White nationalists are misguided idiots. We’ve already seen from historical example what they can do to a country if they ever gain power. But Facebook is still wrong to announce that from next week, it will “prevent praise, support and representation of white nationalism and separatism.”
Yes, Facebook is a private platform that has the right to restrict whatever content it wants. And yes, on paper, white nationalism is a pretty stupid ideology rooted in racism, historic myths, and at least in Europe, excessive alcohol consumption.
But companies that have privileged positions in empowering social discourse should be wary of shutting down political speech, so long as it isn’t explicitly violent. Censorship only feeds the resentment of those who are banned. This is especially relevant in light of white nationalism’s fetishization of victimhood driven purity-resistance narratives. Their whole schtick nowadays has to do with the supposed victimhood of the white race.
[Read: Facebook bans white nationalist speech]
Moreover, because of Facebook’s reliance on algorithms to detect offending speech, this approach risks inadvertently silencing those who actually oppose white supremacism. It certainly puts at risk any ability to take a nuanced deep dive into the intellectual roots of white supremacism. And that’s a problem because that deep dive is the best way to counter white supremacism.
Yet, Facebook already has very little credibility when it comes to protecting online free speech that matters most: activists holding bad governments to account. Facebook has obstructed Russian journalist Alexey Navalny, for example, a key critic of Vladimir Putin. With that in mind, what confidence can we possibly have that Facebook won’t use this first step of censorship to identify other political ideologies it disagrees with?
On that note, I would suggest groups that offer extreme viewpoints in countering white supremacism should also be concerned here. Consider the hatred for police officers that defines elements of Black Lives Matter and the hatred for pharmaceutical and energy executives that defines elements of environmentalist groups. Or Bernie Sanders’ followers’ hatred (that’s what it is) for “millionaires and billionaires.” Would they like Facebook to take them off the platform? Might any of them at least temper their language in light of this ban?
Ultimately, the issue here is one of tolerance for stupidity in furtherance of tolerance for more debate. That is the choice U.S. constitutional law has made. It is the same choice Facebook and other social media companies should make.
