Note German, Dutch and French Heritage celebration isn't banned. Neither is Palestinian or Syrian.
But Hezbollah is banned [1], not sure why White Nationalists shouldn't be.
[1] https://www.timesofisrael.com/facebook-twitter-pages-of-hezb...
https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/intelligence-report/...
The more I think about these kinds of questions, the more inevitable the total Balkanization of the Internet feels. Countries are finally waking up to the fact that “individual privacy == national security” but they all have their own notions of how much privacy the individual is afforded and from whom.
We aim to prevent potential real-world harm that may be related to content on Facebook. [...] We remove content, disable accounts, and work with law enforcement when we believe there is a genuine risk of physical harm or direct threats to public safety.
In an effort to prevent and disrupt real-world harm, we do not allow any organizations or individuals that proclaim a violent mission or are engaged in violence, from having a presence on Facebook. This includes organizations or individuals involved in the following:
- Terrorist activity
- Organized hate
- Mass or serial murder
- Human trafficking
- Organized violence or criminal activity
We also remove content that expresses support or praise for groups, leaders, or individuals involved in these activities.
That seems like a pretty clear statement that people who are engaged in / advocating for / recruiting for groups that engage in mass killing will be censored.
It would surprise me if Facebook were the first internet platform with rules like this.
Indeed. And it was motivated by white nationalism, not the Hebrew Israelite movement, so it's kind of a weird thing to bring up if you are trying to make the case that deplatforming the latter has as strong a case as the former.
I would say that, where there is debate over the level of danger and need to take action to restrain hate speech, whether or not that particular kind of hate speech is motivating violent acts and on what scale is a quite legitimate factor to consider.
Yes, at least sometimes?
I think they did ban the collection of accounts in Myanmar which advocated for genocide of the Rohingya, but only a few years after the genocide was underway, so yes https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/15/technology/myanmar-facebo... .
I have the same question. What about all the other nationalist movements?
They aren't. They went after ISIS years ago, and they've recently been trying to go after accounts contributing to the Rohingya genocide in Myanmar, as a sibling comment noted and provided a link for.
If Hebrew Israelites start driving cars into crowds or shooting up churches and synagogues, I'd hope Facebook goes after them, too.
(Also, those are odd examples...AFAIK each time it was single person operating alone.)
It is your understanding that no one else in the world contributed to the Tree of Life shooter's belief that murdering Jewish people was necessary and important? He, operating alone, picked a synagogue purely by chance?
> by happenstance
It was deliberate choice.
> picked a synagogue purely by chance
Also deliberate.
But though the deliberate choice of targets is clear, I'm not advocating banning Congregate Charlottesville or closing synagogues. Right to assembly is a basic human right.
And I wasn't suggesting you thought he rolled a dice when choosing his target. I'm asking what you mean by "operating alone": do you think it's happenstance that his deliberate choice of target, and his ideology, coincided with white nationalists'? That the lone Orlando Pulse nightclub shooter's ideology coincided with ISIS'?
These people have been shooting up places of worship and running people over with their cars, all the while their supporters cheer them on.
They can get right the fuck out. Black Israelites start doing the same then by all means do the same to them.
Irish, German, Roma, Italian, Russian, are all ethnicities. All of them have particularly Irish, German, Roma, etc cultures. But there is no shared "White" culture.
White nationalism defines itself not by a shared ethnicity or culture, but by making it crystal-clear who it excludes. A white nationalist can't tell you what being white actually means - but he can tell you exactly who isn't.
But if Hispanic can be an ethnicity, so can European, AKA "white".
You have Asian covering disparate people from india, east asia, and southeast asia with completely different cultures and economic states.
Relatedly, there's African-american which covers both black americans and black africans, but not people don't really consider white South Africans to be African-American.
And then we get to the white americans which in modern times covers most europeans, but at various points of history didn't cover Italians, Germans, and Irish.
If some measure of "white culture" does not exist, then what is it that people are code switching to in the workplace? What is it that comedians often make fun of, and why do audiences (including white members) laugh in recognition?
If you don't agree, how would you describe white culture?