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

421–430 of 776 posts

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

#421

Post by ben_w »

root_axis wrote: post #358
ben_w wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would argue that when a website get enough users, it should be seen as a government. The number is as ill-defined as “how many grains of sand makes a heap”, but FB is now defining the social interactions of more people than the largest single nation state. On the other paw, I don’t believe in absolute freedom of speech, because the very power which makes the freedom worth having also enables it to cause harm. I thi…

> I would argue that when a website get enough users, it should be seen as a government That's absurd. It's a website not a government; nobody is forcing you to use facebook, if you dislike how they operate their website don't use it.

I’m British. Nobody’s forcing me to use the British government, as evidenced by the fact I left the country with no intention to return. (Some people have even given up their citizenship). Sure, there are things that makes it hard to do, but that’s true for leaving FB too.

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

#422

Post by SEJeff »

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milo_Yiannopoulos#Violence_aga...

Free Speech has limits (see Schenk vs United States)

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

#423

Post by bilbo0s »

kansface wrote: post #367
bilbo0s wrote: post #338

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A little confused about the point you're trying to make here? Is it your view that a man's property rights are inversely proportional to the number of people who covet his property?

> Is it your view that a man's property rights are inversely proportional to the number of people who covet his property? In so many words - I guess. I don't think property rights are naturally extended to Facebook as a global communication medium even if the communication does happen primarily on their property. I suppose I should have written that in the first place! At the very least, respecting those rights is no…

OK, first.

>I don't think property rights are naturally extended to Facebook as a global communication medium even if the communication does happen primarily on their property...

Then that's where we differ, and we'll never agree. Apple and Toyota are still private property even if they sell and manufacture things all over the world. As more people covet an entity's property, the importance of protecting that entity's property rights becomes more important. Not less.

And, (to be honest, I had to google this whole "cake" thing), you again are well within your rights to refuse service to anyone if you are a members only service. For instance, Costco is members only, so they can even disallow blacks shopping there if they want. Please understand, I'm not saying that Costco has racial exclusivity clauses in its membership agreement. I'm not saying that at all. I'm just using that example to make the point that they would undeniably be within their rights to do so. Just as many members only country clubs do. It's private property. It's members only. It's Costco's rules. It's the country club's rules. Sorry rich black people, you'll have to golf somewhere else.

And again, the nicer the country club. The more people who covet it. The more people who want to use it. The more important it is for us to protect their property rights. Property rights and Freedom of Speech are very much the same thing. You don't really have one without the other. If you infringe a racially exclusive country club's property rights on some twisted notion of free speech, you are very much necessarily infringing the free speech rights of the country club.

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

#424

Post by reissbaker »

rayiner wrote: post #416
reissbaker wrote: post #341

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Farrakhan is, to be frank, not a tough case. There are plenty of people who have incited mass hatred who also were, not coincidentally, very much promoters of their own ethnic identity and superiority. Yes, black people have faced and continue to face unjust oppression. But that doesn't give carte blanche for anti-Semitism, with quotes like: “The Jews, a small handful, control the movement of this great nation, like…

The point is not whether there are people to “lionize” that are better. The point is whether an organization like Facebook (which didn’t have a single black board member until last year) has standing to police such opinions. I vociferously oppose him, and think liberals have made a huge mistake being soft on anti-semitism lately. But leave that aside. Would just the stuff he has said about white people justify Facebo…

> But leave that aside.

Anti-Semitism is literally what he's being banned for. How can you "leave that aside?"

Should FB be able to ban religious leaders who repeatedly, consistently, publicly call for the death of Jews from their platform? If they should be able to ban Milo, then — yes, obviously.

If you're arguing that no one should be able to be banned, I think our opinions differ, but I suppose we're each internally consistent with our values.

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

#425

Post by tastygreenapple »

kevincrane wrote: post #249
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.

The reason he was (finally) banned from Twitter was for encouraging his racist supporters to harass Leslie Jones and send her gorilla memes (a wildly racist trope, as you know). So yes, he's racist.

Proof? I've always heard it insinuated that the instructured his followers to send her gorilla memes but the only thing I've seen Milo say about Leslie Jones was that she looks like a former male sex partner of Milo's.

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

#426

Post by tastygreenapple »

smrtinsert wrote: post #375
breakbread wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He's married to a black man...

If someone is married to a woman they can't be a misogynist?

Can an anti-Semite marry a Jewish person? Can a black supremacist marry a white person?

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

#427

Post by dragonwriter »

SEJeff wrote: post #422
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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milo_Yiannopoulos#Violence_aga... Free Speech has limits (see Schenk vs United States)

Free speech has limits, but given Schenk was overturned by Brandenburg v. Ohio (and arguably by earlier cases, effectively), is an odd case to cite to support that position and explain the actual limits.

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

#428

Post by temptemptemp111 »

otvsh wrote: post #274

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.

Gab is a psyop. Gab.ai == Gabbai. They're collecting private information of dissidents and creating fake supply of "white supremacy" because the demand is so high.

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

#429

Post by rayiner »

reissbaker wrote: post #424
rayiner wrote: post #416

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point is not whether there are people to “lionize” that are better. The point is whether an organization like Facebook (which didn’t have a single black board member until last year) has standing to police such opinions. I vociferously oppose him, and think liberals have made a huge mistake being soft on anti-semitism lately. But leave that aside. Would just the stuff he has said about white people justify Facebo…

> But leave that aside. Anti-Semitism is literally what he's being banned for. How can you "leave that aside?" Should FB be able to ban religious leaders who repeatedly, consistently, publicly call for the death of Jews from their platform? If they should be able to ban Milo, then — yes, obviously. If you're arguing that no one should be able to be banned, I think our opinions differ, but I suppose we're each interna…

The OP I was responding to just said people should be able to be banned for “racism” without qualifying it to anti-semitism. While that might be Facebook’s ostensible justification, the fact is that Farrakhan is famous for representing one of the extremes in the spectrum of black attitudes towards whites.

I also think facebook should be able to ban people. But I think that Facebook banning someone like Farrakhan, who is famous for being an anti-white extremist in a country where white people enslaved black people, and where white police officers routinely gun down black people, opens up a huge can of worms. It’s an organization where black Americans are almost completely unrepresented policing the spectrum of responses black people are allowed to have in response to their treatment in this country.

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

#430

Post by tastygreenapple »

razakel wrote: post #383
Mirioron wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Paul Joseph Watson spewing misinformation about the extent of the refugee crisis is dangerous. Is it any more dangerous than the lies politicians spewed about it in Europe though? We know that a bunch of those politicians straight up either lied or didn't know what they were talking about. We have had terror attacks carried out in Europe by refugees or asylum seekers that have killed people. Some sources even claim…

>We have had terror attacks carried out in Europe by refugees or asylum seekers that have killed people. For some bizarre reason, people get angry when you bomb them.

Yes, this is why America started its war on terror after 9/11.
Post reply on HN