Re:Facebook to ban white nationalist content
by anigbrowl on Wednesday March 27, 2019 @03:28PM
(#19504964)
There's emerging evidence that emotional contagion via social media is a real phenomenon, and indeed much commercial exploitation of social media arguably depends on that. That has many positive aspects, such as meeting my appetite for heartwarming videos of cute animals, but it can also be leveraged for less wholesome purposes.
Definitions are absolutely fluid, not least because the science of measuring and mapping such contagion in virtual spaces is currently in a fairly rudimentary state. We're building our technological infrastructure out much faster than we are developing an understanding of how it impacts our future.
Re:Facebook to ban white nationalist content
by chillacy on Wednesday March 27, 2019 @03:36PM
(#19505049)
I would say that if the mainstream narrative is that your ideology shows up in a bunch of mass shootings then you get pushback. We thought it made sense to take down ISIS content, now it makes sense to take down white supremacy content.
Presumably this wouldn't be happening if not for the dozen or so mass shootings with oddly similar perpetrators in the past 5 years.
Re:Facebook to ban white nationalist content
by FakeComments on Wednesday March 27, 2019 @04:04PM
(#19505397)
There has been more left wing political violence in the US recently, the media simply disproportionately reports on right wing violence.
Why isn’t Facebook banning leftist propaganda when groups like Antifa regularly use it as justification for political violence?
Re:Facebook to ban white nationalist content
by chillacy on Wednesday March 27, 2019 @04:40PM
(#19505794)
That's definitely one interpretation, I left that as an option when I said "mainstream narrative". Facebook wouldn't ban leftist groups unless the mainstream narrative is that antifa shoots up rural churches.
What I have a difficulty understanding is how and who will define "violence". Inciting direct violence is one thing, but people like expanding definitions. Is expressing support for one state which wants to overthrow another state "violence"? Is supporting China (in some aspect) but which none the less persecutes some people, "violence"?
Is buying almonds violence because it deprives some people in some areas of California of municipal water violence?
What about suppressed minority groups in Sudan who oppose a regime, or likewise South Sudan? Are they proposing and promoting violence?
An uprising in Teheran, is that violence? Suppress it? Are they pro regime, are they anti-regime? Is it fluid, is it at times both? What do you do?
This gets very dicey very quickly.