Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Facebook Bans Louis Farrakhan, Milo Yiannopoulos, InfoWars and Others

edition.cnn.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 776 posts

Re: Facebook Bans Louis Farrakhan, Milo Yiannopoulos, InfoWars and Others

#51

Post by WC3w6pXxgGd »

iscrewyou wrote: post #35

It’s only unfortunate that it took social networks this long to ban their toxic behavior and talk. These people did a lot of damage. A lot. All in the name of free speech. And to those saying, just because Facebook can, doesn’t mean they should. These people had the same freedom. Just because they can, they shouldn’t. But they chose hatred. And here we are. You reap what you sow. Facebook doesn’t owe them anything. E…

Just because you disagree with Milo's opinions or consider him toxic is not a reason to ban him.

Re: Facebook Bans Louis Farrakhan, Milo Yiannopoulos, InfoWars and Others

#52

Post by [deleted] »

olivermarks wrote: post #27
ravenstine wrote: post #18

I'm not a fan of either of these people, but how exactly are Milo Yiannopolous and Paul Joseph Watson "dangerous"? Maybe it's not good material for people to be watching, but to call them "dangerous" comes off like the religious right of yore claiming that video games depicting violence are dangerous and need to be censored. I wouldn't normally step in to defend these people, but this article by CNN is a prime exampl…

There has to be some sort of US free speech legal action that could be taken to stop this crack down by an internet platform company on free speech. I'm not sure how many people actually take FB seriously as a 'news' platform, but it can be useful to discuss the way corporate entities such as CNN present information on their specific home pages on Facebook.

[deleted]

Re: Facebook Bans Louis Farrakhan, Milo Yiannopoulos, InfoWars and Others

#53

Post by [deleted] »

olivermarks wrote: post #27
ravenstine wrote: post #18

I'm not a fan of either of these people, but how exactly are Milo Yiannopolous and Paul Joseph Watson "dangerous"? Maybe it's not good material for people to be watching, but to call them "dangerous" comes off like the religious right of yore claiming that video games depicting violence are dangerous and need to be censored. I wouldn't normally step in to defend these people, but this article by CNN is a prime exampl…

There has to be some sort of US free speech legal action that could be taken to stop this crack down by an internet platform company on free speech. I'm not sure how many people actually take FB seriously as a 'news' platform, but it can be useful to discuss the way corporate entities such as CNN present information on their specific home pages on Facebook.

[deleted]

Re: Facebook Bans Louis Farrakhan, Milo Yiannopoulos, InfoWars and Others

#55

Post by busterarm »

dclusin wrote: post #45
olivermarks wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There has to be some sort of US free speech legal action that could be taken to stop this crack down by an internet platform company on free speech. I'm not sure how many people actually take FB seriously as a 'news' platform, but it can be useful to discuss the way corporate entities such as CNN present information on their specific home pages on Facebook.

Freedom of speech is only enforced by the courts w.r.t government entities. Private companies can censor speech for any reason, including "I feel like it."

Actually you're not entirely correct. Private property rights have been ignored in court cases before where that property was the "public square".

This has come up in cases of corporation-owned/built towns meant to house workers that then violated their residents (i.e, employees and their families) free speech rights in said towns. Constitutionally protected speech was upheld vs Private Property rights.

There have been very good arguments made that the same should be applied to Facebook, et. al.

Re: Facebook Bans Louis Farrakhan, Milo Yiannopoulos, InfoWars and Others

#56

Post by Veen »

SolaceQuantum wrote: post #44

I don't know about Paul Joseph but I believe Milo has had cases of publicly naming, threatening to name, doxxing, and mocking trans women that study on the campuses that he's spoken at. I belive this is dangerous behavior due to statistic that trans people are especially vulnerable for being murdered compared to the rest of the American population.

If a group is marginally more likely to suffer violence, anyone mocking them should be denied access to widely used communications platforms? Doesn’t really make sense, does it?

Re: Facebook Bans Louis Farrakhan, Milo Yiannopoulos, InfoWars and Others

#57

Post by StanislavPetrov »

dguaraglia wrote: post #38
ravenstine wrote: post #18

I'm not a fan of either of these people, but how exactly are Milo Yiannopolous and Paul Joseph Watson "dangerous"? Maybe it's not good material for people to be watching, but to call them "dangerous" comes off like the religious right of yore claiming that video games depicting violence are dangerous and need to be censored. I wouldn't normally step in to defend these people, but this article by CNN is a prime exampl…

At the end of the day, that's for Facebook to decide. If Facebook decides they don't want to host content from them, that's their choice as the private company they are. People keep bringing up "freedom of speech" when it comes to these trolls, like the world owes them something.

That would only be true if Facebook was truly private and not taking direction from government-funded entities like the Atlantic Council. The government isn't simply allowed to outsource censorship to do an end-run around the 1st Amendment. This remains true whether or not they claim to be doing so because of the dastardly Russians or anyone else.

http://fortune.com/2018/05/17/facebook-atlantic-council-elec...

Re: Facebook Bans Louis Farrakhan, Milo Yiannopoulos, InfoWars and Others

#58

Post by mbostleman »

olivermarks wrote: post #27
ravenstine wrote: post #18

I'm not a fan of either of these people, but how exactly are Milo Yiannopolous and Paul Joseph Watson "dangerous"? Maybe it's not good material for people to be watching, but to call them "dangerous" comes off like the religious right of yore claiming that video games depicting violence are dangerous and need to be censored. I wouldn't normally step in to defend these people, but this article by CNN is a prime exampl…

There has to be some sort of US free speech legal action that could be taken to stop this crack down by an internet platform company on free speech. I'm not sure how many people actually take FB seriously as a 'news' platform, but it can be useful to discuss the way corporate entities such as CNN present information on their specific home pages on Facebook.

I for one would prefer that constraints on fundamentals like speech be kept only between the government and citizens. Not between citizens.

Re: Facebook Bans Louis Farrakhan, Milo Yiannopoulos, InfoWars and Others

#59

Post by yostrovs »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #32
sasasassy wrote: post #11

And in Russia they ban instead this or that free speech advocate. And in China it is some other group of people that cannot speak. And in India, and in Brasil, Iran, Pakistan, UK, etc. There are always offensive people or sensitive subjects. The only question is Facebook going to ban each group of people per country basis or globally. If globally, we are going to have a very limited, gray area of speech in Facebook.

Only happy birthdays, congrats for graduations/wedding/babies/house, and condolences for deaths.

Jehovah Witnesses don't celebrate birthdays or any other holiday. To them it's wrong to single out any specific day among the majesty of all the days that God created.

Re: Facebook Bans Louis Farrakhan, Milo Yiannopoulos, InfoWars and Others

#60

Post by staunch »

psychometry wrote: post #5

...and nothing of value was lost. Facebook is not the government. They have no obligation to allow all speech.

Legally they have no obligation but IMHO Zuckerberg does have an ethical obligation to uphold freedom of speech, particularly as a citizen of a country founded on the principle.

Facebook is as influential and dominant over information as the U.S. government has ever been. Responsibility comes with power and money is Facebook's only motivation here. They're worried about the financial repercussions of upholding this most sacred of American principles.

They fear the backlash from least principled people among us, people that simply can't comprehend the concept of defending even your sworn enemy's human rights.

Zuckerberg is compromising his own ethics for money, clearly proving once and for all that he truly cannot be trusted great power. An intelligent billionaire that is unwilling to stand up to a mob is truly a sad excuse for a human being.

Post reply on HN