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

871–880 of 1001 posts

Re: Facebook Indefinitely Suspends Trump

#871

Post by leepowers »

ndjdjxjsjdjdhd wrote: post #32

> involving use of our platform to incite violent insurrection against a democratically elected government. From my understanding the video that got banned asked everyone to go home peacefully but then continued to claim election fraud?

For months Trump has asserted that mail-in voting is intrinsically insecure and fraudulent. He's also been parroting baseless lies and conspiracy theories about the election. Telling his supporters their vote is being suppressed by all the parties that refuse to go along with his insane demands. These parties include: state and federal governments, private companies that build voting machines, poll workers, Republican secretaries of state, state and federal courts, a complicit press, and now even the vice president.

If you believe what Trump says then you must believe that the entire system of democratic representation has broken down. Under this mindset it makes sense to resort to violent action and storm the capitol - what other recourse do you have? That's why rioters left a "WE WILL NOT BACK DOWN" note on Pelosi's desk. And when Trump says the loves and supports the rioters, that's the mindset he's reinforcing and encouraging.

When Trump says everyone should go home - why should we treat that statement as normative? When virtually everything else this man has said agitates and encourages insurrection, why should we glom onto this one positive statement?

> The shocking events of the last 24 hours clearly demonstrate that President Donald Trump intends to use his remaining time in office to undermine the peaceful and lawful transition of power to his elected successor, Joe Biden.

The account bans are not just because of this one video considered in isolation. The bans are happening because of the systematic anti-democratic and seditious behavior of the president and his campaign.

Re: Facebook Indefinitely Suspends Trump

#872

Post by textech »

iNic wrote: post #546
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.

I'm actually curious: where would this be a slippery slope to, in your opinion? I understand that these platforms have a lot of influence, and I wouldn't like it if they censored whatever I believe. However, I think that new social media platforms are created fast enough that one can always find a place to discuss whatever they would want to discuss. (Both for better or for worse)

Network effect is pretty strong and although these platforms can easily be replicated, it's just not easy to get masses to adopt a new platform. I'm afraid that just like the traditional news media this could lead to a society where these companies could decide what people get to see and read.

Re: Facebook Indefinitely Suspends Trump

#873

Post by boojing »

beefee wrote: post #255

For anyone that hasn't heard it, ten states have alleged Facebook entered into an unlawful agreement with a competitor to manipulate advertising auctions. [1] [1] https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/ima...

By "a competitor" you mean Google?

Re: Facebook Indefinitely Suspends Trump

#875

Post by ChrisLomont »

alea_iacta_est wrote: post #839

They can suspend whoever they want, that won't make the 70 millions people who voted for him, and the reasons why they voted for him disappear. Hiding the thermometer doesn't make the fever go away.

>Hiding the thermometer doesn't make the fever go away.

Removing a constant toxic input helps cure the patient.

Re: Facebook Indefinitely Suspends Trump

#876

Post by molbioguy »

elgfare wrote: post #771
molbioguy wrote: post #687

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In some cases, yes. But in other cases they just represent the view of the vocal majority or those in power. Laws are official and objective, morals are relative. It's fine to base decisions on agreed upon laws. Appealing to morality is just using your own opinions

I'm aware that all morals are opinions and are dependent on an underlying subjective stance, and therefore the platforms should remain neutral in order to accommodate different stances. I'm arguing that in this case, since this is about stopping the dismantling of the structure of the laws themselves, it's a stance that it's ok for a platform to take since it's in some way the most fundamental common ground that we a…

So, at worst, delete the post, not ban the user (though I don't support that). In my view, the posts are inferred by some to incite destruction, but there are equal grounds to say that no explicit order was made in any post. Again, it's personal opinion.

Re: Facebook Indefinitely Suspends Trump

#877

Post by jhayward »

treeman79 wrote: post #828
tunesmith wrote: post #811

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

At beginning of pandemic I kept saying this is going to end in civil war. Lots of people want to radically change the county. A disaster is how you get it done. Toss everything into chaos, take away rights, lock things down. Perfect time to start making major changes to county. History is full of examples of this. Strong belief among many that that democracy will end after this election. Perpetual rule by one party.…

> Perpetual rule by one party. Much like California.

California has free, open, and fair elections every cycle. Since they've gone to non-gerrymandered voting districts it has been obvious that the current era Republican party is woefully out of touch with most Californians. But there's nothing putting a finger on the scale for the Democrats. Republicans are free to field competetive candidates any time.

So please stop insinuating that CA is some kind of dictatorship or totalitarian enforcing 1-party rule. That's blatantly wrong, and you know it.

Re: Facebook Indefinitely Suspends Trump

#878

Post by rchaud »

youeseh wrote: post #528
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…

Traditional TV and Print News Media gets the most eyeballs when they are controversial. Fox, CNN, MSNBC all do everything they can to coddle their specific segment. They phrase and comment on the news in a way that'll either excite their segment when they think it'll benefit and soften the blow whenever they think it'll hurt. And no, none of them appeal to a general audience. The ads that each network displays will t…

I do not use Twitter, and yet I have been seeing screenshots of his half-formed sentences strewn across every news channel for the past 5 years.

At least that will come to an end.

Re: Facebook Indefinitely Suspends Trump

#879

Post by CamperBob2 »

soared wrote: post #838
techer wrote: post #466

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“Despite being widely attributed as a Chinese curse, there is no known equivalent expression in Chinese.[2] The nearest related Chinese expression translates as "Better to be a dog in times of tranquility than a human in times of chaos." (寧為太平犬，不做亂世人)”

I might argue it’s always better to be a dog.

As a human, one should strive to be the owner of such a fortunate dog.

I don't think I'd want to swap places with most dogs, personally.

Re: Facebook Indefinitely Suspends Trump

#880

Post by zanellato19 »

ergocoder wrote: post #795
ncann wrote: post #777

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No matter what they do, half the population will scream. Imagine if they strongly censor things from the start, that undoubtedly won't fly well with the HN crowd either. Just look at the HN discussion thread when Youtube decided to remove election fraud videos.

Yeah, it wouldn't fly well because FB shouldn't play a judge. I don't understand why we don't have a due process for stuff like this. Trump haters keep justifying that FB is private they can ban whoever they want. Then, when a theme park bans a gay couple, they are screaming violently. I understand how it would be hard for normal people to push something through legal routes. But even Warren doesn't want to use a leg…

People have been wanting Trump and other alt-rights banned for years _because_ of things they _did_ not who they are. Thats a major difference.

And those users have repeatedly crossed the TOS of the services they are using but the pages stay up because it generates engagement. Twitter even admits that Trump was too big to ban because he generates far too much money for them and other social networks.

Thats the crux of the argument people have been saying for years. Banning a gay couple is a complete false equivalence and I don't believe you can argue that in good faith.

Post reply on HN