Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 17 submissions in the queue.
Politics
posted by chromas on Saturday April 14 2018, @05:56PM   Printer-friendly
from the Smells-like-censorship-or-teen-spirit dept.

On the Daily Dot:

The Facebook pages of Richard Spencer, the alt-right leader who was famously punched in the face last year, have been suspended.

The pages for the National Policy Institute, a lobbying group of sorts for white nationalists, and Spencer's online magazine "altright.com," vanished on Friday after Vice sent the social network an inquiry about hate groups. They had a combined following of almost 15,000 followers.

The action was taken just days after Mark Zuckerberg emphasized during his testimony before Congress that Facebook does not allow hate speech. But it wasn't until Vice flagged the accounts that Facebook suspended them. The social network said in a statement that it identifies violating pages using human monitors, algorithms, and partnerships with organizations.

Also at Engadget and Vice.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 4, Informative) by Arik on Sunday April 15 2018, @01:51AM (4 children)

    by Arik (4543) on Sunday April 15 2018, @01:51AM (#667118) Journal
    I don't actually agree with him (or you, at least not in full) but I also don't agree with whoever is downmodding him troll. Just thought I'd get that out, I know it's not necessarily you. He can be wrong without being a troll. He's a pretty serious poster usually.

    It's a mistake to extend human rights to legal fictions. If the various stockholders, officers, and employees want to spend money on political speech, they shoudl be free to do so, but the corporation itself should be absolutely prohibited from having any hand in it.

    But he's right about another point. If a baker can't offer a cake with writing on it and then refuse to make it with writing he finds offensive, how does facebook get the right to refuse to carry writing *they* find offensive, hmm?

    The safe harbor concept is predicated explicitly on the business not doing this. And if that goes away then they can be sued by anyone and everyone that finds anything anyone ever said on facebook offensive.

    Which, now that I think of it, wouldn't be the worst thing that could happen.

    --
    If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +2  
       Insightful=1, Informative=1, Total=2
    Extra 'Informative' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   4  
  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Whoever on Sunday April 15 2018, @02:21AM (3 children)

    by Whoever (4524) on Sunday April 15 2018, @02:21AM (#667127) Journal

    If a baker can't offer a cake with writing on it and then refuse to make it with writing he finds offensive,

    But that's the key issue, isn't it? They didn't get as far as discussing what the cake would look like, what messages it might include. The baker refused to make the cake not because of any message on it, but because of who the customers were.

    • (Score: 2) by Arik on Sunday April 15 2018, @02:40AM (2 children)

      by Arik (4543) on Sunday April 15 2018, @02:40AM (#667133) Journal
      It was going to be a wedding cake for a same sex couple. They found that offensive. Any text that would fit the occasion would therefore be offensive to them, so no, I don't think your quibble is the key issue.
      --
      If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
      • (Score: 3, Informative) by Whoever on Sunday April 15 2018, @03:06AM (1 child)

        by Whoever (4524) on Sunday April 15 2018, @03:06AM (#667144) Journal

        Any text that would fit the occasion would therefore be offensive to them

        Without discussing the actual text, you cannot possibly know that. Besides which, it's quite clear that the baker's objection was to people getting married, not to any speech that might or might not have been involved.

        • (Score: 2) by Arik on Sunday April 15 2018, @03:13AM

          by Arik (4543) on Sunday April 15 2018, @03:13AM (#667146) Journal
          A wedding cake is not just symbolic is it *primarily* a symbol, it is 'speech' in and of itself, aside from any text placed on it, in roughly the same way that burning the flag is speech even if there is are no words, spoken or written, to accompany the act.
          --
          If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?