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

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

#211

Post by colordrops » Thu, May 02, 2019, 8:14 PM UTC

cat199 wrote: post #158

aeturnum wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 cycl…

As if other religions had a sane non violent healthy mythology. Please.

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

#212

Post by justinmchase » Thu, May 02, 2019, 8:14 PM UTC

MagicPropmaker wrote: post #189

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 is an "edgy" comedian. His shtick is to be provocative. I can't imagine he's dangerous in any real way. Offensive, yes, but not dangerous.

Milo disagrees:

https://www.amazon.com/Dangerous-Milo-Yiannopoulos/dp/069289...

lol

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

#213

Post by avn2109 » Thu, May 02, 2019, 8:15 PM UTC

aeturnum wrote: post #152

whatshisface wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

I am not the author of the parent comment that you're replying to, but I appreciate your civil reply in a flamebait-y thread.

That said, his point seems to be that FB is banning e.g. Farrakhan without making any effort at disproving Farrakhan's claims, and furthermore that many of the commenters in this thread are similarly dismissive of Farrakhan's claims without offering anything resembling a good-faith disproof of those claims.

(Note that the parent and I are not making any statement about Farrakhan's correctness or incorrectness, but are instead merely noting the widespread absence of proofs about this correctness).

Personally I know essentially nothing about Farrakhan and his claims, but I like to believe that I can think critically enough to evaluate his claims on their merits, and do not need to be "protected" from hearing them by Facebook or anyone else. I (and perhaps the parent poster) would like to participate in an agora of ideas where everyone is welcome to promulgate his claims, no matter how allegedly outlandish, and the strongest ideas will win on their merits. Contrast this to a situation wherein the winning ideas win because their rivals are excluded from the agora.

Of course I don't mean this just about Farrakhan. Similarly, I have never read the Protocols of Zion, which are mentioned several times elsewhere in this thread, and I have no clue whether they are related to a Jewish conspiracy for world domination etc. But many commenters here are asserting claims about the Protocols, without offering any attempt at a proof beyond a link to Wikipedia, which personally I find very unconvincing as a matter of principle, on this and any other topic.

In general I am not convinced by assertions/bannings, and prefer evidence.

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

#214

Post by vibrato » Thu, May 02, 2019, 8:16 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…

So you've established that it's desirable for black people to be proud of their blackness.

Is it desirable for white people to be proud of their whiteness? If you allow for one of these and not the other, you'd be a racist.

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

#215

Post by viraptor » Thu, May 02, 2019, 8:16 PM UTC

naasking wrote: post #130

ggggtez wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> No one is entitled to online speech, believe it or not. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_Internet_access

This is not relevant. Some people get the right to internet access. They don't get the right to say what they want where they want without moderation.

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

#216

Post by colordrops » Thu, May 02, 2019, 8:16 PM UTC

threeseed wrote: post #210

bartimus wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Given that there is such a high correlation between religion, race and cultural background I don't think it's always possible to say that racism is fine but bigotry and xenophobia aren't. They are all inextricably linked.

We need to be able to criticize cultures, as they are choices and not unchangeable traits at birth, and some cultural behaviors are absolutely unhealthy. Your premise opens up certain cultures to be immune to criticism, which is a terrible thing.

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

#217

Post by esoterica » Thu, May 02, 2019, 8:17 PM UTC

vowelless wrote: post #116

rhizome wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Hacker news is also heavily moderated. If you post defamatory content to HN do you think people should be able to sue HN over it?

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

#218

Post by meej » Thu, May 02, 2019, 8:18 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 calls himself "dangerous", FWIW. It was the title of his book. Now he gets to own it.

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

#219

Post by xyz0 » Thu, May 02, 2019, 8:18 PM UTC

holler wrote: post #205

aeturnum wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think I could connect Jones or Yiannopolous specifically to anything, just as I couldn't connect, say, Andrew Wakefield to any single specific case of parents forgoing vaxines. I also think the ideas that Jones and Yiannopolous promote are easily seen to be harmful. Yiannopolous has promoted violence against journalists and associated himself with white supremacist movements. Jones has promoted the harassment…

is there evidence that Yiannopolus associated himself with white supremacists? because every piece of material I’ve seen has been about free-speech and social-justice, often questioning the said association created by media

"Here's How Breitbart And Milo Smuggled White Nationalism Into The Mainstream" (https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/josephbernstein/heres-h...)

Here's one of many relevant excerpts:

> These new emails and documents, however, clearly show that Breitbart does more than tolerate the most hate-filled, racist voices of the alt-right. It thrives on them, fueling and being fueled by some of the most toxic beliefs on the political spectrum — and clearing the way for them to enter the American mainstream.

> It’s a relationship illustrated most starkly by a previously unreleased April 2016 video in which Yiannopoulos sings “America the Beautiful” in a Dallas karaoke bar as admirers, including the white nationalist Richard Spencer, raise their arms in Nazi salutes.

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

#220

Post by naasking » Thu, May 02, 2019, 8:18 PM UTC

latortuga wrote: post #204

naasking wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> These people did a lot of damage. A lot. Like what? If this damage is so prevalent then it should be easy to cite something specific.

Alex Jones popularized a propagated the myth of "Crisis Actors" and that Sandy Hook was a hoax. Trolls on the internet telling parents that their children aren't really dead, that they should exhume their bodies to prove that they really died, that they are being paid by the shadow government, that their grief looked too fake - all of this is real harm. We can talk about the doxing and the stalking and the harassment…

> Trolls on the internet telling parents that their children aren't really dead, that they should exhume their bodies to prove that they really died, that they are being paid by the shadow government, that their grief looked too fake - all of this is real harm.

Did Alex Jones specifically incite his fans or these trolls to do this? If so, then he's legally culpable. If not, then why place the blame on him? The legal system has a fairly robust and time-tested system for assigning blame.

The problem with assigning blame in "indirect influence" arguments such as yours, is that it can be used to blame almost anyone for almost anything. How indirect or how small does this influence need to be before you conclude that a person is not culpable for someone else's actions?

If you can't delineate some specific set of clear and reasonable conditions, then it will simply be abused to censor any unpopular views, including progressive agendas.