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

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.

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.

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

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

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.)

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.

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

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"?

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.

We went to war on the subject.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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?

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