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

71–80 of 776 posts

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

#71

Post by chronogram »

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…

Thanks. I can’t stand those typical placating responses by normal people and those “isn’t it dangerous when a company can have company policies” types are so annoying.

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

#72

Post by waer34tawer »

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…

You're being disingenuous! Paul Joseph Watson believes:

- 9/11 was an inside job

- The illuminati is controlling your mind with chemitrails

- Soy beans are making men docile and feminine.

Sounds pretty fringe to me. Don't care how many views he has.

He also incites hate against muslims, which I'd say, makes him pretty dangerous.

My opinion of Facebook's actions is a separate matter. But the narrative you're pushing to justify your argument - it's complete BS.

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

#74

Post by bdcravens »

username223 wrote: post #66
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…

> how exactly are Milo Yiannopolous and Paul Joseph Watson "dangerous"? "Pizzagate," for example. Milo and InfoWars pushed a loony conspiracy theory until some guy believed them enough to show up at a random restaurant with an assault rifle, which seems dangerous. They did it to sell fake nutritional supplements. EDIT: They're welcome to continue ranting away on their own blogs, but I don't see any reason that Facebo…

If we are measuring effects, shouldn't they start banning anti-vaxxers?

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

#75

Post by astura »

bdcravens wrote: post #74
username223 wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> how exactly are Milo Yiannopolous and Paul Joseph Watson "dangerous"? "Pizzagate," for example. Milo and InfoWars pushed a loony conspiracy theory until some guy believed them enough to show up at a random restaurant with an assault rifle, which seems dangerous. They did it to sell fake nutritional supplements. EDIT: They're welcome to continue ranting away on their own blogs, but I don't see any reason that Facebo…

If we are measuring effects, shouldn't they start banning anti-vaxxers?

Indigogo and GoFundMe already do.

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

#76

Post by anoonmoose »

StanislavPetrov wrote: post #57
dguaraglia wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

"Despite its connections, the Council is by charter independent of the U.S. government and NATO, a registered 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization."[1]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_Council

I guess what I'm saying is, Facebook is a private company by any reasonable legal interpretation.

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

#77

Post by ALittleLight »

bilbo0s wrote: post #12
psychometry wrote: post #5

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

I wish all users had your capacity for reason. FB is private property. Play by their rules or GTFO. People who scream about censorship in instances such as these are being willfully dismissive of the property rights of others. And that's a dangerous road to start down.

There is the legal idea of free speech, which constrains Congress, but also the moral idea of free speech which says you should let people with different opinions talk to each other and work out their disagreements verbally.

Facebook is, of course, not violating the legal principle of free speech. They are absolutely violating the moral principle. In the same way, if someone came over to your house and made some political argument you didn't like you would be perfectly within your rights to ask them to leave - but you'd be wrong if you claimed that you were open to hearing all kinds of opinions in your house, or that you were completely open minded.

Your comment is also needlessly hostile. Play by Facebook's rules or get out? Imagine applying this sentiment to any other objectionable thing Facebook has done. Facebook's users are just users, not automatons, and until Facebook takes over HackerNews and starts banning people for criticising them, then people should feel no hesitation about voicing fair criticism of Facebook here.

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

#78

Post by SolaceQuantum »

Veen wrote: post #56
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?

Trans people are not marginally more likely to suffer violence. They're significantly more likely to suffer violence, on the rate of several times more than the general population.

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

#79

Post by radcon »

psychometry wrote: post #5

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

> They have no obligation to allow all speech.

Their legal obligation is one thing, their moral/ethical obligations are another. So are you technically right? Yes. But are you completely overlooking the real problem here? Also yes.

Allowing these platforms to silence anyone at any time for any (non-discriminatory) reason is giving them an absurd amount of power. The least we could do is force them to be transparent - give us a list of who they've banned and exactly why they were banned so we can make informed decisions about supporting those platforms.

As it stands, we have no way of knowing if these bans were arbitrary or justified. And since we depend on private companies for so many fundamental aspects of our lives, it only makes sense that the obligation to protect fundamental rights should also extend to those companies.

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

#80

Post by vibrato »

res0nat0r wrote: post #28
nostromo wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just because Facebook can do something doesn't mean Facebook should. Freedom of speech is much more than a legal concept about governments and governed. It's also a guideline on how we should structure an open society going at least back to Ancient Greece.

There never has been a right to free speech on some private companies system.

That is true for content publishers. However, if those systems are claimed to be public squares, then there is a right to free speech for citizens of the USA there.

The tech companies cannot have it both ways. They want to be publishers, then take the responsibilities and liabilities of publishers.

https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2018/09/05/jack-dorsey-says-t...

Post reply on HN