[ceejayoz]

> So separatism is only bad if it targets non-whites?

I can't speak for Facebook, and I'm not super with-it on the conflicts in Spain, but it seems like they're making the distinction between "we want our own country" and "we want our own country and we want to violently purge everyone else from it".

[neetdeth]

But they don't say that, and if they did, you certainly wouldn't need any new policies to ban them. There are the 8chan lunatics, but outside that there are a wide range of views on what the white nationalist end-goal is and how to achieve it.

I'm reminded of the Sargon v Richard Spencer debate here. Sargon's line of attack was essentially this: You advocate for an ethnostate, people will not react well to the non-violent policies you publicly advocate to bring this about, thus there will be violence, therefore your rhetoric is violent. Even if you approve this line of reasoning, you have to admit that it can be applied to any separatist movement anywhere in the world.

[ceejayoz]

> But they don't say that

Nor should they. I helped run a large, active web forum for years. We found general rules and moderator discretion were far more valuable than a list of 800 different "you can't do foo" specific rules, because the bad actors tie up all your time lawyering about the specifics.

[neetdeth]

As long as you're admitting that there's no general principle being evenly applied here, and it is entirely discretionary on Facebook's part, we have an understanding.

e: But it's not an arbitrary exercise of power when I do it!

[ceejayoz]

One can have a general set of principles behind moderation decisions without making them available to the public.