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

481–490 of 1001 posts

Re: Facebook Indefinitely Suspends Trump

#481

Post by goostavos »

Thaxll wrote: post #372
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.

Yes he did, just watch https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBH7ql34Ex0 it's just lies and pushing people to do terrible things. Trump is currently the most dangerous American alive, he's the most powerful person on the planet spreading lies over lies to his millions of followers.

Was it the

"I know everyone is getting ready to march over to the capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard"

part...?

Or was it the tweets? "Go home with love & in peace."(now deleted) https://www.thetrumparchive.com/

Maybe this one? "am asking for everyone at the U.S. Capitol to remain peaceful. No violence!"

Or this video telling everyone to they they lost, and to pick up their toys and head home peacefully.

https://mobile.twitter.com/tom2badcat/status/134701535339052...

Am I in a media bubble? Where's the smoking gun of him inciting violence and trying to prevent a peaceful transition of power?

As far as I can tell, the only real source calling for violence has been the users on thedonald.win, which has caused the mods to step in and say that they will follow the Presidents call for peace and thus not allow the platform to contain calls for violence (https://thedonald.win/p/11RhAqC6sa/mods-are-compromised/)

Re: Facebook Indefinitely Suspends Trump

#483

Post by brentjanderson »

finder83 wrote: post #324
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.

Trump's statement this morning included the statement, "it's only the beginning of our fight to Make America Great Again". Some Trump followers read deeply into every word he says, and these words encourage them to mobilize and literally fight. Many had Civil War Jan 6, 2021 shirts, others had explicitly neo-nazi and anti-semitic symbols on clothing or tattoos. They consider Trump their leader, and they are committed to "making America great" at all costs. Clearly there are many opinions at play in a crowd like that, but by doing effectively nothing to stop what happened and by making statements that he knows will promote chaos, he is effectively supporting violence and insurrection.

By not conceding the election or accepting a peaceful transition after exhausting all legal remedies (accepting an "orderly" transition falls short of peaceful), using words like "fight", calling the opposing party "evil" while sympathizing with those breaching the Capitol by saying "I love you" and "I know how you feel", pressuring his VP to unilaterally reject certifying the election, not condemning extreme violence and tragic deaths because of a rally he promoted...the list goes on.

Re: Facebook Indefinitely Suspends Trump

#484

Post by jcranmer »

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."

> All they wanted were real audits of the election

So the actual audits done in response to the proper challenges under proper statutory authority that did not find that there was anything sufficiently wrong to overturn the results of the election (and, in many cases, concluded that there wasn't even anything wrong in the first place) are not real audits?

Having actually read several of the lawsuits filed (mostly those after the Texas v Pennsylvania suit), I can tell you that almost none of those lawsuits actually called for a real audit of the election. They actually called for annulling the results of the election in various ways. Many of them didn't even allege voter fraud, and a few specifically denied allegations of voter fraud. If the people filing these lawsuits said they only wanted real audits of the election in media statements, they are fucking liars.

Re: Facebook Indefinitely Suspends Trump

#485

Post by threeseed »

awb wrote: post #427
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.

Since the election results became apparent cable outlets have begun cutting away from the President’s speeches and tech companies have begun censoring the President’s speech. Absolutely nothing has changed in the President’s speech or behavior since his 1st speech announcing his candidacy 5 years ago. We needed a John Hancock 5 years ago that was willing to draw a line on violent speech and disinformation regardless…

Context matters.

What Trump did over the last 5 years pales in comparison to what he is doing now.

The effortless transition of power is the most fundamental and sacrosanct process in a democracy. And everyone has an obligation to defend it.

Re: Facebook Indefinitely Suspends Trump

#487

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

Re: Facebook Indefinitely Suspends Trump

#488

Post by ineedasername »

SilasX wrote: post #433
ls612 wrote: post #318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The nature of each "public good" could be evaluated to determine what was appropriate to ensure all citizens equal access to a public good.

FD just required a media outlet to make sure the media basically gave another candidate the opportunity to access, it didn't actually require equal time, not unless that candidate wanted to, or in the case of advertisements was willing to buy them.

Certainly parkland should be equally available to members of different political parties, but it's not like you have to use the same standard either: the nature of a "public good" would determine the nature of what fair equal access meant. For airwaves it's one thing. For a limited physical resource it's another.

Re: Facebook Indefinitely Suspends Trump

#489

Post by _cbb1 »

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?

I don’t think any of this is a good idea but I propose that they create a blockchain voting system for policies on their platform like this.

Re: Facebook Indefinitely Suspends Trump

#490

Post by guerrilla »

noctua wrote: post #453
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 obvious problem which is that some speech shouldn't be tolerated... Especially intolerant or harmful speech. Many people, both anarchists and non-anarchists, would strongly disagree with that statement. And not all of those people are uneducated edgelords whose main argument is that it's a slippery slope.

This isn't really true. You won't be allowed on most anarchist servers unless you agree not to be racist, sexist, homophobic, etc.
Post reply on HN