Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Facebook Bans Louis Farrakhan, Milo Yiannopoulos, InfoWars and Others

edition.cnn.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 776 posts

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

#271

Post by schmidtc »

naasking wrote: post #241
schmidtc wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

> Facebook is a corporation not a government agency and they have the right to control their own products. It's always fascinating how quick people are to jump on the free market bandwagon when it suits their ends. Free speech protections also sometimes apply to privately managed public spaces, like malls. > These individuals are free to shout their ideas in the public square. Facebook is arguably the new public squa…

It's always fascinating how quick people are to jump on the slippery slope bandwagon when it suits their ends.

Your suggestion that privately held malls are subject to free speech protections is misleading. See Lloyd Corp. v. Tanner. There are counter examples of course, be these apply only in niche situations.

Regardless, Facebook is not a public space. It's very much a private space. Suggesting that Facebook be treated as a public space is a pretty radical idea.

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

#272

Post by aeturnum »

vibrato wrote: post #214
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…

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.

I spoke imprecisely and I appreciate the opportunity to be more specific.

You're right that the Nation promotes the inherent superiority of black people. I didn't mean to endorse that view.

Many of the narratives that describe worlds where black bodies are "lesser than" white bodies are written by people who believe in white-supremacist ideas (even if they don't support the philosophy explicitly - Thomas Jefferson comes to mind). These are not "white supremacist" texts, but they assist in shaping a world view that a white supremacist likes.

The texts and ideas promoted by the Nation are generally explicitly founded on black supremacy (which is unfortunate) but also portray black bodies as superior to white ones - a rare trait. If I can see the good, lofty goals of the US Constitution "through" slavery and the designation of black people as being only 60% the value of whites, I can also appreciate the Nation's work through its own incorrect racial hierarchy.

I also think that both white and black people can appreciate the heritage they come from[1]. The struggles of black americans against all odds are, to me, unambiguously heroic. The innovations and inventions of white americans' European (or American) ancestors are, I think, also worth celebrating.

[1] This gets very tricky because, of course, people who want to promote white people as inherently superior often take this tack. Culture is hard and messy and I think we probably come down a little hard on celebrating European history, but I think we should be far, far, far more celebratory of the the insane stories of various African Americans. Check out this dude! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Smalls

Edit: Also we must keep in mind that the magnitude of the problem is related to the amount of power the particular group has. If a prisoner is espousing a philosophy that makes prisoners superior to other humans, even if it's incorrect, it's hard to argue we "need" to crack down on it. Narratives of white supremacy are so harmful precisely because white people have been in a position to ignore the welfare of other groups.

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

#273

Post by tptacek »

vibrato wrote: post #214
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…

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.

Someone better tell the South Side Irish to call off their 2020 parade.

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

#274

Post by otvsh »

I'm wondering if a tipping point will be reached where so many people will be deplatformed that users will start to flock to uncensored sites (think of Gab, but it doesn't have to be Gab) en masse to be able to read what they want to read, to the point where those sites will have enough "normal" users that they won't be complete cesspools like Voat is.

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

#275

Post by munificent »

50656E6973 wrote: post #226
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?

>What is it that blesses SV neo-something-or-other as the one true faction that has finally discovered the objective truth? They are self-anointed by nature of being de facto gate keepers of the global information flow. Similar to how the Church used to be the gatekeepers of information, and were compelled to silence "blasphemous" ideas that they didn't like.

They aren't self-anointed. We anointed them by using their platform. They're only gatekeepers because we user keeping choosing to walk through their gate instead of choosing any of the many other paths onto the Internet.

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

#276

Post by naasking »

matt4077 wrote: post #240
naasking wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 murde…

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

No, free speech is a natural right. The recognition of free speech is not contingent on any outside factors aside from the recognition that humans speak just like they breath.

> 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.

So? Did these shooters also go to the grocery store? It's ridiculous to ban Coca Cola because a shooter predominantly drank diet coke. You're a) inferring a spurious causation simply because you want there to be one, and b) even if there were a causation, that does not entail that the online personnae are in any way responsible for the shooter's actions.

> The idea that people aren’t influenced by what they read seems somewhat indefensible, anyway.

Who's defending that? The issue I'm raising is who's responsible for someone's actions. Speech is not action. The most widely recognized limitation on free speech is treating incitement to violence as violence. That's perfectly reasonable. Is that the case here? Doesn't seem like it, because if it were, they'd be charged with crimes.

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

#277

Post by shaki-dora »

xyz0 wrote: post #219
holler wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

So someone asks for a nexus between Milo and white supremacists, and someone linking a source with a video of him serenading neo-nazis with their arms stretched out gets voted down?

The it’s-about-free-speech-not-alt-right-sympathy shtick really needs some update...

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

#278

Post by vxNsr »

Animats wrote: post #243

Farrakhan? He's been around forever. He's 85. He's the guy who set up the Million Man March in 1995. Compared to other 1960s black activists, he's not that extreme. Also, no way is he "far right". Far left, maybe.

He's a rabid anti-semite and has been for most of his career. His hate for jews is on the same level as Alex Jones' hate for gay frogs

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

#279

Post by djsumdog »

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…

Safetyism

I'd highly recommend the book "The Coddling of the American Mind." I just finished it and it talks a lot about our current cultural migration to seeing words == violence. Words are NOT violence. Violence is violence.

Eric Clanton, a UC Berkley employee hit a trump supporter with a bike lock, causing a skull fracture. He got three yeas probation. I'm not a fan of Trump either, but he could have killed that man, and should have gotten at least 3~6 months in jail for assault.

Violence is violence. Words are not dangerous (with the exception of specific calls to violence--which are not protected under US speech). New Zealand is fining a man $10k NZD for distributing the recent shooters manifesto; which honestly just makes that Aussie loon's words even more valuable in the eyes of many.

As far as the article and social media, who cares. Maybe this will finally get people to start paying to host their own stuff again. Big centralized social media is the opposite of what originally made the Internet awesome. The big players are focused on money, making us cattle, and their services have been shown to make us more anxious and depressed.

FB can do what they want with their platform, and if these people are calling for specific violence (Jones sometimes does cause he's just a moron; the others listed are fairly careful though), well that's not even protected under free speech laws in countries that have them.

I extract my Facebook events via the ical link and use the messenger with 3rd party apps. When I do log in to Facebook, I go directly to my profile page and I have 50+ notifications. I want to try to hit 100.

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

#280

Post by BickNowstrom »

aeturnum wrote: post #132
naasking wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

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…

Jones never promoted the harassment of victims of crimes. Can you support your statements with some direct quotes? Or are you promoting the harassment of Jones with unfounded lies?

Undermining the public trust of institutions is alive and well in the discourse of the US president, who openly erodes trust in the media, the FBI, the DNC, and the IC (including limited support of anti-vax views https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/44952526852981555...). Should the president enjoy protection against de-platforming when others get banned for less?

Post reply on HN