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

61–70 of 442 posts

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#61

Post by UnpossibleJim »

judge2020 wrote: post #15
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…

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.

I think the argument would be (and I'm not sure how they could prove such a thing) that they were not omitting facts, but actively suppressing facts and allowing the spread of (what ended up to be) misinformation. I'm not a lawyer, of course, and playing Monday morning QB of sorts.

EDIT: Though, I think this only applies to news sources, which they've been ruled to be not as. Though that ruling may be overturned if they actively suppress certain information.

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#62

Post by cryptonector »

judge2020 wrote: post #15
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…

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.

The policy that the facts must be omitted might be an act of defamation, or, because it was published, libel.

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#63

Post by throwaway4good »

thumbellina wrote: post #29
throwaway4good wrote: post #10

[flagged]

The question is, if media centralization continues, what evidence/perspectives could have been removed from the public sphere, and what impact could that have on impartiality? Tech has the potential to decentralize power. Alas...

My point was: This is not really censorship.

They appear to censor, appease their advertisers, but actually they are amplifying. That is in their (Facebook) economic interest.

If you decentralize you will end up with a media for each particular group, and you will have less engagement as you are only discussing with people you agree with.

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#64

Post by vineyardmike »

koolba wrote: post #53
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…

> 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. If you refuse to accept any concept of self defense then of course your going to convict him without looking at the evidence. By your standard it’s impossible for someone to defend themself with lethal force as the use of that force wo…

> Walking around your neighborhood is not walking into a bar fight.

He didn't. He drove out of state to a new neighborhood... with a gun. Thats asking for trouble.

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#65

Post by School-Cotton »

jacquesm wrote: post #35
neartheplain wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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.

You may be right, and personally I agree with you that bringing a rifle to a partially violent protest should be illegal, and that Rittenhouse is no hero or role model, but nothing you said has anything to do with whether this was murder or self-defense. Even if his possession of the gun had been 100% illegal, that would be a different charge.

It feels like you're conflating several questions: (1) whether Rittenhouse is a good or bad person; (2) whether it should be legal for people to walk around at night with a giant rifle; (3) whether what happened in this particular instance was murder or self-defense. All three of these are actually completely unrelated questions.

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#66

Post by apostacy »

jacquesm wrote: post #35
neartheplain wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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.

Do you also feel that way about the armed vigilantes on the other side of the incident? Was it ok that Gage Groskreutz was menacing people with his gun, and was never charged with a crime, and never even had his gun confiscated?

There were many armed civilians that night with guns, why are you only concerned about Rittenhouse? Is armed vigilantism if a militia says that it is "anti fascist"

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#67

Post by urda »

vineyardmike wrote: post #64
koolba wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. If you refuse to accept any concept of self defense then of course your going to convict him without looking at the evidence. By your standard it’s impossible for someone to defend themself with lethal force as the use of that force wo…

> Walking around your neighborhood is not walking into a bar fight. He didn't. He drove out of state to a new neighborhood... with a gun. Thats asking for trouble.

Nothing you posted there is true, you didn't follow the case did you? There is nothing illegal with him living on a state line like that and traveling. He also did not cross any border with a firearm. He also traveled less distance than Rosenbaum did.

Seriously, this was covered in the case.

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#68

Post by Mountain_Skies »

vineyardmike wrote: post #55
MaxHoppersGhost wrote: post #9

I hadn’t heard of this policy. It makes sense to me how people were so uninformed about what happened that night if Facebook was banning videos supporting Kyle and most of the media wasn’t being impartial. Anyone who spent time watching the videos wouldn’t be surprised by the verdict.

Considering Kyle killed people, at a very contentious and politically sensitive time, its understandable that the story was banned. I've heard some very bad hot takes that basically amount to "he should have killed those people ". Advocating for killing people is way less controversial than whatever "nuance" people want to assign to the case regarding legal standing of guns and various self defense laws. Its not craz…

Individual right don't disappear because some groups have created a very contentious and politically sensitive time.

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#69

Post by dreyfan »

urda wrote: post #44
jacquesm wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

Sorry, self defense is a right no matter what isle of the political spectrum you land on. Arguing otherwise here, means you A) didn't follow the case or B) are arguing in bad faith. BOTH of these options do not make for a good look on yourself.

So, next time a police officer draws a weapon on someone, and that someone lawfully exercises their right to self-defense while exercising their right to bear arms, we're all 100% on the same page that it's okay, yeah?

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#70

Post by koolba »

vineyardmike wrote: post #64
koolba wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. If you refuse to accept any concept of self defense then of course your going to convict him without looking at the evidence. By your standard it’s impossible for someone to defend themself with lethal force as the use of that force wo…

> Walking around your neighborhood is not walking into a bar fight. He didn't. He drove out of state to a new neighborhood... with a gun. Thats asking for trouble.

> He didn't. He drove out of state to a new neighborhood... with a gun. Thats asking for trouble.

You’ve been lied to. Repeatedly.

His father, grandmother, best friend, and job were in Kenosha. Yes he lived a short distance away in another State, but he was in town nearly every day. It was his neighborhood.

And he didn’t “bring a gun across state lines”. He was given possession of one, in Wisconsin, which is legal for a 17 year old.

Post reply on HN