That is a general problem but it doesn't address the argument. We already find ISIS recruitment videos and suicide ideation groups bad but where do we draw the line? If it's so difficult to define what should not be allowed in the open then I don't know what can be unallowed, including ISIS recruitment videos in the name of freedom of speech.

Talking about ISIS is a red herring. Are they considered white suprenacists now?

If we are to judge by social media companies past behavior [1] it’s regular conservative and liberal opinions that will be considered hate speech or white supremacy

[1] https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.foxbusiness.com/technology/...

The comment I originally responded to wasn't about white supremacy, but about censoring discourse. ISIS propaganda is as much "discourse" as white nationalist propaganda is, so why didn't you defend ISIS when it was deplatformed years ago? I realize that's kind of a gotcha, so I'll ask a similar question: given that it appears you feel that any deplatforming based on ideology is bad, do you criticize facebook for having deplatformed ISIS?

To pre-address your other comment, neither white nationalist propaganda nor ISIS propaganda necessarily includes calls to violence. So the incitement of violence standard applies to neither.

If not, what differentiates ISIS from White nationalists? Both are violent groups that wish to kill people different from them. As far as I can tell, one just looks a lot more like me. They're both dangerous, and we shouldn't let either recruit people on facebook. What is the flaw in that line of reasoning?

As for that case, it was dismissed earlier this month[1], apparently because the plaintiffs didn't actually have any examples of wrongdoing on the part of companies, and just filed the suit to raise awareness of freedom watch's advocacy[2].

[1]: https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/25495855/FREEDOM_WA...

[2]: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/distric...

ISIS has a clearly defined religious teaching and a core part of their message is using power as well as violence to push their religious teachings onto others to create a world Islamic kaliphate.

On the other hand what is being called alt right and white supremacisrs by mainstream organizations is bullshit:

- The economist called Ben Shapiro alt right today https://mobile.twitter.com/TheEconomist/status/1111248348114...

- The guardian says Jordan Peterson is supposedly alt right https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/science/201...

- Bret Weinstein is supposedly alt right

And ridiculously enough Ben Shapiro is a Jew that is the biggest hate target of the alt right, and Jordan Peterson is hated by the alt right such as Richard spencer and Vox Day.

You're including the alt right on an argument about white supremacists. Could you perhaps answer my questions without taking about the alt right, who aren't being discussed by anyone but you.

White supremacists also advocate violence against other races often to subjugate them. This is highly similar to isis.

Or are you claiming that all members of the alt right are white supremacists?

ADL defines alt right and white supremacy to be the same: https://www.adl.org/resources/backgrounders/alt-right-a-prim...

SPLC also say they are the same: https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/ideo...

The opinions of SPLC and ADL is especially relevant because mainstream media and social media companies such as Facebook seem to have relationships with them as well as similar orgs to define actions against people.

So no, we are taking about the same poorly defined term because these orgs is an authority to Facebook.

The reason it’s bullshit is that these orgs doesn’t relate it to truth and evidence, use their power to slap this label onto anyone that disagree with them and punish people for things they didn’t do.

>This vague term actually encompasses a range of people on the extreme right who reject mainstream conservatism in favor of forms of conservatism that embrace implicit or explicit racism or white supremacy.

Unless you're of the opinion that "racism" and "white supremacy" are synonymous, the ADL does not define them as the same.

>So no, we are taking about the same poorly defined term.

To be clear, the "alt right" isn't white nationalist, it is, however, a white nationalist recruiting tool. Sort of like how you don't just start out as a random person and then the next day you become Jihadi Jane. You're slowly radicalized. The alt right to full-on white supremacist pipeline is the same way.

You start off interested in self help, so you read 12 rules for life; then get caught up in Peterson's weird ideas about western culture; then pretty soon you're seeing not just his youtube lectures, but other lectures about western culture; and then videos about the decline of white/western culture; and then you're watching Richard Spencer; then you shoot up a church.

Now absolutely, granted, not everyone follows the entire path, very few people end up radicalized, but while I'll absolutely agree with you that Peterson isn't a white supremacist, he's absolutely a useful idiot for them.

But again, let's stick to people who have been accused of being "White Supremacists" since you're the one using the term alt-right, not Facebook. Which innocent people are getting accidentally confused for "white supremacists" specifically?

From the same ADL source on white supremacy:

> White supremacist Richard Spencer, who runs the National Policy Institute, a tiny white supremacist think tank, coined the term “Alternative Right”

Or from the SPLC source:

> The racist so-called “alt-right,” which came to prominence in late 2015, is white nationalism’s most recent formulation

Both clearly use them in the same breath.

We can argue semantics about one being the tool for the other etc etc. But that doesn't change the fact that they are being tightly related by organizations that is an authority to Facebook.

SPLC and ADL is very aware of its power, and has related much of the prominent dissenters of wildly different ideologies to what they claim is alt-right; Maajid (an arab muslim, they lost a lawsuit on this one and apologized), Jordan Peterson (an individualist liberal), Ben Shapiro (a pretty normal conservative), Dave Rubin (a classical liberal) etc etc.

SPLC and ADL are by this evidence too often bullshitters that don't relate what they say to truth, but instead relate it to their ideology that is not preoccupied with truth-seeking. It is really a shame their views are elevated like this as a justification for Facebooks and other organizations abuse of power.

You still haven't given an example of someone being called a "white supremacist". Would you please? Or admit that you are fearmongering.

Again, Facebook didn't use the word already right. They're talking about white supremacists. You're arguing that these are the same thing. So if that's the case, you should have ample examples of people calling Jordan Peterson a white supremacist also.

If not, then maybe they aren't the same thing, and your equivocation is unwarranted and you should stop attempting to confuse the subject.

With regards to examples I can do better than showing how people use it in the same breath. Here [1, 2] are examples of where SPLC specifically uses alt-right and white supremacy to describe the viewpoints related to Jordan Peterson, Ben Shapiro, Dave Rubin etc in the same article.

I've also shown that even the authoritarian sources Facebook trusts use alt-right and white supremacist in the same breath when defining the terms. These articles are no accident, this is what they believe.

This is not fear mongering. This is people that don't mind using their power to accuse viewpoint opponents for things they didn't do and with no evidence claiming they hold reprehensible viewpoints.

Edit: can't reply due to message depth limit, but the debate here is about facebook suppressing people like Jordan Peterson, Ben Shapiro, Dave Rubin using arguments made by SPLC and ADL such as the one in [1,2]. Why do they have the right to suppress other peoples viewpoints on dubious grounds with no recourse?

It is pretty clear from your arguments that you agree that they are related or as you say "a white nationalist recruiting tool" regardless of how you otherwise view them. The process facebook institute will therefore suppress these viewpoints based upon no evidence and by subjectively mischaracterizing their viewpoints, with no recourse for this power abuse.

[1] https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2018/06/07/prageru%E2%80...

[2] https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2016/08/25/whose-alt-rig...

Right so both of those article said exactly what I said: there's a process of radicalzation and people like Rubin (and Peterson) feed into that process.

Once more: please give an example of someone calling Jordan Peterson a white supremacist, or admit alternatively admit that no one has done so and you were fearmongering.

Not saying jbp associates with white supremacists, or serves as a useful idiot for white supremacists. That's all well known. You claimed that people called Jordan Peterson a white supremacist. You still haven't justified that claim, and that's because, quite simply, it's false.

You're fearmongering. No one has called Jordan Peterson a white supremacist. That's just a factually incorrect statement. They've said he unintentionally helps white supremacists, he occasionally associates with them, take selfies with them sure, but for all your trying, you still haven't been able to find someone actually call jbp a white supremacist.

So perhaps, just maybe, your worry is misplaced.

I’d like to more clearly find out where and if we disagree where it matters the most. Do you think it is justified to ban or suppress content on social media from people that SPLC/ADL view as part of the radicalization process? Eg jordan Peterson, Ben Shapiro and Dave Rubin.

>Do you think it is justified to ban or suppress content on social media from people that SPLC/ADL view as part of the radicalization process? Eg jordan Peterson, Ben Shapiro and Dave Rubin.

I certainly do, but evidence (e.g. historic enforcement patterns) indicates that Facebook does not.

Note that my opinion on this isn't global and without nuance. There are things that Jordan Peterson does and says that aren't, at all, controversial and are even occasionally interesting and thought provoking. Not everything he does radicalizes people. Same with, I assume, Rubin and Shapiro, although I don't pay them enough attention to know or care either way.

However, that's all beside the point. Facebook *doesn't appear to thing that they're worth censoring. I'm not sure why my opinion is at all relevant.

You still haven't given me that example, by the way.

Huh? How is it a red herring? Their propaganda is considered speech that is worth censoring. May be specifically naming ISIS makes this too easy. How about generally censoring radical Islamist propaganda that doesn't necessarily name ISIS specifically? The point that you're not really replying to is that people are apparently willing to censor speech for various reasons, one of them links to particular ideology. Is this okay or is it not?

Free speech doesn’t cover incitement to violence, and it is already illegal and that is why it’s a red herring. Advocating for violence against innocent people is not primarily ideology, but someone being a bad human being that should go to jail for breaking the law.

You really don’t need hate speech and white supremacy policies to prohibit speech that is already illegal, but you need it to suppress speech that some people might disagree with when they want to abuse their power to suppress it.

Regarding the first paragraph, I know, but that isn't under discussion. What is under discussion is censorship of speech due to ideology, perhaps because it leads to violence if although there are no direct calls for violence. White supremacy and radical Islamism both need not call for violence, but the ultimate conclusion of the ideology is violence. It sounds like you don't want to censor either, which I think is consistent.

You are still assuming a clear definition of what white supremacy is, which Facebook doesn’t provide.

How do you think about the false positives?

ADL defines alt right to be white supremacy to be the same: https://www.adl.org/resources/backgrounders/alt-right-a-prim...

SPLC also say they are the same: https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/ideo...

These orgs provide the best definition we can get right now due to Facebook relying on others to define it instead of providing clear definitions, and these orgs is an authority to Facebook. If there was ever an attempt at using power while abdicating responsibility that is it.

The reason while any action build upon this is bullshit is that these orgs doesn’t relate it to truth and evidence, use their power to slap this label onto anyone that disagree with them and punish people for things they didn’t do.

You were given a definition of white supremacy below and elsewhere so I won't repeat others. It just seems like under this sense of freedom of speech we shouldn't censor radical Islamism or white supremacy if we can't ban speech merely due to ideology leading to violence. That is a consistent and fair sense of morality I think.

That is a bit extreme from my worldview and not necessary to be more balanced. I am arguing that facebooks process is biased, and facebooks authoritative sources are unaccountable to fix their own mistakes and ideologically biased in a way that is not evidence based. A better process with an adversarial appeal with authoritative viewpoint opponents would have compensated for some of this.

To figure out if we disagree where it matters the most, do you think it is justified to ban or suppress content on social media from people that SPLC/ADL view as part of the radicalization process? Eg jordan Peterson, Ben Shapiro and Dave Rubin.

free speech in US does actually cover incitement to violence. in Europe it doesn't

Incitement to imminent violent action is illegal https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action

Well, ISIS is a criminal organization for reasons unrelated to their speech. Once they have become one, it's not unreasonable to make their recruitment videos illegal to distribute to other people, on the basis that doing so amounts to conspiracy to recruit people to commit crimes (but mere possession and watching them should still be legal, because in and of itself that doesn't help them).

What happened to Heather Heyer was also not speech. What happened to Clementa Pinckney and 8 other African-Americans at the Charleston church shooting was not speech. What happened at the Tree of Life Pittsburgh synagogue shooting was not speech.

Shouldn't the same argument apply to the videos that radicalized those murderers?

No. Why should it?

My parent comment had said that conspiracy to recruit people to commit crimes is not an unreasonable basis for making it illegal to distribute recruitment videos for ISIS, because they are a criminal organization due to their violence, not their speech. That implies that that should also not be an unreasonable basis for making it illegal to distribute recruitment videos for violent white nationalist organizations.

Does that answer your question?

Yes, thank you for explaining. I misunderstood the context of your question.

If you can prove that any particular video did so, sure, I don't see a problem with that.

are you blind? white supremacists kill more people in the west than ISIS

You can improve this comment but removing the question and providing a source for your claim.

Rubbish. You're claiming that "white supremacists" kill more people than the Bataclan murders, the bombing of the Ariane Grande concert and a host of other atrocities (Sweden, etc.) carried out by self-proclaimed ISIS supporters.

That's not only wrong it's highly offensive.

You are offended by an unsupported claim, and proceed to make an opposite unsupported claim. Now I'm offended not by your assertion, but by your lack of substance.

I googled for "extremism murder statistics": This is only the US [1], and I have not looked at methodology, but it supports GPs claim, not yours. Please discuss, but do so using substance, not master suppression techniques.

[1] https://www.adl.org/murder-and-extremism-2018

Well I think the problem lies in that all his examples were from outside the US, and not only during 2018 which is when and where you gave an example. Here's another source that is only in the US that seems to agree with Wildgoose [1](pdf) from 2010-2016. This source certainly doesn't count as many deaths (note your link said their were 313 deaths from right-wing extremists from 2009-2018) it only goes from 2010-2016 saying there were 140 deaths (note your link also says 50 deaths happened by right wing extremists in 2018). I'm not sure what the discrepancy is there in not accounting for all the deaths from your link. This link states that from 2010-2016 68 deaths were from Jihadist-inspired terrorists while 18 deaths were from white nationalists and extremists. Yet again it would be nice to see data from the whole of the West.

Just to give you another source from the same people which seems to agree with Wildgoose's parent atleast with its reasoning (albeit by making a few qualifiers on the dataset that bend it to be in favor of that reasoning) [2] from 2001-2016 in the US.

[1](pdf): https://www.start.umd.edu/pubs/START_IdeologicalMotivationsO... [2]: https://www.start.umd.edu/pubs/START_ECDB_IslamistFarRightHo...

Wait, are you claiming they’re not? Lol

I do not have to claim that an untruth is such. It is rather those peddling untruth and statements not relating to truth at all (bullshit) that have to confuse everyone else to a sufficient degree to twist their worldviews for their purpose.

Unfortunately trying to control others viewpoints hurts yourself as much as anyone else because you are making yourself and what you can learn from others less adaptive to reality.

Is it trying to control others’ viewpoints to say that the KKK is a racist, white supremacist group? I thought we’re all in the marketplace of ideas here. You are literally telling me what to think, which is what your original comment purported to be against.

Show me one example of a white nationalist action by Jordan Peterson or Ben Shapiro, and I’ll be right there beside you fighting it. It’s on you to justify your claim.

Marketplace of ideas is not about throwing out unfounded claims and with a high likelihood have others treat them like a proposition founded in truth seeking. Rather it will be treated as the bullshit it most likely is unless you supply evidence to the claim.