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

431–440 of 776 posts

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

#431

Post by chimpburger »

razakel wrote: post #413
chimpburger wrote: post #362

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Jewish ethnically. You personally haven't seen his husband, and you personally haven't seen a public record of his marriage. OK, so he's a white supremacist who pretends to be Jewish and pretends to have a black husband. Totally makes sense. Seriously, there is no evidence that he has white supremacist beliefs. He hates political correctness and radical leftist ideas. The SJW's/leftists are offended by his criticism…

>You personally haven't seen his husband, and you personally haven't seen a public record of his marriage. Find one credible source of his husband existing. I'm sure they must have friends and family saying how happy they are together, right? But... no. Somehow journalists haven't managed to turn up anything. Or, maybe he's really the kept boy of one of Milo's sugar daddies. Who maybe died of a drug overdose. >He hat…

> Find one credible source of his husband existing. I'm sure they must have friends and family saying how happy they are together, right? But... no. Somehow journalists haven't managed to turn up anything.

I'll take his word for it. I'm not delusional/paranoid/schizophrenic/obsessed enough to have such motivations.

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

#432

Post by toasterlovin »

ilikehurdles wrote: post #332
badatshipping wrote: post #252

Every time this subject comes up, someone inevitably says something like "Facebook is a private corporation, the first amendment only applies to the government, and if you want to use Facebook you have to play by their rules. No one is owed a platform." Platforms like Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter are basically monopolies. They are the only services in their class to take seriously if you're looking to gain a follow…

> Platforms like Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter are basically monopolies Monopolies of what, exactly? I admit to sometimes looking at entertaining videos on youtube. About an hour or maximum two hours a week worth. I'm not sure what you're suggesting that facebook and twitter are monopolizing. I haven't used the former in years and the latter just about ever -- aside from maybe five tweets over the course of twitter'…

I'm not fully thought out on this, but I think a decent starting analogy would be to a public square or space in a city. These companies hold a monopoly on the online equivalent of that because of the way network effects work.

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

#433

Post by wyoh »

SolaceQuantum wrote: post #44

I don't know about Paul Joseph but I believe Milo has had cases of publicly naming, threatening to name, doxxing, and mocking trans women that study on the campuses that he's spoken at. I belive this is dangerous behavior due to statistic that trans people are especially vulnerable for being murdered compared to the rest of the American population.

I've heard people against seeing him on campus say that, but never seen any actual proof of him doing it or even threatening to do it.

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

#434

Post by [deleted] »

Mirioron wrote: post #115
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…

> 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! I think most of the people were interested in it for entertainment, just like people are interested in horoscopes for entertainment. Or would you argue that all these newspapers that had horoscopes in them pushed fringe co…

[deleted]

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

#435

Post by fourier_mode »

danielovichdk wrote: post #133

Funny how most of you doesn't seem to understand that it's not the banned people who are dangerous. It's Facebook. Stay off the platform and encourage others to do the same. Read news from respected news outlets and remember that there are always multiple sides to a story.

That's exactly the problem. Facebook was intended to be a platform for fun, childish online interaction but soon media outlets hijacked it, and now it is a source of new for most of my friends.

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

#436

Post by razakel »

tastygreenapple wrote: post #430
razakel wrote: post #383

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

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

Huh, I thought 15 of the 19 9/11 hijackers came from a country allied with America, that wants to buy $350 billion of weapons and military technology from it...

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

#437

Post by reissbaker »

rayiner wrote: post #429
reissbaker wrote: post #424

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

He is a notable anti-Semite and extremist hate leader who blames black slavery on the Jews. Trying to provide cover for him by claiming it's simply "anti-white" is disingenuous at best. If you don't trust me, trust the Southern Poverty Law Center: https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/indi...

Being black in America doesn't give you a free pass on anti-Semitism. If you can't see that, I don't know what to tell you.

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

#438

Post by roenxi »

aeturnum wrote: post #46
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…

> 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…

I really wanted to disagree with both 'fringe' and 'dangerous', but it must be said your argument in favour of fringe is compelling.

'Dangerous' is still unsettling. Mark Zuckerberg has been floated as a possible-but-out-there presidential candidate and he isn't likely to run on the Republican ticket.

Words like 'dangerous' with justifications like yours ('well, they aren't directly responsible but they might ...') can be used, with minor variations, to justify suppression of:

* Any major religion

* Any racially coordinated group that trys to organise to better their social poisition

* Any innovative business model that threatens established companies

If Facebook bans show an ideological bias then that is bad even if it is legal. It isn't like the left is free of dangerous idiots inspired by rabid media [0]. There is going to be some bias in some direction - obviously - but this is a space to watch for evidence of a real problem. Facebook should not be shaping political dialog in the borderline cases, that isn't something they are known to be good at.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Congressional_baseball_sh...

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

#439

Post by chimpburger »

objectivetruth wrote: post #417
chimpburger wrote: post #362

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Jewish ethnically. You personally haven't seen his husband, and you personally haven't seen a public record of his marriage. OK, so he's a white supremacist who pretends to be Jewish and pretends to have a black husband. Totally makes sense. Seriously, there is no evidence that he has white supremacist beliefs. He hates political correctness and radical leftist ideas. The SJW's/leftists are offended by his criticism…

Ethnic Jews, black people, white people married to black people -- ALL of these types of people can absolutely still hold white supremacist thoughts, despite how little sense it might make to you and me. But that's not what I think is going on with Milo; in his case, I think that being ethnically Jewish and married to a black person are absolutely not barriers to associating with white supremacists, anti-LGBT-rights…

There is no evidence to back up your claims that he has white supremacist beliefs. You people are delusional and obsessed with leftist/SJW ideology. No logic behind your reasoning. Everyone who disagrees with you is Nazi/homophobe/racist/whitesupremacist/etc. Insanity.

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

#440

Post by cat199 »

berbec wrote: post #342
cat199 wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> These people use the classic tactic of saying something insanely outlandish, and when they are called out on it, they just use the "I was obviously sarcastic" card. So, like, the 'Saturday Night Live Card'?

Do you not find a difference between a show that bills itself as comedy and satire and a site that bills itself as news and info?

Sure, but net effect is the same - saying something hugely biased and hiding behind a screen of humor (legitimate or not) to allow it to be said.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Story_within_a_story

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weekend_Update

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jester

Post reply on HN