Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 442 posts

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#31

Post by gpm »

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…

> Given the weird nature of this case, and how only one viewpoint about it was allowed on social media, I wonder if that constitutes defamation on the part of the social media companies, since they were in practice making an editorial decision that he was bad.

You yourself acknowledge that it is a "viewpoint", or the term more common in law an "opinion". Opinions are protected speech by the first amendment (not section 230) and as such Facebook cannot be liable in any way for promoting one or silencing another.

To be liable for defamation, you would need to be stating false facts with reckless disregard for the truth (or malice, if Rittenhouse counts as a public figure), not just promoting an opinion. This is regardless of section 230 (which might or might not provide them further protection).

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#32

Post by thumbellina »

ctdonath wrote: post #20

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 different…

Fact checking, or more importantly which claims get fact checked, is a signal for political leanings, if nothing else.

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#33

Post by neartheplain »

jacquesm wrote: post #26
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…

Juries have been wrong before, and many times at that. Personally I am sick and tired of the way this character is now put forward as some kind of saint, in my book he's a multiple murderer and there isn't anything that will change that. There is such a thing as intent and I don't buy for one second the self defense angle, that's akin to me tooling up with a bunch of weapons, walking into a bar fight and then shootin…

How much of the trial did you watch?

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#35

Post by jacquesm »

neartheplain wrote: post #33
jacquesm wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Juries have been wrong before, and many times at that. Personally I am sick and tired of the way this character is now put forward as some kind of saint, in my book he's a multiple murderer and there isn't anything that will change that. There is such a thing as intent and I don't buy for one second the self defense angle, that's akin to me tooling up with a bunch of weapons, walking into a bar fight and then shootin…

How much of the trial did you watch?

Enough to be sick of it.

This is not how you run a civilized society. The problem is not so much the trial as it is the events leading up to it and the fact that kids walk around with powerful weapons. But please ignore me, and ignore the future consequences as well, this isn't going to solve anything.

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#36

Post by siva7 »

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…

This case is so weird from a european pov. Rittenhouse would be certainly convicted of murder in countries like germany. The self-defense argument would get you some laughs at the trial.

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#37

Post by int_19h »

jacquesm wrote: post #26
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…

Juries have been wrong before, and many times at that. Personally I am sick and tired of the way this character is now put forward as some kind of saint, in my book he's a multiple murderer and there isn't anything that will change that. There is such a thing as intent and I don't buy for one second the self defense angle, that's akin to me tooling up with a bunch of weapons, walking into a bar fight and then shootin…

Juries are instructed to rule according to the law. Whether the law is "right" or "wrong" is a different matter altogether, and it's not what the trial was about.

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#38

Post by MeinBlutIstBlau »

qqtt wrote: post #5

Definitely gives me pause to hear things like Facebook disallowing support of an individual embroiled in a hostile media environment and dubious criminal charges. Where would figures like Amanda Knox be if a similar wave of thought-crime style censorship were deployed at scale? Of course large companies setting narratives is not a new problem for us - large media conglomerates have done similar things for decades. Bu…

To me, we're going through a monopoly age like the industrial revolution but for tech. So during the late 1800's, people just dealt with railroad and oil monopolies because they had to. It's not going to stop until someone gets in office that actually follows through with breaking them up, regardless of them being monopolies.

If anything, it doesn't feel like we have constitutional rights anymore when a corporation can just deny them when they literally are main means of voicing an opinion. It's like a company having the knowledge of building sidewalks, everybody uses them because they're so useful, but you can't practice your right as a citizen on them because the company owns it. 6 of 1 half dozen of the other it's no different than the CCP telling you whats what except here we just have corporate overlords that do it instead.

What good is having a bill of rights if I have to be rich enough to actually enforce it? An inalienable right is something you shouldn't have to go to court over, yet here we are...

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#39

Post by dragonwriter »

ctdonath wrote: post #20

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 different…

> by culling §230-protected content in a clearly biased manner Facebook etc is establishing themselves as "publisher" culpable for libelous & criminal content.

No, they aren't. True, if it were not online, Facebook's involvement with selection of which provided content to promote might make them a publisher (it's kind of hard, because both bookstores and other distributors and publishers, offline, actively select content in very biased ways, but face very different liability regimes). But while you reference “§230-protected content”, you fail to understand the operative language of § 230: “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.” Note that there is no “unless, as a provider, they choose to promote that content in a ‘clearly biased’ manner” caveat. Just a bar against the provider being treated as a publisher of content that originates from someone else.

Post reply on HN