Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy • Hacker News Board

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#111

Post by SquishyPanda23 » Thu, Dec 02, 2021, 3:45 AM UTC

siva7 wrote: post #36

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.

The US has a long history of letting murderers off the hook when there is a racial component[0]. With someone like Rittenhouse, who has become a darling of the white supremacy movement, the trial is part of an ongoing culture war. And culture warriors are going to do what they always do.

[0] See, for example, the use of jury nullification after the US Civil War.

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#112

Post by RubberMullet » Thu, Dec 02, 2021, 3:46 AM UTC

jacquesm wrote: post #91

cdot2 wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Youd rather he be dead? That would be better?

No, I'd rather he stayed at home, rather than to play at police officer as a trigger happy youth.

You either didn't watch any of the videos from that night or don't know what trigger happy means. Rittenhouse made a number of mistakes but being trigger happy was not one of them.

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#113

Post by Ancapistani » Thu, Dec 02, 2021, 3:47 AM UTC

SquishyPanda23 wrote: post #94

Benjammer wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you not allowed to shoot someone in Germany if they fire a gun into the air and then point it at you? What about if someone is swinging a blunt object violently at your head? Is there just not such a thing as "self defense" in Germany? I feel like I sound like one of the right wing sympathizers but I'm honestly just curious how things work over there, are you willing to explain?

You can't shoot someone in the US for swinging something at your head. Otherwise all bar fights would end in gun violence like in a cheesy Western film.

> You can't shoot someone in the US for swinging something at your head.

In every state of which I’ve ever been a resident, responding with lethal force in such a case is in fact legal.

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#114

Post by hasdf » Thu, Dec 02, 2021, 3:47 AM UTC

Gofundme did the same thing. They killed the gofundme for Kyle's legal defense and then after it didn't matter anymore they "reversed the decision".

this article talks about a post the family of a recent school shooter made praising/defending him on facebook - so obviously facebook is applying this rule very selectively. I think it would help their credibility if they had examples of other times they apply these rules - but it seems more like they make up the rules on the spot and apply them based on their internal politics.

https://www.star-telegram.com/news/local/arlington/article25...

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#115

Post by School-Cotton » Thu, Dec 02, 2021, 3:48 AM UTC

siva7 wrote: post #80

Benjammer wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you not allowed to shoot someone in Germany if they fire a gun into the air and then point it at you? What about if someone is swinging a blunt object violently at your head? Is there just not such a thing as "self defense" in Germany? I feel like I sound like one of the right wing sympathizers but I'm honestly just curious how things work over there, are you willing to explain?

Not so if the shot down people can also make the case that they feared for their lives because you were carrying a weapon and that is why they pointed a weapon at you in the first place. There is a good reason why only highly trained government forces are allowed to carry a weapon let alone some teenager.

> Not so if the shot down people can also make the case that they feared for their lives

Can you cite the specific German statute or case history that says this? Or is it just what you intuitively expect to be true?

> There is a good reason why only highly trained government forces are allowed to carry a weapon let alone some teenager.

For what it's worth, I wish that were the case in the US too. But whether carrying a gun is illegal is a different question from whether using it in this specific situation makes you also guilty of the additional crime of murder.

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#116

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Dec 02, 2021, 3:48 AM UTC

SquishyPanda23 wrote: post #94

Benjammer wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you not allowed to shoot someone in Germany if they fire a gun into the air and then point it at you? What about if someone is swinging a blunt object violently at your head? Is there just not such a thing as "self defense" in Germany? I feel like I sound like one of the right wing sympathizers but I'm honestly just curious how things work over there, are you willing to explain?

You can't shoot someone in the US for swinging something at your head. Otherwise all bar fights would end in gun violence like in a cheesy Western film.

[deleted]

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#117

Post by oh_sigh » Thu, Dec 02, 2021, 3:48 AM UTC

RC_ITR wrote: post #85

urda wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I always wonder where the 'we need good guys with guns to stop the bad guys with guns' go when they're talking about Gaige. He saw Kyle, an active shooter, drew on him to get him to stop shooting people, and so Kyle just gets to shoot him? EDIT: This flamewar is not worth it (what did I expect in this thread?), but just please try to remember the lessons Batman tries to teach us about vigilante justice (it just encou…

Except Kyle wasn't an "active shooter". He shot one person who was attacking him, and then ran away while being chased by a mob. That isn't an active shooter.

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#118

Post by NoRelToEmber » Thu, Dec 02, 2021, 3:48 AM UTC

The BBC does not mention it, but Rittenhouse's ability to raise funds for a legal defense was also hindered on many levels, including blocks by Twitter, GoFundMe, and the Discover payment processor: https://reclaimthenet.org/facebook-blocks-givesendgo-kyle-ri...

Perhaps if their blocks were successful in preventing his legal defense, they could now claim to be justified by a guilty verdict..

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#119

Post by TeeMassive » Thu, Dec 02, 2021, 3:50 AM UTC

koolba wrote: post #22

Between Facebook banning any support, President Biden labeling him a white supremacist, and the Democrat head of the judiciary committee Rep. Jerry Nadler suggesting a unanimous jury verdict was a “miscarriage of justice” which needs to be investigated, Rittenhouse is going to a busy man.

Most likely not. As was pointed out by a lot of lawyers who followed the case (that I watched on YouTube), defamation lawsuits after a criminal prosecution are very hard to pursue. Also public officials enjoy anti-diffamation protections generally, especially the president and member of congress and members of the senate.

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#120

Post by neartheplain » Thu, Dec 02, 2021, 3:52 AM UTC

RC_ITR wrote: post #82

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 mean I agree with you on the technicality, but the uniquely American view that someone can take a gun to a protest and not be looking for trouble is a very interesting one.

He took a gun to a small business at the owner's request, per police investigation, photo and video evidence, and the sworn testimony of numerous witnesses. The riot came to him.