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

Facebook takes down accounts and pages of Roger Stone

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 81 posts

Re: Facebook takes down accounts and pages of Roger Stone

#71

Post by belltaco »

olivermarks wrote: post #67
belltaco wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 repea…

Twitter crossed the Rubicon a few weeks ago by editorializing the US president's tweets with 'fact check' links. This has jeopardized the entire S230 gravy train for much of the BigTech platform service sector

How so? Is it going to get Congress to pass a bill to revoke Section 230? Otherwise there is nothing happening, we have a President, not a dictator. How is Twitter going to be hurt?

Re: Facebook takes down accounts and pages of Roger Stone

#72

Post by shripadk »

belltaco wrote: post #60
shripadk wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 repea…

I am not a US Citizen so I cannot push for changes to the law. But please try and understand that Twitter operates in well over 100+ countries. Section 230's jurisdiction only applies to the US. It doesn't extend to other nations. Now what will happen to the platform if it arbitrarily starts acting as a publisher? Other Countries will start regulating it or ban it which is obviously not in the interests of these companies. So taking the legal route will create a huge mess for these companies because once that process starts it cannot be stopped unless one of the parties pulls back. If a resolution can be found without taking the legal route then it should be pursued. That can only happen through dialogue and discussion. But for some strange reason this is shunned by the liberal gang. If we have to go to the courts for everything then we don't even need discussions in the first place.

Re: Facebook takes down accounts and pages of Roger Stone

#73

Post by brokencode »

mantap wrote: post #58
brokencode wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That’s fair, but does anybody find Roman or Greek statues offensive? To many in this country, Confederate statues are symbols of oppression and a reminder of the systemic racism in our society.

The answer to “Where do we draw the line?” should always be “somewhere”, instead of just throwing up your hands and admitting defeat.

Re: Facebook takes down accounts and pages of Roger Stone

#74

Post by tzs »

olivermarks wrote: post #35
uncoder0 wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are correct. Reddit tried to change all the moderators on the Donald Trump subreddit a few months back and in response the moderators built thedonald.win. After the recent ban wave of subs several others moved to the '.win network'.

I think the time has come for the major big tech PLATFORMS to declare their formal political allegiances and end the travesty they are 'just providing a Section230 service'. The EU's MEPs are organized by political views rather than party in a Burning Man style semi circle to debate the political views of the Commissioners and provide some input. In many ways the tech world could be organized in a similar way to bett…

Section 230 has nothing whatsoever to do with political alliances. You can explicitly moderate your site in favor of any particular position (political or otherwise) and you still get full section 230 immunity for user provided content.

That was the whole point of section 230. Before section 230 there had been court ruling that said if you moderated you were then responsible for everything. Section 230 was written to reverse that.

Re: Facebook takes down accounts and pages of Roger Stone

#76

Post by 37r6r6u3u3u »

aahhahahaaa wrote: post #57
javagram wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 predominan…

I'm not saying it isn't xenophobic and pandering to a nationalist base but it seems like a stretch to call "America First" fascist, especially when the phrase is generally accompanied by (dubious) accusations that the opposing party failed to prioritize the needs of the people. I could see the argument that the slogan was perhaps used as a tool to further fascist policies but "America First" represents fascism about as much as the Che Guervarra hats that Hot Topic used to sell represented communism.

Re: Facebook takes down accounts and pages of Roger Stone

#77

Post by belltaco »

shripadk wrote: post #72
belltaco wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 repea…

I am not a US Citizen so I cannot push for changes to the law. But please try and understand that Twitter operates in well over 100+ countries. Section 230's jurisdiction only applies to the US. It doesn't extend to other nations. Now what will happen to the platform if it arbitrarily starts acting as a publisher? Other Countries will start regulating it or ban it which is obviously not in the interests of these comp…

>Other Countries will start regulating it or ban it which is obviously not in the interests of these companies.

Please try and understand that things are different in the USA. Look at the mass shootings over the past several years and the ideologies behind them. Look at how Sandy Hook parents were caused to be harassed by Alex Jones.

What did Twitter do in your country? Sounds like a slippery slope fallacy to me. What are the laws around forums in your country? Can you sue a forum for user content?

Re: Facebook takes down accounts and pages of Roger Stone

#78

Post by WalterGR »

olivermarks wrote: post #41
jeffbee wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did you even read the story? They took it down because it's a network of dozens of paid sock puppets.

There are thousands of networks of paid political and corporate sock puppets exploiting these tech platforms. Some are allowed to get away with it and some are cancelled.

> Some are allowed to get away with it

Do you have any examples of this?

Re: Facebook takes down accounts and pages of Roger Stone

#79

Post by WalterGR »

ed25519FUUU wrote: post #37

> Nathaniel Gleicher, Facebook’s head of cybersecurity policy, said the removals were meant to show that artificially inflating engagement for political impact would be stopped, no matter how well connected the practitioners. Taking the goodwill approach for Facebook's actions, they determined Stone "broke the rules". I don't personally think these actions pass the consistency "smell test" of good community governanc…

Do you have any examples of sock-puppet rings that Facebook has selected to not enforce a policy?

Re: Facebook takes down accounts and pages of Roger Stone

#80

Post by aahhahahaaa »

37r6r6u3u3u wrote: post #76
aahhahahaaa wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 predominan…

I'm not saying it isn't xenophobic and pandering to a nationalist base but it seems like a stretch to call "America First" fascist, especially when the phrase is generally accompanied by (dubious) accusations that the opposing party failed to prioritize the needs of the people. I could see the argument that the slogan was perhaps used as a tool to further fascist policies but "America First" represents fascism about…

It's not the phrase "America First" on its own, but its history of use.

"While the America First Committee had a variety of supporters in the United States, 'the movement was marred by anti-Semitic and pro-fascist rhetoric.'"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America_First_(policy)

And again, this is another example where they could have literally picked anything else... but they didn't. When pressed about its history Trump literally backed up the phrase's use by stating "I like the expression."

It's isolationist, nationalistic, xenophobic nonsense with a tinge of antisemitism. It's been denounced by multiple jewish scholars and the Anti-defamation league.

Post reply on HN