> that have been designated as hate groups by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) and the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), two leading anti-hate organizations
wow
> Russian intelligence services are using Facebook and other social media to try to incite white supremacists ahead of the 2020 election
As a jew, I'm ok with these groups existing. This idea that we want facebook to play judge jury and executioner on what and what is not acceptable speech is really unsettling to me and I think there are also some advantages to this stuff being out in the open.
Idiots should be allowed to have facebook groups like everyone else. If they commit a crime go after them. If they say something dumb, then treat it like the countless other dumb things said on the internet and ignore it.
I also think that by spending huge amounts of time loudly publicly demonizing these groups, we give them all the free publicity they need to recruit. The demonized image is exactly what allows them to appeal to disenfranchised people. If people would just say "yeah they are idiots" and ignore them I think they would lose a huge amount of their appeal.
>publicly demonizing these groups, we give them all the free publicity they need to recruit
This used to be true, say, of protesting Klan rallies decades ago. Now, however, platforms like FB are used to radicalize (sometimes surreptitiously) and can thrive in dark corners, as long as they reach their intended audience. Further, a frequent target is young white males, a generation of whom are growing up online. One mother has written a book about her experience, warning parents of the subtle ways they shift the dialogue and normalize racism via social media and online games. [0]
Once these ideas fester, it's very difficult to walk them back. This is dangerous stuff, no different from radicalizing terrorists online.
Deplatforming them works. FB should be doing exactly that, consistently.
"judge jury and executioner"? I can't help but read that as rhetorical hyperbole.
I mean, there's countless stores which post signs like "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" (their power is limited, of course, to legally valid reasons). If Facebook is "judge jury and executioner" then so are countless of other organizations, to the point that your guideline is nearly ineffectual.
Facebook has already decided what it acceptable speech for their platform. Quoting the article "Facebook’s Community Standards prohibit hate speech based on race, ethnicity, and other factors because it “creates an environment of intimidation and exclusion and in some cases may promote real-world violence.” The company also bans hate organizations."
Surely they have that right, yes?
This is something which most organizations do. It is part of the right of free association. You play in someone else's court, you play by their rules.
It is entirely reasonable to have a platform which does not have those restrictions. Facebook has decided to not take that approach.
Moreover, I believe Facebook defends themselves (eg, in front of Congressional investigations) by pointing to their community standards. Their defense is reasonable only to the extent that they actually follow their own standards.
You write "If people would just say "yeah they are idiots" and ignore them"
The article comments that "Facebook’s algorithms can create an echo chamber of white supremacism through its “Related Pages” feature, which suggests similar Pages to keep users engaged on a certain topic."
That feedback mechanism won't disappear by ignoring people.
Similarly, "The remaining 64% of the white supremacy content identified by TTP involved Pages that had been auto-generated by Facebook. These Pages are automatically created by Facebook when a user lists a job in their profile that does not have an existing Page." After their report was published, 49 of the groups which were auto-generated by Facebook were removed.
That's neither suppressing acceptable speech, nor something which likely would have happened so early just by ignoring the issue.
Why is it hyperbole? There is zero due process, they don't have to justify their decisions, they don't have to justify the consequences of their decisions, and there is no appeals process.
They are the judge, there is no jury, and they are the executioner(the one who implements the punishment).
Facebook does have a right to police speech on their site. I'm not arguing whether they have that right or not. I'm saying that we shouldn't view it as desirable to want them to.
7 comments
[ 3.4 ms ] story [ 30.0 ms ] threadLabeling anyone who speaks up about it a "white supremacist", calling it "hate speech", is I guess, also a thing.
wow
> Russian intelligence services are using Facebook and other social media to try to incite white supremacists ahead of the 2020 election
This "article" surely hits all the evergreens.
Idiots should be allowed to have facebook groups like everyone else. If they commit a crime go after them. If they say something dumb, then treat it like the countless other dumb things said on the internet and ignore it.
I also think that by spending huge amounts of time loudly publicly demonizing these groups, we give them all the free publicity they need to recruit. The demonized image is exactly what allows them to appeal to disenfranchised people. If people would just say "yeah they are idiots" and ignore them I think they would lose a huge amount of their appeal.
This used to be true, say, of protesting Klan rallies decades ago. Now, however, platforms like FB are used to radicalize (sometimes surreptitiously) and can thrive in dark corners, as long as they reach their intended audience. Further, a frequent target is young white males, a generation of whom are growing up online. One mother has written a book about her experience, warning parents of the subtle ways they shift the dialogue and normalize racism via social media and online games. [0]
Once these ideas fester, it's very difficult to walk them back. This is dangerous stuff, no different from radicalizing terrorists online.
Deplatforming them works. FB should be doing exactly that, consistently.
[0] https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/12/opinion/sunday/white-supr...
Who should police their platform? Or are you saying there should be no limits?
I mean, there's countless stores which post signs like "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" (their power is limited, of course, to legally valid reasons). If Facebook is "judge jury and executioner" then so are countless of other organizations, to the point that your guideline is nearly ineffectual.
Facebook has already decided what it acceptable speech for their platform. Quoting the article "Facebook’s Community Standards prohibit hate speech based on race, ethnicity, and other factors because it “creates an environment of intimidation and exclusion and in some cases may promote real-world violence.” The company also bans hate organizations."
Surely they have that right, yes?
This is something which most organizations do. It is part of the right of free association. You play in someone else's court, you play by their rules.
It is entirely reasonable to have a platform which does not have those restrictions. Facebook has decided to not take that approach.
Moreover, I believe Facebook defends themselves (eg, in front of Congressional investigations) by pointing to their community standards. Their defense is reasonable only to the extent that they actually follow their own standards.
You write "If people would just say "yeah they are idiots" and ignore them"
The article comments that "Facebook’s algorithms can create an echo chamber of white supremacism through its “Related Pages” feature, which suggests similar Pages to keep users engaged on a certain topic."
That feedback mechanism won't disappear by ignoring people.
Similarly, "The remaining 64% of the white supremacy content identified by TTP involved Pages that had been auto-generated by Facebook. These Pages are automatically created by Facebook when a user lists a job in their profile that does not have an existing Page." After their report was published, 49 of the groups which were auto-generated by Facebook were removed.
That's neither suppressing acceptable speech, nor something which likely would have happened so early just by ignoring the issue.
They are the judge, there is no jury, and they are the executioner(the one who implements the punishment).
Facebook does have a right to police speech on their site. I'm not arguing whether they have that right or not. I'm saying that we shouldn't view it as desirable to want them to.