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

991–1000 of 1001 posts

Re: Facebook Indefinitely Suspends Trump

#991

Post by tanseydavid »

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…

This sort of hyperbole is central to the problem we face:

"..about clash of fundamentally incompatible moral systems - one in which one group would like to operate entirely above the law on the superficial basis of skin colour and inherited wealth by appealing to lies and fantasy and the basest and most distorted human instincts, and another which wants humans, politics, society, business, science, and art to be better than that."

Re: Facebook Indefinitely Suspends Trump

#992

Post by thotsBgone »

wincy wrote: post #982
thotsBgone wrote: post #867

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Spanish/latin culture also doesn't have the whole politically correct thing that we do.

I heard a reporter on NPR actually say the word "latinx" the other day, threw me for quite the loop.

This is a proposed gender-neutral alternative to latino/latina. According to native Spanish speaking comedian Tom Segura, a Spanish speaker would laugh in your face if you tried to say such a thing to them. The whole language has a masculine/feminine distinction.

Re: Facebook Indefinitely Suspends Trump

#993

Post by [deleted] »

adamsea wrote: post #817
fumar wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[deleted]

Re: Facebook Indefinitely Suspends Trump

#994

Post by rorykoehler »

bra-ket wrote: post #515
pentae wrote: post #450

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you actually watched Fox News lately? Right wingers are leaving it in droves because except for a few pundits (Tucker Carlson etc) They are too moderate. Most of the craziness is on social media these days and right wing news sites on the web

it's not that Fox News became "moderate" , they became just another left-wing propaganda hub like CNN and WaPo , except for very few commentators like Tucker and Ingraham. Their elections coverage was a disaster as well. I think they are in identity crisis of sorts.

You are cracking me up. I haven't laughed so hard out loud in front of my computer in years. Thank you!

Re: Facebook Indefinitely Suspends Trump

#995

Post by woops »

rayiner wrote: post #891
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…

> There are people who go to universities to study how to do this well, then go to work for institutions committed to doing this well. And a lot of these people have lost their minds. I’m trying to explain to my college educated friends right now why using “whiteness” as a pejorative is a bad thing. As an engineer I’ve always been skeptical of liberal arts education. But I didn’t think it would destroy America.

I agree with some of this, but out of all the things that are definitely destroying America, the mindless opinions and think pieces in the NYT are one of the least harmful.

"Whiteness" is a term I don't use and don't really like, but it just plain was white Republican activists[1] who were rioting to stop the election and intimidate representatives two days ago. The Confederate symbols, presence of neo-Nazis, and the bizarre American Viking guy gave it away.

I live in southern Oregon and was born in Missouri, and I don't really understand what you're point is, below, about these areas culturally. The best parts of the culture in Missouri were sports, music, literature, food, river life, and fireworks. The worse parts included the notorious white racism. The "whiteness" discourse in Missouri was already asinine well before the NYT lost its mind. My grandparents had to elope out of state because their marriage was illegal, and when they came back the scandal of what they had done was featured in about a dozen papers.

And Oregon is an entirely different story. For someone who lived in St. Louis and then the Bay Area most of my life, the uniformity here is astonishing. It was officially a no-blacks state by constitutional amendment. My county today is I think that the blame for your aunt feeling attacked for being white lies more truly on Breitbart. If you show non-liberal whites the NYT tweet/article, and also the Breitbart piece quoting the same NYT language, my bet is that "I feel attacked by the media for being white" is a more common and more intense response among those who read only the latter.

My parents were Democrats, and I am a Democrat, but one of my brothers is a Republican. We're both from the same place, the same upbringing, and are the same race (whatever it is). He watches Fox News personalities religiously, and categorically refuses to click on a link to the NYT. I read a local paper, the NYT, and wherever else the news comes from. I'm annoyed every day at the presentation of facts and looses writing standards, but I make my way through it. But this idea that the whites are under attack really connects with my brother in a way that it doesn't for me -- even though I'm the one supposedly encountering the brunt of the media's attack on white people, since I read main stream news and opinions and he doesn't.

Could he simply identify as more white than I do, and so feel more attacked? It's possible but I doubt it. I think it has more to do with this feeling of insecurity being one that the right wing media is nurturing for him.

[1] I mean "white activists" here not just in the sense that they were white people. [2] Renaming it for the second time. :(

Re: Facebook Indefinitely Suspends Trump

#996

Post by ajsnigrutin »

nobody9999 wrote: post #981
ajsnigrutin wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Either way, they should not be an arbiter of public discourse. They can be, but they should lose their platform status and be treated as a publisher, ie. take full responsibility for content on their pages. You can't have both.

>They can be, but they should lose their platform status and be treated as a publisher, ie. take full responsibility for content on their pages. You can't have both. I'm sorry. Would you expand on that? I don't understand what you're advocating. Perhaps this[0] might help you to formulate your response? [0] https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200531/23325444617/hello...

Yes, i'm saying that this law/rule (or whatever it's called, I'm not from USA) should be changed.

You should be able to choose a status, either "platform" or "published", and in the case of the first, you'd have to leave everything not directly illegal (with rules in place, how to contest the legality in court if the post was removed and the author think it's legal speech - sort of like with DMCA claims), or you're a publisher, where you can decide what content you want and which you don't want, and then take responsibility for the content you've let stay on your site.

Currently we have social networks like facebook deciding that one type of -ism is worse than the other tipe of -ism, and letting one stay while removing the other [0]. If you expand this to politics, you can get greater consequences than just a few people being recist (but since it's against whites and men, it's "ok" in the eyes of facebook).

So yes, sites like facebook and twitter (which generally have a monopoly) should be regulated more, and having to choose their status.

[0] https://eu.usatoday.com/story/tech/2020/12/03/facebook-ranks...

Re: Facebook Indefinitely Suspends Trump

#997

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…

I will add: repeating this lie would now be providing aid or comfort to an armed insurrection, a felony that can get you up to ten years in prison.

Re: Facebook Indefinitely Suspends Trump

#998

Post by throw7 »

djsumdog wrote: post #830
throw7 wrote: post #206

Gotta move with the political winds ehhh zuck?

The entire reason the Cambridge Analytica thing happened was because Zuck made moves for politics. At least that was my theory. I spell it out here: https://battlepenguin.com/politics/facebook-politics-and-orw...

Thanks for the link. I appreciate it.

Re: Facebook Indefinitely Suspends Trump

#999

Post by dang »

tetrometal wrote: post #378

What is unbelievable about that? It's completely reasonable. People were pissed about lack of election transparency. All they wanted were real audits of the election, but all they got was "Shut up, go home, there's no evidence, stop looking into things."

We detached this hellish subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25673377.

Re: Facebook Indefinitely Suspends Trump

#1000

Post by rndgermandude »

nobody9999 wrote: post #976
rndgermandude wrote: post #514

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 al…

I am not, facebook.com is not facebook's home, it's their place of business and it's "critical infrastructure" at this point. It's very different to your house. Zuckerberg and/or you can make rules for your respective actual residence(s) all you want. You have "editorial control" and the associated liability over who comes to your home and what happens in it. facebook.com does not. You will be thrown in prison when somebody uses your kitchen to plan violent attacks, facebook (or Zuckerberg) is not thrown in prison when somebody uses a facebook group to do the same.

I also do not agree that corporations are people, in general.

Post reply on HN