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?
Facebook Bans Louis Farrakhan, Milo Yiannopoulos, InfoWars and Others
101–110 of 776 posts
Re: Facebook Bans Louis Farrakhan, Milo Yiannopoulos, InfoWars and Others
#102Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Hbomberguy did the video about it in case anyone is wondering.
Re: Facebook Bans Louis Farrakhan, Milo Yiannopoulos, InfoWars and Others
#103Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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.
>Freedom of speech is much more than a legal concept about governments and governed...
So tell me, does Facebook have Freedom of Speech in your view?
Re: Facebook Bans Louis Farrakhan, Milo Yiannopoulos, InfoWars and Others
#104I'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…
While the first two points are obviously blatantly false, soy does contain high levels of phytoestrogen which there are some studies indicating it may cause your body to perceive increased estrogen levels.
Re: Facebook Bans Louis Farrakhan, Milo Yiannopoulos, InfoWars and Others
#105I'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…
> The illuminati is controlling your mind with chemitrails
Do you have any source at all for this?
He seemed to be beyond 'chemtrails' from what I had seen of him, and indeed he has a video stating:
> Another viral YouTube video purporting to show a pilot forgetting to turn off chemtrails as a plane comes in to land is another example of how baseless conspiracy theories distract from genuine issues and cover-ups.
Re: Facebook Bans Louis Farrakhan, Milo Yiannopoulos, InfoWars and Others
#106I'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…
> I'm not a fan of either of these people, but how exactly are Milo Yiannopolous and Paul Joseph Watson "dangerous"? They don't adhere 100% to the established views of the 10% of "good people". Hence, they are, if not dangerous, bad.
Well, Milo did write a memoir titled "Dangerous"...
Re: Facebook Bans Louis Farrakhan, Milo Yiannopoulos, InfoWars and Others
#107Now let's proceed to people who are _actually_ causing harm, such as, for example, anti-vaxxers, antifa, etc. Alex Jones, chemtrails, give me a break. He doesn't even believe in that shit himself. :-)
In fact, let's also ban CNN from there. It has been peddling fake conspiracy theories and divided the country for the past 2 years pretty much non-stop. That's kinda harmful innit?
Re: Facebook Bans Louis Farrakhan, Milo Yiannopoulos, InfoWars and Others
#108I'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…
Yeah and for Alex Jones:
The government has ‘weather weapons’
Chemicals in the water are turning frogs gay
Robert Mueller is a demon, and also a pedophile
The Sandy Hook shooting was staged
Hillary Clinton is running a child sex ring out of a pizza parlor
Source: https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/14/alex-jones-5-most-disturbing...
Re: Facebook Bans Louis Farrakhan, Milo Yiannopoulos, InfoWars and Others
#109Earlier quoted context omitted.
Deplatforming works to achieve what exactly?
It works to remove platforms from people who spread hate and misinformation. https://mashable.com/article/milo-yiannopoulos-deplatforming...
So will CNN, MSNBC, FoxNews, etc. finally be de-platformed for "Weapons of Mass Destruction". This has caused actual destruction in terms of trillions of dollars, thousands of American lives and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's lives and the rise of ISIS with massive destruction in the middle east.
Re: Facebook Bans Louis Farrakhan, Milo Yiannopoulos, InfoWars and Others
#110I am sure there will be many people cheering. However people don't seem to realise that just because it isn't you getting censored now, it may well be you in the future. What is deemed acceptable and what isn't deemed acceptable are quite transient. It wasn't long ago it was unacceptable/illegal to be a homosexual, but now it is at least (in the Western world) readily accepted. I wonder if facebook was around in the…
It may be me in the future. In fact, it's already happened to me before! I've been banned from a few forums and IRC channels in my day. The people there didn't like what I had to say. Am I angry? No. Because I've also run my own forums, and relied on the ability to ban and moderate comments in order to maintain a useful discussion.
But wait, Facebook isn't the same a forum, right? Well, it is, it's just bigger. Way bigger. The problem is how big it is. And how, in some countries, it's the only game in town (Facebook Basics).
It may seem like Facebook is overly moderated, but given it's size, it's really the opposite. It's a big free for all where hatred, deliberate misinformation, and calls to violence happen all the time. (Example: Myanmar). If you post that stuff on HN, it will quickly get taken down. But Facebook is slow to moderate anything, their moderation system is opaque, and thus hate speech is allowed to fester.
But not just fester. Facebook actually amplifies it. They see the engagement it gets and push it out to more people. So Facebook is not only negligent in their moderation, they are actively promoting toxic behavior. So long for Facebook being a "neutral platform."
Acting like the bans are the problem is the wrong idea. Moderation is important to any internet community, including this one. But when you get banned from a place, it shouldn't amount to not having a voice at all. Facebook is destroying the public square by maintaining a monopoly on internet communication. We should work to break them up, regulate them, or encourage people to leave the site.