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

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

#231

Post by zorked » Thu, May 02, 2019, 8:22 PM UTC

reaperducer wrote: post #126

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…

despite the number of views and subscribers(1.6 million) he has on YouTube alone. I'm not saying that far-out views should be banned from the intarwebs, but 0.023% of the world's population sounds pretty fringe to me. Heck, it's only 0.4% of the United States. Not even a rounding error.

Not to mention that bots and fake accounts are in widespread use by the far-right, so follower numbers are not really credible.

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

#232

Post by waer34tawer » Thu, May 02, 2019, 8:23 PM UTC

ravenstine wrote: post #182

waer34tawer wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That's not fair of you to say I am being disingenuous. It is. You have heard of PJW. Enough to defend him here. So presumably you're aware of his views, which is what he's known for. > I really don't want to get into nitty gritty debate over people like PJW But that's what you've done. > I don't see how believing in the illuminati, chemtrails, soy causing feminization, or that 9/11 was an inside Job are dangerous i…

[flagged]

>I can't possibly watch all of his videos, and I'm not even subscribed to him.

His association with conspiracy theories is the main thing he's known for. In order to claim that his views are not dangerous, you have to had heard of him. And if you've heard of him, very likely it was because of the fringe views he has.

> All I did was ask a question, and you're accusing me of bad intent.

Perhaps I'm wrong, and I apologize. The internet is swarming with people who argue in bad faith to promote an agenda. They feign ignorance of things, hold contradictory positions, and derail discussions all while claiming to be perfectly innocent. I mistook you for one of the trolls. And that's exactly what the trolls want.

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

#233

Post by [deleted] » Thu, May 02, 2019, 8:23 PM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #229

vibrato wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

“Black” and “White” as identities are both products of White racism (outside of White racism, individual ethnic identities have historically been prominent, but not a racial identity.) Positive Black racial identity is a reaction against White racism, whereas White racial identity is it's continuation. And it remains the case that the effort to advance a broad crosd-ethnic White racial identity is intimately connecte…

[deleted]

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

#234

Post by tomphoolery » Thu, May 02, 2019, 8:23 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…

do you think Louis Farrakhan is inherently dangerous or something?

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

#235

Post by naasking » Thu, May 02, 2019, 8:24 PM UTC

DanBC wrote: post #203

naasking wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Andrew Wakefield to any single specific case of parents forgoing vaxines. You're right, you can't because the anti-vaxx movement is as old as vaccines themselves. Wakefield's license was revoked for actually legitimate reasons. For his actions in falsifying data, not for expressing the idea that vaccines cause autism. > I also think the ideas that Jones and Yiannopolous promote are easily seen to be harmful. Yianno…

> Wakefield's license was revoked for actually legitimate reasons. For his actions in falsifying data, not for expressing the idea that vaccines cause autism. It's useful to read the entire thing. https://www.scribd.com/doc/25983372/FACTS-WWSM-280110-Final-... But imagine a doctor that merely says "Don't get vaccines, they cause autism" but doesn't falsify any data. That doctor is probably going to be erased from the…

> But imagine a doctor that merely says "Don't get vaccines, they cause autism" but doesn't falsify any data. That doctor is probably going to be erased from the English register.

Because that doctor is also falsifying data, namely, the data that they're presenting to their patient so they can make an informed decision.

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

#236

Post by schmidtc » Thu, May 02, 2019, 8:24 PM UTC

naasking wrote: post #174

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…

> Andrew Wakefield to any single specific case of parents forgoing vaxines. You're right, you can't because the anti-vaxx movement is as old as vaccines themselves. Wakefield's license was revoked for actually legitimate reasons. For his actions in falsifying data, not for expressing the idea that vaccines cause autism. > I also think the ideas that Jones and Yiannopolous promote are easily seen to be harmful. Yianno…

The actions are policed and no one here is suggesting thoughts be policed. These individuals are free to shout their ideas in the public square. Facebook is a corporation not a government agency and they have the right to control their own products. Facebook isn’t refusing people based a protected status. Should a baker be required to make a cake promoting a hateful cause?

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

#237

Post by sleepybrett » Thu, May 02, 2019, 8:24 PM UTC

nickthegreek wrote: post #154

rudedogg wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Also clearly art, not a threat, not misinformation. In bad taste, probably. Not a call to action.

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

#238

Post by vibrato » Thu, May 02, 2019, 8:25 PM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #229

vibrato wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

“Black” and “White” as identities are both products of White racism (outside of White racism, individual ethnic identities have historically been prominent, but not a racial identity.) Positive Black racial identity is a reaction against White racism, whereas White racial identity is it's continuation. And it remains the case that the effort to advance a broad crosd-ethnic White racial identity is intimately connecte…

And black identity is detached from black supremacist ideology? In fact, logic is useful in evaluating the world. All of it.

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

#239

Post by BickNowstrom » Thu, May 02, 2019, 8:27 PM UTC

waer34tawer wrote: post #72

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…

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 poll results that over half (54%) of all Americans believe the government is concealing information it has on 9/11. Eminem co-wrote a song about it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polls_about_9/11_consp... https://blogs.chapman.edu/wilkinson/2016/10/11/what-arent-th...

Legit studies confirm that soy products adversatively alter testosterone in men. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15735098 http://cebp.aacrjournals.org/content/16/4/829?ijkey=4c972127... The meta-study from 2010 that is used to debunk the soyboy conspiracy also confirms that soy consumption lowers testosterone (just that it does not manifest the adverse effects associated with lowered testosterone) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19524224

PJW promoted and speculated on the chemtrail conspiracy (which is about weather modification, not mind control). The mind control part was later conflated and it makes the theory way less credible https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morgellons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_fluoridation_controversy. The chemtrail conspiracy has its roots in this document: https://web.archive.org/web/20090716000939/http://www.fas.or... which is about weather warfare, which the US already engaged in: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weather_warfare

Paul Watson does not incite hatred or violence against Muslims (can't source a negative, so you please source your affirmative). He even criticized Trump for retweeting anti-Muslim rhetoric https://www.businessinsider.com/infowars-paul-joseph-watson-.... He is very critical of radical Islam, but that is hardly a fringe position in the West.

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

#240

Post by matt4077 » Thu, May 02, 2019, 8:27 PM UTC

naasking wrote: post #121

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…

> They're dangerous in the same way that, say, anti-vax views are dangerous [3]. The views themselves won't hurt you or hurt me. They're 'just' opinions. However, at some point, allowing those views on your platform make you complicit in promoting pandemics. Are they? We have plenty of rigourous evidence supporting the dangers of anti-vaxx, but I've seen little data on Yiannopolous or Watson or even Alex Jones causin…

The whole idea of free speech rights rests on the assumption that speech can cause action.

There have been quite a few recent shooting sprees where the perpetrators either explicitly referenced online personae, or the investigation revealed they consumed these sources predominantly.

That’s not to mention the obviously far larger number of people who don’t get radicalized to the degree where they livestream mass murder, but where society still suffer because they live out their hatred in less obvious ways.

The idea that people aren’t influenced by what they read seems somewhat indefensible, anyway. Because if it were true, we could shut down the non-transactional parts of the internet without it having any effect.