benefits for people who choose not to work.
I'm talking about people who choose not to work. I've known plenty of them, but I've already discussed that in another comment here.
I will add that most working class people I know make too much money to qualify for benefits. They already earn more than minimum wage. They make too much to qualify for expanded Medicaid, or grants for college.
Also, fifty years ago, working class people made good money in construction. But even thirty years ago, those wages were already depressed by illegal immigrant labor. And when working class people complained, leftist journalists and politicians whose jobs weren't threatened by immigration dismissed those complaints as racism.
Most leftists know nothing about the real concerns of working class people.
I think it's important to make a distinction between social leftism and economic leftism, because on the economic front the outlets you mentioned are squarely center-right.
And yes, it is relative, but that just shows you how right-wing the 'center' really is. The Democratic Party in the U.S. is called the Conservative Party in the UK.
Yeah, if anything anti-BDS laws is one of those cases where the mainstream right and mainstream-"left" support it, and the "far-right" and "real left" both oppose it (albeit for very different reasons: the far right because they dislike jewish people, and the "real left" because they view Israel as a right-wing apartheid state that is oppressing the Palestinian people.)
One thing is constant though, it's a subject that inflames tempers.
From the people you named, it seems clear to me you do not know what I mean by left. Celebrities that play lip service to social issues for PR value, sure, but that's easy. Now tell me how many of the same people advocate for single payer, or ending the war in Yemen, my guess is almost none of them.
That's social vs economic left for you. Being socially liberal is logical, gays are also your customers. It's a different story when it comes to economics.
> It’s very alarming they’re picking a side. It’s one thing to censor violent/hateful speech above some arbitrary threshold...
Heres a quote from, jack renshew, one of the people they’ve banned:
> Hitler was right in many senses but you know where he was wrong? He showed mercy to people who did not deserve mercy ... As nationalists we need to learn from the mistakes of the national socialists and we need to realise that, no, you do not show the Jew mercy. [0]
They’re not banning your kooky ol’ conservative grandpa, these are actual hateful people who’s movements have been using Facebook to spread racism and misinformation intentionally.
Facebook has become widely known as a site full of misinformation—I can’t blame them for wanting to change that reputation. If it were my web forum I’d certainly do whatever I could to change if my site were known as a racist infested misinformation brand.
> but to openly announce you're only going to go censor it when one side does not sit well with me.
It's important to remember that the left does not promote the quantity or severity of violence that the right does. If you get left wing groups calling for the elimination by violence of all members of a religion Facebook (and other social media networks) will happily ban them.
It's not a violation of a US constitutional right to free speech, insofar as the Constitution restricts or guarantees against government actions.
But when people talk about free speech it is not limited merely to constitutional rights, especially in an age where most communication happens in platforms under some company or another's direct control.
It will be interesting to see how this changes over time. The equivalent of the public square is almost entirely online now. Are there no areas online where I can have free speech equivalent to if I was on a corner standing on a soapbox? In the future there probably will be designated free speech areas online much like sidewalks are now.
Hum... I guess we could have government run Social media maybe? That's how public space work no? In that. It is owned and maintained by the government.
Facebook are a private company; they can remove whatever material they want from their platform. Comments about free speech laws are misinformed: you would be allowed to delete whatever comments you wanted from your own blog.
Having said that, I don’t like the idea that some people at Facebook decide what’s “spreading hate” or not. Are they banning extreme left wing groups too or not? Imagine Facebook was a company from China, Russia or the Middle East, where those governments could pressure them a lot more. Imagine the small group of people deciding what is “spreading hate” today leave the company and some political ideologies take over that position a few years down the line. Do we trust their judgement as much now?
I think social media does far better when it isn’t political media. One of the reasons HN and LinkedIn are the only two forms of social media I personally use today is exactly the fact that the absence of politics on both platforms make them tolerable.
The internet and politics in general seem to be a truly bad combination. I think it’s understandable too, because it’s just so much easier to say radical hurtful stuff when you don’t have to witness the devastating effect of your words in person. I mean, can you even imagine calling the parent, of a child who was mass-murdered, out to be an actor paid by George Soros face to face? You would have to be stone cold dead inside to do that, and I really doubt a lot of the alt-righters are that evil. On the internet though, it’s as easy as ordering a pizza.
I think platforms should be held accountable for the content they host, even if it’s produced by their users. I know that’s not a popular opinion on HN, but the fact is that Facebook has been used to organise genocide and that just shouldn’t happen.
I blame the internet for much of why politics is the way it is today. This is why I too like HN, it doesn't seem to take a side, as far as I can tell and I can ignore most political stuff if I want.
Facebook says: "Individuals and organisations who spread hate, or attack or call for the exclusion of others on the basis of who they are, have no place on Facebook. Under our dangerous individuals and organisations policy, we ban those who proclaim a violent or hateful mission or are engaged in acts of hate or violence"
Now, as long as they keep to that, and steer away from partisanery, I think this is a good thing.
There's probably going to be some mistakes made, and some wrong bans, but Facebook is not the government, and other avenues exist to individuals who want to speak and reach an audience.
Thoughts on the wisdom of deplatforming contrary (or even violent) views aside, I find it interesting that this seems to be fairly narrowly targeted toward UK actors.
I live in a town known for its racial history, and there are two very vocal men here who are leaders of SPLC-listed hate groups. I just checked, and both still have active personal accounts. The only people I can think of off the top of my head who are more visible in those circles in the US would be Jason Kessler and David Duke.
Perhaps this action was motivated by political pressure in the UK?
176 comments
[ 2.7 ms ] story [ 234 ms ] threadWell it's the UK isn't it? They're a little ahead of you.
You turn controversial ideas into forbidden knowledge. Alex Jones is probably more powerful now to his followers due to the fact that he's contraband
I realize that this is specifically talking about UK groups and that even in the US the 1st only applies to the government and not to any private person or entity, but it amazes me how many people complain about the massive amount of information Facebook has about them, complain about how Facebook has misused or sold that data, and then complain that Facebook hasn’t banned someone they find offensive.
Communication has become insanely centralized in recent years. Facebook can’t be trusted to have or use your information, but you’re fine with them being the free speech police?
I talked with some friends at the weekend over pints. We didn't need facebook to act as a middleman.
I don't need facebook to stand on soapbox either.
This hasn't changed.
This is why the internet was invented and why there were free and open protocols invented to communicate using it. Unfortunately then AOL and AIM started and it was downhill after that... now we all rely on Facebook or Google or Twitter to relay our messages and that’s not great for anyone.
They’re free to place any demands on their platform as they see fit. I have no problem with anything they’ve done.
The problem arises when you insist that Facebook do things according to your political leanings, but then suddenly your political leanings don’t line up with everyone else’s anymore and you’re the odd one out and now people are demanding that you be banned.
Yes, for 99.999999% of people that’s never going to be a problem. The crap they post on FB is so worthless I’m sure it’d be a negligible loss to the world if they were, but that’s the point - banning them isn’t the right way to get them to change their minds or to improve their posts.
Great, I'm glad we agree!
The problem arises when you insist that Facebook do things according to your political leanings, but then suddenly your political leanings don’t line up with everyone else’s anymore and you’re the odd one out and now people are demanding that you be banned.
Yes, for 99.999999% of people that’s never going to be a problem.
Including me, because I do not advocate for harming, killing, or stripping the civil rights from others, unlike the folks who are being banned. :-)
banning them isn’t the right way to get them to change their minds or to improve their posts.
Who wants to change their minds or improve their posts? I want them the hell out of my face, permanently, and I'm happy that Facebook agrees.
Everyone has a right to spout whatever crap they want. Online or on a soapbox on a street corner. You also have the right to ignore them. Exercise it and be happier in your daily life.
You’re stripping the civil rights from people you disagree with...
If you think deleting viral lies on the internet is censorship, then you're really not going to like how social media is going to develop over the next 5 years.
Noam Chomsky has this to say:
"It seems to me something of a scandal that it is even necessary to debate these issues two centuries after Voltaire defended the right of free expression for views he detested. It is a poor service to the memory of the victims of the holocaust to adopt a central doctrine of their murderers."
Facebook is shutting down what it considers the most prominent, aggressive, and dangerous of those who do such things. That is not, in itself, bad.
If they proceed to shut down the right but not the left, if they start deciding that mainstream right positions are "hate speech", that's going to be a problem. But if they have kind of a threshold, and anybody else who crosses that threshold (no matter what their position) gets shut down, that's a good thing. (The threshold may be higher than many of us like. That's probably also a good thing.)
But, someone saying transgenderism might be a mental disorder is not a threat, so should not be banned. Likewise saying capitalism has led to overpopulation, environmental destruction and cultural imperialism is not a threat and should not be banned, regardless of whether it is true or not.
I also think some sort of enforcement of etiquette that is content agnostic would be great, but that's a bit trickier to draw the line.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scare_quotes
Assuming we all support capitalism here, it should be a pretty simple calculus for Facebook. Does having (neo)Nazis on their site represent more users than they lose for having them.
What if they don't care for people who are gay, or from a specific country?
Could Facebook say, choose to ban all Christians or anyone who believes in a two state solution in the middle east?
First, you make a fantastic argument for regulating ISPs as common carriers, bummer that's up in flames, one step forward two steps back.
Secondly, at least in the US, the whole idea of the "protected class" is to combat over reaches just like most of your examples[0]. This is also why civil rights groups are general fighting to expand the definition of protected class (though I doubt fascists ever will be included) since private companies are very happy to act against gay and trans people, for example.
As for non-protected classes ( having opinions on Israel fall pretty firmly into that) Facebook has the opportunity for the same calculus as they have with neo Nazis and the other alt-right menagerie. Are two-state proponents driving away more people than their removal will?
Is this system perfect, I don't think so, but the idea of "forced free speech" is more distastful to me. Individuals or companies are free to curate the experience they want for their users (up and to current laws around protected classes). If the consumers don't like that they're free to set up their own network (this is why Im a huge proponent for federation).
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_group
Does Facebook have a meaningful alternative?
There was a time that the scientific community believed the earth was flat and the sun revolved around the earth. People with different opinions should not be forcefully silenced. The government should not be able to decide which ideas are "lies."
In this case, Facebook can ban anyone they want, but that has nothing to do with free speech.
Certain lies definitely shouldn't. Denying holocaust happened is illegal where I'm from and it should be.
At least if private entities implement this kind of thing, those who wish can still discuss it someplace else.
Though pushing these things under the rug doesn't have the best reputation (see recent 8chan tied shooting).
Like - imagine if US was attacked and the attacker killed 60 million Americans. I can almost guarantee that no matter how strongly Americans believe in the 1st amendment, saying that it hasn't happened would be made illegal.
Why would scale change people's values compared to say 9/11? It's important to me that we're the deciders of truth for ourselves. I believe people fighting in those wars have fought for my right to believe what I choose and not what a government tells me.
Think about this in the context China, even today and I think you'll see why I feel this is an incredibly valuable right. Governments can lie too, the American one has many times throughout history and we should and do demand a right to question it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_against_Holocaust_denial#...
200 years ago, I understand the need for free speech, particularly when powers were so evenly spread, socially, between the church and other powers. Limiting speech would have most likely meant limiting scientific and social development. That process has now reversed, I think, and currently unlimited free speech aids in producing one of the most sophisticated and powerful propaganda systems that has ever existed.
I don't think that humans can deal with this in any natural, social way. The parts of the human brain that it takes advantage of is so pervasive that without extensive personal training, most people can't actually work their way around it.
EDIT: I think I should clarify. I don't mind the person on the street saying whatever they please, but no one person deserves a soap box on which to lie. The powers of the FCC regarding propaganda need to be expanded so that news organizations are required to inform the truth.
Hmm. Call me crazy, but I think that should be legal.
Here's what I believe to be a decent resource explaining a number of common misunderstandings that come up in such discussions.
https://www.popehat.com/2015/05/19/how-to-spot-and-critique-...
We have a free marketplace of ideas and let everyone decide on their own.
Sure we do, we allow every other privately ran website on the planet to pick and choose what or who it allows, why should this be different for YouTube or Facebook or whatever other website bans racists next. The most prominent racist forum on the internet doesn’t have a hosting space for left media, we don’t expect fox news to give unfettered and free streaming on their website to every liberal protest group in the country, the very forum we’re posting on right now has moderation, they don’t let random trolls spew whatever they want here. Sites care about their reputation and who/what they’re associated with, why is this suddenly a bad thing?
Sites and forums have branding to be concerned about, they have reputations they’re trying to curate, all of them.
Facebook has become widely known as a misinformation hellsite, who in their right mind can blame them for trying to clear that reputation? In my opinion it’s probably too late, but I certainly can’t blame them for trying..
Seems to arbitrarily single out the 'hate figures' du juor.
Edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_the_United_States...
Do you think it's a coincidence, really, that the Las Vegas shooter's motivation wasn't dug into that much? There's violence on both sides. Antifa is still much bigger than the Proud Boys ever was, but oddly enough only one group was shut down. Both sides have assholes, why is that so hard for some of you to believe?
It doesn't get as much publicity so few know about it. That's the problem with today's bias, and muting one side.
You are repeating a lie, and I think you know it.
I'd also say that it tends to be the oppressed who resort to violence first because it's there only option. For example, it could be argued the Black Panthers movement required some level of "violence" to make a point. If a group is resorting to violence it tends not to be because they enjoy violence, but because they feel they have no other option. I'm not trying to draw any moral comparisons here, just want to point out that you don't need to be violent when the state and ruling class are on your side. There's simply no need when the state (or in this case, private corporations) will restrict your opponent's freedoms for you.
The American Revolution was a nationalistic revolution. Heck, some folks got together to found a new nation! There's nothing more nationalistic than founding a nation.
Also every nation on earth is nationalistic, by pure definition of what a nation is. What do they mean when they say they would ban nationalism? Nationalisms without state-backing? e.g. Basque nationalism?
We certainly have a problem with hate speech and social media, but even though I have no idea about how to solve it I fear this might not be a step in the right direction.
Edit: sigh - downvoted already without a reply. Fanatism is so damaging to democracy and debate.
What I do want to get into is all this "why ban one side and not the other", well probably because one side is significantly more violent and is only becoming more agitated? Is that not completely obvious? They're not trying to ban a school of thought, they're trying to prevent terrorist attacks by white men on non-white and immigrant people. As has been literally happening. The most violent parts of the left are responses not home grown hatred, and they're not shooting up places of worship. Go ahead, find the like 2 bad examples of left leaning violence but it doesn't take much to find 10x that from the right. One is not like the other.
Right, nations can only exist as long as they use violence to fight (perceived) threats.
> What I do want to get into is all this "why ban one side and not the other", well probably because one side is significantly more violent and is only becoming more agitated? Is that not completely obvious? They're not trying to ban a school of thought, they're trying to prevent terrorist attacks by white men on non-white and immigrant people. As has been literally happening. The most violent parts of the left are responses not home grown hatred, and they're not shooting up places of worship. Go ahead, find the like 2 bad examples of left leaning violence but it doesn't take much to find 10x that from the right. One is not like the other.
We want the same and I agree we have a huge problem with right-wing extremism that does not mirror in left-wing extremism (sic).
My worry is: how soon until the same people we want to deplatform are the ones in charge of the platform? Get Twitter as an example: It is usually left-leaning and minority Twitter users the ones getting the shit end of the stick. Jack Dorsey is known for being, to say the least, accepting of nazis in his platform.
Edit: Again another bunch of downvotes without replies. sigh
edit: to be clear, I think antifa etc should be banned as well and I do not condone their actions or think they are a good response.
But they didn't start the problem. They haven't killed dozens of people on multiple continents.
I'm not sad that some of these really hateful people are blocked, that's a given. But choosing sides is dangerous. Not every conservative is spewing hate speech, in fact many from the left (even celebrities) post what could be considered hate speech.
I mean, the headline talks about far-right hate groups, and not about conservatives in general. Why is it that a lot of conservatives seem to take it personally when hate groups are banned? I think this victimhood complex is unhealthy. Facebook is not choosing sides by banning hate groups.
I'm no conservative, but I definitely see their point when "I love America" is hate speech, yet "Straight White Men should die" is not. Look at Twitter as an example.
"X loves Y" - not hate speech.
"X should die" - hate speech.
Now, context to these could change it. But the question is, can two random person proficient in the same language tell apart similarly the two kinds of speech?
If a human can perform the task with pretty good accuracy, then it's doable.
Now if we're saying that even people can't tell apart hate and violence, we're in more trouble. But as of now, I think it's a pretty strong claim to make that people can't actually decipher hateful tones in text.
Here's an example, how about instead of "X should die", it's "lol, can all X just die?". They give it a little jocular spin with the "Lol", but it's effectively the same comment.
Here's the deal: if X in that comment is "black people", you get banned on Twitter. If it's "white people" you don't get banned.
Now personally, I don't mind the comment in either form. I don't believe it's an actual threat to anyone. It's kind of edgelordy, but whichever. And beyond that, I'd be very unhappy if someone got banned for something like that, because it just stomps over whatever other, more legitimate commentary they might've had.
I'm interested in having conversations, even imperfect ones. All conversations are imperfect.
But OK, let's move past "X should die".
But it's not just that. Any discussion where one side can be spun as a vulnerable minority (merit be damned), that minority status can be used to silence the other side.
So for example, consider transwomen in women's sports. There's a not-insignificant push among trans activists to claim that transwomen are "biologically female". I think the logic with that is: 1. sex is fuzzier than most people realize (debatable) and 2. hormone treatments are sufficient to tip someone over the line into the other biological sex (also debatable).
Referring to a trans woman as male for the sake of argument runs you a serious risk of getting permabanned from Twitter if the person you're arguing with is particularly ornery.
I'm not saying it's not the case, I don't use Twitter and don't know their processes.
That said, in my work, we deal with similar scenarios. Normally, you look for trends and you have different levels of enforcement for different risks.
So say you have automated systems doing monitoring which flags and alerts of possible bad behavior. Normally these are scored and categorized. For some score and category, you might take an automatic actions. Say, block the comment from posting at all and tell the user to reword in a non hateful manner their idea. Or you delete the comment. Now these infractions go towards the account. When there's many if them, indicating a trend, it promotes the account for manual review.
At that point, a person does a holistic overview of the account and its infractions. If they can reverse some if them, feeding back into the automated monitoring and alerting to improve its false positive rates, and they can confirm them, to add weight to those labels. Finally, they can choose to contact the account holder to justify themselves, give them a warning, take partial enforcement like deleting certain posts, or outright ban them.
Even the ban has degrees. You could have the account ban, but be allowed to create a new account. Or you can be banned with cross account detection, so your IP, email, address, credit cards etc. are all banned to make it hard for you to even sign up again.
And the processes in place and their rules are constantly adjusted and reevaluated. And there's even backfill mechanisms, so if rules are relaxed in the future, prior enforcement can be reversed if they no longer hold against the new rules for example.
Would you find that if say Facebook or Twitter were to operate in a somewhat similar fashion that it would seem reasonable?
The other issue is that the approach these days to minimize or eliminate opposition by making them a “hate group.”
So I apply the same to feminism and rewrite every mentioning of men to immigrants and women to nationalists. Simple word for word rewrite. Hate being hate, if the rewrite look like hate speech then the original text must also be hate speech.
If Facebook is not choosing sides then such test should work to determine if something is hate or not.
The alt-right label, for example, has fuzzy boundaries, and this is leveraged to apply that label to anyone without feeling the need to verify the accused's position or statements in more detail. It could be argued that the right has similar issues around applying the label of 'communist', 'socialist', etc.
The intent in these cases is to cordon the accused off, lighting a signal flare that their ideas are too extreme to be worth considering. This causes real harm to real ability to discuss things in the moderate spectrum if everyone is being labeled as being at the edges.
> [M]ainstream conservatives literally voted a white supremacist into government. They almost voted a pedophile into government.
--
> Sure there are jerks on the Democratic side but we tend to remove them from authority until they've shown appropriate contrition for an extended period of time.
Is it possible that you're seeing this through you own political biases? I freely admit that I generally see the issues with left-wing figures more easily than those on the right, so please don't think I'm being "whataboutist", because that's not my intention at all.
When I read the above, the first reactive thought I had was "What about Ralph Northam? He is in his college yearbook either in blackface or a Klan robe. What about Justin Fairfax? He's been accused of multiple sexual assaults. Both of them are still in their elected positions"
Of course, this isn't to say the GOP doesn't have its own members with serious problems - instead, my point is that it isn't any easier to conflate conservatives with far right extremists than it is to conflate progressives with far left extremists. From where I stand, it seems to be completely a matter of what biases the viewer holds.
Therein lies the danger of bias and silencing "one side" of a politicial conversation. Because the mainstream media does not blast the story everywhere and call for their heads, bad people are allowed to do bad things, even if they're members of a party that does a lot of good things.
That being said, The Democratic party absolutely does not take their own medicine on this one. They're just as likely to circle the wagons, I just think they're more susceptible to a particular kind of shame (though not due to any kind of moral conviction, I'd chalk it up to something more like vanity.) I'm more or less as left as they come, but the idea that the Democrats have the moral high ground when it comes to keeping their people in line doesn't square with what I've seen.
I agree. I don't think it's being done out of malice, just that tech is so politically homogeneous that not enough people realize this is out of line to keep these sorts of projects from going forward. The ball gets rolling and there's not enough people voicing a strong enough objection to stop it. I think in the future we'll see this as a failure to acknowledge that tech is not as diverse as the population in general. Car companies aren't stupid. They know they don't know everything so they do customer research, get focus groups, etc, etc, to help them determine how to tune things to be attractive to the target audience. Tech's target audience is the global population but tech mostly fails to account for all the customers that don't live on the West coast or Northeast of the US. We saw the same thing when music was somewhat democratized by the internet in the 2000s. Country and hip-hop surged in popularity because a bunch of well of white music producers in a few cities on the coasts didn't have the perfect picture of what everyone wanted.
Tech culture is somewhat homogeneous, especially in LA and SF - but I certainly wouldn't say tech itself is homogenous.
I'm fairly extreme politically, as an anarcho-capitalist - though it's important to note that despite the "anarchist" root, I'm as peaceful a person as can be and my views are literally founded upon the premise that forcing others to do something is immoral. I'm also happy to discuss my philosophy and do so under my real name. If you search me, you'll find years of posts across multiple communities where I actively discuss my views and the views of others. It's enough of a part of my life that I've decided that I can never completely separate it from my profession life because it influences the way I think about the world so thoroughly. As a result, I've even been asked about it multiple times in job interviews.
I give the above as background; my point in it is to say that I've been approached privately by many people who are outside the mainstream orthodoxy of tech. Some want to say they approve of some parts of what I profess, others want to pit their ideas against mine in a private and safe way. Others still seem to just want to be able to admit to someone that they feel that they have to hide who they are at work.
There is absolutely something of a chilling effect on political speech in tech. One of the reasons it's so difficult to discuss is because the people who are made examples of seem to go one of two ways - they flee the scene of the controversy and try to minimize the impact of the controversy (e.g. Brenden Eich), or they embrace it and push hard in the opposite direction, which makes them end up being seen as skewing very hard to the extreme right (e.g. Andrew Torba).
I don't have data to support my assertion, but my experience leads me to believe that there are more right-wing people in tech than it appears, and that there is a significantly higher number of libertarians of all flavors in tech than the general population.
The people being banned aren't banned because they are far-right. They are banned because they are spewing hate, or even worse: "Renshaw is a former spokesperson for neo-Nazi organisation National Front who plotted to murder West Lancashire MP, Rosie Cooper".
Far-right political figures that don't call for violence or murder aren't threatened of being banned.
He had some pretty nasty things to say about anybody who wasn't an Anglo.
https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Franklin/01-04-02-00...
> "And since Detachments of English from Britain sent to America, will have their Places at Home so soon supply’d and increase so largely here; why should the Palatine Boors be suffered to swarm into our Settlements, and by herding together establish their Language and Manners to the Exclusion of ours? Why should Pennsylvania, founded by the English, become a Colony of Aliens, who will shortly be so numerous as to Germanize us instead of our Anglifying them, and will never adopt our Language or Customs, any more than they can acquire our Complexion."
> "Which leads me to add one Remark: That the Number of purely white People in the World is proportionably very small. All Africa is black or tawny. Asia chiefly tawny. America (exclusive of the new Comers) wholly so. And in Europe, the Spaniards, Italians, French, Russians and Swedes, are generally of what we call a swarthy Complexion; as are the Germans also, the Saxons only excepted, who with the English, make the principal Body of White People on the Face of the Earth. I could wish their Numbers were increased. And while we are, as I may call it, Scouring our Planet, by clearing America of Woods, and so making this Side of our Globe reflect a brighter Light to the Eyes of Inhabitants in Mars or Venus, why should we in the Sight of Superior Beings, darken its People? why increase the Sons of Africa, by Planting them in America, where we have so fair an Opportunity, by excluding all Blacks and Tawneys, of increasing the lovely White and Red? But perhaps I am partial to the Complexion of my Country, for such Kind of Partiality is natural to Mankind."
I believe the modern response to that is "Big Yikes."
The people being blocked are right-wing extremists radicalised by hate speech, not just garden-variety right-wingers. And the reason they're being blocked is because they've been involved in an increasing number of violent attacks around the world. From Anders Breivik, to the murderer of Jo Cox in the UK, to the Christchurch mosque shooter, the extreme right is doing an outstanding job of persuading everyone else it's happy to house murderous racist kooks.
There's no equivalent - not even close - for anything that could be considered the far-left in the West today.
Whatever you think of Bernie Sanders, AOC, or Jeremy Corbyn in the UK, they're not known for threatening to murder anyone, or inciting anyone to murder. Nor - realistically - are they ever likely to be.
Free speech ends in US law - not just in opinion - where incitement to murder and violence begins. At that point it's no longer about civilised debate, it's about criminal consequences, and there's no constitutional protection for those.
It was a Bernie Sanders campaign worker who shot at Steve Scalise and other congressional republicans.
Much of the media also promotes a rather conservative economic agenda, constantly does smear pieces against Sanders, pretends that single payer means the same as throwing people off of insurance etc.
Yes, corporations do have a 'liberal bias' when it comes to social issues, (guess what, gays are also potential customers), but they tend to be conservative on economics.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/clarity-on-israel-anti-boycot...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/its-time-to-update-a...
Absolutely. The Democratic establishment does not represent the views of the left in this country. Certainly not on economic issues. Paying lip service to social issues.
On many issues, the Democratic and Republican parties in Washington are actually pretty aligned, their views on BDS being one of them.
> are still supported by the left-wing media
Which is why I tend to use the term 'neoliberal'. Left-wing they certainly are not, as the articles show. They're only left on social issues, not economics. The media tend to be pretty closely aligned with the Democratic establishment, which then gets conflated with left-wing, but figures like Nancy Polosi don't support leading left-wing economic priorities such a single-payer at all.
The dominant faction of the Democratic Party has for decades been center-right. (There are signs that a center-left faction may displace it soon, but that's uncertain.)
> and are still supported by the left-wing media,
Neither HuffPost nor, especially the Washington Post are “left-wing media”. WaPo is right of the dominant center-right faction of the Democratic Party, HuffPo is pretty much in line with it. And neither of those pieces you cite from those sources is even an editorial from the media outlet stating their position, they are outside opinion pieces of the type print and print-like online outlets that aren't narrow propaganda outlets tend to carry from a range of viewpoints that the outlet itself doesn't necessarily endorse.
The actual left-wing, or even center-left, media doesn't support anti-BDS laws, and it's not even clear to me that the non-left outlets you try to suggest do even support them.
While the Democratic Party, WaPo or HuffPost might not seem particularly left-wing relative to, say, Europe, they certainly are left of center in the US.
And what you're calling center-left or actual left-wing is far-left in American terms.
Not really. I mean, you can use them that way and it has some value for some uses, but you lose a lot of insight particularly into natural strategic rather than tactical political alignment.
The left favors the interests of the working class, the right favors the interest of the capitalist class. The “center-” of each does so while still favoring preserving some protection for the distinct interests of the opposing class; there is a natural strategic alignment across the right (and similarly the left), even if there might be a tactical alignment between, say, the left and center-right in a nation with an electoral system favoring duopoly and a somewhat right-leaning political culture.
But the left made healthcare worse for people who have health insurance. They lower wages for American workers by expanding immigration. They raise taxes to pay for benefits for people who choose not to work.
That's not favoring the American working-class.
The left wants single payer/medicare for all, which polls extremely well, not crappy compromises. There should have been at least a public option, but precisely because Obama was no leftist, he took even that out.
Bernie Sanders actually polls well among the working class people you're talking about.
P.S. The notion that there is some significant amount of people who 'choose not to work' is... laughable. Life on benefits its not the comfortable sort of life you seem to imagine it being. In fact many people on benefits DO WORK, and they're struggling despite it. You can blame them for working minimum wage jobs, (like everyone can be an entrepreneur), however the real problem might be that the minimum wage has not kept up with the increases in productivity and inflation.
I've known many people who prefer to live on benefits and take pride in their ability to work the system. That life may not seem comfortable by SV standards, but they like it. They have no intention of working hard and earning a more expensive life.
Of course, I've also known many poor people who worked hard to improve their lives. People who advanced by going to night school while working full time, or through hard work and loyalty for an employer, or by living simply and investing what money they had. But I rarely see policies that help that kind of person from either party.
Yeah, sure, but there's always going to be people taking advantage of any system. Does that mean no system is worth having? I mean there's a tremendous amount of waste at the Pentagon, for example, yet the right always seems to rather be focusing on punching down, rather than up.
The system we have helps people who don't work but does little to help poor working people and IMO isn't worth having.
I actually 100% agree with this. I am pleasantly surprised you support this, since many on the right tend to protest taxing wealth more.
No, it doesn't. First, because It's quite possible to recognize that people fail in what they seek to favor. And, second and more importantly, because it leads to noticing that there's virtually no leftist policy in the US, since the dominant factions for the two parties have for decades been right and center-right.
> But the left made healthcare worse for people who have health insurance.
No, the left didn't. Aside from the question of whether the ACA made healthcare worse for people have insurance (which is a complicated mixed bag), the ACA didn't come from the left, it came from the center-right faction of the Democratic Party, following an outline earlier used at the state level by Republicans, and which actually was first suggested by a group of Republican politicians and insurance industry figures as a better (from a conservative standpoint) alternative to the (also from the center-right faction of the Democratic Party) Clinton healthcare reform effort in the 1990s.
> They lower wages for American workers by expanding immigration.
When and how have leftists fine this?
> They raise taxes to pay for benefits for people who choose not to work.
What are you talking about?
I will add that most working class people I know make too much money to qualify for benefits. They already earn more than minimum wage. They make too much to qualify for expanded Medicaid, or grants for college.
Also, fifty years ago, working class people made good money in construction. But even thirty years ago, those wages were already depressed by illegal immigrant labor. And when working class people complained, leftist journalists and politicians whose jobs weren't threatened by immigration dismissed those complaints as racism.
Most leftists know nothing about the real concerns of working class people.
And yes, it is relative, but that just shows you how right-wing the 'center' really is. The Democratic Party in the U.S. is called the Conservative Party in the UK.
One thing is constant though, it's a subject that inflames tempers.
- Kathy Griffin and her famous bloody head photo
- Jim Carrey and his gruesome drawings
- Chris Evans attacking the Covington Catholic high schoolers (along with others)
- The racist Democrat Virginia governor (still in office)
- etc.
So why publicize only the right siders? It seems to me there's room to ban some on both sides.
That's social vs economic left for you. Being socially liberal is logical, gays are also your customers. It's a different story when it comes to economics.
Heres a quote from, jack renshew, one of the people they’ve banned:
> Hitler was right in many senses but you know where he was wrong? He showed mercy to people who did not deserve mercy ... As nationalists we need to learn from the mistakes of the national socialists and we need to realise that, no, you do not show the Jew mercy. [0]
They’re not banning your kooky ol’ conservative grandpa, these are actual hateful people who’s movements have been using Facebook to spread racism and misinformation intentionally.
Facebook has become widely known as a site full of misinformation—I can’t blame them for wanting to change that reputation. If it were my web forum I’d certainly do whatever I could to change if my site were known as a racist infested misinformation brand.
[0]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Renshaw_(far-right_acti...
It's important to remember that the left does not promote the quantity or severity of violence that the right does. If you get left wing groups calling for the elimination by violence of all members of a religion Facebook (and other social media networks) will happily ban them.
This is actually censorship. However, I personally believe that groups that incite violence should be censored.
But when people talk about free speech it is not limited merely to constitutional rights, especially in an age where most communication happens in platforms under some company or another's direct control.
Having said that, I don’t like the idea that some people at Facebook decide what’s “spreading hate” or not. Are they banning extreme left wing groups too or not? Imagine Facebook was a company from China, Russia or the Middle East, where those governments could pressure them a lot more. Imagine the small group of people deciding what is “spreading hate” today leave the company and some political ideologies take over that position a few years down the line. Do we trust their judgement as much now?
The internet and politics in general seem to be a truly bad combination. I think it’s understandable too, because it’s just so much easier to say radical hurtful stuff when you don’t have to witness the devastating effect of your words in person. I mean, can you even imagine calling the parent, of a child who was mass-murdered, out to be an actor paid by George Soros face to face? You would have to be stone cold dead inside to do that, and I really doubt a lot of the alt-righters are that evil. On the internet though, it’s as easy as ordering a pizza.
I think platforms should be held accountable for the content they host, even if it’s produced by their users. I know that’s not a popular opinion on HN, but the fact is that Facebook has been used to organise genocide and that just shouldn’t happen.
Now, as long as they keep to that, and steer away from partisanery, I think this is a good thing.
There's probably going to be some mistakes made, and some wrong bans, but Facebook is not the government, and other avenues exist to individuals who want to speak and reach an audience.
I live in a town known for its racial history, and there are two very vocal men here who are leaders of SPLC-listed hate groups. I just checked, and both still have active personal accounts. The only people I can think of off the top of my head who are more visible in those circles in the US would be Jason Kessler and David Duke.
Perhaps this action was motivated by political pressure in the UK?