Skip to navigationSkip to content

Facebook is banning white nationalism and white separatism

By Business Insider

Facebook, the world's largest social media network, banned white nationalism and white separatism on the platform on Tuesday. Facebook Counterterrorism Policy Director Brian Fishman told MotherboarRead full story

Comments

  • Also share to
  • People don't seem to understand the lengths evil and hatred will go to make themselves known. If you think you can live in a world where you're both free to live your own life and also free from coming into contact with evil or hatred, you're sadly mistaken.

    The only way that will happen is if you lock everyone up in their own individual cage. The world isn't fair, because people aren't. And that should be the first thing you teach your kids. The next thing you should teach them is to get over it.

  • For anyone who says white nationalism is not on the rise (cough cough individual 1), hate speech should not be a huge problem on social media if it were not on the rise. I hope Facebook acts diligently to help stop the spread of hatred on the platform. Twitter, which in my opinion, is by far the worst offender of being a free-for-all of hate-fueled trolls, needs to follow suit. It is extremely alarming that our children, who will grow up using social media for endless purposes, are being exposed

    For anyone who says white nationalism is not on the rise (cough cough individual 1), hate speech should not be a huge problem on social media if it were not on the rise. I hope Facebook acts diligently to help stop the spread of hatred on the platform. Twitter, which in my opinion, is by far the worst offender of being a free-for-all of hate-fueled trolls, needs to follow suit. It is extremely alarming that our children, who will grow up using social media for endless purposes, are being exposed to such narrow-minded thoughts and comments. We have to do better, or else things will only get worse as the younger generations are being taught that such behavior and speech is considered acceptable and will be tolerated with no consequences.

  • This is tragically late, but nonetheless the correct move. It won’t get rid of white supremacists, but will reduce their freedom to operate on FB, which is good for the everyone else on the platform.

    However, this is not enough. The algorithms at FB (along with those at Instagram, Google, YouTube) amplify hate speech, anger, outrage, disinformation because emotionally charged content is good for engagement. So those things get wider reach than less inflammatory content. Platforms should not censor

    This is tragically late, but nonetheless the correct move. It won’t get rid of white supremacists, but will reduce their freedom to operate on FB, which is good for the everyone else on the platform.

    However, this is not enough. The algorithms at FB (along with those at Instagram, Google, YouTube) amplify hate speech, anger, outrage, disinformation because emotionally charged content is good for engagement. So those things get wider reach than less inflammatory content. Platforms should not censor, but they also should not amplify antisocial messages.

  • This is a good thing for sure.

    But here's the issue: Facebook is doing this on its own accord without any form of accountability which means it's got absolute power to do things that are definitely not good as well (and it doing them – it recently allegedly banned a flurry of Palestinian accounts). Its platforms literally impact on billions of people all around the world and the content they feature is controlled by a handful of Tech Bros. How is this ok?

    The only way to break that power concentration

    This is a good thing for sure.

    But here's the issue: Facebook is doing this on its own accord without any form of accountability which means it's got absolute power to do things that are definitely not good as well (and it doing them – it recently allegedly banned a flurry of Palestinian accounts). Its platforms literally impact on billions of people all around the world and the content they feature is controlled by a handful of Tech Bros. How is this ok?

    The only way to break that power concentration is to break Facebook up and make it accountable to people.

  • Yeah, there are lots of very hateful remarks on Facebook and Twitter which is obviously bad.

    But, although Facebook can do whatever they want to do as a company, I feel like this is a dangerous trend to destroy freedom of speech.

    How are they gonna draw the line?

  • If you respond to this article by saying this is wrong and individuals should have right to express their views, you are a white supremacist because you admittedly know that Facebook is a private company that can create its own policies on speech and the bigots can still say bigoted things in their home and in the streets if they like but you purposely want their hate to be pushed on a private platform which is not bound by the first amendment

  • You can ban users you can’t ban ideas - especially not erroneous ones. What happens if someone doesn’t think they are a white nationalist or anti-vaxxer posts something which unwittingly supports a “banned idea”. Are Facebook now banning stupidity too because that’s half their users gone already...

  • Facebook, while powerful, is not a government institution (though people often view it as a utility). I applaud the move and remind folks this isn't a "freedom of speech" issue. It's a business move (perhaps a PR distraction). The poor white nationalists have plenty of other places on the net to spread their hate.

  • A clear indication this may be problematic is found in the response to it. Almost everyone is against white nationalism -- it's open an shut... no reason not to ban it. In my opinion, a legitimate objection to the ban is not pro-white-nationalism, but pro-free-speech -- and not because we want to hear abhorrent speech, but because there is uncertainty in banning speech. Too many things now qualify as 'white nationalism' and its definition is limitless. The visible problematic element is in supporters

    A clear indication this may be problematic is found in the response to it. Almost everyone is against white nationalism -- it's open an shut... no reason not to ban it. In my opinion, a legitimate objection to the ban is not pro-white-nationalism, but pro-free-speech -- and not because we want to hear abhorrent speech, but because there is uncertainty in banning speech. Too many things now qualify as 'white nationalism' and its definition is limitless. The visible problematic element is in supporters' assumption that anyone against the measure is assumed to be pro-white-nationalism and the latters' argument (for general free speech) could be shut down.

  • Censorship is all this. But Facebook has been doing this for years now, so that is nothing new.

  • More window-dressing to distract from the actual problem which is adopting the rules that apply to all other publishers - social media is media and should be regulated as such. At least remove the ability to hide behind article 230 of CDA.

  • These new laws regarding hate speech I just dividing the people to the point where you don't know what to say to anybody anymore. Used to be at one time if you hate somebody then that was your opinion and if they didn't like it they would shrug it off and move on. The government's today are forcing us into their language. If you don't like what I say which I hope is not harmful anyway then just let me know and I will move

  • Then it sounds like it's time for Facebook to be reclassified as a publisher and not as a platform. It is a slippery slope to limit the extreme hate filled speech that most would suggest is not wanted. Then it would move to remove speech that a plurality dislikes. Then it would remove or ban those who use any speech that goes against the liberal biased moderators from silicon valley and the SPLC that are controlled by social justice warriors. In fact this comment will eventually get blocked for even

    Then it sounds like it's time for Facebook to be reclassified as a publisher and not as a platform. It is a slippery slope to limit the extreme hate filled speech that most would suggest is not wanted. Then it would move to remove speech that a plurality dislikes. Then it would remove or ban those who use any speech that goes against the liberal biased moderators from silicon valley and the SPLC that are controlled by social justice warriors. In fact this comment will eventually get blocked for even suggesting such a thing. Deboost and then eventually ban. That is the model to come, while those who get banned will end up on alternative sites with the other banned people so their thoughts can stew, boil, and bubble over into actions. The hiding of something that people don't like or see as bad, only allows it to operate in darkness. Shine light on it and leave it up for the world to see, "this person is a __________" and we should try to change their mind with valid arguments, or let their climb to infamy be their downfall in their own lives.

  • I support a ban on hate speech if all kinds.

    Facebook, and the Left that promotes anti-semitism, and boycotts of Israel, sees itself as a promoter of "Love and Understanding".

    Along that path we will likely see a ban on the display of MAGA hats, or positive discussion of our President, since "Love Trumps Hate".

    It's too bad all the young people have abandoned Facebook, because Facebook's leaders are acting like unruly children.

  • I wonder how many of the virtue signaling youngsters commenting on "the rise of hate speech" would be willing to see similar draconian actions taken to limit hate filled, racist, leftist rhetoric.

    Would you be up for equal treatment under the law, those of you who support giving extra "rights" to some, solely on the basis of skin color, or gender?

Want more conversations like this?

Join the Quartz community for all the intelligence, without the noise.

App Store BadgeGoogle Play Badge
Leaderboard Screenshot

A community of leaders, subject matter experts, and curious minds bringing nuance back to how we talk about the news.

Editors' Picks Screenshot

No content overload: our editors will curate the most notable and discussion-worthy pieces for you every day.

Share Screenshot

Don’t just read the story, tell it: contribute your ideas and experience to the dialogue.