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

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

#441

Post by rainonmoon » Thu, May 02, 2019, 11:00 PM UTC

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…

> Facebook is arguably the new public square, which is precisely my point.

Hey, I think Clay Shirky wants his point from 2008 back. Since we actually have more than 10 years to have reflected on this idea, we can now see it's patently nonsense, given that the idea of the "public square" doesn't encompass harvesting the conversations which happen therein, aggressive tailored marketing, and leaking of personal information from everyone who crosses through. Facebook capitalises on the notion of a public square. That does not make it one.

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

#442

Post by razakel » Thu, May 02, 2019, 11:02 PM UTC

chimpburger wrote: post #431

razakel wrote: post #413

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

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

Why would no journalists or paparazzi found anything? Most people actually go out in public with their spouses.

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

#443

Post by naasking » Thu, May 02, 2019, 11:03 PM UTC

spitfire wrote: post #350

naasking wrote: post #317

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In those emails Bannon instructs Milo/etc to target specific groups. There were multiple instances of this throughout the emails. I suppose you mean the Breitbart emails. Targeting groups would not surprise me, they obviously have an agenda and bias, like most organizations. The real question is whether these same emails actually suggest that they don't believe the propaganda they published, and that they're just d…

You're suggesting Julius Steicher shouldn't have been charged in the Nuremberg trials? There is a direct comparison to the actions taken leading up to and during WWII and now. It's the exact same material being published again. In fact in some cases it's literally the exact same "Jew pulling puppet strings of from above" posters/ads as were in WWII. You can look up some of the ads Brexit leave campaigns have put out.…

> You're suggesting Julius Steicher shouldn't have been charged in the Nuremberg trials?

If Breitbart and Bannon were acting solely at the direction of white supremacists or neo-Nazis, and so the ultimate agenda of ethnocleansing were clear, that's a totally different scenario. There's no need for charity or a presumption of innocence. The summaries of the emails I've read suggest that isn't the case.

> There absolutely is a direct plan to incite violence, check the emails.

I'd love to, but googling doesn't seem to turn up anything but comments and summaries. Given the emotionally charged nature of this topic, I'd prefer to read the source myself. If you have a link please share.

> And of course a video of Bannon laying things out

Sounds like he's laying out a campaign strategy. Again the question is whether he actually believes in it, or if he's pushing this agenda for ulterior motives.

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

#444

Post by jerrycruncher » Thu, May 02, 2019, 11:03 PM UTC

hackerpacker wrote: post #310

jeffrom wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

both of them pretty clearly are on our radar for their political speech (feminism is cancer, “free speech”, soros conspiracies, etc). Given what we know about social media and violence, entertainment value should be a secondary concern.

"Given what we know about social media and violence" you mean how social media is akin to a pressure relief valve, and how actual violence has gone down since it took off? And how this is probably about clicks and stirring the pot than actual violence, and how this is just going to completely backfire? Shall we burn some books too?

You're taking an overall reduction in violent crime in the US to mean that hate crimes have also decreased.

The opposite is the case, and it is absolutely because extremist/fringe material has become increasingly and vastly more easily available.

50 dead in Christchurch, scores of Rohyinga in Myanmar, 11 dead in a Pittsburgh Mosque are all victims from what you call a 'pressure relief valve.'

"An FBI report released in November 2018 detailing hate crimes across more than 3,000 police agencies showed a more than 17% uptick in 2017, fueled by increases in attacks against religious and racial minorities. The count documented 7,175 hate crimes in 2017. The tally was 1,054 higher than the year before. It included a 37% increase in anti-Jewish crimes, a 24% increase in attacks on Latinos and a nearly 16% rise in crimes against African Americans."[1]

[1] https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-poway-jewish-hate-...

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

#445

Post by objectivetruth » Thu, May 02, 2019, 11:03 PM UTC

avn2109 wrote: post #213

aeturnum wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think I made a claim that SV (or anyone) is an objective arbiter of truth. I said: 1) At some point, if you allow a view to be expressed on your platform, you become somewhat implicated in that view spreading. 2) I believe (and I think FB believes) that the views these people promote are harmeful. Now, should we trust Facebook? No! Facebook has banned many people and groups for far less than these people were…

I am not the author of the parent comment that you're replying to, but I appreciate your civil reply in a flamebait-y thread. That said, his point seems to be that FB is banning e.g. Farrakhan without making any effort at disproving Farrakhan's claims, and furthermore that many of the commenters in this thread are similarly dismissive of Farrakhan's claims without offering anything resembling a good-faith disproof of…

[dead]

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

#446

Post by cat199 » Thu, May 02, 2019, 11:06 PM UTC

colordrops wrote: post #211

cat199 wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> to create narratives in which blackness is not looked down upon. This is good, needed work. so like: In the Nation of Islam, both God and the devil are human beings. Elijah Muhammad identified the devil as the white man, the Caucasian race. According to Elijah, though the black race is many trillions of years old, the white race began a mere six thousand years ago with Yakub, one of the Black Gods of this time cycl…

As if other religions had a sane non violent healthy mythology. Please.

ah yes, argumentum ad cultural relitivismus.

does this actually negate my point?

nevermind the fact that it is not actually true..

christanity, buddhism, sikhism, etc. among many, many, others do not have racism as part of their theological core doctrines. This is not to say that strands of any haven't misused the theology in the name of racism, but your claim is patently false.

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

#447

Post by devmunchies » Thu, May 02, 2019, 11:06 PM UTC

losteric wrote: post #172

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?

Facebook is a corporation and their website is private property. You have no free speech.

So can they stop acting like they censor equally across the ideological/political spectrum? It's fine that they have an agenda, but the corporate lawyer speak after events like this, feigning equal censorship, is so disingenuous (and I can't stand one minute of Jones or Yiannopoulos).

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

#448

Post by naasking » Thu, May 02, 2019, 11:09 PM UTC

rainonmoon wrote: post #441

naasking wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> Facebook is arguably the new public square, which is precisely my point. Hey, I think Clay Shirky wants his point from 2008 back. Since we actually have more than 10 years to have reflected on this idea, we can now see it's patently nonsense, given that the idea of the "public square" doesn't encompass harvesting the conversations which happen therein, aggressive tailored marketing, and leaking of personal informat…

> given that the idea of the "public square" doesn't encompass harvesting the conversations which happen therein, aggressive tailored marketing, and leaking of personal information from everyone who crosses through.

Oh, so marketers aren't allowed to poll, film or listen in on conversations that happen out in public? In fact that's perfectly legal.

> Facebook capitalises on the notion of a public square. That does not make it one.

And free speech protections also need not be limited to overly strict definitions of public square. The question these types of controversies should be raising is whether free speech protections should extend to services like Facebook.

Facebook is a private space that anyone and everyone can freely access, and are, in fact, encouraged to frequent as much as humanly possible, and arguably has become intrinsic to the daily life of many, perhaps most, Americans. In fact, it's probably one of their primary means of socializing with friends and family, and definitely a medium for political discourse. Arguing it's a purely private space seems increasingly flimsy, frankly.

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

#449

Post by chimpburger » Thu, May 02, 2019, 11:10 PM UTC

razakel wrote: post #442

chimpburger wrote: post #431

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

>I'll take his word for it. I'm not delusional/paranoid/schizophrenic/obsessed enough to have such motivations. Why would no journalists or paparazzi found anything? Most people actually go out in public with their spouses.

There is zero evidence that he has white supremacist beliefs. Why haven't journalists found any evidence to the contrary? I don't care who he is married to. It is utterly irrelevant, trivial, small minded, petty nonsense.

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

#450

Post by cat199 » Thu, May 02, 2019, 11:10 PM UTC

TheRealDunkirk wrote: post #374

aeturnum wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hah, no, I would not say that's the "good" part of the the Nation of Islam. However, just like Christianity has been able to do some amount of "good work" while insisting that "Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says"[1], the Nation is not "all bad." I personally would judge its good works to be more crippled by its doctrine than most faith…

That was PART of the apostle Paul's admonition about keeping order in a gathering of the saints, from a wide variety of angles. I think the context is explained by the next verse: If they have questions, let them ask their husbands at home. Ergo: don't disrupt the proceedings with distractions. (And even if you accept this interpretation, you may now commence criticizing Paul for inferring that only women needed to b…

nevermind the glorification of mary, spreading the practice practicing of monogamy instead of male:multi-female polygamy, being anti-prostitution, etc..

oh right, but those things are really 'supressing women'.