[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)