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

811–820 of 1001 posts

Re: Facebook Indefinitely Suspends Trump

#811

Post by tunesmith »

bryan_w wrote: post #772
jmull wrote: post #497

This is so Facebook. * Enables and encourages (and makes money off of) spreading hate messages on their platform for years * Hamhandedly does a full reverse and bans of one of the leading spreaders only after it's too late to make a difference. * But just in time to curry favor with the groups newly in power. A twist to the old cliche: too much, too late. How cowardly.

> only after it's too late to make a difference. I think you underestimate how much damage he can still do

Yesterday was the first time in four years I was tempted to call bottom. I hesitate to be sure, but I think it's more likely than not that we hit bottom yesterday and that the next two weeks and inauguration won't be worse.

Re: Facebook Indefinitely Suspends Trump

#812

Post by sagichmal »

molbioguy wrote: post #467

The statements by Facebook and others pushing moral justifications around Facebook's censorship fail to entertain the possibility that even morality is subjective and relative. Facebook makes its decisions based on its own goals and preferences and morals. Facebook has established itself unfairly as a moral arbiter on a platform that is so widely used that is treated like a public utility. The people who currently ag…

It's fine that morality is subjective. Objectivity isn't a requirement for ethical action -- I don't need to write a formal proof to ban a white ethnostate nationalist from my web forum.

Re: Facebook Indefinitely Suspends Trump

#813

Post by Chris2048 »

MacsHeadroom wrote: post #469
disown wrote: post #420

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

"The logic" for me is that private censorship IS free speech whether I agree with it personally or not. The point of free speech protections are to protect the stuff you don't like. Don't like a private business censoring? That's free speech.

> The point of free speech protections are to protect the stuff you don't like

no, its to protect speech you don't like, not "stuff", or it could be abstracted to any number of maxims.

a private business cannot censor its own expressions, only those of others. The issue of censorship only cones up wrt publishing platforms discrimination on who they serve.

Re: Facebook Indefinitely Suspends Trump

#814

Post by treeman79 »

Lendal wrote: post #648
xxpor wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if the fairness doctrine hadn't been eliminated administratively, it's very plausible it'd have been overturned by SCOTUS anyway. Not that'd I agree with that, but given the way the court has gone on corporate "free speech"...

We gave up on the fairness doctrine because it didn't work. It forced news media to give equal time to the 1% of crackpots who disagreed with the 99% of scientists on a number of topics, including climate science. It was always going to go this way, regardless of the fairness doctrine existing or not.

The whole point was so government officials could decide what was fair, and what wasn’t.

So full blown censorship by controlling who gets access.

Re: Facebook Indefinitely Suspends Trump

#815

Post by pfdietz »

djsumdog wrote: post #808
pfdietz wrote: post #729

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We had an election that was stolen from us. That's a lie, regardless of what you want it to be.

That's literally what's been disputed. Your opinion doesn't make it fact. The courts have literally said they will not hear any testimony at all, both the 7th circuit who decided they had standing but the case had no merit, and the Supreme Court which decided Texas had no standing in the only venue available for States to resolve conflicts with other States (a state cannot sue in another state court). The Supreme Cou…

It's a lie in the same sense unicorns exist is a lie. No evidence justifying the claim has been presented in court, despite ample opportunity. This tells us the persons making the claims had no valid evidence.

All that exists is self-justifying propaganda.

Re: Facebook Indefinitely Suspends Trump

#817

Post by adamsea »

fumar wrote: post #84
adamsea wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Crazy part is that one unelected guy (Zuckerberg)has this kind of power. To make this decision at his discretion. I mean it reads like something a head of state might say. Nonetheless, at least they are doing it.

The power to create Facebook? You have the power to create a social platform as a private company. Then you can as its owner make decisions regarding the platform you created.

No, not that. Basically monopoly power, like with J.P. Morgan.

Facebook has become immensely powerful. It is controlled by Zuckerberg. It's a new domain so it's still unregulated but I'm sure that will eventually change as social media is becoming more and more of a public good or utility.

Re: Facebook Indefinitely Suspends Trump

#818

Post by djsumdog »

InitialLastName wrote: post #792
claydavisss wrote: post #42

If you think Trump and/or his army treats this as a defeat, think again. Once Biden is in office, social media companies will become rubber stamps for the establishment or be faced with breakup. You wanted one-party rule...you're going to get it.

At risk of feeding the troll, want to bet? You win if, as of January 21, 2029, the Democratic party has retained continuous control of the Presidency, Senate, and House of Representatives and controls the legislatures of at least 2/3 of the states. I win if not. Loser has to admit they were being histrionic and has to preface every public political comment they make for 5 years after that with "I have a tendency to e…

It depends on which direction we goes. If the elections really weren't stolen, then we will see things even out. If they were ... well you're wrong about Democrats retaining control. It's not Democrats vs Republicans.

It's establishment vs everyone else.

Let me ask you something: Do you ever think we'll see another person not blessed by either the Bush or Clinton family on the Iron Throne of the Whitehouse? Trump was the only on in my lifetime.

From the 1980s until 2008 we always had a Bush or a Clinton in the Whitehouse and until 2012 Clinton was still Secretary of State. Two royal families have ruled America for my entire life until 2016. Obama and Biden are clearly part of House Clinton.

America is just a monarchy with term limits.

Re: Facebook Indefinitely Suspends Trump

#819

Post by [deleted] »

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.

[deleted]

Re: Facebook Indefinitely Suspends Trump

#820

Post by adamsea »

willis936 wrote: post #79
adamsea wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Crazy part is that one unelected guy (Zuckerberg)has this kind of power. To make this decision at his discretion. I mean it reads like something a head of state might say. Nonetheless, at least they are doing it.

To make the decision on who is allowed to post on their website?

No, not that. Basically monopoly power, like with J.P. Morgan.

Facebook has become immensely powerful. It is controlled by Zuckerberg. It's a new domain so it's still unregulated but I'm sure that will eventually change as social media is becoming more and more of a public good or utility.

Post reply on HN