International Skeptics Forum

International Skeptics Forum (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumindex.php)
-   Social Issues & Current Events (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=82)
-   -   Facebook bans far right groups (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=335986)

zooterkin 19th April 2019 05:51 AM

Facebook bans far right groups
 
https://www.theguardian.com/technolo...-britain-first
Quote:

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 19th April 2019 06:01 AM

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 19th April 2019 06:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zooterkin (Post 12669700)
https://www.theguardian.com/technolo...-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.

Quote:

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 19th April 2019 07:14 AM

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

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 19th April 2019 07:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue (Post 12669707)
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 19th April 2019 07:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue (Post 12669707)
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 19th April 2019 07:41 AM

Is 'Racebook' already trademarked?

dann 19th April 2019 07:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ziggurat (Post 12669757)
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:

Quote:

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 19th April 2019 07:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ziggurat (Post 12669757)
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 19th April 2019 07:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ziggurat (Post 12669757)
Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue (Post 12669707)
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:

Quote:

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 19th April 2019 07:52 AM

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 19th April 2019 07:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue (Post 12669771)
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 19th April 2019 07:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ziggurat (Post 12669757)
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 19th April 2019 08:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue (Post 12669771)
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.

Quote:

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 19th April 2019 08:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ahhell (Post 12669779)
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 19th April 2019 08:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ziggurat (Post 12669791)
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.

Quote:

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 19th April 2019 08:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue (Post 12669793)
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.

Quote:

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 19th April 2019 08:41 AM

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

shemp 19th April 2019 08:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by angrysoba (Post 12669843)
That’s a shame! Soldiers of Odin sounds like a cool name for a group.

Yeah, but they do emo polka.

carlvs 19th April 2019 09:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue (Post 12669771)
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.):thumbsup:

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

Quote:

"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."

ahhell 19th April 2019 09:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dann (Post 12669792)
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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by carlvs (Post 12669873)
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.):thumbsup:

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 19th April 2019 09:11 AM

Matt Taibbi articulates my position on this well.

https://www.rollingstone.com/politic...-jones-705766/

Quote:

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 19th April 2019 09:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dann (Post 12669770)
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 19th April 2019 09:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ServiceSoon (Post 12669878)
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 19th April 2019 09:17 AM

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 19th April 2019 09:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dudalb (Post 12669881)
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 19th April 2019 09:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue (Post 12669880)
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 19th April 2019 09:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ziggurat (Post 12669909)
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 19th April 2019 09:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue (Post 12669910)
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 19th April 2019 09:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue (Post 12669910)
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 19th April 2019 09:51 AM

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 19th April 2019 10:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ahhell (Post 12669779)
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 19th April 2019 10:21 AM

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 19th April 2019 10:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue (Post 12669910)
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 19th April 2019 10:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ziggurat (Post 12669757)
Are you trying to suggest that there aren't legitimate free speech concerns here?<snip>

No.

catsmate 19th April 2019 10:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey (Post 12669768)
Is 'Racebook' already trademarked?

Thankfully yes. By a betting site.

catsmate 19th April 2019 10:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shemp (Post 12669853)
Yeah, but they do emo polka.

I could see that working in Minnesota.

catsmate 19th April 2019 10:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by carlvs (Post 12669873)
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.):thumbsup:

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 19th April 2019 10:57 AM

Not one of xkcd's better efforts.

sadhatter 19th April 2019 11:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by catsmate (Post 12669981)
Permit me. xkcd explicitly allows hotlinking.
https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/free_speech.png

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.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:40 PM.

Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2015, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.