Facebook Indefinitely Suspends Trump

Post by lovecg » Thu, Jan 07, 2021, 6:07 PM UTC

tetrometal wrote: post #571

efdee wrote: post #422

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every single case got struck down by judges. People were pissed about a lack of election transparency that wasn't actually there. If the opinion of judges wasn't enough to convince them, what makes you think that of an auditor would make a difference?

I think the truth will eventually come out. I HOPE that those claiming sufficient fraud to effect the election are dead wrong. The alternative would be a nightmare. That's why the media and big tech shouldn't have buried their head in the sand. "Every single case got struck down by judges" is not a new argument to my ears. Do you think most of those judges heard actual evidence, or were throwing cases out on procedur…

Post by mistermann » Thu, Jan 07, 2021, 6:10 PM UTC

NE2z2T9qi wrote: post #535

tshaddox wrote: post #445

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems more interesting that a software platform like this would be expected to treat a president of a country different than a normal person. Should the queen of England get even more privileges to break rules on the platform? And the peerage somewhere below that (but still much higher than the common folk)?

And what rules exactly did Trump break? He explicitly did not call for violence. It seems like you want people silenced if they question the official narrative. That's precisely antithetical to free-speech ideals. Do you know how often I've seen Republicans called Nazis? Or evil? Or that they need to be eliminated? I don't go crying to Facebook to censor opinions I don't like.

Post by cultus » Thu, Jan 07, 2021, 6:10 PM UTC

inscionent wrote: post #95

drno123 wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. BLM rioters created enormous damage yet I never saw any news that BLM/Antifa are indefinitely blocked from FB.

Yeah! They should suspended the CEO of ANTIFA from FB, Twitter, Parler, WhatsApp, Telegram, and the Dominos app!

Post by forrestthewoods » Thu, Jan 07, 2021, 6:11 PM UTC

protonimitate wrote: post #468

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 con…

Post by AnHonestComment » Thu, Jan 07, 2021, 6:12 PM UTC

glitcher wrote: post #685

noctua wrote: post #453

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

For those who may strongly disagree with that statement, I would be curious to hear their counter argument to the paradox of tolerance. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance