Facebook Indefinitely Suspends Trump • Hacker News Board

Re: Facebook Indefinitely Suspends Trump

#901

Post by tw04 » Thu, Jan 07, 2021, 9:03 PM UTC

underdown wrote: post #221

tw04 wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure that's entirely fair - and I'm someone who has no time for facebook OR twitter. I think Twitter has destroyed western journalism and facebook has been at best complicit in the growth of hate groups around the world. All that being said: Until November of this year, he wasn't "just Donald Trump" - he was the PUSA. There's a very big difference between banning PUSA and banning DJT. Now if you want to argue…

He is still the president today, making your argument dubious.

I guess if you don't see the distinction between someone who has 4 more years in the office with broad political support from his own party, and someone who has 2 weeks left and appears to be trying to incite a coup on his way out while being almost universally shunned by allies and foes alike, I'm not sure what I can say to change your mind.

Re: Facebook Indefinitely Suspends Trump

#902

Post by zmmmmm » Thu, Jan 07, 2021, 9:06 PM UTC

bra-ket wrote: post #679

rrrrrrrrrrrryan wrote: post #645

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

that 'high standard' apparently allows them to present rumors from anonymous sources as facts as long as it fits a certain political agenda. The burden of evidence no longer applies neither with NYT not any other heavily biased liberal outlets like WaPo or CNN.

As far as I know, NYT will not report information from sources where they cannot establish some kind of authenticity. If you don't believe it, try reporting a completely anonymous tip to them and see how far you get. I will bet you they come back asking you provide some kind of further evidence to establish your identity or at least that your knowledge is authoritative.

Re: Facebook Indefinitely Suspends Trump

#903

Post by nine_k » Thu, Jan 07, 2021, 9:14 PM UTC

hi5eyes wrote: post #682

youeseh wrote: post #528

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>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 is really a broadcast medium, more geared towards posting in real time and reposting, and less towards a discussion. It also limits the size of a tweet, making them perfectly quotable, and discouraging nuance and detail, so a juicy bon mot is basically the only winning genre on Twitter.

No wonder any public person, any politician, any celebrity may find out that Twitter is a must, if they want to keep and grow their fame / celebrity / notoriety.

Re: Facebook Indefinitely Suspends Trump

#904

Post by digihealthify » Thu, Jan 07, 2021, 9:15 PM UTC

jccalhoun wrote: post #132

When people say anonymity online is bad and that having people use their real names would make people more polite, I point them to facebook comments.

you know which platform has little to no asshole-ness? LinkedIn. There's more on the line, their career. I envision the next social media wave encompassing this a bit. Closer tie to the person in order to have a more humanistic conversation for fear of backlash.

Re: Facebook Indefinitely Suspends Trump

#905

Post by pluc » Thu, Jan 07, 2021, 9:18 PM UTC

TT3351 wrote: post #787

pluc wrote: post #732

Mark Zuckerberg, Jack Dorsey, etc all have the capability to silence the leader of the free world. What a time to be alive!

By what definition is this silencing

He can't talk on those platforms anymore? The opposite of talking is silence

Re: Facebook Indefinitely Suspends Trump

#906

Post by 2OEH8eoCRo0 » Thu, Jan 07, 2021, 9:19 PM UTC

Every post on this topic goes like this: You can't cry fire in a theater! But we don't want Facebook being arbiters of truth! But we must do something! But you can't cry fire...

Re: Facebook Indefinitely Suspends Trump

#907

Post by leadingthenet » Thu, Jan 07, 2021, 9:22 PM UTC

JKCalhoun wrote: post #596

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.

So there is no truth at all?

not in the absolute sense of the word, no.

Re: Facebook Indefinitely Suspends Trump

#908

Post by zmmmmm » Thu, Jan 07, 2021, 9:23 PM UTC

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.

It doesn't appear to me that their rationale for this is based on a judgement about truthfulness of anything. It is purely based on (in their words):

> we judged that their effect -- and likely their intent -- would be to provoke further violence

Re: Facebook Indefinitely Suspends Trump

#909

Post by gnusty_gnurc » Thu, Jan 07, 2021, 9:40 PM UTC

djsumdog wrote: post #823

gnusty_gnurc wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why aren’t we blaming anyone that died at CHAZ/CHOP on BLM? It’s hard not to see the bending-over-backwards academic justifications for why we shouldn’t be suppressing riots last year as anything other than the pretext and lead up to what’s happening now. I’m not calling legitimate protesting riots - rather the media was fully complicit with ignoring blatant rioting last year. Buildings were burning and government bu…

> the media was fully complicit with ignoring blatant rioting last year Ignoring? They practically endorsed it as a totally reasonable means of change! The fact that the Trump supporters didn't Riot and very few of them entered the Capitol goes to show the vast majority of those Republicans do believe in law in order! If the situation was reversed, had Trump won and Biden was challenging the election, you can be assu…

Yea you don't hear a peep from the "hate has no home here" side when Cathy Griffin holds a beheaded Trump in effigy.

You could only imagine the pearl-clutching if someone made the same image with Biden.

Re: Facebook Indefinitely Suspends Trump

#910

Post by starik36 » Thu, Jan 07, 2021, 9:48 PM UTC

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…

There are degrees of "coddling", as you put it. Granted NYT isn't as egregious as CNN or MSNBC, but they definitely have a strong bias, as exemplified by their "revolt": https://www.vox.com/2020/6/5/21280425/new-york-times-tom-cot...

This is just one example.