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

781–790 of 1001 posts

Re: Facebook Indefinitely Suspends Trump

#781

Post by w0de »

bitcurious wrote: post #691

Imagine for a moment that Trump's putsch succeeded, that lawmakers, under duress, voted to annul the election results and gave Trump a second term. What would you do? Would you protest? Would you organize? Would you revolt? Now imagine that organizing ~potentially~ violent protest is illegal, and censored on Facebook and Twitter and whatsapp and etc. You would be alone, in a dictatorship. The failure to imagine "atte…

The folks at thedonald.win - who openly planned this insurrection on that website - give the the lie to your implication that twitter, facebook, or reddit have the power to prevent protest.

Re: Facebook Indefinitely Suspends Trump

#782

Post by JakeTheAndroid »

molbioguy wrote: post #674
esoterica wrote: post #630

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not a public utility and being widely used does not make it one. Lots of people eat at McDonald's and get coffee from Starbucks, that does not make McDonald's or Starbucks a public utility.

It's treated as such by a lot of it's users. They do not have expectations of being censored. The items you mention are paid services. Facebook isn't for most of its users.

So, does that actually matter? At what point are consumer expectations unreasonable?

Also, how did people get the idea that a private service is a public utility? When was the tipping point in which Facebook stopped just being a private social network and started being a public utility? And was this disclosed anywhere? How does a shift from a protected private service transition formally to a public one? Is it purely based on consumer perception?

It seems odd to me that the entire internet is a public square, yet Facebook should be democratized. You can leave that walled garden at any time and setup a blog. What part of a town square requires your voice is effectively heard?

It seems like when people were saying that calling Tesla's autopilot was confusing consumers because they don't know what actual autopilot for aircraft is.

Re: Facebook Indefinitely Suspends Trump

#784

Post by briantakita »

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.

Strength does not mean violence in this case. >99% of the gathering was peaceful. What if we applied the same standards we applied to the Black Lives Matter protests which also included elements of rioting, looting, arson, & even murder, yet were heralded as "mostly peaceful" (by the same people)?

Re: Facebook Indefinitely Suspends Trump

#785

Post by noctua »

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

I don't support free speech myself, but I guess it would be that the whole premise is wrong. To think he's right you need to believe that certain speech leads to violence or hatred and that trying to suppress that speech prevents violence and hatred. And even if speech can lead to violence and hatred, some could argue that it's not enough to justify taking away someone's individual freedoms. Like how someone not being able to responsibly drink alcohol isn't a good justification to take away my right to drink it. If you commit violence because of intoxication, you'll get punished for the violence. But it's not a good reason to take away my right to drink alcohol.

Re: Facebook Indefinitely Suspends Trump

#786

Post by w0de »

jtdev wrote: post #198
uncoder0 wrote: post #2

https://www.instagram.com/khamenei.en/

Understanding why Khamenei is a bad guy requires more thought and effort than the blind outrage that the traditional media, social media, and celebrity personalities have instilled in millions of intellectually lazy Americans...

No, actually, "understanding" that Khameni is a "bad guy" requires accepting that received wisdom from nearly anyone in American politics or media. It is not a hard position to have; most Americans already have it without any examination.

Re: Facebook Indefinitely Suspends Trump

#788

Post by lokar »

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…

FWIW, there is bias in NPR/PBS/NYT/etc, but it is not in the content of the reports, but rather in what is reported.

Any news org can only cover so much, there is an (editorial) call on what to cover and what not to cover. And in that (I've seen studies years go, so not handy) there is a detectable bias.

IMO this is fine. I understand that story selection has editorial bias, even in news reporting. I compensate by reading several different sources that have different editorial slants, but still fact based reporting.

Re: Facebook Indefinitely Suspends Trump

#789

Post by Chris2048 »

gameswithgo wrote: post #271
hartator wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What policies he pushed you are not happy with? Less taxes, no new wars, and leaving each state making their own decisions for covid-19 seems pretty center right to me.

1. less taxes I am not happy with 2. immigrant children in cages 3. easing of environmental rules 4. pulling out of climate deal 5. pulling out of iran deal 6. lying about the election being a fraud, and causing insurrection 7. pardoning his criminal cronies

> 2. immigrant children in cages

by which you mean in immigration holding cells, after being separated from their apparent guardians, as an anti-trafficking measure.

so what would you do?

Re: Facebook Indefinitely Suspends Trump

#790

Post by soupson »

Note that "indefinitely" here doesn't mean they haven't considered when to bring him back:

"Therefore, we are extending the block we have placed on his Facebook and Instagram accounts indefinitely and for at least the next two weeks until the peaceful transition of power is complete."

Post reply on HN