Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy • Hacker News Board

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#11

Post by lostlogin » Thu, Dec 02, 2021, 2:38 AM UTC

uncoder0 wrote: post #3

rayiner wrote: post #2

> Facebook said it would "still remove content that celebrates the death of the individuals killed in Kenosha". But "we will no longer remove content containing praise or support of Rittenhouse", a spokesperson said. To be clear, for a year, Facebook banned content that would have been consistent with what an impartial jury ultimately found about the case. Which would have corrected a misleading media narrative about…

Facebook is very damaging to the fabric of society and this is just further evidence of it all. If Facebook employed an even remotely accurate sample of the population based on political leanings and backgrounds for their content policy team this would have never happened. I think the amount of blame the left and media placed on Facebook for the 2016 election of President Trump are to majorly to blame for the whole s…

> Facebook is very damaging to the fabric of society

If you had left it at that, you’d have had a lot of agreement.

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#12

Post by baryphonic » Thu, Dec 02, 2021, 2:39 AM UTC

Benjammer wrote: post #7

rayiner wrote: post #2

> Facebook said it would "still remove content that celebrates the death of the individuals killed in Kenosha". But "we will no longer remove content containing praise or support of Rittenhouse", a spokesperson said. To be clear, for a year, Facebook banned content that would have been consistent with what an impartial jury ultimately found about the case. Which would have corrected a misleading media narrative about…

Somehow I watched 1 or 2 videos on twitter right at the time, and got a good sense of what happened, that ended up being consistent with the jury ruling. These weren't even political posts, just some OSINT people I follow. I was not aware of any "misleading media narrative," since I don't consume any mainstream media outside of occasional twitter posts. Once the trial started I was actually very surprised how many pe…

Imagine you were wrongfully accused of a heinous crime, and were being dragged through the mud in the court of the press. You may have an option to present your side of the story, one which is highly persuasive. Yet this is actively suppressed on the town square of today, Facebook and Twitter. You aren't even allowed to raise funds on platforms like GoFundMe.

As a result, the general public's first impression of your story is never challenged, and it becomes accepted as truth, despite being blatantly false.

Does Facebook have no obligation, even if only a moral one, to let you at least defend your own reputation when it allows literal defamation about you to be published unmolested?

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#13

Post by burlesona » Thu, Dec 02, 2021, 2:40 AM UTC

Benjammer wrote: post #7

rayiner wrote: post #2

> Facebook said it would "still remove content that celebrates the death of the individuals killed in Kenosha". But "we will no longer remove content containing praise or support of Rittenhouse", a spokesperson said. To be clear, for a year, Facebook banned content that would have been consistent with what an impartial jury ultimately found about the case. Which would have corrected a misleading media narrative about…

Somehow I watched 1 or 2 videos on twitter right at the time, and got a good sense of what happened, that ended up being consistent with the jury ruling. These weren't even political posts, just some OSINT people I follow. I was not aware of any "misleading media narrative," since I don't consume any mainstream media outside of occasional twitter posts. Once the trial started I was actually very surprised how many pe…

Having a strong opinion based on zero knowledge is like American politics 101.

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#14

Post by GhettoComputers » Thu, Dec 02, 2021, 2:41 AM UTC

baryphonic wrote: post #8

rayiner wrote: post #2

> Facebook said it would "still remove content that celebrates the death of the individuals killed in Kenosha". But "we will no longer remove content containing praise or support of Rittenhouse", a spokesperson said. To be clear, for a year, Facebook banned content that would have been consistent with what an impartial jury ultimately found about the case. Which would have corrected a misleading media narrative about…

I had followed the case since the beginning. Having watched the videos, it was plainly obvious that in each case, Rittenhouse was acting in self-defense. (Intriguingly, many pro-Rittenhouse voices were arguing that he was guilty of the gun charge, though some were a bit more eagle-eyed and read the statute the way the judge ultimately did when he dismissed it.) The interesting thing about Rittenhouse is that even des…

I’m really susprised if they didn’t watch the videos and read about the case. Most people watch video now so is it possible they avoided all videos or they just didn’t believe the videos? Nobody I know didn’t watch the videos.

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#15

Post by judge2020 » Thu, Dec 02, 2021, 2:42 AM UTC

baryphonic wrote: post #8

rayiner wrote: post #2

> Facebook said it would "still remove content that celebrates the death of the individuals killed in Kenosha". But "we will no longer remove content containing praise or support of Rittenhouse", a spokesperson said. To be clear, for a year, Facebook banned content that would have been consistent with what an impartial jury ultimately found about the case. Which would have corrected a misleading media narrative about…

I had followed the case since the beginning. Having watched the videos, it was plainly obvious that in each case, Rittenhouse was acting in self-defense. (Intriguingly, many pro-Rittenhouse voices were arguing that he was guilty of the gun charge, though some were a bit more eagle-eyed and read the statute the way the judge ultimately did when he dismissed it.) The interesting thing about Rittenhouse is that even des…

is there case law that shows defamation for omitting facts? It sounds like such a precedent could make anyone guilty of defamation if they only cover news when it’s first announced and not when more info comes out about the news.

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#16

Post by GhettoComputers » Thu, Dec 02, 2021, 2:42 AM UTC

idontwantthis wrote: post #4

I praise all censorship and all inconsistency by Facebook. Poison discourse to the point that it stops happening. Facebook is a platform for manipulation not for communication.

That would make sense if people weren’t easily fooled by Facebook.

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#17

Post by mc32 » Thu, Dec 02, 2021, 2:43 AM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #2

> Facebook said it would "still remove content that celebrates the death of the individuals killed in Kenosha". But "we will no longer remove content containing praise or support of Rittenhouse", a spokesperson said. To be clear, for a year, Facebook banned content that would have been consistent with what an impartial jury ultimately found about the case. Which would have corrected a misleading media narrative about…

A very curious part of this is the president of the US calling him a white supremacist before the verdict is reached and the press secretary defending that portrayal [he shot three white guys]. A president who promised to 'bring normality back to the whitehouse'. That cavalier attitude toward justice creates unnecessary tensions in the community ['if the president says so, it must be true, and if the accused is acquitted then justice is broken and we can take it into our hands']

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#18

Post by bcrosby95 » Thu, Dec 02, 2021, 2:44 AM UTC

GhettoComputers wrote: post #14

baryphonic wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had followed the case since the beginning. Having watched the videos, it was plainly obvious that in each case, Rittenhouse was acting in self-defense. (Intriguingly, many pro-Rittenhouse voices were arguing that he was guilty of the gun charge, though some were a bit more eagle-eyed and read the statute the way the judge ultimately did when he dismissed it.) The interesting thing about Rittenhouse is that even des…

I’m really susprised if they didn’t watch the videos and read about the case. Most people watch video now so is it possible they avoided all videos or they just didn’t believe the videos? Nobody I know didn’t watch the videos.

I linked my friends a youtube video of someone doing a legal analysis after the verdict. After watching, they expressed surprise that the incidents were recorded.

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#19

Post by BobbyJo » Thu, Dec 02, 2021, 2:48 AM UTC

baryphonic wrote: post #8

rayiner wrote: post #2

> Facebook said it would "still remove content that celebrates the death of the individuals killed in Kenosha". But "we will no longer remove content containing praise or support of Rittenhouse", a spokesperson said. To be clear, for a year, Facebook banned content that would have been consistent with what an impartial jury ultimately found about the case. Which would have corrected a misleading media narrative about…

I had followed the case since the beginning. Having watched the videos, it was plainly obvious that in each case, Rittenhouse was acting in self-defense. (Intriguingly, many pro-Rittenhouse voices were arguing that he was guilty of the gun charge, though some were a bit more eagle-eyed and read the statute the way the judge ultimately did when he dismissed it.) The interesting thing about Rittenhouse is that even des…

Not a lawyer, but I find it highly improbably that section 230 would shield them in this case. It's trivial to think of a scenario where the removal of information constitutes the production of a message, and in that scenario, the information is not itself produced by third parties using a platform, but by the platform itself.

Like, if I write a note that reads: "The President of the United States should morn those that die of COVID." And the note is posted by someone else with "morn those that" removed, they can no longer point to me as the producer of the message. Likewise if video footage is edited to show a different story than reality, the person that did the editing is culpable for the resulting hoax, not the videographer. I think the same applies to editing information produced by multiple other people. The moment you edit information to conform to a certain narrative, you are then the source of that new narrative. In that way, I think Facebook, though they were editing the information available on their platform, are in fact the source of a new narrative that exists in the negative space of their editing.

It would indeed be super interesting to see this argued in court. It would make a really good balance to the free reign that platforms have now to curtail certain messages or information. If they were responsible for the story the surviving information creates, it would make them tread more carefully when censoring users.

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#20

Post by ctdonath » Thu, Dec 02, 2021, 2:48 AM UTC

The whole self-appointed "fact checker empowered to cancel" movement has to stop. Far too much fair disagreement, and objective truths, have been maliciously "cancelled" for not adhering to a given narrative on public forums.

I get that "freedom of the press" does not include freedom to use someone else's press, and the owner has the absolute right to decide who may use his press. That said, we have a legal differentiation between "publisher" and "common carrier", and by culling §230-protected content in a clearly biased manner Facebook etc is establishing themselves as "publisher" culpable for libelous & criminal content.