• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Facebook bans far right groups

I was a 'free speech absolutist' of sorts.

But the effects of social media has made me rethink my position.

The technology has made it possible to radicalise or dupe pockets of extremists. case in point: antivaxers are having a real impact on herd immunity and measles are making a comeback. There are enough idiots to make flat earth believers a thing.

Likewise, extremist groups can radicalise small groups and spur them to violent action. I don't think these ideas can spread beyond a fringe group, bot OTOH these fringe groups can be dangerous.

Just look what the Russian FSB have managed to accomplish in terms of stoking divisions.

If I was running a big social platform, I'd be very concerned that my platform would be instrumental in the next church bombing or mosque shooting.

Social media has changed the game and I'm afraid we must adjust.
There is not and there has never been "absolute" freedom of speech. Speech that is (falsely) defamatory, threatens harm or incites others to commit harm has always been unlawful and rightfully so.

But you now want to extend limitations on free speech so that they extend to mere opinions. This is not acceptable.

Your antivaxer example is a poor one. Once these views started getting popular, they were rebutted in the mainstream media. The end result of this kookiness, the public know more about the benefits and need for vaccination than ever before. They are also better equipped to deal with nonsensical claims about vaccination.

Your belief that we should now restrict the freedom of opinions lest the terrorists react violently is a terrifying one. Their aim is to cause fear and dissent throughout the world and curbing freedoms is one way to hand victory over to them. They must never win.
 
I do, obviously. I have no idea if there are any.

I searched, but only found a few. Two were in Spanish, and the other one was in a language that just came out as symbols on my screen. I don't think they are anywhere near as common as white supremacist groups.
 
Look free speech is great, look how much the free speech supporters are cool with the rohingya genocide. As long as the right groups face genocide and violence why should we try to stop it?

Facebook censoring the calls to kill all the rohingya should be right up their in their outrage as censoring things like nazis.

As much as we like to talk about the dangers of violent political groups using social media to recruit in the West, the argument is much more strong in many developing nations with sharper religious or ethnic divisions.

I've listened to the Joe Rogan interview with Jack Dorset (Twitter CEO) and was actually amazed he didn't raise this point himself.

Almost every ethnic/religious/class atrocity I can think of was kicked off by some form of fake news. 'The Jews are poisoning the wells' went by word-of-mouth, Marie Antoinette said 'let them eat cake' went by a pamphlet, the 'Tutsis are plotting to take over' went by the radio, and we've already had 'Muslims are making Buddhists sterile by poisoning their food' via Facebook.

Imagine being in Dorsey's position and your platform becomes the medium for the next Ruandan genocide. Something like that can go amazingly fast.
 
As much as we like to talk about the dangers of violent political groups using social media to recruit in the West, the argument is much more strong in many developing nations with sharper religious or ethnic divisions.
So your solution is to crack down of freedom of speech in the west? :jaw-dropp
 
There is not and there has never been "absolute" freedom of speech. Speech that is (falsely) defamatory, threatens harm or incites others to commit harm has always been unlawful and rightfully so.

But you now want to extend limitations on free speech so that they extend to mere opinions. This is not acceptable.

Your antivaxer example is a poor one. Once these views started getting popular, they were rebutted in the mainstream media. The end result of this kookiness, the public know more about the benefits and need for vaccination than ever before. They are also better equipped to deal with nonsensical claims about vaccination.

Your belief that we should now restrict the freedom of opinions lest the terrorists react violently is a terrifying one. Their aim is to cause fear and dissent throughout the world and curbing freedoms is one way to hand victory over to them. They must never win.

That's not the end result of the antivacc kookiness tho. The end result is the triumphant return of long since thought extinct diseases and outbreaks and deaths.

That
's not acceptable
 
So your solution is to crack down of freedom of speech in the west? :jaw-dropp

Like you said yourself, that freedom was never absolute anyway.

I agree with you that restricting it further is going to cost us. Especially as Social platforms invite outside 'experts' who tend to be left-leaning activists and who will simply move down the chain as they run out of real Nazis. People do not have a tendency to make themselves unemployed.

I've recently heard some clip of Alex Jones ranting about how drag queens visiting schools (yes, there is an incredibly tone-deaf campaign were outrageously dressed drag queens come read to young kids) is just a form of grooming and to lower the kid's defences so that they will be more compliant when they get kidnapped, raped and killed by men in dresses.

Jones has an audience of a few million. I'm sure 80% find him a joke, 20% take him somewhat seriously, and a subset of that believes every word that comes out of his mouth. Imagine in what kind of ******-up, angry, paranoid world you'd be living if you actually believed the world functioned as Alex Jones tells you.
Keep that paranoid media-barrage up long enough and it's only a matter of time before some nut shoots some poor person walking out a gay bar after a Ru Paul karaoke night.

It's inevitable that those companies will restrict speech because the responsibilities associated with those platforms are way too big to take risks, and possibly be held accountable for violent outcomes.
 
That wasn't Eddie's argument.

Who is a danger to society has to be looked at on a case-by-case basis.

Look I understand why this is opposed. I consume quite a bit of way-too-edgy content. I've followed my share of conspiracy theorists, alt-right podcasts, anarchist Youtubers etc. Believe me, I've enjoyed the Wild West of edgy opinions for twenty years. It's practically my hobby. But society will think it is more important that their local Synagogue doesn't get shot up then that Richard Spencer gets to have a say on Twitter. More important that their kid doesn't get a preventable disease than that some uninformed soccer mom gets to play healer on Facebook.
 
There is not and there has never been "absolute" freedom of speech. Speech that is (falsely) defamatory, threatens harm or incites others to commit harm has always been unlawful and rightfully so.

That is not even remotely true, as many people here have shown merely wanting the jews or gays to all be rounded up and put to death is a political position and so protected speech. Advocating ethnic cleansing is protected speech. So clearly the harm and such is BS. Legally you have to be threatening an individual, wanting to exterminate the gays is of course fine. Which is why this hate speech is fine because they are not targeting individuals with their threats of violence but groups and so it is protected speech that facebook must permit.
 
Like you said yourself, that freedom was never absolute anyway.

I agree with you that restricting it further is going to cost us. Especially as Social platforms invite outside 'experts' who tend to be left-leaning activists and who will simply move down the chain as they run out of real Nazis. People do not have a tendency to make themselves unemployed.

I've recently heard some clip of Alex Jones ranting about how drag queens visiting schools (yes, there is an incredibly tone-deaf campaign were outrageously dressed drag queens come read to young kids)

Yep like allowing gay people to teach it is fundamentally wrong, all deviants need to be rounded up. We must enforce total conformity to the children and any suggestion of difference must be beaten out of them.
 
Who is a danger to society has to be looked at on a case-by-case basis.

Look I understand why this is opposed. I consume quite a bit of way-too-edgy content. I've followed my share of conspiracy theorists, alt-right podcasts, anarchist Youtubers etc. Believe me, I've enjoyed the Wild West of edgy opinions for twenty years. It's practically my hobby. But society will think it is more important that their local Synagogue doesn't get shot up then that Richard Spencer gets to have a say on Twitter. More important that their kid doesn't get a preventable disease than that some uninformed soccer mom gets to play healer on Facebook.

Nonsense people are clear here that the odd shooting as long as it is at a synagogue, mosque or black church is just the price that minorities have to pay for those fine white supremacist to get their words out.
 
Really? :rolleyes:

I believe exaggerating applies to your complaints.

You wish. Facebook is not the internet, as much as they'd like to be.

Any time one of those political parties get's themselves in the news anyone is free to simply google them and find a way to connect with them.

It's easy to find anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim speech without going anywhere near Facebook.

This may look good from a Facebook PR perspective but in terms of shutting down anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim speech, it's but a drop in the bucket.
 
Uh, they tried that.

It was called the Unite The Right ralley in Charlotsville.

The Alt-Right had major on-line succes and thought the time had come to move into meatspace. It was a major disaster for them. Not only did they get attacked and doxed. The ralley also exposed divisions in the 'movement' where all groups were actually competing with each other and all the leaders were backstabbing each other in hopes of becoming the Fuhrer of the Alt-Right. (There were leaked texts of Richard Spencer wanting David Duke to show up for co-branding, but tried to keep the after-party a secret from Duke so he could steal his thunder).

They melted back into the internet, but the jubilant mood had soured and then the bans came and the whole thing started to unravel.

I predict the whole thing will end up languishing in some corner of the dark web.

That,s my point exactly. These guys can't even get off the ground because their numbers are so tiny and given the infighting withing and between these groups, they *probably* never will.

Hey, you're Dutch right ? Is there any truth to a story I ran across that had a Dutch politician advocating a special Halal beach, or special Halal areas of beaches because Dutch Muslims weren't happy with what they are seeing on Dutch beaches ?

Reason I'm asking is I saw it on some weird website. I can't remember which one but since I don't speak Dutch running down the veracity of this claim is rather difficult.

If it's true then would criticism of such an idea amount to anti-Muslim and anti-immigrant speech and if so, is that criticism something that should be banned from Facebook ?
 
That,s my point exactly. These guys can't even get off the ground because their numbers are so tiny and given the infighting withing and between these groups, they *probably* never will.

Hey, you're Dutch right ? Is there any truth to a story I ran across that had a Dutch politician advocating a special Halal beach, or special Halal areas of beaches because Dutch Muslims weren't happy with what they are seeing on Dutch beaches ?

Reason I'm asking is I saw it on some weird website. I can't remember which one but since I don't speak Dutch running down the veracity of this claim is rather difficult.

If it's true then would criticism of such an idea amount to anti-Muslim and anti-immigrant speech and if so, is that criticism something that should be banned from Facebook ?

Yeah, I'm Dutch.

The story is from the Hague (Den Haag).

*Opens can of worms*

OK, the Hague has a significant Muslim minority, and they now have their own local party. Trollingly called the Party of Unity.

A prominent member is Arnoud van Doorn. Mister van Doorn was previously a member of the Party of Freedom, the notorious anti-Islam party of Geert Wilders. One fine morning Mister van Doorn decided he was the wrong kind of extremist and abandoned Dutch Nationalism to become an enthusiastic and activist Muslim. I think he gets paid via some Islamic non-profit that gets money from Saudi Arabia.

He makes a point of being divisive.

This party has now said that Muslims are not comfortable being at the beach with scantly-clad white people and since the nudists have their separate section of the local beach, they want a Muslim section.

For now, it was just headline-grabbing and trolling.

There is some debate about this online from all sides, and to my knowledge, there are no restrictions on such debate.

EDIT: could that happen? I very much think a debate about this could be made impossible if the Social Media platforms delegate their curating to left-wing activists and do not ensure a diverse panel to weigh their decisions to ban people.

We've already seen universities in the US employ 'diversity officers' who promptly started to exclude white men from their events to increase 'diversity'.

I also think that as the platforms start to restrict speech, sane opposition to mass immigration, even if framed as an economic argument, will be the first victim.

And that would kick the whole thing into a new phase. You see, now the Nazi's run to certain platforms like GAB and these platforms become essentially racist platforms. But as platforms ban less extreme people, these too will flee to alternative platforms and that is when places like GAB will stop being just a place to quarantine Nazis, and will become more vibrant and will again give the extreme right an audience outside its own ranks.

I think it is very important that only the fringes on the right (Nazis) and left (Stalinists) be excluded from the main platforms. But I think the slippery slope is real and there will be never-ending scope-creep.
 
Last edited:
You wish. Facebook is not the internet, as much as they'd like to be.

Any time one of those political parties get's themselves in the news anyone is free to simply google them and find a way to connect with them.

It's easy to find anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim speech without going anywhere near Facebook.

This may look good from a Facebook PR perspective but in terms of shutting down anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim speech, it's but a drop in the bucket.

That's odd, because according to the free speech* defenders, not letting them have groups on Facebook is taking away their freedom of speech.


*Free speech for hate groups, and only the right kind of hate groups, though.
 
Thanks Eddie :)

IMO it would be a shame to see discussions over such issues shut down or be limited to one side only, especially if there's a "clash of cultures" component to it.
 
That's odd, because according to the free speech* defenders, not letting them have groups on Facebook is taking away their freedom of speech.


*Free speech for hate groups, and only the right kind of hate groups, though.

I keep hearing about this but I rarely see it. Is this coming form people who really don't know what American style freedom of speech really means or that political affiliation is not a protected class ?

Sometimes people are shocked when I tell them that in Canada, we don't have freedom of speech like they do in the USA. We gave that up.
 
Thanks Eddie :)

IMO it would be a shame to see discussions over such issues shut down or be limited to one side only, especially if there's a "clash of cultures" component to it.

The Internet should be used for debate and dialogue.

One of the problems of the platforms is that they create bubbles in which people of a certain bend stew in their own opinions.

Sam Harris interviewed a lady on his podcast who had investigated the Russian social media 'meddling'.

Their MO was as follows: set up or reinforce spaces that emphasise pride in the group (right, left, white, black, doesn't matter), then feed those groups negative information and fake news about the "others". The ideally get them to have physical confrontation IRL.

You basically get people to attack a strawman of what they really are.

Yet, when people actually talk, they discover that the "other" isn't some evil entity but just human.

I've posted this before and probably will again, but there was a pro-Trump event that got protested by a group of Black Lives Matter activists. But instead of getting in a fight, the Trumpers gave the BLM people the microphone and it turned out they had a lot of common ground.
The Trumpers were just working-class white people who wanted jobs and the BLM guys wanted dignity and recognition of police brutality.
Both groups hated bad cops.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fukHd60uAkI&t=272s
 

Back
Top Bottom