[HN Gopher] Facebook shuts down major left wing group in Britain ___________________________________________________________________ Facebook shuts down major left wing group in Britain Author : jimmy2020 Score : 100 points Date : 2021-01-22 21:46 UTC (1 hours ago) (HTM) web link (swp.org.uk) (TXT) w3m dump (swp.org.uk) | ffggvv wrote: | glad no one can be mad because they are a private company :) | mhh__ wrote: | I assume this is a mistake, although I think they're mad I don't | think the SWP are malicious a la some political sects | rvz wrote: | > I assume this is a mistake... | | This isn't their first _' mistake'_ to shut them down. Unless | of course Facebook believes that this group has broken their | rules which resulted them on getting shut down. | | Regardless, Facebook is a private platform and can shut down | _whoever_ they want. Mistake or not. | Veen wrote: | Yes, it seems unlikely this is deliberate. The SWP is about as | likely to forment a revolution or incite violence as Judi | Dench. They're a bunch of harmless eccentrics. | fao_ wrote: | Quite literally. As an anarcho-communist, the only thing the | SWP have done in the last 10 years is provide protest signs | to people. | chroem- wrote: | Facebook is a private platform: they're free to block any | content they want, malicious or not. | ameister14 wrote: | One problem with moderating content in this way is that it | makes it clearer and clearer that they no longer need the | protections provided by section 230 of the Communications | Decency Act. | | It's not injurious to them to moderate content, clearly, | since they are doing it. | | By pulling this crap and especially by doing it | algorithmically they are pushing the internet in a difficult | direction. | mhh__ wrote: | They also mainly motivated by money, which allows us to make | at least educated guesses as to what happened in matters like | these | chroem- wrote: | That's irrelevant, because a private company can't be | compelled to support someone else's speech against their | will. If you don't like it, then take political action. | | Edit: For those unaware, this is the devil's advocate take. | HN has been remarkably pro-corporate censorship lately, and | only a matter of weeks later its coming back to bite pro- | censorship advocates. | JoshTriplett wrote: | You're assuming, rather uncharitably, that people in | favor of "private entities cannot be compelled to host | the speech of others" only support that point of view | because it serves other political stances they hold, | rather than as a general principle. | | A site is free to ban all left-wing groups, all right- | wing groups, all centrist groups, all groups with an 'e' | in their names, all hate groups, or all of the above. | Others are free to react to those bans accordingly, and | choose whether to associate/support/host the site or not. | r00fus wrote: | Exactly. This was what Facebook wanted, for whatever | reasons. Unless they say otherwise. | 23B1 wrote: | I'm mostly tired of this take, especially by | technologists. | | First off: you're right. You can't compel a private | company to support speech. But the entirety of political | discourse happens online now. There's a clear and | prevailing interest that free speech can happen online, | at scale. | neves wrote: | That's why Facebook must become a public entity. | drcross wrote: | Well, in a capitalistic society with government | oversight, you can expect the strong arm of government to | lay the ban hammer on them. Participate in our society | and be governed by the rules of our nation. As a | capitalist fanboy I cant wait for the sanctioning to | happen. | steffandroid wrote: | Might want to read up on Comrade Delta. | mike_d wrote: | > The SWP Facebook page regularly posts [...] against Boris | Johnson's Covid policies. | | I can't find any specifics on the position they hold, but the | UK is pretty much in line with the US on mask mandates and | lockdowns in hotspots. | cesaref wrote: | now we see the violence inherent in the system. | | Sorry, had to get that out. | threeseed wrote: | There was also a historical re-enactment page removed in December | because they had militia in their title [1] | | Looks to just be an over-eager moderation engine. | | https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-dorset-55215949 | RobLach wrote: | It's always some external thing: "the algorithm", as if that | doesn't just mean "the way we programmed it". | | Computing systems are do not act on their own. That the system | did this was because it was allowed to, or more accurately, | told to. | throwawaygh wrote: | _> It's always some external thing: "the algorithm", as if | that doesn't just mean "the way we programmed it"._ | | This is true. | | _> Computing systems are do not act on their own._ | | That doesn't mean that computer systems behave the way that | we intend them to behave, or even that we really fully | understand our own intent! | | How much of your own code have you formally verified? | (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_verification) | | How much of your own code even has a precise enough purpose | that the spec of what it's supposed to do is shorter than the | length of the code? Such that you could even in theory | formally verify that the implementation is in some sense | "correct"? | | For that matter.... how much of your code has a precise | enough purpose that the spec of what it's supposed to do can | be written down in formal language _at all_? | | And actually... how much of your code has a precise enough | purpose that the spec of what it's supposed to do can be | written down in ENGLISH _at all_? | | I don't think something like an "extremism filter" can ever | be implemented in a bug-free way, because I don't think | there's a precise enough definition of what "bug-free" would | even mean. | | The problem of people blaming bad outcomes on "the algorithm" | is real, and organizations should take responsibility for | misclassifications generated by code that they own and | operate. | | It's unhelpful to pretend like engineers and the | organizations they work for have zero agency. | | However, it's equally unhelpful to pretend like buggy | behavior aligns with the _intent_ of the engineer | /organization. | stretchcat wrote: | When software goes wrong, the company that decided to | create and operate that software for profit is responsible | for whatever negative impact that software might have, | regardless of whether these problems were foreseen. | | (And in the case of automated moderation, the software | getting something wrong really should be considered | foreseen consequence anyway. Facebook knew, or should have | known, that these systems would have false positives.) | throwawaygh wrote: | Yes, "organizations should take responsibility for | misclassifications generated by code that they own and | operate." | | But also, "the computer was told to do the buggy thing" | is misleading because it suggests mens rea. | AurelioB wrote: | Sure, makers should always be responsible & accountable for | how a system behaves, but this seems like a textbook Hanlon's | razor example | HarryHirsch wrote: | People generally misunderstand Hanlon's Razor. It's | immaterial if someone is evil or just stupid, the only | thing that matters is that they should not be making | decisions about other people. | | (Charles Williams' _All Hallows ' Eve_ is an extended | meditation about just that.) | splistud wrote: | Well if it's stupid, and not evil, they weren't making a | decision, right? | LatteLazy wrote: | Facebook did this back in December too before admitting a | "mistake" and reversing it. Get it together please FB. | | I tried to see what the SWP comments on covid were. They seem | pretty mainstream (not covid denialism). Ironically their | "demands" from December are now government policy... | | https://swp.org.uk/schools-are-not-safe/ | | I'm not sure where I stand on Facebook's (etc) right to remove | legal content, but I would like a requirement for any platform to | specifically state why they removed content. Too often things are | taken down for no reason and get put back up based on twitter | outrage rather than any logical basis. YouTube are getting | infamous for this... | BoorishBears wrote: | Any time I see one of these "mistakes" I read it as "content | got flooded with reports and our automated system took it down" | mhh__ wrote: | > "content got flooded with reports and our automated system | took it down" | | I assume this plays a role. I really like facebook meme | groups, but every single one inevitably gets "zucced" because | of overzealous reports by people who genuinely don't get the | problem. They even moderate themselves now to avoid reports. | LatteLazy wrote: | I think that would be fine as an initial reason. Having had | that back in Dec, you'd think they would put SWP on a safe | list? Who knows, I guess. And that's the problem, not so much | the taking down as the taking down with zero reason or | discussion... | throwaways885 wrote: | This is how the right has been feeling for a while. This is | nothing new behaviour-wise for Facebook, the only | difference is this gets more favourable media attention. | LatteLazy wrote: | There are some big open questions for us as a society on | this. | | I don't approve of calls for violence and I thought | Facebook etc were doing well at free speech until the | last year or two. It seems like no one is happy with that | anymore. | elmomle wrote: | Please, don't draw a false equivalency between a major | political party that does not play host to violent | rhetoric, on the one hand, and groups that where plans | (very real, actionable, and actioned-on plans!) to | subvert the government are incubated, on the other. | | Put another way--let's not turn sedition into another us- | vs-them political game. That's how democracy ends. | mrec wrote: | The SWP is not by any stretch of the imagination a major | political party. | | ETA: to quantify that a bit, in the 2010 General Election | the SWP ran as part of the Trade Unionist and Socialist | Coalition. Nationally that coalition received 0.04% of | votes cast. I can't find any indication that they even | put up any candidates in subsequent elections. | BoorishBears wrote: | Does this actually affect the correctness of their point? | | Acting like a reaction to a politically charged breach of | the capitol building is equivalent to a page sharing | views about COVID and workers rights getting removed? | | It actually feels absurd to type that sentence out... | gotoeleven wrote: | Yep when those rioters broke into the capital building | and rummaged through nancy pelosi's office we were very | close to that guy in the bearskin becoming our king. | throwaway2245 wrote: | > this gets more favourable media attention. | | The "favourable media attention" you are talking about is | here the Socialist Workers' Party reporting about itself | on its own website. | | I'd wager the BBC will not cover this at all, in contrast | to acres of free promotion for Parler etc. | _jal wrote: | Right, the victim in this case self-reporting it is | "favorable media attention", unlike the mostly false | whinging from the right, which only gets repeated | national legislative attempts in the US and endless media | repeat on national outlets. | mrcartmenez wrote: | Well, Facebook is run by the far right, like Peter Thiel so no | wonder. | 1MachineElf wrote: | Facebook is absolutely dominated by the far-right, which is why | left-wing groups, pages, and users are being censored en-masse. | /s | tehjoker wrote: | Not yet, but FB's incentive structure is anti-left (they're a | corporation natch) and their head of public policy is a | hardcore Republican that worked for the GWB administration | and energy companies. | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joel_Kaplan | JIBitator wrote: | "The SWP Facebook page regularly posts in support of Palestine". | That explains... ;) | uberman wrote: | The organization bills itself (on it's Facebook page) as: | | _The Socialist Workers Party is the largest revolutionary group | in Britain_ | | My guess is that tag line is causing automated take down issues. | HarryHirsch wrote: | Facebook has been around since 2004, that excuse must have been | used before. | uberman wrote: | I'm sure it has. Perhaps a more recent _" revolutionary | event"_ in the USA has prompted a change in automated | filtering. Just a hunch though. | mcbutterbunz wrote: | I would think that any change to automated filtering would | allow someone to see which groups would be shut down before | actually shutting them down. | king_magic wrote: | Honestly, I'd be happy to see _all_ political groups - left or | right - expunged from Facebook. Politics and social media clearly | do not mix, as this year has demonstrated all too brutally well. | loceng wrote: | The problem is when people are able to be blocked/filtered out, | so then all rational/reasonable voices are lost from the | conversations. If these irrational people had to filter through | rational/reasoned long-form and short responses, I'd be curious | to know what the outcome would be. | harry8 wrote: | The _only_ way to do that is to expunge Facebook. I 'm ok with | that but i bet you're not. | cgb223 wrote: | I deleted my Facebook on January 1st as a New Years resolution | and honestly have never felt mentally better. | | I just text friends directly and share pictures with people I | know would like them. | | I spend less time checking my phone which adds up to more time | to do other things or just staying more on task in general. | | Try it! If you don't want to delete all social media, start by | deleting all your accounts except the one you use the most to | _connect with others_ (not to read news or get opinions). It's | 100% worth it | Analemma_ wrote: | I've been part of several "general-purpose" internet | communities that tried having a "no politics" rule. It never, | ever works. You can _almost_ make it work if your community is | a) dedicated to a single topic, like Hacker News _and_ b) has | sufficient human moderation. So hobby forums and subreddits can | maybe get away with it, but Facebook - no way. | zepto wrote: | This seems like a political stance that shouldn't be shared on | a social media site like hacker news. | | /s | t-writescode wrote: | Would you like to start a group that attempts to expunge all | political groups from Facebook? A collection of people all | holding a particular societal stance who want to further that | stance, in an effort for their collective resources and voice | to be used in that furtherance? | throwawaygh wrote: | Private mommy groups often have "no politics" rules that the | moderates genuinely believe they are enforcing, and yet those | same groups are anti-vax cess pools. In some you can even find | absolutely brutal rants about _elected officials_ such as | school board members, which, again, group admins believe are | "not political". | | So. Not sure what "banning all political groups" would even | mean. | aaomidi wrote: | What a stance. | | Maybe if you advocated for 'no politics on facebook', it would | sound better. | | Social media has given voice to marginalized groups, and people | seemingly fear that voice. It's something to take a look at, | rather than sweep it under the rug with bans. | throwaway894345 wrote: | If by "marginalized" we mean "radicals", then yes. If we mean | "minorities", then you're probably just propagating the myths | that minorities hold far-left-wing views. On the contrary, | while minority views skew left-wing, only a minority of | minorities hold far-left beliefs and there's a lot more | political diversity among minorities than there is between | minority and majority groups. For example, "defund the | police" is a popular left-wing mantra, but only a minority of | black Americans favor it. | jacobolus wrote: | Just to be clear: you think activists who want social work | to be done by social workers rather than cops should have | their online political organizations shut down, because | many black people disagree? | delecti wrote: | Anywhere people are, there is also politics. An argument could | be made for getting rid of social media entirely, but as long | as people are using social media, politics follow. | thaumasiotes wrote: | > Anywhere people are, there is also politics. | | Indeed. I've had a simple model in mind for a while: | conflict resolution /\ / \ | violent \ /\ / \ | commercial \ political | | This makes sense to me, but I get the feeling very few other | people see "politics" this way. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2021-01-22 23:00 UTC)