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

71–80 of 595 posts

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

#71

Post by vvanders »

LyndsySimon wrote: post #14
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…

> not the government breaking up peaceful and legal assemblies But the government is breaking up peaceful and legal assemblies. While I don't have the article handy, there have been arrests over the past few days for refusing to leave. As for "legal" - the First Amendment is very clear on this matter. The federal government (and through the incorporation doctrine, the governments of the several states) is specificall…

How is this different than shouting fire in a crowded theatre?

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

#72

Post by oldsklgdfth »

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, even if they may disagree radically about how to do that.

It's interesting that even with the best case scenario there are entities with enough power to control behavior like that. That fact is scary.

If they have ulterior motives. That fact is scarier.

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

#73

Post by gdubs »

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’m too tired at the moment to figure out where I stand on this [issue of free speech / assembly] but I have a general question: I thought the Supreme Court has already shown that there are limits to speech, such as yelling “Fire” in a crowded theater. I guess the distinction is how directly the speech leads to harm. Would that apply in this situation where most medical experts would agree that the quarantine is necessary for saving lives? Or is the thinking that this is too far removed — like telling people they can’t protest seat-belts.

Edit: I’ll clarify by saying that (my personal opinion) is that the protests are at best ... misguided. My question is about precedent on free speech / assembly under circumstances where harm might occur or it violates something like a quarantine or shelter-in-place order. The Atlantic article linked below is fascinating because I definitely have always thought of the “fire in a crowded theater example.”

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

#74

Post by throwlaplace »

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…

> 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.

Are you serious? You see little reason? What is the logical fallacy where someone relativites and discounts in order to claim good faith? You see this massive coordinated effort to antagonize and concerted effort to obfuscate the leadership of the effort and you think it's in good faith? All for the greater good of the nation's wellbeing?

You might as well claim there's little reason to doubt that the current administration itself is also making a good faith effort to preserve health and well-being.

There are only two conclusions that can be drawn from your comment: you are either completely and utterly naive or you yourself are dissembling.

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

#75

Post by clairity »

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…

the collection of arguments being made by the protesters (as reported) mostly seem farcical and incoherent, but we should very much support their right to protest and challenge the authoritarian-prone position that we must be locked down indefinitely to beat this pandemic.

administrative directives need to convince a (super-)majority of the populace with evidence to gain trust and compliance. antagonistic pressure needs to remain so that the implied force behind those directives are removed as soon as possible (no sooner, no later).

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

#76

Post by dependenttypes »

vvanders wrote: post #71
LyndsySimon wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> not the government breaking up peaceful and legal assemblies But the government is breaking up peaceful and legal assemblies. While I don't have the article handy, there have been arrests over the past few days for refusing to leave. As for "legal" - the First Amendment is very clear on this matter. The federal government (and through the incorporation doctrine, the governments of the several states) is specificall…

How is this different than shouting fire in a crowded theatre?

We had a thread about this yesterday actually. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22914333

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

#77

Post by otterley »

a1369209993 wrote: post #51
CamperBob2 wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And forcing Facebook to publish points of view they disagree with doesn't harm the Bill of Rights?

Of course not. Facebook is a corporation; people are what have rights.

As assemblies of people, corporations have rights. In fact, the right of the people to peaceably assemble and petition the Government for redress of grievances is explicitly protected in the First Amendment of the Constitution.

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

#78

Post by debaserab2 »

0xy wrote: post #42
otterley wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I'm fully aware, I'm asking of which specific point needs data to back it up. I assumed the link between poverty and mortality was blindingly obvious. Of course poverty has bad health outcomes, and I've just cited sources in another reply.

I don't think that's the part that's tripping people up. You're kinda just hand-waving over the link between the newly unemployed facing the same conditions that create an increased mortality rate for those in poverty. Not all who are unemployed lack the means to continue living an unimpoverished lifestyle (savings, benefits, depending on a partner, budget reduction, etc) and presumably many of the unemployed will become employed again when economic conditions improve.

This is the part that isn't "blindingly obvious" and requires a bit more of a substantive argument to backup the statement that "the deaths from coronavirus will be nothing compared to the deaths caused by economic destruction".

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

#79

Post by [deleted] »

LyndsySimon wrote: post #14
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…

> not the government breaking up peaceful and legal assemblies But the government is breaking up peaceful and legal assemblies. While I don't have the article handy, there have been arrests over the past few days for refusing to leave. As for "legal" - the First Amendment is very clear on this matter. The federal government (and through the incorporation doctrine, the governments of the several states) is specificall…

[deleted]

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

#80

Post by oldsklgdfth »

a1369209993 wrote: post #51
CamperBob2 wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And forcing Facebook to publish points of view they disagree with doesn't harm the Bill of Rights?

Of course not. Facebook is a corporation; people are what have rights.

In America, corporations are people.

Citizens United v. FEC

Post reply on HN