Facebook Indefinitely Suspends Trump • Hacker News Board

Re: Facebook Indefinitely Suspends Trump

#431

Post by horsawlarway » Thu, Jan 07, 2021, 5:01 PM UTC

tetrometal wrote: post #378

What is unbelievable about that? It's completely reasonable. People were pissed about lack of election transparency. All they wanted were real audits of the election, but all they got was "Shut up, go home, there's no evidence, stop looking into things."

Shut the fuck up. Seriously.

I live in Fulton county. My wife worked the polls. We're engaged in the democratic process here.

This was audited to hell and back. It was checked, and checked again. It was checked by both parties. It was checked by the courts. It was checked by the governor, by the secretary of state, by the media, it was even checked by the fucking companies who made the ballot machines.

So when you say > All they wanted were real audits of the election.

I hear - "I won't accept an answer that isn't what I want".

So again, shut the fuck up.

Re: Facebook Indefinitely Suspends Trump

#432

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Jan 07, 2021, 5:01 PM UTC

rat87 wrote: post #358

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...

yeah I'm sure this had nothing to do with the attempted coup

[deleted]

Re: Facebook Indefinitely Suspends Trump

#433

Post by SilasX » Thu, Jan 07, 2021, 5:01 PM UTC

ls612 wrote: post #318

xxpor wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if the fairness doctrine hadn't been eliminated administratively, it's very plausible it'd have been overturned by SCOTUS anyway. Not that'd I agree with that, but given the way the court has gone on corporate "free speech"...

The only reason the fairness doctrine could even plausibly exist constitutionally was because radio and tv were broadcast media using a public good (spectrum). Cable TV, newspapers were not affected and the internet likely wouldn’t have been affected either.

That always felt like a dubious standard. Parkland is a public good, but the Supreme Court would insta-smackdown any FD-style restriction on political speech in parks.

Re: Facebook Indefinitely Suspends Trump

#434

Post by efdee » Thu, Jan 07, 2021, 5:02 PM UTC

JeffCyr wrote: post #284

This is a dangerous short term move. In the end it may create a division and popularize other social medias where this content and worse will still be available in an unmoderated space.

Like gab.ai and Parler? LOL.

Re: Facebook Indefinitely Suspends Trump

#435

Post by dcolkitt » Thu, Jan 07, 2021, 5:02 PM UTC

vel0city wrote: post #401

dcolkitt wrote: post #197

IMO, this potentially opens up Facebook Inc. to securities fraud lawsuits. Corporate executives by default have a fiduciary duty to maximize shareholder returns. They don't have to abide by this, but if they take material action towards other goals, then they must clearly disclose it in public communications. (E.g. a non-profit company can't pretend that it's not to potential investors.) It's pretty hard to justify h…

Corporate executives do not have a fiduciary due to maximize shareholder returns. If the shareholders and board of a public corporation want to quit making money and just throw massive parties all the time until the corporation runs out of money, there's nothing stopping them from doing so. https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/04/16/what-are-co...

They don't have an absolute duty to maximize returns. But if they're taking deliberate and material actions that go against shareholder interests, they are required to publicly disclose that.

For example there are non-profit corporations, and of course that's perfectly legal, but they're not allowed to masquerade as if they aren't. The key test for securities fraud is advance and public disclosure.

It's funny you bring up the party example, because that's exactly what Tyco did. And it resulted in a $3 billion securities fraud payout.

https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna18677004

Re: Facebook Indefinitely Suspends Trump

#436

Post by soneil » Thu, Jan 07, 2021, 5:02 PM UTC

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…

(opinion) Allowing incitement as free speech only makes sense if you can/will hold them accountable for the results of their speech instead. It's either/or, but not neither/nor.

If I say to you, "please shoot john smith", and you do - I should either be held responsible for saying thus, or accomplice in the result. I can't imagine anyone would claim I was without fault or responsibility. To my mind, free-speech maximalism should hold me innocent of saying it, but has no bearing on my being accomplice to the result.

Re: Facebook Indefinitely Suspends Trump

#437

Post by mechnesium » Thu, Jan 07, 2021, 5:02 PM UTC

hundchenkatze wrote: post #381

mechnesium wrote: post #362

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, all he said was: "Big Protest in D.C. on January 6th. Be there, will be wild!" Protest is protected by the first amendment.

What happened was NOT a protest.

Regardless of what the media is labeling the events on January 6th, the people involved were acting of their own free will. Trump has no culpability for the actions of his supporters.

Re: Facebook Indefinitely Suspends Trump

#438

Post by klank » Thu, Jan 07, 2021, 5:02 PM UTC

charia wrote: post #310

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.

So uh, who's going to be the arbiter of what exactly constitutes intolerant or harmful speech? You? Me? Facebook? The government? Twitter? Whoever gets the power to define what's acceptable and not acceptable speech is given too much power. You might trust that arbiter now, tomorrow, but do you honestly believe their incentives will always remain pure?

The problem I see with that line of argument is that it basically means you're arguing we can't do anything about it and just have to accept whatever actions people take regardless of the impacts of those actions.

It reads to me like "it's hard, so let us just do nothing".

Re: Facebook Indefinitely Suspends Trump

#439

Post by dutchCourage » Thu, Jan 07, 2021, 5:03 PM UTC

gnusty_gnurc wrote: post #205

dutchCourage wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not following you, what's the link with BLM? BLM is a response to (repeated) racist murders from the state and general systemic discriminations. Yesterday's riots were a response to losing a democratic election. It's hard not to see why one is legitimate and the other isn't.

> It's hard not to see why one is legitimate and the other isn't. Do you think rioting occurred last year? What I'm saying is that insofar as government is concerned and law and order - rioting is never justified and must be met with police force.

> rioting is never justified and must be met with police force

Actually, some governments are so oppressive that sometimes rioting is all the citizens have left. Isn't it what the second amendment is for anyway?

I'd even support yesterday's "revolution" if it was justified and the election was actually stolen. But falsely calling an election stolen is dangerous. It's the equivalent of a false rape accusation at a country scale.

And oppressive governments do meet riots with police force. Sometimes they straight up kill the people, yet they keep on rioting because it's the only way they can defend their rights.

Re: Facebook Indefinitely Suspends Trump

#440

Post by jonathanstrange » Thu, Jan 07, 2021, 5:03 PM UTC

sleepysysadmin wrote: post #305

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...

Only reason was because he was POTUS. Otherwise he would have been removed long ago. The moment he wasn't potus anymore he was to be removed from these platforms. The consequence of this however will be political division. If you thought the political division was bad now because of 'echo chambers'. Wait until the camps are no longer talking because they arent on the same platforms.

No, the effect is the opposite. First of all, they haven't been talking to each other in a constructive way on these platforms anyway, they merely exchange hateful messages. There is no dialogue between those sides on social media, because social media are generally not conducive to reasonable and rational discussion (with exceptions like HN, of course, where there is appropriate moderation).

Second, pushing radicals out of mainstream platforms is a good thing because they will go to many different places, break up into smaller fractions, and therefore not be able to reach as many people at once. The division and reality-denial we see today is the result of small minorities reaching to large audiences and looking much larger than they are, thereby allowing radical and violent positions to become seemingly more socially acceptable.

It's perfectly fine if people who want to storm the Capitol (or behead Fauci, etc.) get to talk in their own, small little echo chambers. They do that already. Law enforcement is used to infiltrating closed circles and should know how to deal with those who become terrorists.