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

511–520 of 1001 posts

Re: Facebook Indefinitely Suspends Trump

#511

Post by chillacy »

ArnoVW wrote: post #312
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.

Personally I always feel that the "fire in a crowded theater" is too specific to convince people. Why not use more "every day" examples? * I can't say I earned $0 last year --> tax fraud * I can't say "fuck you" to a judge --> contempt of court * I can't say my software will make you pretty --> advertising fraud * I can't say you robbed me yesterday --> libel I know this is a very European attitude, and always gets A…

American free speech is way more broad than European free speech, they’re different legally. You could have a similar argument between American freedom of religion and French “freedom from religion”. Not an apples to apples comparison.

Re: Facebook Indefinitely Suspends Trump

#512

Post by tdons »

ArnoVW wrote: post #312
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.

Personally I always feel that the "fire in a crowded theater" is too specific to convince people. Why not use more "every day" examples? * I can't say I earned $0 last year --> tax fraud * I can't say "fuck you" to a judge --> contempt of court * I can't say my software will make you pretty --> advertising fraud * I can't say you robbed me yesterday --> libel I know this is a very European attitude, and always gets A…

Christopher Hitchens (a Brit, can we still call them European?) would disagree with you. If you have a few minutes, check the beginning of this talk [1] about free speech. He treats the exact "fire" example at the very start of the talk :-)

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z2uzEM0ugY

Re: Facebook Indefinitely Suspends Trump

#514

Post by rndgermandude »

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.

>some speech shouldn't be tolerated

I agree that some speech shouldn't be tolerated. But it cannot be Zuckerberg, or Trump, or Biden, or you, or me, who unilaterally decides what speech is fine, and what speech is banned.

Re: Facebook Indefinitely Suspends Trump

#515

Post by bra-ket »

pentae wrote: post #450
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…

Have you actually watched Fox News lately? Right wingers are leaving it in droves because except for a few pundits (Tucker Carlson etc) They are too moderate. Most of the craziness is on social media these days and right wing news sites on the web

it's not that Fox News became "moderate" , they became just another left-wing propaganda hub like CNN and WaPo , except for very few commentators like Tucker and Ingraham.

Their elections coverage was a disaster as well. I think they are in identity crisis of sorts.

Re: Facebook Indefinitely Suspends Trump

#516

Post by TheJazi13 »

SV_BubbleTime wrote: post #329
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?

Yes, it’s really not complicated.

Re: Facebook Indefinitely Suspends Trump

#517

Post by matz1 »

Spivak wrote: post #491
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 ?

We do . You act like collective decision making is impossible while living in a democracy based on it. Who gets to decide our taxes, criminal code, safety regulations, or election rules?

> Who gets to decide our taxes, criminal code, safety regulations, or election rules?

Whoever have the stronger power/influence.

Re: Facebook Indefinitely Suspends Trump

#518

Post by wizzwizz4 »

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…

Has it not occurred to you that, maybe, we should judge people for their actions? Rather than deciding upon an immutable set of Good People and Bad People, we should judge good and bad deeds?

Re: Facebook Indefinitely Suspends Trump

#519

Post by esoterica »

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 argument about whether it's legal to yell fire in. a theater isn't even relevant because it's the theater who's kicking you out and banning you, not the government. Of course they have the right to do that, regardless of your interpretation of the first amendment.

Re: Facebook Indefinitely Suspends Trump

#520

Post by hajile »

VBprogrammer wrote: post #117
uncoder0 wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are correct the video all the platforms are using to justify the bans explicitly asked people to go home. Previously he had urged them to be peaceful which they mostly were as evidenced by the fact that no capitol staff or police were in any way injured during the incident. edit: Leaving my comment intact as there are people who have replied. VBProgrammer pointed out that a portion of my statement is not true. Th…

That's false. At least 14 officers hurt. See for example: https://www.foxnews.com/us/d-c-mayor-issues-order-extending-...

That's disingenuous.

Only 2 officers required hospitalization. For comparison, there were many hospitalizations every single night of the 90-ish day Antifa seige of the Oregon federal courthouse.

In Oregon, Antifa were blasting officers with fireworks, going after them with hammers, polearms, shields, etc. We didn't see that in DC either. Instead we find the police generally getting along with the overwhelming majority of protesters.

Even 9 guns is nothing worth mentioning statistically. If those people had been interested in causing serious harm, almost all of them could have shown up with AR-15s. Hundreds of thousands of people with AR-15s could easily overpower any troops that could have been sent into the area. The fact that we didn't see this once again plays against the media's claims of a coup attempt.

Post reply on HN