Facebook Indefinitely Suspends Trump • Hacker News Board

Re: Facebook Indefinitely Suspends Trump

#461

Post by rconti » Thu, Jan 07, 2021, 5:06 PM UTC

Dirlewanger wrote: post #293

technofiend wrote: post #241

I know Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, Reddit and all the rest don't count as broadcast media but I feel like we got here in part because the 1987 elimination of FCC's fairness doctrine slowly allowed a shift in how we communicate with each other. We went from specious claims and conspiracy theories being the subject matter of newsletters to their public broadcast to millions via talk radio ~and Fox News~, thus allowin…

Matt Taibbi talks about all this in his book Hate Inc. The 24/7 news networks needed new stuff to sell since the USSR was out. Turns out just general outrage at every little thing works good.

I noticed this last night. I mostly watch local news, but I put on CNN during the voting last night, and while the BBC was sorta talking over the voting going on in the background, CNN gave up on it entirely and it was just 5 people spouting outrage.

Even when it's outrage I agree with, it angers me.

Re: Facebook Indefinitely Suspends Trump

#462

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

ianai wrote: post #411

matz1 wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> which is that some speech shouldn't be tolerated who get to decide what should/shouln't be tolerated ? harmful/harmful ? facebook ?

If it matters what “speech” exists on a platform then that platform probably has gotten too big for societal good. Ie it doesn’t matter what balls or strikes they call. Just leave the platform if you disagree with it and go with a competitor. If you can’t do that then we’re in monopoly power situation. Break em up. The only speech assured by the constitution is from your literal mouth. Anything else is not free speec…

> The only speech assured by the constitution is from your literal mouth

Even if you are going to narrowly interpret freedom of speech as "constitutionally protected rights only", the US Constitution explicitly says:

  Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of
  speech, or of the press; or the right of the people
  peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for
  a redress of grievances.

"of the press" is not "from your literal mouth", pretty much by definition. So please, let's not misrepresent what the constitutional right is about, even if we debate what "of the press" means in today's technology and media environment.

Re: Facebook Indefinitely Suspends Trump

#463

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

esja wrote: post #391

rat87 wrote: post #358

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Genuine request as I've seem this framing a lot and cannot understand it: Can you point to the specific things that occurred which you believe were part of an attempted coup, and why you believe they were?

Trump wanted Pence to violate them constitution and overturn the election. When Pence refused he then went to an angry protest and told them to match the Capitol and fight like hell.

The then refused to deploy the National Guard to protect the Capitol and reportedly was thrilled at the fact that the certification was interrupted by the rioters.

After much pressure he finally put out a weak statement telling the rioters he loved them and they should go home, but the election was still a fraud.

What part of that fails to fall under encouraging an insurrection?

Re: Facebook Indefinitely Suspends Trump

#464

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

jedberg wrote: post #384

anonunivgrad wrote: post #366

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trump did not incite violence. If anything, the media this summer was much more involved in inciting and fueling the BLM riots.

He literally stood outside near the Capitol and said, “If you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore” and then encouraged the crowd to go to the Capitol.

You can fight via protesting. That's not inciting violence. The BLM supporter in Chicago literally told people to loot and that looting was reparations:

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/aug/11/ariel-atkin...

Should she be arrested? Probably not, even though she was wrong and a terrible person for saying that.

The law is very specific when it comes to free speech. You need specific calls to violence and Trump did not come anywhere near close to that here.

He's asking people to fight because the courts have refused to even hear testimony. Texas brought a lawsuit and was dismissed in three sentences for not having standing, in the only court legally allowed to decide cases between states.

If you still deny any and all election irregularity after all the videos and all the dead people voting and all the questionable information, that is part of the problem. An entire nation watched their court systems refuse to even listen to any evidence. People have lost faith in the system.

And this very minor breaking into a building, causing less than 1/10 of the damage of any BLM riot, is blown up into some crazy "this is the end of democracy" bullshit. People have taken over American federal buildings several times in American history.

The regular peasants walked around the the sacred place of the rich and they're afraid. Also a woman got shot. She's not black so her life doesn't matter.

Re: Facebook Indefinitely Suspends Trump

#465

Post by chasd00 » Thu, Jan 07, 2021, 5:08 PM UTC

jtdev wrote: post #254

kevinmgranger wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I'm sure you were advocating for the silencing of BLM leaders who were encouraging violence during recent months too...

this is a fair point, the acceptance of BLM calls for violence, rioting, and looting by the media and Democrats makes this a much smaller event than it would have been otherwise.

What happened was a failure of adequate planning and execution by the police to control an unruly crowd.

Re: Facebook Indefinitely Suspends Trump

#466

Post by techer » Thu, Jan 07, 2021, 5:08 PM UTC

bl0b wrote: post #159

aprdm wrote: post #44

Regardless of being the right thing to do or not, it is very interesting to see a software platform banning a president of a country. Interesting times.

I learned on HN some time ago that: > "May you live in interesting times" is an English expression that is claimed to be a translation of a traditional Chinese curse. While seemingly a blessing, the expression is normally used ironically; life is better in "uninteresting times" of peace and tranquility than in "interesting" ones, which are usually times of trouble. [0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/May_you_live_i…

“Despite being widely attributed as a Chinese curse, there is no known equivalent expression in Chinese.[2] The nearest related Chinese expression translates as "Better to be a dog in times of tranquility than a human in times of chaos." (寧為太平犬，不做亂世人)”

Re: Facebook Indefinitely Suspends Trump

#467

Post by molbioguy » Thu, Jan 07, 2021, 5:08 PM UTC

The statements by Facebook and others pushing moral justifications around Facebook's censorship fail to entertain the possibility that even morality is subjective and relative. Facebook makes its decisions based on its own goals and preferences and morals. Facebook has established itself unfairly as a moral arbiter on a platform that is so widely used that is treated like a public utility. The people who currently agree with Facebook may someday be on the opposite side of Facebook's moral righteousness and be censored. What then?

Re: Facebook Indefinitely Suspends Trump

#468

Post by protonimitate » Thu, Jan 07, 2021, 5:09 PM UTC

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.

The "slippery slope" / "free speech" arguments are boring, and come into play almost anytime Facebook gets mentioned on HN.

"Slippery slope" is also most commonly a fallacy, which a lot of people seem to ignore.

> the fallacy of arguing that a certain course of action is undesirable or that a certain proposition is implausible because it leads to an undesirable or implausible conclusion via a series of tenuously connected premises [1]

Anyone arguing these points, especially related to Facebook, are arguing just for the sake of it. Playing devil's advocate is not a noble cause, and doesn't really add anything to the discussion at large.

[1] https://www.britannica.com/topic/slippery-slope-argument [1]

Re: Facebook Indefinitely Suspends Trump

#469

Post by MacsHeadroom » Thu, Jan 07, 2021, 5:09 PM UTC

disown wrote: post #420

aprdm wrote: post #44

Regardless of being the right thing to do or not, it is very interesting to see a software platform banning a president of a country. Interesting times.

Even more interesting is the blatant support of zuckerburg and facebook here. Of all places, you'd think HN would support free speech, but yesterday, you got downvote brigaded for mentioning that facebook and tech companies shouldn't be our censors. The logic was "we must protect democracy by having zuckerburg censor an elected government official". One moment it's facebook is evil. The next moment, facebook and zuck…

"The logic" for me is that private censorship IS free speech whether I agree with it personally or not.

The point of free speech protections are to protect the stuff you don't like. Don't like a private business censoring? That's free speech.

Re: Facebook Indefinitely Suspends Trump

#470

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Jan 07, 2021, 5:09 PM UTC

lazide wrote: post #203

ndjdjxjsjdjdhd wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So basically you are saying: - Asking for peace isn’t enough - And. He really needs to stop believing his claim of fraud? Wild. Am I crazy or is everyone else right now?

Watch the video. He spends JUST enough time saying 'go home peacefully' that someone can say he did that. However he spends all the actual time and energy saying the exact opposite - it was stolen, fight for me, etc. It is the height of disingenuousness to claim it was a call for peace or a thoughtful resolution. It was an emotional call to arms with a fig leaf on it.

[deleted]