Hacker News Reader

Comment by underseacables | Hacker News Reader

I’m sorry to say but if the left is upset about Facebook censoring them, well, you kind of asked for it. I hate censorship and I don’t want them to censor anyone, but once you cheer the censoring of others you should be prepared to be censored yourself.

View on HN

Please don't use terms like "the left," or paint with such an incredibly wide brush. It's not helpful, and is part of how we got to here.

but this is basically the whole thrust of the argument in the article.

'Facebook are banning "the right" and thats ok, but more worryingly they are banning people like me'

The thing is, Facebook is banning people who incite violence, share proven false narratives, and espouse extreme racism. If that ends up describing the entirety of "the right", then I don't think the problem is with Facebook.

I don't see anyone being banned for championing small government and lower taxes.

One of the more significant finding when dealing with conflicts between groups is the out-group homogeneity effect. The in-group is perceived as individuals with a diverse range of opinions and believes, while out-groups is generalized and seen as with no/minimal amount of diversity in opinions.

A result of this is that people who incite violence in the in-group is seen as a small minority of extreme voices, while same actions will define the entirety of the out-group. Non-violent behavior, say views about small government and lower taxes, can also be discarded since it does not fit the generalization.

Anything on the extreme of each "side" is by its very definition extreme.

To Americans I am quite left leaning. By Uk standards I'm probably just to the right of centre.

However, it _shouldn't_ matter what "side" you are on, if you're being a shit, you should be punished.

However that doesn't excuse doxxing, pileons, knowingly spreading fake news. We have to accept that we live in information bubbles unless we activly seek the edges. Its perfectly possible to deliberately ignore bad/illegal behaviour if we think it perpetrated by "our" side.

For example in the US, the majority of the "right" are sympathetic with the "insurrection" but don't like the rioting and looting. However they are not going to speak out because the people doing it are "one of our own"

In the same way that those who align more with the BLM movement will not publicly condemn the rioting and looting that happened in the summer, because it happened by "their side".

Rioting and looting is wrong, and more often than not causes more pain to the people the rioters are supposedly trying to stand up for. But, I have empathy for those who are rioting, its fucking fun, thrilling ans intoxicating

> The thing is, Facebook is banning people who incite violence, share proven false narratives, and espouse extreme racism

The thing is, no, they’re not, and only someone not paying any attention could repeat this false claim.

Blame the author who purports to speak for "the left".

The title of the article is "Facebook is banning leftwing users like me"

This is an op-ed article which has the world "leftwing" as a self-description of the author right in the headline. The author self-description in the article is "leftwing organizer". To speak of "the left" in this context seems fair.

I do agree tho that it's in many many other circumstances not helpful.

I think there's a world of difference between claiming "the left...cheer the censoring of others" and referring to "I, along with a number of other leftwing organizers."

How many people who hold left-wing views have to denounce the censoring of others to invalidate GP's comment? One? Five? In logcal terms, one ought to do it.

Now how many people would it take to invalidate "I, along with a number of other leftwing organizers?" I actually don't think that can be invalidated. It's much more specific than "the left" or "the right."

That's what I meant by an incredibly wide brush.

The article seems thoughtful and goes into quite a bit of detail on why the author claims that "far-left activists" and "far-right activists" are not the same, with examples. One can agree or disagree with the author's conclusions, but they're making a case with evidence, not just slapping a too-wide label out there.

Left and right might as well be called red and blue, banana and cherry, etc. To the common guy (me) there's no real meaning behind it other than "us" and "not us" (= them).

Thinking in these categories and acknowledging their existence is unhelpful to say the least and just highlights how broken the "debate platform" is (and it has crept into journalism as well).

It's a shitfest I stopped trying to comprehend some time ago and a legacy system of times past that overstayed its welcome. Where's the nuance? Where is the meta discussion?

Unfortunately, you will be mocked as an "enlightened centrist" and a "fence-sitter" for taking a non-partisan stance. Both sides will blame you of being an enabler for the opponent.

Please don't take HN threads further into ideological flamewar.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

"The left" is a useless term, and your entire post is based on that faulty premise – as a result, it adds no real value to this discussion.

There is no "the left". This is a shibboleth that you have created.

Is that your response to the author of the article as well, or are just the commenter you are responding to?

> There is no "the left". This is a shibboleth that you have created.

He did use the "the left" in a kind of shibboleth-y way, but I think you actually mean "straw man" here.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com