Facebook bans far right groups

[ahhell]

Concerns about Fox News? Breitbart? They still exist, and I think that people are free to go there if they like.

More along the lines of they start with obvious white supremecists then 5 years from now its, IDK the Knights of Columbus or something. They're pretty mild concerns.

I think that the author of the xdcd comic strip, Randall Munroe, had the best comment on this issue (warning: well justified NSFW word in one panel.)

However, what is more interesting is the message that "pops-up" when one hovers a cursor over the comic:

Who's defending a position by saying "freespeach" other than the position that free speech is a good thing?

 

[kellyb]

Matt Taibbi articulates my position on this well.

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/facebook-censor-alex-jones-705766/

Facebook was “helped” in its efforts to wipe out these dangerous memes by the Atlantic Council, on whose board you’ll find confidence-inspiring names like Henry Kissinger, former CIA chief Michael Hayden, former acting CIA head Michael Morell and former Bush-era Homeland Security chief Michael Chertoff. (The latter is the guy who used to bring you the insane color-coded terror threat level system.)

These people now have their hands on what is essentially a direct lever over nationwide news distribution. It’s hard to understate the potential mischief that lurks behind this union of Internet platforms and would-be government censors.

As noted in Rolling Stone earlier this year, 70 percent of Americans get their news from just two sources, Facebook and Google. As that number rises, the power of just a few people to decide what information does and does not reach the public will amplify significantly.

 

[ServiceSoon]

Yes, against the authorities, not against a privately owned newspaper or the social media:

I don't remember the alt-right standing up for the left, but maybe I just didn't notice.

Declaring "we don't serve your kind here" is discriminatory and oppressive regardless of the source.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Declaring "we don't serve your kind here" is discriminatory and oppressive regardless of the source.

Telling racists that they can't use your soapbox to be racist is "oppressive."

Stunning. Simply stunning.

 

[dudalb]

I don't have a problem with them banning hate groups, but I hope they make sure they are racist sites,and not just judge by their names. "Wolves of Odin" could be fairly innocuous site, for instance, by somebody who is interesting in Viking History. These big companies tend to be really ham fisted about this.
And I concerned this could be used to ban political sites that are not racist but do have a conservative viewpoint..which would probably meet with the approval of some people here.
But I also caution some conservatives here :do you really want to defend racist groups ,giving the impression you consider htem some kind of "comrades" ins the fight against the evil liberals.
Yes, I see insanity taking over on both sides of the policial spectrum.

 

[kellyb]

But I also caution some conservatives here :do you really want to defend racist groups ,giving the impression you consider htem some kind of "comrades" ins the fight against the evil liberals. Yes, I see insanity taking over on both sides of the policial spectrum.

Who are you talking to?

I'm not seeing anyone at all do that (so far.)

 

[Ziggurat]

Telling racists that they can't use your soapbox to be racist is "oppressive."

Stunning. Simply stunning.

Who gets to decide who is a racist? And why do you trust them to be correct?

 

[JoeMorgue]

Who gets to decide who is a racist? And why do you trust them to be correct?

Whoever owns the soapbox.

"OMG the person telling me to get off the soapbox he owns and I don't doesn't meet my standards" isn't... a thing.

I don't care if Facebook tomorrow says "Only left handed pirates can post on Facebook and we'll decide who's a left handed pirate."

 

[kellyb]

Whoever owns the soapbox.

"OMG the person telling me to get off the soapbox he owns and I don't doesn't meet my standards" isn't... a thing.

I don't care if Facebook tomorrow says "Only left handed pirates can post on Facebook and we'll decide who's a left handed pirate."

I would agree with you if it wasn't one of the world's two largest news distributors.

We need better, internet-era-updated laws to deal with this stuff, I think.

 

[Ziggurat]

Whoever owns the soapbox.

"OMG the person telling me to get off the soapbox he owns and I don't doesn't meet my standards" isn't... a thing.

I don't care if Facebook tomorrow says "Only left handed pirates can post on Facebook and we'll decide who's a left handed pirate."

If you don't care about the criteria they use to discriminate, then stop hiding behind claims of racism.

And I care what Facebook does because of the disproportionate power they hold, and the way they routinely violate user privacy. The combination is dangerous.

 

[Ron Obvious]

I'd be fascinated if someone could satisfactorily write a rule that would ban e.g. Mein Kampf, but not the Koran without special pleading.

And that's my problem with these kinds of bans: they're bound to be arbitrary at some point. I know Facebook is a private entity, but that's not the point. Of course they have the right to ban whomever they like, but should they?

 

[psionl0]

I have mild concerns about the slippery slope though.

With good reason. It's all happened before. Next, all Enid Blyton fan clubs will be banned then anybody who is even mildly politically incorrect and ultimately anybody who is not enthusiastic enough about whatever is deemed to be politically correct at the time.

 

[TragicMonkey]

I think some of us are conflating two separate things: being something and behaving some way. A store cannot refuse to serve customers who are a particular ethnicity. It certainly can refuse to serve customers who are shouting loudly. As I understand it, Facebook is disallowing pages for groups that advocate behaviors but isn't then deactivating the personal pages of all those belonging to the group regardless of what's on those pages. So Grandma Confederacy is still on Facebook talking about her rich heritage and Paula Deen recipes, but her group page for Belle No: League of Southern Ladies for Repealing Emancipation will no longer be up. She's not being discriminated against for being what she is, she's being prevented from doing what she does.

 

[Stacko]

I don't care if Facebook tomorrow says "Only left handed pirates can post on Facebook and we'll decide who's a left handed pirate."

This would make the world a better place.

 

[catsmate]

Are you trying to suggest that there aren't legitimate free speech concerns here?<snip>

No.

 

[catsmate]

Is 'Racebook' already trademarked?

Thankfully yes. By a betting site.

 

[catsmate]

Yeah, but they do emo polka.

I could see that working in Minnesota.

 

[catsmate]

I think that the author of the xdcd comic strip, Randall Munroe, had the best comment on this issue (warning: well justified NSFW word in one panel.)

However, what is more interesting is the message that "pops-up" when one hovers a cursor over the comic:

Permit me. xkcd explicitly allows hotlinking.
https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/free_speech.png

Edited by Loss Leader: 

Image changed to a URL. XKCD allows hotlinking, but we don't allow swear words in this part of the forum.

 

[Ron Obvious]

Not one of xkcd's better efforts.

 

[sadhatter]

Permit me. xkcd explicitly allows hotlinking.
[qimg]https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/free_speech.png[/qimg]

Is funny how all that could apply 60 years ago about race. And if must people followed that logic then we would still have separate drinking fountains.

"You have the right to eat, just not in my restaurant, there is the door. "

But it's okay this time because it's us, and it won't end up with them organizing and causing **** just like we did.... because they are such nice people?

But who cares it feels so good right now to see them angry.