Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Facebook says it has removed promotion of anti-quarantine events

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 595 posts

Re: Facebook says it has removed promotion of anti-quarantine events

#31

Post by otterley »

chrisco255 wrote: post #3

These are Americans exercising their constitutional rights to freedom of speech and assembly. Whether you agree with the protestors or not is irrelevant. Your rights are impacted, too, by this arbitrary platform bias. This cannot stand for long. We have to move away from centralized monopolies on the web.

Fine, they can do it in the public square, just like they always have, subject to health department regulations.

Facebook is not a public entity; they are a private company and the Constitution does not constrain it. You can argue that Facebook is depriving you of your Constitutional rights until you're blue in the face, but it'll probably get you nowhere in court.

Re: Facebook says it has removed promotion of anti-quarantine events

#32

Post by glitcher »

devmunchies wrote: post #9
edgefield0 wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a bogus argument. The protestors are advocating for behavior that will literally kill people, including medical personnel. The protesters are no different than those who call for deadly riots or civil war. They deserve to be shut down for jeopardizing public health and safety.

any decision can kill people, whether its motor traffic laws, junk food laws, or smoking laws, or quarantine laws. its all open for debate and should not be deplatformed for mere protest. There is a point where quarantine does more damage than good, especially when thinking big picture and government control.

Looks like the strawman has some offspring now.

Re: Facebook says it has removed promotion of anti-quarantine events

#33

Post by 0xy »

debaserab2 wrote: post #30
0xy wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This would only be true if coronavirus was more deadly than the dramatic increase in poverty that the resulting economic destruction of the shutdown will cause, which is extremely doubtful. Unemployment is deadly. The mortality rate while in poverty is over 2.5x.

That's an impossible claim to backup. A traditional unemployment rate may result in a 2.5x increase in mortality rate, but this isn't a normal period of unemployment -- congress just injected an unimaginably large amount of money into the economy with the deliberate goal of keeping the unemployed afloat until things can re-open. You can't really look at a past study of unemployment effects and expect it to be anythin…

You're correct that we have no idea, but it's likely to be worse. Some communities won't come back from this.

The economy cannot be paused without massive stimulus to keep it afloat (and no, the current stimulus isn't keeping it afloat). Some companies are entering bankruptcy as we speak. They aren't coming back.

Re: Facebook says it has removed promotion of anti-quarantine events

#34

Post by phakding »

0xy wrote: post #20
phakding wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have no data to support this.

Would you mind refuting specific points rather than disregarding my entire argument?

Your claim that the ensuing poverty will cause more deaths then corona virus. Do you have anything to support this? You made a claim so the onus is on you to provide supporting data. I don't need to refute anything at this juncture.

Re: Facebook says it has removed promotion of anti-quarantine events

#35

Post by 0xy »

glitcher wrote: post #26
0xy wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This would only be true if coronavirus was more deadly than the dramatic increase in poverty that the resulting economic destruction of the shutdown will cause, which is extremely doubtful. Unemployment is deadly. The mortality rate while in poverty is over 2.5x.

Source?

Apologies, I thought it would be obvious that poverty causes higher mortality.

http://news.mit.edu/2016/study-rich-poor-huge-mortality-gap-...

https://www.mailman.columbia.edu/public-health-now/news/how-...

Re: Facebook says it has removed promotion of anti-quarantine events

#37

Post by otterley »

0xy wrote: post #20
phakding wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have no data to support this.

Would you mind refuting specific points rather than disregarding my entire argument?

The person making the argument bears the burden of proof, not the person refuting it.

Re: Facebook says it has removed promotion of anti-quarantine events

#38

Post by agildehaus »

smitty1e wrote: post #13
SamWhited wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This entire comment is a strawman. This is not the same as "arbitrary platform bias". This is not Facebook saying "we have a certain political view and we talked to the government and they agreed so no other views are acceptable". This is them stopping stupid people from killing a lot of other people. Also, your rights aren't affected. This is Facebook telling stupid people to shut up and stop spreading fud that coul…

This is the government suppressing speech by proxy. Even if it survives legal review, this harms the spirit of the Bill of Rights, which is incorporated against the States. Voters should reply in November with their ballots as appropriate.

Where's the government in this? The government isn't forcing Facebook's hand.

Re: Facebook says it has removed promotion of anti-quarantine events

#39

Post by kevinventullo »

downerending wrote: post #24

It's worth noting that there is a lot of discussion in serious circles (including here on HN) about the balance between too much and not enough with respect to quarantine, lockdown, etc., both in terms of where we are now and what we should do in the near future. I see little reason to doubt that all involved are trying to minimize general death and misery, even if they may disagree radically about how to do that. It…

I see little reason to doubt that all involved are trying to minimize general death and misery

At the risk of sounding inflammatory, there are pretty clearly some actors who would welcome death and misery upon others if it meant they made some money.

Post reply on HN