Earlier quoted context omitted.
The triangle wasn't the only Nazi reference. They ran 88 variations of the ad, and the first sentence had 14 words. Both numbers are well-known references used by neo-Nazis for decades. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/88_Precepts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteen_Words edit: If anyone doesn't believe that "14 words" is a neo-Nazi dog-whistle, here's the Anti-Defamation League's explanation: https://www.adl.org/edu…
How do you know how many variations of the ad they ran?
Facebook takes down accounts and pages of Roger Stone
51–60 of 81 posts
Re: Facebook takes down accounts and pages of Roger Stone
#52[flagged]
>It appears FB & Twitter are taking down a lot of people they perceive and label as 'far right'
Can you give some examples of folks who you think should not have been removed(apart from Stone)?
>but ok with Marxists and others on the left fringes being featured and even promoted
Can you give some examples of such people who you think should be banned if there was no bias?
Re: Facebook takes down accounts and pages of Roger Stone
#53Earlier quoted context omitted.
Seems Antifa has been affiliated with the upside down red triangle before any Trump campaign images used it[1] [1] https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/a/47921/36967
That top answer is editorializing but their own analysis indicates that in Europe the upside red triangle is incredibly common in resistance movement imagery as well as having precedented use in US Antifa branches.
As far as symbols go, it's fairly good. Simple is better than complex. A red triangle has no difficult lines, curves or fine detail. You can spray paint it, print it, draw it... and it will look pretty much the same every time.
The three flag symbol isn't nearly as easy to make the same everywhere every time without some official stencil or something.
Re: Facebook takes down accounts and pages of Roger Stone
#54Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is not my responsibility to define whether it is a "platform" or a "publisher" as a user. I feel it is behaving more as a publisher than as a platform. I have explained in detail my reasoning (if you wish to learn more about my stand on this): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23716300 I have no issues with any social media groups taking action on posts that are explicitly illegal (based on your jurisdiction):…
They've always been censoring is my point. Profanity, porn and hatefulness is a normative decision. This also doesn't touch the problem that the platform based on its content structuring and targeting will always reward emotional ideas over everything. You're just frustrated now because they came for your voice. If they're going to put advertising up against it, they should be held to the same annoying process and re…
> If they're going to put advertising up against it, they should be held to the same annoying process and responsibility that broadcast media is.
But then don't you think that is selective application of law? Why should they be held to the same annoying process and responsibility only for advertising? Why not for the entire platform or publisher or whatever you want to call it. Let them be held liable for every post that goes on their network just like broadcast media is. Why just stop at advertising?
EDIT:
> You're just frustrated now because they came for your voice
Maybe they are suppressing other voices too which I am unaware of. But that point is not going to change my opinion is it? That these social media companies do enjoy powers that even Governments do not. My question is: Why are we letting them get away with it?
Re: Facebook takes down accounts and pages of Roger Stone
#55Earlier quoted context omitted.
But wasn't the alternative in the past just less data and fewer people with power to create preserved data?
No, you had letters and other primary source material. The garbage on Twitter is literally garbage and propaganda. The bleating of various mouthpieces are only useful in coordination with events and real documents.
Don't you suppose that letters also contained a lot of garbage and propaganda? I don't think we are generating less primary source material now that will be usable by future historians.
Re: Facebook takes down accounts and pages of Roger Stone
#56Earlier quoted context omitted.
How do you know how many variations of the ad they ran?
https://www.vox.com/recode/2020/6/18/21295226/facebook-trump... https://www.salon.com/2020/06/19/facebook-pulls-trump-campai...
You actually think they are giggling to themselves that they ran some obscure magic Nazi number of ads and nobody knows? hehehe!
There's a lot to bash Trump with... we don't need to make stuff up.
Re: Facebook takes down accounts and pages of Roger Stone
#57Earlier quoted context omitted.
I see this come up a lot and it seems silly, let's summarize: • The ad was about a political stance they disagree with (Antifa) • The upside-down red triangle was specifically used to mark groups of prisoners who participated in anti-nazi political speech So what's the alternative? That the Trump campaign chose an upside-down red triangle in an ad at random because... it's uh... a shape? Do they also have ads with bl…
They didn’t choose the symbol at random but rather because it’s the symbol many Antifa supporters use to brand their movement https://www.redbubble.com/i/sticker/Antifascist-Red-Triangle... Perhaps Antifa itself got the symbol from nazis though?
You picked a single example that's also referenced in a stackexchange answer that did a fair amount of work exploring the usage of the symbol.
"It can be found in that context. But it is surely not the most recognisable symbol for Antifa in the US."
https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/47917/have-anti...
So ok, maybe we can give the benefit of the doubt. By why not use the actual symbol that's very predominantly used in Antifacist protests? It's very easy to find and much more familiar and relevant. Honestly it would have made for a better ad.
And in isolation this is a single mistake, but the administration has been repeatedly criticized for using fascist symbolism and language, including "America First." At what point do these things stop being coincidental?
Re: Facebook takes down accounts and pages of Roger Stone
#58Earlier quoted context omitted.
You could say the same about the slave trader statues or the army bases named after certain people.
I see this opinion all the time about taking down statues, but how does that make any sense? Is there a movement that is burning books and taking down Wikipedia pages to go along with the statues? Because when I want to learn about history, I don’t check my local city hall.. Statues are often used to glorify or celebrate famous historical figures. I think Confederate statues would work well in a museum with context e…
What about a Roman or a Greek statue, they were enthusiastic slave owners. How long ago does someone have to have lived in order to appreciate them as a historical figure regardless of whether their actions were good or bad. Obviously there exists a point.
Re: Facebook takes down accounts and pages of Roger Stone
#59Earlier quoted context omitted.
You could say the same about the slave trader statues or the army bases named after certain people.
I see this opinion all the time about taking down statues, but how does that make any sense? Is there a movement that is burning books and taking down Wikipedia pages to go along with the statues? Because when I want to learn about history, I don’t check my local city hall.. Statues are often used to glorify or celebrate famous historical figures. I think Confederate statues would work well in a museum with context e…
To me, statues represent history.
Not all history is good, and not all is bad.
Removal of statues, to me, is like trying to hide history.
Statues usually have some plaque describing who the person was, and what they did. Why can't that plaque say the guy owned slaves, or was a confederate general or whatever? Ya, these guys were on the wrong side of history, but there's still things to be learned.
One of the best military minds of all time, for example, happened to be a confederate. Should we learn nothing from this man aside from the fact that he was a confederate?
Re: Facebook takes down accounts and pages of Roger Stone
#60Earlier quoted context omitted.
They've always been censoring is my point. Profanity, porn and hatefulness is a normative decision. This also doesn't touch the problem that the platform based on its content structuring and targeting will always reward emotional ideas over everything. You're just frustrated now because they came for your voice. If they're going to put advertising up against it, they should be held to the same annoying process and re…
> If they're going to put advertising up against it, they should be held to the same annoying process and responsibility that broadcast media is. But then don't you think that is selective application of law? Why should they be held to the same annoying process and responsibility only for advertising? Why not for the entire platform or publisher or whatever you want to call it. Let them be held liable for every post…
Section 230 was explicitly written to allow a hybrid between platforms and publishers. It stemmed from a court case where a financial forum run by Prodigy was successfully sued for a forum post by a member. It was designed to allow forums like HN etc. moderate without being liable for users' posts.
You can argue about what you think the law should be, contact your local reps and push a bill to do that. But just repeating the argument about how Twitter is behaving like a publisher won't get you far when there have been court cases that ended in the judges saying what they do is the intent of Section 230. Again, you're arguing like it's 1992.