White supremacists use Facebook for the purpose of recruiting and radicalizing people who are not yet white supremacists. The point of a ban like this is not to deradicalize people who are already white supremacists, it is to make it harder for people to become radicalized in the first place. People do not typically seek out white supremacists; white supremacists are always looking for people who are vulnerable to their message. Facebook seems to have come to the conclusion that their platform is just too useful to such terrorist groups and have decided to ban them before the problem gets worse.

>it is to make it harder for people to become radicalized in the first place

I've been in fb group chats with holocaust deniers etc. (mans literally inboxed me a youtube video, I never bothered clicking the links he sent but it was funny)

"banning white nationalist content" is a cute headline but doesn't hit the problem of seemingly benign normal users that would never "reveal their power level" slowly radicalizing their friends with content not on their site lol

I said "harder" not "impossible." Yes, white supremacists are still going to use Facebook and are still going to try to radicalize people, but it will be harder.

"harder" not "impossible."

The Rhetoric Tricks, Traps, and Tactics of White Nationalism https://medium.com/@DeoTasDevil/the-rhetoric-tricks-traps-an...

the overt white nationalism content you think of doesn't really exist, i guess maybe if ur a boomer it still lingers? idk

I sure saw a lot of overtly antisemitic, racist, white supremacist imagery in that article...

those memes are really old, theres more subtle content that radicalizes people

its less orchestrated and just friendly until a point

>i dont understand the logic of removing someones ability to converse if they dont understand why they're wrong.. they cant ask questions.

I don't think I've ever seen someone already radicalized reason their way out of it through conversing on the internet. I'm guessing the calculus is that exposing this content to people makes it easy to be suckered in, but we don't see the opposite affect.

You should read this awesome New Yorker article from several years ago: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/11/23/conversion-via...

That said, I think I generally agree that conversion via social media is unlikely. Still, I’m also not sure about my position on banning people. But the above article is a great read.

The Phelps people are disgusting, but they are not terrorists. The thing that is missing from most conversations about white supremacists is that their hate goes beyond words. These are terrorist organizations whose members have committed one violent, murderous act after another, year after year. Banning white supremacists is no different from banning ISIS.

Makes sense. But Westboro is radical, and the above poster had been talking about radicalization, not terrorism.

Most people do not critically evaluate content, especially if their own ego or group identity is involved.

I was waiting for the "only idiots get suckered into wrongthink" comment

Then I'm an idiot too. There are a whole slew of cognitive biases that cause us to prefer our in-group.

welcome to the club!

Actually, their point isn't "only idiots" more than it is "everyone." Cognitive biases are real and hard to overcome and we all can succumb to them.

1hour later

thats how quick it can take to slowly expose people to content and how useless it is to "ban white nationalist content"

v cute headline tho

outbound content is dangerous ban outbound content to make it "harder" but not "impossible" to expose "idiots" to "radical content" https://imgur.com/o14rjegrhk21.png