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

751–760 of 1001 posts

Re: Facebook Indefinitely Suspends Trump

#751

Post by technofiend »

paulnechifor wrote: post #734
zeroxfe wrote: post #598

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It'll be interesting to see if whoever replaces Ajit Pai holds a different view on public intercourse over the airwaves. Really hoping you mean "public discourse" :-)

Humor aside, intercourse and discourse are synonyms. Although, intercourse is often used as short for "sexual intercourse". But you are pretty much asking for that joke (like when you still use "ejaculate" with the "blurt out" meaning).

I literally meant intercourse in the dictionary meaning: "communication or dealings between individuals or groups." Even so words change and usage does too; some people literally don't mean literally when they use that word, but I do. I suppose it's a matter of when you learned the definition.

Re: Facebook Indefinitely Suspends Trump

#752

Post by im3w1l »

fckthisguy wrote: post #654
estebarb wrote: post #353

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Spanish is the second language with more native speakers in the world (and FB is banned in China). It is the main language in Latin America, Spain, Guinea Ecuatorial and other places.

Maybe I misunderstood you message, but I was quite surprised to see Spanish as the second most spoken language in the world. I just looked it up and the rankings are a little less black and white than I expected too. A lot of the numbers seems to be from older rankings and the explosive growth of some languages in recent years makes them vary wildly. All in all, it seems Chinese is first, with Spanish coming in just…

Which language is the top one depends on your criteria. Do you only consider first language or also non-first that people are native speakers of, what about non-native but fluent?

But either way you count Spanish is not #1, but one of the top few.

Re: Facebook Indefinitely Suspends Trump

#753

Post by al_chemist »

sailingparrot wrote: post #667
NE2z2T9qi wrote: post #535

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Insults are not actual call to immediate violence. Calling thousands of supporters to go to the capitol and telling them "you'll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength and you have to be strong." is a very precise call to violence.

> Calling thousands of supporters to go to the capitol and telling them "you'll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength and you have to be strong." is a very precise call to violence.

"Kill them", "Attack them", "Burn down that building" is a very precise call to violence. "You have to be strong" is not. "You have to show strength" is not.

#KillAllMen on the other hand is a very precise call to violence, and yet nobody cares about banning that on social media.

Re: Facebook Indefinitely Suspends Trump

#754

Post by not2b »

dragonwriter wrote: post #731
dionian wrote: post #556

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fox (however detestable you may find it) was created as an alternative to the corporate media hegemony on thought, I fear you have it backwards.

> Fox (however detestable you may find it) was created as an alternative to the corporate media hegemony on thought No, it wasn't. First, because it's part of the corporate media created by what was already a media megacorp, so at best it might participate in the corporate media hegemony on thought, not provide an alternative.

Fox was created by a Republican operative (Roger Ailes) for the purpose of getting Republicans elected to office, financed by Rupert Murdoch, one of the most powerful news executives in the English-speaking world.

Re: Facebook Indefinitely Suspends Trump

#755

Post by throwmehaweh »

TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #614
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.

It's very fair. Fox - and its equivalents - are run in a knowing and cynical way. "No reasonable viewer would think Tucker Carlson is news." The media barons believe their consumers are idiots, and treat them accordingly. https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/fox-news-lawyer-suggest... You're going to have a hard time finding an equivalent statement from the progressive media. This is about clash of fundamentally inco…

CNN is so far away from actual journalism the past four years that I'm not sure it could be considered anything other than partisan theater, and it is the flagship progressive media.

Re: Facebook Indefinitely Suspends Trump

#756

Post by inglor_cz »

captainmuon wrote: post #498
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…

I'm neither a free-speach maximalist, not a Trump supporter - on the contrary, I would say I'm pretty far left-wing. And that is exactly why I feel pretty ambivalent about this. Because what if next time there is a BLM demonstration in front of the Capitol, or for any other progessive issue? What if things get worse here, and we need a democracy movement / "peaceful revolution" like in east Europe? Then I might find…

"I guess the pragmatic solution is to put the lid back on for now... "

I am not sure whether this solution is viable. People have drifted apart, there is a lot of general distrust in societies, I cannot see how this level of distrust can be mitigated.

Whoever is on the receiving end of the "lid", will try to find another way of communication. There is a strong desire in humans not to be silenced.

Without a desire to compare, my anecdote: I grew up in Communist Czechoslovakia; even though the state did its best to control communications among people, using outright force, they failed and everyone knew the latest gossip about the apparatchiks. Americans are probably not as competent in muzzling their opponents, plus openly disavowing the idea of free speech will make them internally unhappy. You yourself say that you'd rather have the opposite situation.

Re: Facebook Indefinitely Suspends Trump

#757

Post by dredmorbius »

lallysingh wrote: post #647
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…

Video is a terrible format for anything requiring the reflection and nuance of politics. People need to read at their own pace, stop and make their own judgements, and re-read parts to make it all make sense. Video is a firehose that keeps attention instead of letting you _think_. Leave it for entertainment and deep documentaries. If we had no more news channels and nightly programs, I think we'd both be happier and…

Straight up Marshall McLuhan, hot (immersive) & cool (passive) media.

Re: Facebook Indefinitely Suspends Trump

#759

Post by mattalbie »

Red_Tarsius wrote: post #730

Say what you will about current events but when big tech can prevent the sitting President from addressing the people, they have too much power.

Newspapers feel they have an obligation to report what our representatives say, good or bad, but they also have editorials that comment on that reporting. In some cases (like The Economist) reporting and commentary are mixed together. Most newspapers believe their editorials, and how they report the news are critical to holding government accountable, and one of their missions.

I see flagging messages and banning as Twitter (and really all online platforms) version of an editorial.

Re: Facebook Indefinitely Suspends Trump

#760

Post by djsumdog »

pqhwan wrote: post #657
djsumdog wrote: post #428

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> direct calls to violence and to insurrection against a democracy Why do you believe this? The very last message Trump put out was telling people to go home. I've covered both BLM and Trump reallies and I've always felt safer at every Trump protest than at BLM. Even in the case of yesterday, we're seeing clear media manipulation. No one is covering how Trump supporters were let in; how Capitol Police lowered barrica…

> Either Capitol Police were terribly incompetent at protecting one of the most secure buildings in the US, or they let this happen. So that must be what all the pictures of wall-climbing and drawn glocks are all about.

The total and complete incompetence of the strongest and best equipped security force in the nation to defend one building?

Why yes. Yes it is.

They also shot an unarmed woman shooting wildly into a crowd for no god damn reason. That moron could have actually hit that other police officer too!

Post reply on HN