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

231–240 of 595 posts

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

#231

Post by dahart »

gdubs wrote: post #73
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 nece…

> I thought the Supreme Court has already shown that there are limits to speech

Yes correct, freedom of speech is not absolute, there are a lot of limitations in the U.S.: “libel, slander, obscenity, pornography, sedition, incitement, fighting words, classified information, copyright violation, trade secrets, food labeling, non-disclosure agreements, the right to privacy, dignity, the right to be forgotten, public security, and perjury.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech#Limitations

The problem in this case is it can be reasonably argued that quarantine is damaging to some people, and not quarantining is damaging to other people. Even if it really is a bad idea to protest, it might be really difficult to establish clearly and legally that protesting is causing unnecessary harm, and greater harm than not protesting.

I’ve read the Wikipedia page on Freedom of Speech before, but I just noticed for the first time the interesting criteria called “Imminent lawless action”. I’m not a lawyer, but it seems possible this could apply even if harm can’t be demonstrated.

“Under the imminent lawless action test, speech is not protected by the First Amendment if the speaker intends to incite a violation of the law that is both imminent and likely.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action

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

#232

Post by phakding »

orangecat wrote: post #217
phakding wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That sort of proves my point. UK didn't even want to restrict anything. Netherlands, Italy and Spain acted too late. Sweden decides to selectively restrict. In US people are willing to sacrifice human life for economic activity and no wonder all these countries are worse off as far as fatality rate goes compared some other countries like Germany or India.

It's just odd that I constantly hear how horribly Sweden is doing, and not a peep about Switzerland. In US people are willing to sacrifice human life for economic activity How many additional COVID19 deaths would you accept to avoid a crippling economic depression? If the answer is zero, you are not being serious. If the answer is more than zero, then as Churchill noted, we've established what kind of person you are…

There, that's your reason. May be do a google search next time. https://www.thelocal.ch/20200324/explained-why-does-switzerl...

Crippling economic depression? What's the proof this is going to cause crippling economic depression. If you are so concerned about crippling economic depression, what were you doing when the stock market crashed from 17,000 down to 6 some thousand back in 08? Did you go out and protest and made sure the companies need to be held responsible and punished?

And Churchill? Seriously? This is the guy who considered Indians and Persians and other colored people less than human and who literally caused hundreds thousands of deaths in either nation, believed in racial hierarchy and social darwinism. I don't give a flying fudge what Churchill thinks of me.

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

#233

Post by guscost »

Facebook is performing an editorial function on the information they distribute by removing content that is not illegal. They're a publisher, it's as clear as day. By stepping into this role they should forfeit any exemption from liability[0] for the content that they publish. I'm sure that they pay a bunch of lobbyists to distract lawmakers from this fact, but they won't be able to escape it forever.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communicati...

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

#234

Post by toast0 »

Pils wrote: post #181
duchenne wrote: post #155

I guess it is easy to dismiss the message from ordinary people, since they do not express themselves as well as the professional speakers we are used to listen to. If instead of saying "I want a haircut.", they would say like Benjamin Franklin: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." would they be taken more seriously? In the movie versio…

If a country is unwilling to make reasonable accommodations for working people to vote, defending in-person protests during a global pandemic as necessary for said country's democracy is beyond parody.

I've voted in three states. In California, permanent absentee registration is simple (now, it wasn't 30 years ago), and the state mandates time off to vote. In Washington state, all voting is vote by mail. I don't remember what voting in Wisconsin was like (at the time, I did same day registration, but I think they went back and forth). In the US, voting is a state issue, for better or worse, and there are plenty of examples of states where voting is reasonable.

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

#235

Post by happytoexplain »

dmix wrote: post #229
tjr225 wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have been a staunch progressive for my entire adulthood and now find myself strongly agreeing with the other side of the aisle. Strange times.

This is where the pyramid makes more sense than left/right. This is authoritarianism/centralization top of the pyramid, where people think they know what's best for other people and a top-down approach to "fixing stupid" is the best solution. I personally think it's okay/normal for there to be idiots in society and trying to fix stupid by stopping them from protesting via opaque big tech companies moderation policies…

>I'd much rather have some stupid people protesting than have FB/outrage mobs driving what is okay to protest about.

Note how dramatically you understate one side and overstate the other by your choice of wording.

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

#236

Post by lonelappde »

nostromo wrote: post #131
bargl wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We tend to want to lump people into camps so we don't have to go through and see all the various sub-categories and determine if they are OK or not. Some states are restricting fishing and hunting... That's not a team sport and if I use a lure (edit: as in I don't even have to go to the store for bait) I'm not going to affect anyone else. Some protesters want to get haircuts.... GET OVER IT. I feel like both sides ha…

> Some protesters want to get haircuts.... GET OVER IT. People feed themselves and provide their family's healthcare by providing haircuts. Everything is essential to someone. I wouldn't be so dismissive.

Money to buy food is essential for the barbers. Not the haircuts. There is plenty of food and delivery machinery, thanks to the good people working on it, who deserve to paid funds they can spend later or on socially distant goods and services.

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

#237

Post by SamWhited »

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…

> But the government is breaking up peaceful and legal assemblies

First let's assume for the sake of argument that you're right: it still doesn't matter, Facebook is not the government. Facebook can tell stupid people to shut up and stop putting innocent people at risk and that is not breaking up "peaceful and legal assemblies" as you put it.

Now, going back to the government breaking up "peaceful and legal assemblies" (which these are not), it still doesn't matter: you are not guaranteed every right in the constitution at all times equally. A good example of this is time, place and manner restrictions: the government can't tell you that you're not allowed to advocate for a candidate for office, that would violate the first amendment. However, they are allowed to tell you that you can't advocate for a candidate for office at 1AM with a loudspeaker in a residential neighborhood. That's effectively what these people are doing: there is a pandemic, their actions could hurt a lot of people, so their stupid assembly is not legal. (Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer and nothing I say constitutes legal advice)

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

#238

Post by reilly3000 »

jerf wrote: post #198
TomMckenny wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>that all involved are trying to minimize general death and misery Unless the anti-quarantine events are organized by a hostile power. And this seems likely since they are insanely harmfully, arose suddenly and with widespread and great organization and have a lot of precedent. [1][2][3] And especially since it's already been explicitly shown for at least some of the domains connected to the protests.[4] [1] https://…

I can tell you "from the field" that there are plenty of real people who really do feel the lockdowns are being overdone and doing more harm than good, yes, even accounting for the possibility of an increased infection rate. The damage being done by the lockdown is a big number, and quite concrete; the damage that would have been done if we didn't lock down is a widely variable number under any honest analysis and th…

Read Krebs' article, there is fairly clear evidence that there was a coordinated effort to create these groups and promote them. There was sentiments, but no grassroots movement that was co-opted, this started as astroturf and received coordinated support.

Think about the implications of a foreign power being able to spread disease and death with disinformation. Is it 'war' if a million people end up dead, even if no bullets were fired? Who are the combatants, and how, as Americans could we win that war?

There is a strong case for reopening ASAP and the pressure is becoming more real by the day. Its perfectly reasonable to be skeptical about the overreach of Government power, and even to take action against it. That said, in this time, with the scale of the infection in the US, opening too soon is an unnecessary danger to millions of people.

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

#239

Post by Rapzid »

alyx wrote: post #196
czardoz wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're talking about this as if a "calculated risk" is limited to that individual, but it's not. Someone's "calculated risk" is literally death knell for others. In this case, the health of the society as a whole is at stake. Therefore, people need to collectively follow rules, and understand that minor inconveniences such as not being able to get a haircut will only affect them for a few weeks or months.

I don’t think you read his post. You are endangering others‘ lives each time you drive. And yet you’re not inline at the DMV surrendering your license, why? Seasonal sickness also isn’t new. My coworker gave me the flu and I gave it to my grandmother. Who’s at fault there?

The DMV that exists.

The license you are required to have to drive.

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

#240

Post by mrcsharp »

ethbro wrote: post #137
nopriorarrests wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>situation where most medical experts would agree that the quarantine is necessary for saving lives The same experts (like WHO) told everyone 3 month ago that masks don't work, that no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission was found, etc. If they made such obvious mistakes and we still have to obey their orders now, what's the point of having government at all? Let's just accept the rule by the experts and ge…

> If they made such obvious mistakes and we still have to obey their orders now, what's the point of having government at all? That a human made an error doesn't mean the public is smarter than them.

It was not just "a human". It was an entire organization that is supposedly ran by experts.

So there is nothing malicious with the same public that funds the WHO to now start questioning them and their recommendations.

Post reply on HN