Hacker News Reader

Comment by dsfyu404ed | Hacker News Reader

>Our efforts to combat hate don’t stop here. As part of today’s announcement, we’ll also start connecting people who search for terms associated with white supremacy to resources focused on helping people leave behind hate groups. People searching for these terms will be directed to Life After Hate, an organization founded by former violent extremists that provides crisis intervention, education, support groups and outreach.

The fact that they're readily going down the slippery slope of propaganda by identifying people with Wrong(TM) beliefs and directing them at the Right(TM) beliefs does not sit well with me. Censorship aside, this is a different issue and a very dangerous precedent for a "platform" to be setting IMO.

View on HN

Also, By mere searching for specific terms, Facebook gladly assume your motives to be to in particular way. This seem misguided and not well thought through.

Finding a book in the library about frogs, doesn't make you a frog.

I find that specific part to be terrifying.

You could be searching for those terms for a good reason, maybe I'm writing an essay about the spread of white nationalism and want to see how many groups exist online, or whatever.

It's very dangerous to label people and infer their intention automatically.

So make a specific account for research purposes like everyone else does.

> like everyone else does.

Some people who research white nationalism don't make specific accounts for research purposes [1]. In general, and based on my own usage patterns, I think it's probably dangerous and definitely scary to assume that googling for "X" on your primary account implies that you support "X"

[1] Source: Currently sitting next to someone who is literally a full time white supremacy researcher.

Sounds like pretty bad opsec to me, but to each their own.

The whole point of natural rights is that normal law-abiding people shouldn't need "opsec" against their own government or domestic corporations.

What exactly makes you uncomfortable with calling genocidal racism "Wrong(TM)", and helping people leave it? Are you also uncomfortable with them banning child porn, or is that an example of punishing wrongthink too?

EDIT: I invite downvoters to tell me why they disagree?

I think you have a misunderstanding of the word "white nationalism". I'd recommend looking it up to understand what is happening here. But in short it means the belief that there is a white race and that it has a right to preserve itself and it's culture.

Genocidal racism was never allowed on facebook. After this move they will censor a lot of legitimate things.

White nationalism is not a legitimate thing and I implore you to get in contact with networks that help individuals get out of hate groups.

Your jumping to conclusions exemplifies why this move by facebook is so incredibly dangerous.

You jump from "censoring white nationalism will censor legitimate opinions" (such as there "there is a white race" - a question on which there are good arguments for both sides, and which it's reasonable to debate), to I hold such opinions. Then you jump from a few of those opinions to hatred. And then you jump from there to being part of hate groups.

Calm down and think.

I just don't believe that you neutrally believe "there's a white race" without also believing in its superiority over other races - whatever reasons you euphemize it in, like culture, or IQ, or something.

And this idea of "preserving itself"... what exactly does that mean? Does that mean getting to kick other people out of their homes? Threaten their livelihood? Threaten their social safety nets? What exactly happens in this supposedly benign process of "preserving culture"?

> genocidal racism

not allowing people of European decent to have their own state, country, etc IS genocidal. Is it "supremacy" and "racism" to simply advocate for the preservation of a culture and people?

Whether you agree, they should at least be able to talk about it without being labeled "genocidal racists".

(Not talking about actual white supremacists. Don't believe I've ever met one.)

One of the best parts about having the freedom of speech is that I’m free to label those people genocidal racists.Freedom of speech doesn’t protect you in any way from being shamed for holding disgusting beliefs.

> Whether you agree, they should at least be able to talk about it without being de-platformed for being labeled "genocidal racists".

Fixed.

>One of the best parts about having the freedom of speech is that I’m free to label those people genocidal racists

And now you can do so on facebook in peace with all the other genocidal racists.

I find it worrying that a) you’re being downvoted and b) there actually being sympathies for white nationalism and fascist thought on HN. We all who love freedom and love our friends whatever background they may have should be working to not let these kinds of people obtain more power.

> I find it worrying that a) you’re being downvoted and b) there actually being sympathies for white nationalism and fascist thought on HN.

Ugh... I knew this day would the come. The slashdot crowd has found out about HN.

I don’t know what slashdot is but thanks for the ad hom. Btw you’re not some kind of special person only because you have an account on HN.

I had the same interpretation as you but after rereading and looking at their comment history I think they are actually quoting you to concur with you, i.e. the white nationalists are the slashdot crowd

Yeah I was getting way too defensive in this thread. You're probably right and it's terrible the fascist threat makes me react totally unjust to fellow commenters meaning well.

I don't know what to make of it. Has this always been here? Has it surged recently? I really don't know what to think.

yes. It is incredibly upsetting and scary for me. I'm so glad there are other sane people out here. I hope we get through this.

There is no slippery slope argument when you're talking about literal Nazis.

We went to war on the subject.

This comment perfectly encompasses why it's a slippery slope. The definition of "literal Nazi" is use so broadly in political discourse. Politicians have been called Hitler and Nazi since Hitler and Nazis became a thing.

The massive danger is going to be the countless false positives this thinking generates. Just like the craziness of arresting the guy whose dog made a nazi salute in the video.

He would be denied access to social media because of stupid interpretations of a joke.

This isn't about defending or persecuting Nazis, it's about protecting the public from systems of abuse.

Not to mention the ineffectiveness of online censorship. The only worse thing are Nazis organizing on public platforms is forcing them to congregate only with other Nazis on radical websites where no one will challenge their worldview. But that's a totally different discussion.

The only worse thing are Nazis organizing on public platforms is forcing them to congregate only with other Nazis on radical websites where no one will challenge their worldview.

Sorry, don't agree. Forcing them to congregate on unpopular websites is great because those websites have a terrible reputation and that massively hinders recruitment. Sure, they're echo chambers, but extremists already use private fora for more underground organizing activity and likewise there are people who specialize in monitoring and infiltrating those websites.

If your argument is that they just need to be talked around with reason and logic, you can always go to one of their websites and give it a try. Sure, deradicalization can work and it's great when it does, but generally the odds are poor and it's extremely labor intensive.

That's a lot of words to type to say, "I support Nazis being able to openly operate and recruit on Facebook."

Yes, that's exactly what my comment said. Better ban my FB account! (/s)

If they promote violence or brigade, harass, or attack other members directly on FB then. Then yes, they should have their pages shut down. That is more than sufficient rather than saying any language that can be categorized in a very broad and vague category will be banned.

The simple fact alone if you asked various people in America to define a "literal Nazi" you'll get a hundred different answers of who should fit into that category.

Being a nazi is literally promoting violence and in any case amounts to an end game involving genocide. I agree there should be no censorship. But then you should be very vigilant to not let nazis control the discours as they do now. Nazis are not be talked with, they need to be scared out of the public space so that either they reevaluate their positions and change and can be reaccepted into society or they live pithy lives in solitude.

And for definitions: I think it’s very clear to indentify fascist thought - favorable views on ethnic cleansing and stories about mighty groups of people that can’t be proven should never be tolerated.

Your comment implies that Nazi Germany had absolutely ZERO redeeming qualities, which no credible historian would agree with. (e.g. no other country since has had the degree of focus on conservationism and environmentalism)

And we went to war because of Japan, whom we put into concentration camps.

Are you really going with, "But think of all the GOOD things Nazis do?"

> But think of all the GOOD things Nazis do?

I was talking about the National Socialist German nation. Not modern "Nazis". Take the good, reject the bad. Since when is it shameful to be a history buff?

You are REALLY going with, "But think of all the GOOD things Nazis (regardless of the era) did."

I mean, there's literally no responses to that. I'll pray for you.

> Your comment implies that Nazi Germany had absolutely ZERO redeeming qualities, which no credible historian would agree with. (e.g. no other country since has had the degree of focus on conservationism and environmentalism)

There are plenty of nations, both before and since, that have so much higher of a focus on conservation and environmentalism that they don't compromise those in the interest of conquest and genocide; the Nazi campaigns directed at those aims, leaving aside the moral dimension of their more direct effects on humans, were fairly disastrous from an environmental and conservationist perspective.

> We went to war on the subject.

This seems historically inaccurate, unless from the perspective of German resistance.

Britain waited on the war to come to them, and the U.S. didn't join until Pearl Harbor.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com