Facebook Indefinitely Suspends Trump • Hacker News Board

Re: Facebook Indefinitely Suspends Trump

#741

Post by mpfundstein » Thu, Jan 07, 2021, 6:24 PM UTC

rrrrrrrrrrrryan wrote: post #645

starik36 wrote: post #536

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't be fair when you only blame Fox for fact-free content when the same fact-free content(just inverted) is peddled by all the other mass media outlets. They just cater to a different bubble.

> all the other mass media outlets All? C'mon. You can make the argument that MSNBC is a mirror of Fox News in terms of coddling its viewers, but if you're calling NPR or the New York Times "fact-free," you're only betraying your own ignorance of journalism standards. Investigating facts and reporting them clearly is a solved problem. There are people who go to universities to study how to do this well, then go to wo…

phew. they really got your brain washed, haven't they?

Re: Facebook Indefinitely Suspends Trump

#742

Post by throwaway541403 » Thu, Jan 07, 2021, 6:24 PM UTC

Been in tech a long time. Been on HN a long time.

Over the past few years reading comments here it seems that the people are already communist and the government is just now catching up. Trump helped avoid it for a short while.

Tech used to be creative, respectful, and open. I simply cannot believe the commenters here are my peers. The double speak, double standards, and vitriol toward anything Trump/conservative related is unbelievable.

Now that the real fascists have power, there is big trouble ahead. Conform or lose everything. Just like the CCP.

Thanks for the good times.

Re: Facebook Indefinitely Suspends Trump

#743

Post by AnimalMuppet » Thu, Jan 07, 2021, 6:26 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…

Courts have very specific rules about what constitutes legally admissible evidence. The plaintiff may cry "We have evidence!", but that doesn't mean they have legally admissible evidence. Before the judge will bother to hear the evidence, it has to clear that bar.

IIRC, there was an election case in Pennsylvania that made it up to the Federal appeals court. There it was dismissed for lack of evidence. (The opinion was written by a judge appointed by Trump.) You can think of that as "procedural grounds" and "not hearing the evidence", I suppose, but to me it looks like examining the evidence and finding it lacking at the most basic level.

Re: Facebook Indefinitely Suspends Trump

#744

Post by djsumdog » Thu, Jan 07, 2021, 6:27 PM UTC

horsawlarway wrote: post #722

djsumdog wrote: post #561

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There was no paper ballot recount in Georgia. They recounted the images of the ballots, so if the videos of them getting run through 7 times are true, we wouldn't know. If they released the images, which GA said they would do, we could see the same serial numbers repeated. They've refused to.

They only counted the images, so they can't know - but if they just release the images you can know? Did you reflect on this statement at all? Fuck, you're on a programming forum, so I'm assuming you can do simple boolean logic. ---- I have a large family in GA. They predominately vote republican. Most of them DO NOT LIKE Trump. He's fucked several members of my family over financially (China imports a boatload of pe…

> They only counted the images, so they can't know - but if they just release the images you can know?

Yes, because the images have serial numbers. It's not difficult to understand.

Re: Facebook Indefinitely Suspends Trump

#745

Post by bmarquez » Thu, Jan 07, 2021, 6:27 PM UTC

taylus wrote: post #113

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...

Yep. Fuck zuck, finally deleted my Facebook account because of this.

Whatever the reason, I view this as a good thing. Hopefully the news regarding WhatsApp privacy will convince others as well.

Re: Facebook Indefinitely Suspends Trump

#746

Post by waldoh » Thu, Jan 07, 2021, 6:28 PM UTC

throwaways885 wrote: post #629

oivey wrote: post #601

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s a pretty false equivalence. To cite the most recently example, Fox repeatedly propagating Trump’s lies about the election has no analog on the left.

What about Trump/Russia collusion?

For people who cream themselves over good documentation, why are there so ma y people who refuse to read the mueller report? It's not that long.

Who am I kidding, we all know the answer is that you think by ignoring the facts insulates you from realizing the republican party and their leader colluded with a foreign adversary to influence the election

Re: Facebook Indefinitely Suspends Trump

#747

Post by clankyclanker » Thu, Jan 07, 2021, 6:28 PM UTC

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…

> Fox News would have been exempt from the Fairness Doctrine as a cable network, i.e. it doesn't use the public spectrum.

Yes, but city-wide local Fox-affiliate news channels broadcast over the public airwaves would not have been exempt. Those are often watched in their local environments more than their cable alternatives. See also Sinclair Broadcast Group: broadcasting over public airwaves is in the name!

Re: Facebook Indefinitely Suspends Trump

#748

Post by ineedasername » Thu, Jan 07, 2021, 6:30 PM UTC

merpnderp wrote: post #610

ineedasername wrote: post #558

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Slippery slope arguments only retain validity of each link in the chain is demonstrably probably. Even then, for something like resisting dangerous speech, what does the slope matter? If the original thing is good to do, don't worry about the slippery slope, just make the right decision. Then of it goes to far and you're on the edge of a slope, that's where you fight. If guidelines about violent speech are abused, th…

Because it is so easy to stop the government from doing absurd things once it gets the power to do them? Like kicking in a door guns ablazing because someone might have smelled weed? Yeah, we stopped that the first time it happened, didn't we...

Literally any thing the government might have authority over or acknowledge as a freedom could have things get absurd. So the argument that it might get absurd doesn't mean the thing is wrong. It just means that, likely any action, there's potential for consequences, and you deal with them.

You don't back down from a good thing just because it might be hard to implement. So then it just comes down to whether you think removing speech that incites violence is a good think or not. If you think it's good in itself but could be abused so maybe not do it? No, you do it and deal with the hard questions that come along every time you make those decisions.

Re: Facebook Indefinitely Suspends Trump

#749

Post by artificialLimbs » Thu, Jan 07, 2021, 6:32 PM UTC

klank wrote: post #438

charia wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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".

Words != actions. Equating actions individuals take to the words they say is dangerous.

We already have laws regarding inciting violence, and as far as I can tell, they work fairly well.

Do you have a better proposal?

Re: Facebook Indefinitely Suspends Trump

#750

Post by djsumdog » Thu, Jan 07, 2021, 6:32 PM UTC

lovecg wrote: post #705

djsumdog wrote: post #549

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just because you worked there doesn't mean you know everything that went on. How do you even explain the pipe burst that never happened and the counting that continued. Everything in your area might have been on the up and up, but things happened you may have not seen: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=keANzinHWUA Also keep in mind Georgia never did re-canvasing and when they did a re-count, they recounted the IMAGES o…

Ah yes, the “pulled out box” controversy. That’s been addressed to hell and back: https://www.wsbtv.com/news/politics/georgia-election-officia... https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/dec/04/facebook-p... https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-electio... https://www.11alive.com/article/news/politics/elections/fact... https://www.newsweek.com/fox-news-reporter-debunks-georgia-e... Is this really you…

None of these sources seem to address the fact that this counting happened late at night/in the morning, timestamped on the video, after all the observers had been sent home. In fact, one of the sources said this:

> Media and observers left as employees packed up. But Fulton’s election director called a supervisor at State Farm a few minutes later, telling them to keep counting after the Secretary of State’s office called and said they shouldn’t stop counting for the night so early.

So the sources you listed literally confirm that they kept counting after they sent observers home. You seriously don't see that as a problem? I do. There are tons of volunteers who would gladly stay up all night to help observe. Over and over and over again, observers were sent home and counting continued.

All these articles that start with "debunked" go on to say this exact same thing happened, and then dismiss it as normal counting behavior. Do you understand why myself, and millions of Americans, have trouble with these stories? The headline frames the article, and then the article contracts the headline.

Did you ... did you actually read the stories, or just past random links based on the headlines?