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

121–130 of 442 posts

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#121

Post by jacquesm »

RubberMullet wrote: post #112
jacquesm wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If I bring a sandwich to work I intend to eat it. If I bring a ball to the park I'm going to play with it. If I bring a loaded weapon to a riot I intend to use it.

Normal people do not walk into riots with loaded guns unless they want to partake in that riot.

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#122

Post by boppo1 »

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.

"Protest" is an incomplete characterization. The night he was there was the second night of wanton destruction. It was something between a riot and a protest. I have a hard time grasping the racial justice achieved by destroying property owned by people of color.

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#124

Post by hasdf »

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…

Gaige is a convicted felon who was illegally armed with a gun and drove to Kenosha to riot. It is hard to understand how you label him the good guy in this scenario.

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#125

Post by oh_sigh »

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…

The story wasn't banned. His name was banned from searches, as one does for mass murderers. And statements of support for Rittenhouse were banned, as one does for mass murderers - but anything you wanted to say about "the events in Kenosha" which was against Rittenhouse were allowed.

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#126

Post by gpm »

cryptonector wrote: post #62
judge2020 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The policy was suposedly that "we will [...] remove content containing praise or support of Rittenhouse", that's not a policy of removing or omitting facts, that's a policy of removing opinions. Facts are neither praise nor support.

Facebook is entitled to only repeat whatever opinions it wants to repeat, by virtue of the first amendment.

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#127

Post by esyir »

jacquesm wrote: post #89
MaxHoppersGhost wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Kyle is a fool but if every one of those folks would have just left Kyle alone instead of attacking him they’d be alive.

Quoted post unavailable.

Said dead people should also not have been there. But they didn't. They were there, he was there, but they made the even worse decision to attack him. At that point, self defense is justifiable.

Any argument that Rittenhouse should not have been there to begin with also similarly applies to the dead. That they instigated the incident is the reason we call it self defense, as compared to the irrelevant school shooter analogy.

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#128

Post by TrispusAttucks »

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…

It appears he has a great case against CNN and perhaps even the POTUS. Expect CNN to lose yet another court case for defamation and misinformation with a huge payout.

Social media and corporate news outlets should let the courts do their job. They are constantly wrong and can't even get basic facts right.

It's all about the narrative and the party line backing up the benefactors.

How did they become arbitraters of truth?

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#129

Post by ipaddr »

jacquesm wrote: post #89
MaxHoppersGhost wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Kyle is a fool but if every one of those folks would have just left Kyle alone instead of attacking him they’d be alive.

Quoted post unavailable.

He was protecting a car lot. The police blocked off that area and he ended up in the street heading to the other car lot. Someone else shot a gun and someone thought it was him and tried to take his gun. Others attacked him and pulled a gun on him.

I don't understand gun culture but I imagine if you are carrying a gun and someone is attacking you for it your life may depend on keeping it.

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#130

Post by jacquesm »

esyir wrote: post #127
jacquesm wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

Said dead people should also not have been there. But they didn't. They were there, he was there, but they made the even worse decision to attack him. At that point, self defense is justifiable. Any argument that Rittenhouse should not have been there to begin with also similarly applies to the dead. That they instigated the incident is the reason we call it self defense, as compared to the irrelevant school shooter…

I totally agree with that. But nobody in their right mind feels that defending a bunch of cars is worth human lives.
Post reply on HN