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

851–860 of 1001 posts

Re: Facebook Indefinitely Suspends Trump

#851

Post by sadgrip »

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…

I believe the response from a Fox news viewer would be "It's not news." It's an opinion segment and all major media networks have them as far as I'm aware.

Re: Facebook Indefinitely Suspends Trump

#852

Post by InitialLastName »

djsumdog wrote: post #818
InitialLastName wrote: post #792

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I think you're forgetting how bitter the 2008 Democratic primary was. The Clintons did everything they could to keep Obama from being the nominee (well, as we saw in 2016, not quite everything they could do). Clinton was made secretary of state as an olive branch to keep her end of the party secure.

I think you can comfortably replace "establishment" with "idealogically representative of the inner standard deviation of the american people", with some skewing for party politics, which is pretty much what a representative republic is supposed to do. People also miss that the parties frequently shift to accommodate their candidates, such that any candidate of a major party de facto becomes the establishment for that party (within reason).

Also, Bill Clinton was in no way an establishment candidate in 1992. Nor was Reagan in 1980, nor particularly was Carter in 1976. Skipping their associated unelected presidents (who by nature of being VP were part of the establishment), Kennedy probably also was not particularly establishmenty (but he cheated). Nixon was a solid component of the Republican establishment, Eisenhower had literally run the country's military, and FDR was president for so long it's hard not to think of him as defining the establishment. Before that, my picture of electoral history gets fuzzy.

All that to say, saying things are run by "the establishment" is too ephemeral to be useful.

> America is just a monarchy with term limits.

Yes, that's literally the intent of the executive branch as conceived by the founders. Even the term limits were feature creep.

Re: Facebook Indefinitely Suspends Trump

#853

Post by q3k »

adewinter wrote: post #377
q3k wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No such button available here.

It's not a button it's a text link (probably grey/hard to see) at the bottom of the dialogue

Yeah, if there was one I would've noticed it. Nothing to click like that, just a login page. Now it loads fine though, I guess I fell into some anti-fraud/DoS system.

Re: Facebook Indefinitely Suspends Trump

#854

Post by tortasaur »

cycrutchfield wrote: post #523
textech wrote: post #494

Facebook, Twitter and the rest shouldn't act like arbiters of truth. I think this is just plain wrong and a slippery slope for the entire industry.

They don’t have to allow their platforms to be used to incite violence or insurrection. That’s their choice. You’re welcome to go to the cesspool that is Parler if you want to make violent threats.

The parent comment didn't say they couldn't, it said they shouldn't.

Re: Facebook Indefinitely Suspends Trump

#855

Post by CarelessExpert »

tunesmith wrote: post #811
bryan_w wrote: post #772

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Yesterday the pipe bombs that were found didn't have a chance to explode. It might not work out so well next time. And given there are over 100 GOP representatives still pushing the false narrative that the election was stolen, there will be a next time.

Re: Facebook Indefinitely Suspends Trump

#856

Post by AndrewUnmuted »

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.

A public utility is really just a private company which has been granted the special privilege of legal monopoly, by some combination of state intervention and regulatory capture.

Censorship may be a bad thing on a moral level, but when it comes to the law of the United States - the country in which Facebook operates - it is pretty clear that free speech protections are an imposition upon what the government may legislate upon - NOT a citizen's "right" to avoid censorship. This leaves open the possibility that private firms can legally "censor" people, while also restricting Congress's ability to write legislation that restricts speech.

I am not sure how relevant it is that a service is "paid," or "unpaid." What really matters is whether all parties are dealing with each other voluntarily and not under any form of coercion. As far as I know, by making your Facebook account, you agree to have your speech moderated under their discretion. You do not have to make a Facebook account, after all, and since Facebook is not the only game in town, I do not really see how it can be called a utility. This also disqualifies it from being an example of a public square.

Re: Facebook Indefinitely Suspends Trump

#858

Post by textech »

cycrutchfield wrote: post #523
textech wrote: post #494

Facebook, Twitter and the rest shouldn't act like arbiters of truth. I think this is just plain wrong and a slippery slope for the entire industry.

They don’t have to allow their platforms to be used to incite violence or insurrection. That’s their choice. You’re welcome to go to the cesspool that is Parler if you want to make violent threats.

not just "don't have to" but I'd say that they have a responsibility to make sure that their platforms aren't used to incite violence against anyone but there are better ways to handle an outgoing but still an elected President and it's not clear if that's what really happened. I thought people had the right to protest in this country?

If an elected President of the country is acting deranged then that's the responsibility of congress to do something about and not of glorified CRUD app creators.

Re: Facebook Indefinitely Suspends Trump

#859

Post by jeresuikkila »

marcus_holmes wrote: post #718
hi5eyes wrote: post #682

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Twitter's audience is narrow: Most of the people I know (across countries, religions, genders, professions) do not have a Twitter account. most of the people in media are on twitter 247, talking heads take from twitter discourse and export that to other media

Twitter has a really high membership ratio in journalism and politics - pretty much every professional journalist and politician is very active. Whether this is a good thing for society is a different question. (I'd argue that it's not and that Twitter should be closed down. But I know that's an unpopular opinion)

Does your closing down suggestion only apply to Twitter or also other social media platforms? What would the effect be?

Re: Facebook Indefinitely Suspends Trump

#860

Post by lkxijlewlf »

tunesmith wrote: post #811
bryan_w wrote: post #772

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

>... but I think it's more likely than not that we hit bottom yesterday...

At the very least, he set the new bar. The next "Trump" will be worse.

Post reply on HN