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

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

#151

Post by rthrowayay » Thu, May 02, 2019, 7:51 PM UTC

SolaceQuantum wrote: post #78

Veen wrote: post #56

Earlier 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.

I tried to find statistics for this claim by looking at homicide risk but was unable to find anything supporting it. Possibly this is true in non-western countries. For example here is a look at the data that claims tran people are less at risk in the UK. https://www.google.com/amp/s/fairplayforwomen.com/trans-murd...

I suspect there are lots of confounders if you wanted to isolate the risk that trans brings. For example apparently trans people have a higher rate of sex work which would increase the risk. On the other hand I wouldn't be surprised if trans were coming from higher socio-economic groups on average which would lower the risk.

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

#152

Post by aeturnum » Thu, May 02, 2019, 7:52 PM UTC

whatshisface wrote: post #120

aeturnum wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

I don't think I made a claim that SV (or anyone) is an objective arbiter of truth.

I said:

1) At some point, if you allow a view to be expressed on your platform, you become somewhat implicated in that view spreading.

2) I believe (and I think FB believes) that the views these people promote are harmeful.

Now, should we trust Facebook? No! Facebook has banned many people and groups for far less than these people were banned. The reason Facebook is pushing this news so hard is that they have been letting things slide again and again because these people were prominent figures (see also how Twitter keeps not banning trump despite his many threats of violence).

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

#153

Post by faissaloo » Thu, May 02, 2019, 7:52 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?

>Should Facebook step blithely into these very complex issues?

The trick here is that you don't needlessly overcomplicate the issue. People promoting 'race realism' as a theory we should base society around, yeah those people should definitely go.

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

#154

Post by nickthegreek » Thu, May 02, 2019, 7:54 PM UTC

rudedogg wrote: post #22

nickthegreek wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who is a radical left type on Facebook that you feel have crossed boundaries?

My personal belief is that Facebook shouldn't be trying to censor speech this way, it's impossible to be (or appear to be) impartial. The people who are booted off just go to their own corner of the internet and never have their ideas challenged. But to answer your question, https://www.facebook.com/kathygriffin/ comes to mind (with the beheaded Trump photo).

The kathy griffin image was a twitter post, not a facebook post. And while that was not a good post, that was a single incident. I don't think it would be correct to put Kathy Griffin and Alex Jones in the same bucket.

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

#155

Post by [deleted] » Thu, May 02, 2019, 7:55 PM UTC

tjenkinsqs wrote: post #109

jonny_eh wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[deleted]

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

#156

Post by faissaloo » Thu, May 02, 2019, 7:55 PM UTC

donatj wrote: post #104

waer34tawer wrote: post #72

Earlier 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…

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. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3074428/

Sure but the body can't actually use phytoestrogen the same way so it's harmless. If you want to now what's making men docile and feminine look towards pollution of the air and water supplies.

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

#157

Post by m0zg » Thu, May 02, 2019, 7:55 PM UTC

bilbo0s wrote: post #114

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"?

Isn't that what they're doing already? How is Alex Jones "dangerous"? He's a joke, he doesn't even take himself seriously. If the stated goal is to minimize harm, then CNN has caused far more harm to the American people than Alex Jones ever will.

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

#158

Post by cat199 » Thu, May 02, 2019, 7:55 PM UTC

aeturnum wrote: post #122

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?

I think Farrakhan is a really tough case. First, he's cartoonishly anti-semitic and has been for years. He's as much of a hate monger as any of the other people who were banned and that's enough reason to ban him. That given, he has also materially supported vulnerable populations in a way that few organizations have. He has pushed very hard for black people to be proud of their blackness and to create narratives in…

> to create narratives in which blackness is not looked down upon. This is good, needed work.

so like:

In the Nation of Islam, both God and the devil are human beings. Elijah Muhammad identified the devil as the white man, the Caucasian race. According to Elijah, though the black race is many trillions of years old, the white race began a mere six thousand years ago with Yakub, one of the Black Gods of this time cycle.[15]

Elijah explained, "The white race is not equal with darker people because the white race was not created by the God of Righteousness. . . . They were made by Yakub, an original Black Man—who is from the Creator. Yakub, the father of the devil, made the white race, a race of devils—enemies of the darker people of the earth. The white race is not made by nature to accept righteousness."[16]

is 'good, needed work'??

https://www.answering-islam.org/NoI/noi2.html

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

#159

Post by t_dunks » Thu, May 02, 2019, 7:55 PM UTC

bilbo0s wrote: post #99

ALittleLight wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 poli…

Someone comes to your house. Your private property. They proceed to call your daughter a whore. Do you and your daughter kick them out? Or Do you and your daughter try to explain to them why your daughter's not a whore while you all sit in your living room? It's a personal dilemma. I'll admit it. But for my part, the guy's getting thrown out on his rear if he insults my daughters, significant other, or my mother or g…

Yea it would mean you're not open to discourse about that topic. Your totally within your rights to not want to discuss your daughter being a whore or not, but yes then you're not open in regards to that subject. And there is plenty a chance of that person being correct. Furthermore, there is a very significant different between Facebook (which acts like a town square) vs your private dwelling.

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

#160

Post by gridlockd » Thu, May 02, 2019, 7:56 PM UTC

StanislavPetrov wrote: post #67

The ignorance in these comments is astounding. Facebook has already banned many anti-war voices that can in no way be construed as "racist" or bigoted. Its one thing to claim that private companies have the right to silence and censor people, and quite another to cheer on the practice as somehow being desirable.

> "many anti-war voices"

Care to name some names?