[deleted]
Facebook Bans Louis Farrakhan, Milo Yiannopoulos, InfoWars and Others
81–90 of 776 posts
Re: Facebook Bans Louis Farrakhan, Milo Yiannopoulos, InfoWars and Others
#82I'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 t…
One of his YouTube contemporaries pointed out that his "supplements" he sold contained nothing but soy derivatives, and instead of acknowledging it, decided to dress in drag and scream at a camera for several minutes.
I wish I were making that up.
Re: Facebook Bans Louis Farrakhan, Milo Yiannopoulos, InfoWars and Others
#83I'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.
Most the responses here revolve around Facebook's autonomy as a private platform. Meanwhile, Facebook's autonomy is called into question when it comes to fake news on the site that influences politics, or their ability to use the data on their platform as they see fit.
Re: Facebook Bans Louis Farrakhan, Milo Yiannopoulos, InfoWars and Others
#84I 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?
That's not what the above poster said, and you know it. You say "marginally", "anyone", "mocking". But the people in question aren't anyone, and they aren't just mocking.
There are specific cases of them calling on their fans to harass private citizens. Anyone with some semblance of awareness of US law knows free speech is not without limits. No one is entitled to online speech, believe it or not.
Re: Facebook Bans Louis Farrakhan, Milo Yiannopoulos, InfoWars and Others
#85Earlier quoted context omitted.
Saying racist stuff constantly but playing it off as "ironic" and wearing a suit doesn't make it less racist. Good, they should have kicked these guys off years ago.
When you’re talking about someone like Farrakhan, and the explicit racial basis for slavery and segregation, is simply being “racist” sufficient justification for a ban? By that same token, can Facebook ban say Armenians for being racist against Turks? Should Facebook step blithely into these very complex issues?
>is simply being “racist” sufficient justification for a ban
It can be, if the site decides it is. Other places, it isn't!
Re: Facebook Bans Louis Farrakhan, Milo Yiannopoulos, InfoWars and Others
#86Earlier 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.
I for one would prefer that constraints on fundamentals like speech be kept only between the government and citizens. Not between citizens.
[deleted]
Re: Facebook Bans Louis Farrakhan, Milo Yiannopoulos, InfoWars and Others
#87Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
And banning Milo from Facebook is going to somehow improve that situation is it? Milo the loud mouthed cretin’s tame insults are responsible for the incidence of violence against trans women?
Re: Facebook Bans Louis Farrakhan, Milo Yiannopoulos, InfoWars and Others
#88I'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…
> Facebook used to be popular because it was, at one point, fun. If they're going to remove all the voices they think are "dangerous", what they're left with won't be fun or interesting. Just lukewarm, milquetoast, or worse... lopsided.
Honestly, I hope that Facebook becomes more restrictive and more censorship-oriented. That would make alternative platforms more viable and increase diversity in online media. I'm also 100% opposed to the idea that private companies should be permitted to or expected to function as the town square. That, more than censorship, is the real threat to freedom of speech and freedom of thought. Facebook, twitter, and youtube, by the nature of their ranking algorithms and the structure of the service, have a huge influence on what and how ideas spread without explicitly pushing or censoring content.
Re: Facebook Bans Louis Farrakhan, Milo Yiannopoulos, InfoWars and Others
#89Earlier 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.
Legitimate question, is free speech guaranteed on Facebook's platform? Or do they get to decide what content is okay and what isn't?
Not guaranteed by the Constitution
Re: Facebook Bans Louis Farrakhan, Milo Yiannopoulos, InfoWars and Others
#90Earlier 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.
Legitimate question, is free speech guaranteed on Facebook's platform? Or do they get to decide what content is okay and what isn't?
They get to decide. Legally they are like a bar or a restaurant or a mall, it's their property, they can kick you out for practically any reason, protected classes aside, and political belief is not a protected class in the US.