Facebook Bans Louis Farrakhan, Milo Yiannopoulos, InfoWars and Others • Hacker News Board

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

#111

Post by ngcazz » Thu, May 02, 2019, 7:31 PM UTC

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…

Milo Yiannopoulos getting the bully pulpit on TV and university stages, to say, as though it were a fait acompli, that trans people are sick is dangerous.

Paul Joseph Watson spewing misinformation about the extent of the refugee crisis is dangerous.

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

#112

Post by reissbaker » Thu, May 02, 2019, 7:31 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #62

res0nat0r wrote: post #24

Earlier 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?

Farrakhan was banned for being a notorious anti-Semite; being black doesn't give you a free pass to incite hatred against Jews. This isn't a complex issue.

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

#113

Post by sinemetu11 » Thu, May 02, 2019, 7:32 PM UTC

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…

By dangerous they mean dangerous to advertisers. Facebook's decisions like this have nothing to do with harm to humans. It's to profit.

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

#114

Post by bilbo0s » Thu, May 02, 2019, 7:32 PM UTC

m0zg wrote: post #107

Now 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?

So they should ban all the people you want banned, because, you've got a better handle on what's "dangerous"?

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

#115

Post by Mirioron » Thu, May 02, 2019, 7:32 PM UTC

aeturnum wrote: post #46

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…

> The word "fringe" used to mean something a lot more, well... fringe Did it? How many people do you think were interested in old school conspiracy theories like Area 51 [1] or the protocols of the elders of zion [2]? Henry ford printed half a million copies of the latter! >how exactly are Milo Yiannopolous and Paul Joseph Watson "dangerous"? I think "dangerous" is probably not quite the right word. They're dangerous…

>How many people do you think were interested in old school conspiracy theories like Area 51 [1] or the protocols of the elders of zion [2]? Henry ford printed half a million copies of the latter!

I think most of the people were interested in it for entertainment, just like people are interested in horoscopes for entertainment. Or would you argue that all these newspapers that had horoscopes in them pushed fringe conspiracy theories on the level of flat earth?

>They're dangerous in the same way that, say, anti-vax views are dangerous [3].

You have to show some evidence for a wild claim like that, because you're insinuating that Paul Joseph Watson and Milo are getting people killed.

>Where the "line" is and how we talk about it isn't clear, but I think there is a line somewhere and I feel pretty comfortable that the people Facebook banned are probably on the other side of it.

Until it inevitably comes back to bite you or something you like.

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

#116

Post by vowelless » Thu, May 02, 2019, 7:33 PM UTC

rhizome wrote: post #85

rayiner wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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!

It’s great that the site decides. It is exerting editorial control in this case. Hence, they should be liable for the speech that they do allow. Which means, they should be sueable if a user does slander on their platform, posts copyrightable material, etc.

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

#117

Post by bartimus » Thu, May 02, 2019, 7:33 PM UTC

res0nat0r wrote: post #24

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…

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.

Any examples of Milo making a racist remark? Afaik his criticism is mainly towards certain cultures. Not races.

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

#118

Post by dymk » Thu, May 02, 2019, 7:35 PM UTC

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?

Guess what, they've already started!

https://newsroom.fb.com/news/2019/03/combatting-vaccine-misi...

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

#119

Post by Mirioron » Thu, May 02, 2019, 7:35 PM UTC

cirgue wrote: post #88

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…

> 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 als…

I think private platforms could act as the town square as long as we demand that platforms beyond a certain size can't just censor whatever they like. Make protections in section 230 of the communications decency act dependent on providing a platform for free speech if the platform is large.

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

#120

Post by whatshisface » Thu, May 02, 2019, 7:35 PM UTC

aeturnum wrote: post #46

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…

> The word "fringe" used to mean something a lot more, well... fringe Did it? How many people do you think were interested in old school conspiracy theories like Area 51 [1] or the protocols of the elders of zion [2]? Henry ford printed half a million copies of the latter! >how exactly are Milo Yiannopolous and Paul Joseph Watson "dangerous"? I think "dangerous" is probably not quite the right word. They're dangerous…

>allowing those views on your platform make you complicit

Every faction since the dawn of history has said that the views of the other factions are objectively harmful. What is it that blesses SV neo-something-or-other as the one true faction that has finally discovered the objective truth?