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

971–980 of 1001 posts

Re: Facebook Indefinitely Suspends Trump

#971

Post by molbioguy »

nobody9999 wrote: post #964
molbioguy wrote: post #674

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>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. I'll preface this by saying that I don't use Facebook because I find its business model to be exploitative and invasive for a whole host of reasons. FB users may treat it as a public forum, but that doesn't mean that it is a public forum. There a…

No argument that Facebook is currently within its rights to censor anyone they want for any reason they want. I think the debate is around whether they should have those protections, given that at present they are virtually a monopoly within their sphere and people don't have viable alternatives to use once they are kicked off of Facebook. BTW, my private property rights can be overriden whenever the governement or utilities or even neighbors can show a public need.

Re: Facebook Indefinitely Suspends Trump

#972

Post by shadowprofile77 »

Florin_Andrei wrote: post #881
marcosdumay wrote: post #861

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The death of the press¹ has been an worldwide phenomenon, so attributing it to a single US legislative bill is a bit too reductionist. It's quite possible that there was US protagonism on that process, and it's quite possible that the bill was a relevant factor, but the bill doesn't have an worldwide impact, and the US influence does certainly not come from it. 1 - It looks quite dead by now, nearly everything we cal…

Regardless - giving every single person, no matter what their accomplishments or talents, the same voice online, without anything out there filtering the garbage, was a really, REALLY bad move. Unfiltered social media is an amplifier for bullshit. Truth, reason, a good analysis - they're all hard. Spewing out nonsensical mythology is easy. Something needs to change.

Yet, here you are, a relatively anonymous individual of whose talents, accomplishments or level of education we can't be sure, happily spewing out your own completely unsubstantiated opinion, essentially indistinguishable from garbage, to a reading public on a major news aggregation site.

Re: Facebook Indefinitely Suspends Trump

#973

Post by pnt12 »

sagichmal wrote: post #812
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.

Slavoj Žižek, a popular philosopher, has stated in an interview, which I will try to paraphrase: "some morals should be absolute. I don't want to live in a country where we would need to argue if a rape case is justified or not. We should reach consensus on some issues and treat them as absolute. "

https://youtu.be/xN2ZGSX0cIE

36m30s

Re: Facebook Indefinitely Suspends Trump

#974

Post by nobody9999 »

matz1 wrote: post #276
th0ma5 wrote: post #231

All of these HN comments are defending shouting "Fire!" falsely in a theater under the guise of it being a slippery slope before all speech is lost. I have lost a lot of respect for these slippery slope arguments because they are easy to make and ignore the obvious problem which is that some speech shouldn't be tolerated... Especially intolerant or harmful speech.

> which is that some speech shouldn't be tolerated who get to decide what should/shouln't be tolerated ? harmful/harmful ? facebook ?

>who get to decide what should/shouln't be tolerated ? harmful/harmful ? facebook ?

On Facebook's platform, that would be Facebook.

In my home, that would be me.

In your home, that would be you.

I could go on, but I trust you get the point, yes?

Re: Facebook Indefinitely Suspends Trump

#975

Post by nobody9999 »

throwawaysea wrote: post #553
mrlala wrote: post #398

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why does Facebook owe anyone a voice? If you want a 'voice' then the GOVERNMENT should make a social media platform in which NO ONE at all can be censured. Because your silly free speech argument doesn't have anything to do with private companies, although you already knew that, but conveniently ignore it. If Trump decides to start posting on HN, does HN owe him a voice? You are the one making slippery slope argument…

The problem is that companies like Facebook and Twitter are already operating like the public town square. They are so big that they have greater influence and reach than virtually all countries, in a product space that is highly dependent on network effects. They are, for all intents and purposes, a public utility. And they should be held accordingly to the standards - namely that they cannot censor content, in supp…

>The problem is that companies like Facebook and Twitter are already operating like the public town square.

The operative word in the above sentence is 'like'.

FB and Twitter are not the town square and never have been. They are the platforms of private corporations driven by profit from advertising sales.

And they haven't been shy about explaining exactly what you can and cannot do on their property either (cf. the relevant sites' TOS).

That many people treat them like public squares is a result of those people's ignorance of or misapprehension about the platforms, not any subterfuge on the part of FB or Twitter.

And the only reason they have any influence is because those people gave it to them.

Don't use those platforms and they have no influence over you.

In the United States at least, they have the right to censor whoever and whatever they like. Whether that be Donald J. Trump or, anything concerning puff pastry or even tasty, tasty jelly beans.

Re: Facebook Indefinitely Suspends Trump

#976

Post by nobody9999 »

rndgermandude wrote: post #514
th0ma5 wrote: post #231

All of these HN comments are defending shouting "Fire!" falsely in a theater under the guise of it being a slippery slope before all speech is lost. I have lost a lot of respect for these slippery slope arguments because they are easy to make and ignore the obvious problem which is that some speech shouldn't be tolerated... Especially intolerant or harmful speech.

>some speech shouldn't be tolerated I agree that some speech shouldn't be tolerated. But it cannot be Zuckerberg, or Trump, or Biden, or you, or me, who unilaterally decides what speech is fine, and what speech is banned.

>I agree that some speech shouldn't be tolerated. But it cannot be Zuckerberg, or Trump, or Biden, or you, or me, who unilaterally decides what speech is fine, and what speech is banned.

Actually, in my home, I most certainly can unilaterally ban whatever speech I like.

And that's a good thing.

If the price of my freedom of speech (of which controlling what speech is allowed a platform on my property is a part) is allowing Facebook, Twitter or you to have the same rights, I'm okay with that.

Re: Facebook Indefinitely Suspends Trump

#977

Post by linuxftw »

awb wrote: post #955
linuxftw wrote: post #704

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We needed a John Hancock 5 years ago that was willing to draw a line on violent speech You mean like 'no justice no peace' or just speech that doesn't align with your political ideology? (To be clear, I'm all in favor of defunding police and the government at large)

Yes, any speech calling for violence is not helpful and I think worthy of discussion about the effects it has on our society. Groups can practice boycotts, peaceful protests, civil disobedience, political activism, fundraising, etc. without resorting to violent speech.

How do you feel about certain protestors being called terrorists?

People openly call for violence every day. People vote for it, it's what they want. Just look at the wars in the Middle East. Entire nations are calling for that violence.

Right now, society has the belief that violence by the state against people is sometimes justified, but never the reverse. Unless it's against a 'bad' state, then it's okay. Then they're freedom fighters.

Re: Facebook Indefinitely Suspends Trump

#978

Post by nobody9999 »

ArnoVW wrote: post #312
kevinmgranger wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When you're more or less encouraging a coup, the "fire in a crowded theater" analogy couldn't be more applicable.

Personally I always feel that the "fire in a crowded theater" is too specific to convince people. Why not use more "every day" examples? * I can't say I earned $0 last year --> tax fraud * I can't say "fuck you" to a judge --> contempt of court * I can't say my software will make you pretty --> advertising fraud * I can't say you robbed me yesterday --> libel I know this is a very European attitude, and always gets A…

>I know this is a very European attitude, and always gets Americans worked up, but to me as a Dutch / French person, it seems obvious that free speech is not absolute. Just like the right to bear arms does not mean that I can own any type of military weapon.

As an American, I know that even in the US, free speech is not absolute, nor has it ever been.

And all the things you mention are, in context, crimes here in the US as well.

One of the big differences in the US (not sure about France/The Netherlands), but in the UK it's much easier to prove libel/defamation than it is here.

I actually could say you robbed me yesterday, but if I didn't file a police report alleging that, it would be difficult for you to successfully sue me over it. Because you would have to prove that I knowingly did so and not only intended to cause injury, I actually did cause injury.

However, if I filed a false police report, I could be prosecuted for that -- and if you suffered some injury because I did (arrest/imprisonment, loss of job, etc.), you could likely win a libel/defamation lawsuit.

If there are people who tell you otherwise, they're either ignorant/uninformed or just lying.

Re: Facebook Indefinitely Suspends Trump

#979

Post by nobody9999 »

andrewclunn wrote: post #106
kevinmgranger wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When you're more or less encouraging a coup, the "fire in a crowded theater" analogy couldn't be more applicable.

Ah yes, either Trump is a cult leader who is threatening the very core of our democracy, or the election was rigged and we're about to get a Chinese style Manchurian candidate in the White House. I'm so glad that the media vigorously looked into these allegations of corruption and fraud, instead of dismissing them for partisan reasons, because then we might have a split, between people who get their information from…

Apparently, one of those groups understood the legal opinions[0] around the legal claims made (most of which didn't include fraud at all) and another group believed and promulgated a bunch of lies.

I'm sure that many folks on both sides believed what they were told. However, one group was told something approximating the truth and the other were told bald-faced lies.

[0] https://electioncases.osu.edu/2021/01/summary-of-post-electi...

Re: Facebook Indefinitely Suspends Trump

#980

Post by nobody9999 »

bitcharmer wrote: post #776
Dirlewanger wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Stop saying it was a coup. A bunch of mostly unarmed morons weren't overtaking anything.

These are fascist methods successfully used in the past for power grabs. I was going to explain in more detail but then I saw your HN handle...

> These are fascist methods successfully used in the past for power grabs. I was going to explain in more detail but then I saw your HN handle...

In case anyone was confused about the above (I was), I web searched 'Dirlewanger' and came up with this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oskar_Dirlewanger

Is this considered Doxxing?

Post reply on HN