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

Facebook Indefinitely Suspends Trump

facebook.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

321–330 of 1001 posts

Re: Facebook Indefinitely Suspends Trump

#321

Post by saurik »

moate wrote: post #145
ndjdjxjsjdjdhd wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wait, seriously why is he banned though?

Because he did not actually provide a statement condemning the riot that took place and said several things that are being interpreted (by both his followers and his opposition) as supporting the behavior. (Please try not to read this in a condescending way): There is a difference between "You need to leave the capital building immediately. You are breaking the law and this will not be tolerated" (an approximation of…

FWIW, one "difference" between the two statements is that the former is the kind of thing that makes people more angry and the latter is the kind of thing that might actually make someone feel heard enough to go home; it just isn't somehow as obvious to me--a stark leftist, btw, who is downright socialist--that this is somehow finally the thing Trump said which should be blocked.

Re: Facebook Indefinitely Suspends Trump

#322

Post by netsharc »

frockington1 wrote: post #239
sergiotapia wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This just seems like both parties are working together including Trump to have these events be a pressure release valve for all the shit of 2020. A target where people can vent their frustrations and anger, and once Trump leaves get that dopamine hit and simmer down -- until next cycle. If none of the events of the past month happened people would have to face the reality of their situation. Now they can just scream…

I don't buy in to the conspiracy theories because all of the big players comes out looking terrible. DNC now has to spend most of the first half of Bidens term trying to rebuild the nations confidence. RNC looks like crap because Trump. The only beneficiaries from a political perspective look to be state governments

> DNC now has to spend most of the first half of Bidens term trying to rebuild the nations confidence.

One hopes, but I'd imagine the people living in the alternate reality will just ask "What have the Romans ever done for us?!"[0]

[0] Reference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uvPbj9NX0zc

Re: Facebook Indefinitely Suspends Trump

#323

Post by wonderwonder »

mc32 wrote: post #179
rasengan wrote: post #23

Facebook is not a platform to have a voice. It’s a platform that harvests thoughts and publicizes the ones FB most agrees with while censoring those it does not. This is a slippery slope and, quite frankly, it’s the people that lose.

So while the Capitol is very symbolic, there wasn’t looting, rioting or major vandalism on the part of the protesters (compare to the “Autonomous Zone” and police precinct burning in Seattle. Does that mean in the future demonstrations and protests that could potentially end up in violence like that be suppressed by Facebook and Twitter? Or can we expect partisanship and see them bless other protests that turn to vio…

They invaded the capitol with the sole intention of disrupting congress and preventing a constitutionally mandated handover of power to a democratically elected government. This was an attack on the democracy of the United States, not a building. To portray it as anything else is disingenuous.

Re: Facebook Indefinitely Suspends Trump

#324

Post by finder83 »

andrepd wrote: post #175

I don't like the thought of trillion-dollar advertising companies being the custodians of the platforms where (sadly) a majority of speech in the world happens. That being said, if direct calls to violence and to insurrection against a democracy aren't grounds to take away your megaphone, then what is? If you're a free speech maximalist you'll be opposed to any sort of "censorship" (then again, people with those view…

Do you have examples of the direct calls to violence and insurrection? Supposedly there were three tweets that Twitter required trump to delete, but I don't see the actual text of them anywhere.

Re: Facebook Indefinitely Suspends Trump

#325

Post by roywiggins »

technofiend wrote: post #311
wyldfire wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suspect that the fairness doctrine change is more of a symptom than a cause. The FCC will have close to zero impact on twenty first century media. I don't know how or even if we can fix this.

I'm sure it's a symptom of something but my point was Fox News (which was established in 1996 according to Wikipedia) could never have been born prior to 1987. What happened yesterday in Washington, DC may prove a counterpoint to 1st amendment claims that all speech should be allowed, regardless of consequences. Edit: I see I was wrong about Fox as it is a cable network and not broadcast over public airwaves. I still…

The fairness doctrine never applied to cable channels. The only reason it was plausibly Constitutional was the use of the airways, which are considered a public resource. Private cables strung by private companies into private homes were never regulated by the fairness doctrine.

Re: Facebook Indefinitely Suspends Trump

#327

Post by lalos »

danhak wrote: post #302
lalos wrote: post #69

Interesting how they sing a different tune once the other party finally gets certification of the election results, time to get 'cozy' with the new people in power and set up those dinners [1] and ad deals with them. [1] https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/trump-hosted-zuckerbe...

Yes, this must be it. Must have nothing to do with the fact that he said "You're special, we love you!" to the people laying siege at the U.S. Capitol.

Facebook would happily receive foreign money to cause havoc in this country as long as they make a profit on it, oh wait that actually happened https://thehill.com/policy/technology/358102-franken-blasts-...

Re: Facebook Indefinitely Suspends Trump

#328

Post by ezekg »

enraged_camel wrote: post #147
ezekg wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yet there was no censorship occurring when the left \b\b\b\b opposing side was encouraging domestic terrorism.

When did a leftist public official go on Facebook and encourage protesters to smash store windows and set cars on fire? Can you give some examples?

Not on FB, but Pelosi in particular fueled the flame of civil unrest, err... "peaceful protests", more than a few times. There were many others around that time who were fanning the flame, on both sides. But nobody was held accountable then, and certainly nobody was banned, so it's concerning that POTUS is banned across social media for this, and the damages were much less this time. I'm not a fan of censorship like this, regardless of the side. It controls the narrative and stifles free speech through discord.

Re: Facebook Indefinitely Suspends Trump

#329

Post by SV_BubbleTime »

th0ma5 wrote: post #231

All of these HN comments are defending shouting "Fire!" falsely in a theater under the guise of it being a slippery slope before all speech is lost. I have lost a lot of respect for these slippery slope arguments because they are easy to make and ignore the obvious problem which is that some speech shouldn't be tolerated... Especially intolerant or harmful speech.

> ignore the obvious problem which is that some speech shouldn't be tolerated

We must embrace intolerance to snuff out intolerance?

Re: Facebook Indefinitely Suspends Trump

#330

Post by dionian »

kevinmgranger wrote: post #66
rasengan wrote: post #23

Facebook is not a platform to have a voice. It’s a platform that harvests thoughts and publicizes the ones FB most agrees with while censoring those it does not. This is a slippery slope and, quite frankly, it’s the people that lose.

When you're more or less encouraging a coup, the "fire in a crowded theater" analogy couldn't be more applicable.

It's only applicable if someone did yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater (and there wasn't a fire).

The worst Trump did here was say that people should march on Capitol Hill and "cheer on" congresspeople.

I guess people are assuming this was coded language to incite violence, but I'm not buying it

Post reply on HN