[spaceseaman]

I completely agree with you, however I find this bit a little mysterious:

> With facebook actively suppressing certain ideologies

The only ideologies I've heard of Facebook suppressing lately are Neo-Nazi and alt-right groups following the Charlottesville stuff. I don't take issue with these ideologies being suppressed.

Am I missing something?

EDIT: Apparently so because someone just went through my history and down-voted all my comments...

[mschuster91]

> Am I missing something?

Yep, both Facebook and Twitter regularly plop up on media for shutting down or suspending left-wing sites. For example, "Kein Mensch ist illegal" was even awarded a prize by FB (2014) and in 2016 their admin got suspended (https://www.mimikama.at/allgemein/facebook-sperrt-admin-von-...). Problem here is that the alt-right (ab)uses the reporting features combined with sensitive anti-spam measures at the providers. Given enough reporting Nazis, even the biggest accounts are easy targets. That the Big 3 (FB, Twitter, Youtube) don't have a way to reach a human or file an appeal at a court of law (which I can do, for example, if my telco provider shuts down my internet access and with it my email account) doesn't exactly help either. Big-ish accounts with media influence or people with connections to employees of the companies may help, but this is a luxury only a few people have.

> EDIT: Apparently so because someone just went through my history and down-voted all my comments...

Don't worry - had the same thing happen to me recently, I believe after the Charlottesville murder.

[thephyber]

> The only ideologies I've heard of Facebook suppressing lately

Conservatives put up a fit when they accused Facebook employees of censoring or otherwise biasing the "Trending Topics" feature to prevent conservative stories from appearing there.

Last I heard, about 2 FB employees were suspended or fired over the story, but that's just from memory so I could be completely wrong. As a result of the accusations, FB reportedly converted Trending Topics to be completely automated. It was probably easier to abuse for coordinated troll armies once it was automated.

[Qw3r7]

I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.

Evelyn Beatrice Hall

Suppression of opinion implicitly violates the Bill of Rights.

[thephyber]

> Suppression of opinion implicitly violates the Bill of Rights

NO.

The Bill of Rights are enumerated protections FROM THE GOVERNMENT.

The concept of "Freedom of Speech" is different and more broad than the First Amendment to the US Constitution, but a private entity not protecting it is not a violation of the First Amendment or any other 9. Yes, the double-negative is important.

[throwanem]

The Constitution remains amendable. We hear arguments frequently that the Second fails to sufficiently account for modernity. Perhaps the First does, too.

[fhood]

Sorry, this is my personal nitpick but suppression of opinion by facebook does not violate the bill of rights.

[rhizome]

Suppression of opinion implicitly violates the Bill of Rights.

Facebook's content policies are not subject to the Bill of Rights, which constrain only the government.

[spaceseaman]

I do not consider Nazi ideology an opinion. Their ideas are purely based on maintaining a power dynamic. There's no logic or legitimacy to their ideas, and thus they are not opinions. They change the ideology as needed to maintain power and promote their own strength.

For a historical viewpoint, simply look at how often the German Nazi party would change what classifies as being a Jew or "undesirable". It was only ever about putting fear into people and maintaining control. They had no real opinions on why these people were undesirable - those could be made up after the fact.

If Nazism was an opinion, I would be willing to defend it. But it's not, and it thrives when it's given the legitimacy as such.

EDIT: To try and tie this back to the topic at hand, are blatant lies still "opinions"? What about death threats and hate speech? My point is simply that we already make distinctions about what kind of speech is free, so I feel that Facebook instituting policies that align with these existing rules makes sense - even though I feel that they are becoming too large to be the de-facto source for information on the Internet.

[icebraining]

simply look at how often the German Nazi party would change what classifies as being a Jew

Can you provide any links? My google-fu is failing me.

[thisacctforreal]

Friendly reminder that downvotes should be reserved for comments you don't want to see on the site, not for comments you disagree with.

[nl]

Friendly reminder that PG said the opposite. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=117171

[chadgeidel]

Even if I use a million sock-puppets to amplify my voice? I generally agree with the idea that one (physical) person's stated opinion shouldn't be squashed, but we are dealing with scale here.

[s73ver_]

I guarantee you they were not talking about violent threats or racial slurs.

[nl]

EDIT: Apparently so because someone just went through my history and down-voted all my comments...

That happens to me a lot these day. Just try saying anything about Russian propaganda on Twitter, and watch all your old comments get voted down.

[beedogs]

> EDIT: Apparently so because someone just went through my history and down-voted all my comments...

It should be easy for the admins to find and promptly IP-ban the creep who did this.

[rodgerd]

Unfortunately HN has apparently become a haven for Nazi sympathisers.

[mschuster91]

Hmm. I wouldn't say Nazi sympathisers... I'd rather say extreme libertarians. They see every kind of speech as acceptable, no matter how hard history has proven this kind of speech to lead to ultimate desaster and suffering.

Anyway, HN has always tended to the libertarian side of things, doesn't surprise me that there is also quite a bunch of radical libertarians. Thankfully, there also seem to be some Antifas in here, if only to provide some counterweight...

[jnordwick]

Did you just in a very roundabout way equate libertarians with fascists?

[mschuster91]

No, far from it. I did not equate them (and I never would), but there are a number of libertarians who believe that fascism is a valid part of the political spectrum and covered by free speech.

That does not neccessarily mean that they support fascism itself - in fact, I have yet to see a libertarian who does not say that he/she despises fascism.

[thisacctforreal]

I think a lot of people are equating defense of Nazism with defense of free speech.

I'm not sure if they're wrong or right.