Facebook bans far right groups

[zooterkin]

https://www.theguardian.com/technol...ht-groups-including-bnp-edl-and-britain-first

Facebook has permanently banned a number of far-right organisations and individuals including the British National party (BNP), the English Defence League (EDL) and Britain First under its “dangerous individuals and organisations” policy.

The ban, which came into effect at midday on Thursday, extends beyond the groups and individuals specifically cited as hate organisations: posts and other content that “expresses praise or support” for them will also be banned, as will users who coordinate support for the groups.

Not sure if this is a UK only thing; all the organisations and people referred to are UK based. Is this happening in other countries too?

 

[JoeMorgue]

Cue handwringing about "MAH FREEDOM OF SPEECH" from people who only handwring about freedom of speech when racists are involved and pretend they aren't just worried that they won't be allowed to be racist anymore.

 

[Stacko]

https://www.theguardian.com/technol...ht-groups-including-bnp-edl-and-britain-first


Not sure if this is a UK only thing; all the organisations and people referred to are UK based. Is this happening in other countries too?

The bans have been making the rounds.

Facebook will ban Faith Goldy, Soldiers of Odin, the Canadian Nationalist Front, and other hate groups from across its platforms, the company said on Monday.

The ban will extend to any Facebook groups, pages, and Instagram accounts associated with those banned, which also includes Kevin Goudreau, Wolves of Odin, and the Aryan Strikeforce. These individuals and organizations have expressed white nationalist sentiments and violate Facebook’s policy on dangerous individuals and organizations, which bans “terrorist activity, organised hate, mass or serial murder, human trafficking, organised violence, or criminal activity.”

The ban comes after the social media giant has come under renewed scrutiny for allowing racism and hate to flourish on its platforms, and weeks after the terrorist attack in Christchurch, New Zealand, which was broadcast live on Facebook.

It's all part of their ban on white nationalism and separatism content.

 

[dann]

It's happening everywhere. In Denmark, Facebook has banned a fake-news online site that was allegedly inspired by Breitbart and Fox News:

24nyt blev stiftet i starten af 2017 med amerikanske medier som Breitbart og Fox News som forbilleder.
Facebook smider den alternative netavis 24nyt på porten (dr.dk, April 10, 2019)

"Facebook bans the alternative online site 24nyt"

Facebook: 24nyt er smidt ud på grund af 'ikke-autentisk adfærd' - Ekspert vurderer, at det er på grund af købte likes. (dr.dk, April 10, 2019)
"Facebook: 24nyt was banned due to "inauthentic behaviour" - Expert estimates that it is due to buying likes"

 

[Ziggurat]

Cue handwringing about "MAH FREEDOM OF SPEECH" from people who only handwring about freedom of speech when racists are involved and pretend they aren't just worried that they won't be allowed to be racist anymore.

Are you trying to suggest that there aren't legitimate free speech concerns here? It used to be that many people on the left recognized the need to protect freedom of speech even for racists.

One of the problems here is that these sort of actions are never limited to just the claimed targets. Facebook says they're banning white supremacists, but people who don't actually fit that label are going to be banned under the pretext that they do. Just like "punch Nazis" ends up as "punch people we call Nazis". Freedom of speech MUST extend to objectionable content, or it isn't free at all.

 

[sir drinks-a-lot]

Cue handwringing about "MAH FREEDOM OF SPEECH" from people who only handwring about freedom of speech when racists are involved and pretend they aren't just worried that they won't be allowed to be racist anymore.

I think your desire to call people racists has gotten the best of you.

There are definite free speech issues here.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Is 'Racebook' already trademarked?

 

[dann]

It used to be that many people on the left recognized the need to protect freedom of speech even for racists.

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

Yesterday, the American Civil Liberties Union of Eastern Missouri filed a federal lawsuit against the City of Cape Girardeau on behalf of the Traditionalist American Knights of the Ku Klux Klan

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

 

[JoeMorgue]

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

No. This is a private organization deciding who does and doesn't get to use their soapbox.

Do you let racist stand of your roof to shout their message? No? Well then I guess you just don't care about free speech. How do you sleep at night?

And I'm saying if you only handwring about freedom of speech when it's racists being told to shut up, you care about racism, not freedom of speech. Take that however you want.

 

[dann]

Cue handwringing about "MAH FREEDOM OF SPEECH" from people who only handwring about freedom of speech when racists are involved and pretend they aren't just worried that they won't be allowed to be racist anymore.

Are you trying to suggest that there aren't legitimate free speech concerns here? It used to be that many people on the left recognized the need to protect freedom of speech even for racists.

One of the problems here is that these sort of actions are never limited to just the claimed targets. Facebook says they're banning white supremacists, but people who don't actually fit that label are going to be banned under the pretext that they do. Just like "punch Nazis" ends up as "punch people we call Nazis". Freedom of speech MUST extend to objectionable content, or it isn't free at all.

Nobody prevents them from being racists. Or from saying that they're racists.
An Probpublica is still helping them with that, I think:

Hate crimes and bias incidents are a national problem, but there’s no reliable data on their nature or prevalence. We’re collecting and verifying reports, building a database of tips for use by journalists, researchers and civil-rights organizations.
DOCUMENTING HATE

 

[ahhell]

Facebook is a private organization so for the most part they get to decide who gets to use their platform.

I have mild concerns about the slippery slope though.

 

[shemp]

No. This is a private organization deciding who does and doesn't get to use their soapbox.

Do you let racist stand of your roof to shout their message? No? Well then I guess you just don't care about free speech. How do you sleep at night?

And I'm saying if you only handwring about freedom of speech when it's racists being told to shut up, you care about racism, not freedom of speech. Take that however you want.

This. Nobody has an obligation to give scum a worldwide soapbox.

This action should have been taken a long time ago.

 

[Mojo]

Are you trying to suggest that there aren't legitimate free speech concerns here? It used to be that many people on the left recognized the need to protect freedom of speech even for racists.

One of the problems here is that these sort of actions are never limited to just the claimed targets. Facebook says they're banning white supremacists, but people who don't actually fit that label are going to be banned under the pretext that they do. Just like "punch Nazis" ends up as "punch people we call Nazis". Freedom of speech MUST extend to objectionable content, or it isn't free at all.

The solution is obvious: get the government to set up platforms competing with Facebook, Twitter, etc., where the first amendment will apply.

 

[Ziggurat]

No. This is a private organization deciding who does and doesn't get to use their soapbox.

That's incredibly myopic.

I understand that what government does and what private entities do aren't the same, and especially the remedies aren't the same, but given the massive influence Facebook has, it's absolutely a concern.

And from a legal perspective, no, actually, Facebook doesn't get to decide who uses their soapbox. Not if they want to maintain immunity from copyright infringement claims for content on their platform. That aspect of the law hasn't really been tested yet, but it will be.

And I'm saying if you only handwring about freedom of speech when it's racists being told to shut up, you care about racism, not freedom of speech. Take that however you want.

Don't be coy. Do you think that describes me? Who do you think that describes? Do you think the only people who are "handwringing" about this case are those who only care about freedom of speech for racists? Are there any people you recognize as concerned about this case who are also concerned about the free speech rights of non-racists?

 

[dann]

Facebook is a private organization so for the most part they get to decide who gets to use their platform.

I have mild concerns about the slippery slope though.

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

 

[JoeMorgue]

That's incredibly myopic.

I understand that what government does and what private entities do aren't the same, and especially the remedies aren't the same, but given the massive influence Facebook has, it's absolutely a concern.

And from a legal perspective, no, actually, Facebook doesn't get to decide who uses their soapbox. Not if they want to maintain immunity from copyright infringement claims for content on their platform. That aspect of the law hasn't really been tested yet, but it will be.

Okay. None of that changes the fact no matter how you slice you're criticizing a private organization for telling racists to get out of their house.

Don't be coy. Do you think that describes me? Who do you think that describes? Do you think the only people who are "handwringing" about this case are those who only care about freedom of speech for racists? Are there any people you recognize as concerned about this case who are also concerned about the free speech rights of non-racists?

I'll describe you as someone who thinks it really, really important that racists have soapboxes. Because that's what you are arguing.

 

[Ziggurat]

Okay. None of that changes the fact no matter how you slice you're criticizing a private organization for telling racists to get out of their house.

It's not a house. It's not even equivalent to a house. Houses are privileged, even compared to most physical private property.

I'll describe you as someone who thinks it really, really important that racists have soapboxes. Because that's what you are arguing.

That's a dodge.

 

[angrysoba]

The bans have been making the rounds.



It's all part of their ban on white nationalism and separatism content.

That’s a shame! Soldiers of Odin sounds like a cool name for a group.

 

[shemp]

That’s a shame! Soldiers of Odin sounds like a cool name for a group.

Yeah, but they do emo polka.

 

[carlvs]

No. This is a private organization deciding who does and doesn't get to use their soapbox.

Do you let racist stand of your roof to shout their message? No? Well then I guess you just don't care about free speech. How do you sleep at night?

And I'm saying if you only handwring about freedom of speech when it's racists being told to shut up, you care about racism, not freedom of speech. Take that however you want.

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:

"I can't remember where I heard this, but someone once said that defending a position by citing free speech is sort of the ultimate concession; you're saying that the most compelling thing you can say for your position is that it's not literally illegal to express."