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

321–330 of 776 posts

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

#321

Post by aklemm »

aklemm wrote: post #179
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…

He's dangerous as he stokes the kind of fear, based on falsehoods, that cause a government such as ours to split up migrant families with no regard as to how to reunite them. And that's just the beginning of what will happen based on the kind of rhetoric Trump and Yiannopolous put out.

Would love to hear downvoters make their case.

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

#322

Post by cowwithbeef »

username223 wrote: post #148
bdcravens wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If we are measuring effects, shouldn't they start banning anti-vaxxers?

Yes. Why are the measles still a thing?

The MMR vaccine does not give full immunity(the reason booster shots exist), immigrants can enter the country while carrying the disease, and sometimes live virus vaccines like MMR can leave the people who get them contagious. The only ways to have zero cases of any disease in the country are to either eradicate it globally (like small pox), or to eradicate it nationally and prevent cross border transmission (like polio).

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

#323

Post by aklemm »

mrmuagi wrote: post #309
aklemm wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We don't need free speech on Facebook, but we do on the Internet. That's the difference in Russia and China, etc.

Sorry to sound like I'm trying to gotcha you, but how on earth isn't Facebook a large subset of the Internet?

Of course it is, but it’s not THE Internet and we don’t want it to be. It’s also a commercial emtity while the Internet May be considered more of a public good.

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

#324

Post by elliekelly »

BickNowstrom wrote: post #280
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…

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/realdo…

- De La Rosa v. Alex Jones et al. (D-1-GN-18-001842)

- Heslin v. Alex Jones et al. (D-1-GN-18-001835)

- Fontaine v. Alex Jones et al.(D-1-GN-18-001605)

- Scarlett Lewis vs. Alex Jones, InfoWars LLC et al. (D-1-GN-18-006623)

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

#325

Post by threatofrain »

danso wrote: post #34

Ignoring for now the larger debate over censorship, Facebook's implementation of this ban is suspect. All of these accounts have been alleged to be in violation for months, if not years, and some already had been partially banned (Alex Jones was banned from FB but not IG). Why now? Were there new violations? And/or is it a new policy change that affects how FB will be banning accounts moving forward? Is FB going to d…

The timing isn’t suspicious given that they are increasingly late to this position.

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

#326

Post by [deleted] »

Faark wrote: post #176
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…

I agree with the spirit of your first sentence. This is exactly what we want. > you should let people with different opinions talk to each other and work out their disagreements verbally But this part is sadly not happening. Less than ever is there any reason to form a consensus. Social repercussions don't seem to work anymore, now that everyone can find communities believing in whatever they want to, no matter how i…

[deleted]

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

#327

Post by AlexTWithBeard »

balls187 wrote: post #263
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.

Oh my sweet summer child. What does being proud to be white mean to you?

This is exactly like being proud to be black, but white.

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

#328

Post by fullshark »

bitL wrote: post #312

Hmm, all Facebook is going to achieve is that they lose any influence on supporters/viewers of those they kicked out, instead of algorithmicaly managing them by some dark patterns. It's now trivial to set up an ActivityPub service on an own server that replaces 70% of FB/Instagram/YouTube functionality and that gap in useful services will be shrinking. So they will have a short-term win and long-term an ever larger g…

They will achieve ensuring no ads appear next to a post from these guys.

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

#329

Post by thex10 »

dgzl wrote: post #162
iscrewyou wrote: post #35

It’s only unfortunate that it took social networks this long to ban their toxic behavior and talk. These people did a lot of damage. A lot. All in the name of free speech. And to those saying, just because Facebook can, doesn’t mean they should. These people had the same freedom. Just because they can, they shouldn’t. But they chose hatred. And here we are. You reap what you sow. Facebook doesn’t owe them anything. E…

Some people like to have an unlimited variety of opinions available, and others like to live in an echo chamber. Facebook is very good at creating echo chambers.

This sets up a false dichotomy. There are plenty of opinions of a variety of flavors available after removing these people.

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

#330

Post by egwynn »

cat199 wrote: post #167
reissbaker wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

NOI (and by extension Farrakhan) is not simply 'anti semitic'. They are black supremacist.

Not sure why you’re getting downvoted. They don’t necessarily self-describe with those exact words, but it’s not by any means a stretch based on the org’s teachings.
Post reply on HN