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

741–750 of 776 posts

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

#741

Post by dang »

emilfihlman wrote: post #733
dang wrote: post #603

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please don't post flamewar comments here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Flamewar? Only in some self serving interpretation. These same rules disagree with you on your comment. Free speech is a right, I'd argue a human right. Inalienable, guaranteed, innate and hugely important. Yes, you can live without it. But so you can live without the right of free movement, without equality before the law, without freedom, without right to being alive, and this is actually how most of our history wa…

The internet forum comment, as a genre, can't bear this level of rhetorical weight and fire. It's too trivial.

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

#742

Post by SantalBlush »

miemo wrote: post #740
SantalBlush wrote: post #586

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The reach of facebook, or the reach of youtube, twitter etc, is so high, that if you want to disseminate a message, those _must_ be the platforms you use. This isn't true though. Alex Jones can disseminate his message through countless other websites, which have their own users. This is really just advocating for equal exposure of opinions, which isn't a free speech issue.

it's not equal exposure at all, it's equal opportunity for exposure. i can post a comment on FB and get 0 likes, that doesn't give me equal exposure to the latest nike video on their page. denying opportunity for exposure is giving that platform the ultimate authority on what shouldn't be able to be exposed in society, if society is reliant on that platform. i don't want alex jones to have exposure, but i don't want…

Society in the United States is in no way reliant on that platform. If it were, then we would be in agreement.

If we're talking about internet providers, that's a different issue, since they are a user's conduit to the entire web. Those absolutely should not be able to choose which accounts to favor.

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

#743

Post by [deleted] »

dang wrote: post #739
chimpburger wrote: post #727

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know the rules, and I don't mind getting banned. It's easy to make a new account. I am sick and tired of toxic insane leftist morons getting all the non-leftists banned / deplatformed everywhere, just for having opposing views. This backwards third world shit needs to stop.

I think it's clear to most readers, separately from their leftness or rightness, how badly your comment broke the site guidelines. Why not just take them to heart and follow them? It's mostly not that hard, and will have the nice side effect of making your posts more persuasive. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

[deleted]

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

#744

Post by chimpburger »

dang wrote: post #739
chimpburger wrote: post #727

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know the rules, and I don't mind getting banned. It's easy to make a new account. I am sick and tired of toxic insane leftist morons getting all the non-leftists banned / deplatformed everywhere, just for having opposing views. This backwards third world shit needs to stop.

I think it's clear to most readers, separately from their leftness or rightness, how badly your comment broke the site guidelines. Why not just take them to heart and follow them? It's mostly not that hard, and will have the nice side effect of making your posts more persuasive. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

The guidelines state that I'm not allowed to post unkind comments. These people deserve harsh criticism, therefore I am happy to break that guideline.

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

#745

Post by dang »

chimpburger wrote: post #744
dang wrote: post #739

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's clear to most readers, separately from their leftness or rightness, how badly your comment broke the site guidelines. Why not just take them to heart and follow them? It's mostly not that hard, and will have the nice side effect of making your posts more persuasive. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

The guidelines state that I'm not allowed to post unkind comments. These people deserve harsh criticism, therefore I am happy to break that guideline.

The guidelines aren't that way because those people necessarily deserve better, but because the community deserves better. When you break the guidelines like that, you're damaging the community you're participating in. Worse, you're damaging it where it's most vulnerable. HN is only valuable because smart, thoughtful people choose to come here.

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

#746

Post by Daishiman »

emilfihlman wrote: post #732
Daishiman wrote: post #527

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This literally makes no coherent argument.

Free speech is a right, I'd argue a human right. Inalienable, guaranteed, innate and hugely important. Yes, you can live without it. But so you can live without the right of free movement, without equality before the law, without freedom, without right to being alive, and this is actually how most of our history was. These rights are a rather recent innovation. But should you? Should we? Eroding human rights only lea…

But rights don't live in a vacuum. The US has established that fighting words aren't free speech. Everywhere around we've recognized that speech has limits, and unlimited speech can be harassment, an invitation to destroy and much more.

Speech isn't just a debate between intellectuals sitting in a lounge arguing about things in a wholly experimental matter.

And saying that it is inalienable or innate without considering its true limits is merely a thought-terminating cliche that doesn't delve into the deeper considerations.

And as mentioned above, free speech is just one right among many, sometimes in direct conflict with others. Thus, the resolution and primacy of rights is something left to courts, philosophers, and representatives.

Germany has decided that your right to speech isn't higher than spreading hateful ideologies. The limit as to what constitutes a hateful ideology isn't firmly grounded, but so far courts there have acted in a consistent and pragmatic matter. I'd argue that the speech of people whose idea of speech is promoting the end of a race isn't really something we care about, and I can certainly construct a moral framework where their speech is fairly irrelevant and I don't think most of us are going to lose sleep over it.

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

#747

Post by brigandish »

SantalBlush wrote: post #730
brigandish wrote: post #638

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of people who support the notion of free markets also support there being some regulation, especially for things like monopolies (which end up distorting markets until they resemble unfree ones). It’s a spectrum, not black and white.

Just to make sure we're on the same page, by "free-market-leaning" I mean opposing government regulations in markets. Advocating for some regulation is generally not considered supportive of a free market; on the contrary, that's just supportive of a market.

That’s what I thought you meant, and I think that’s a mischaracterisation of the group in question and of those more generally who say they’re advocates of free markets. Are any of them not against slavery on the basis it’s unfree? (based on your definition)

Small or limited government is usually the given position, vague as that may be, not zero government.

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

#748

Post by BubRoss »

wolco wrote: post #605
SantalBlush wrote: post #586

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The reach of facebook, or the reach of youtube, twitter etc, is so high, that if you want to disseminate a message, those _must_ be the platforms you use. This isn't true though. Alex Jones can disseminate his message through countless other websites, which have their own users. This is really just advocating for equal exposure of opinions, which isn't a free speech issue.

Not free speech but open platforms.

There are plenty of places on the internet more lenient than the biggest websites. Check out voat and see what happens when people banned from other platforms go to the same place. It isn't pretty but at least they aren't a blight on other groups.

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

#749

Post by dingo_bat »

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…

This is exactly right. This is the reason I am against implementing net neutrality as people currently think about it. Actual net neutrality would include monopoly online platforms like Facebook, YouTube and Google. They should not be allowed to shut off people based on their opinions. They should be forced to adhere to a standard closer to that prescribed for government. If that is unacceptable to you, it should be unacceptable to force internet providers to provide a completely neutral internet, too.

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

#750

Post by scrollaway »

emilfihlman wrote: post #734
scrollaway wrote: post #528

Earlier quoted context omitted.

None of what you wrote even remotely compares to the parent comment. You're trying to be witty by using a simile but it's falling flat.

Do explain how it's falling flat? It's exactly a point against what OP argues, that trading (human) rights for "security" (theatre) is a good trade, which it absolutely is not.

It fell flat because your comparison was wildly exaggerated. The two rights are not equivalent, they're not even treated equivalently anywhere in the world. You also blew the arguments out of proportion which is likely why your comment got flagged.

Furthermore while you may call this security theater, the spread of propaganda is actually dangerous. Being able to fight it is as important as being able to give people free speech.

Remember the Golden rule: your human rights stop where others' begin. Hate speech and propaganda aren't free, they infringe on some people's right to safety. It's only a bad trade if your want to spread said propaganda is more important to you than your right to be safe from it.

Post reply on HN