Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy • Hacker News Board

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#151

Post by thumbellina » Thu, Dec 02, 2021, 4:48 AM UTC

throwaway4good wrote: post #63

thumbellina wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's a clear case of censorship.

In censorsing they might have amplified the story, but this amplification only occurred after the matter/case was decided. That is too late.

> 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.

This already happens with centralization, as the OP raised. Multiple groups at least offers the choice.

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#152

Post by thumbellina » Thu, Dec 02, 2021, 4:52 AM UTC

chii wrote: post #83

thumbellina wrote: post #25

I fully accept that FB is free to run itself how it pleases. That said, it's clear they are not in a position to act as a neutral platform for civic discourse. I try to support technologies and platforms that provide a voice to all. Decentralized over centralized. I try to curate my own list of sources, rather than rely on third-party curation. How else can I ensure a healthy and diverse information perspective?

The problem isn't you, but others who do not try to curate their own diverse sources. When time comes to make democratic decisions, if those who are influenced outnumbered people like you, there'd be no way for you to make your case and convince the others of your correctness.

I suspect many, perhaps even most, are aware of the bias they are exposed to.

I don't expect I'm particularly resistant to it.

I am keen to learn more about what I can do.

An alternative might be to focus on local community matters. I think this is common in practice.

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#153

Post by neartheplain » Thu, Dec 02, 2021, 4:54 AM UTC

Nursie wrote: post #132

monkeybutton wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not european, but I'm not American either, and the case is weird. In isolation the outcome is correct but take a step back and do you not see what is happening to your country? Weird is an understatement. The entire set and setting for it shouldn't be happening in the first place. But it is.

I am european, but no longer living in Europe (or America) and I can't help but agree. Kyle Rittenhouse isn't guilty of murder under US law, and the killings have been determined to be self defence. OK then. But you have a young person being driven to a counter-protest by a parent, picking up a firearm on the way, ostensibly to use the threat of deadly force to help prevent property damage to some businesses as part…

>But you have a young person being driven to a counter-protest by a parent

This is where I stopped reading, because you're incorrect about basic facts of the case:

https://news.yahoo.com/kyle-rittenhouses-mother-did-not-1838...

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#154

Post by maccolgan » Thu, Dec 02, 2021, 4:58 AM UTC

Nursie wrote: post #135

boppo1 wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

Even so, J Random Citizen getting tooled up and travelling to do something about it... it's very alien. That's a law enforcement role in most of the rest of the western world.

I see you have missed the 5th Amendment rationale memo.

>That's a law enforcement role in most of the rest of the western world.

Might want to take a step back and realize what they were protesting.

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#155

Post by urda » Thu, Dec 02, 2021, 5:00 AM UTC

jacquesm wrote: post #144

urda wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only false dichotomy here I see is someone who has failed to understand human history, is arguing in bad faith to disarm them, so ergo the only conclusions we can come to is those types of characters wish to bring harm to others. Just because you disagree with individuals having the right to self-destiny and self-protection, which is evident from your comments that you think nobody should have any right to self d…

> Authoritarians can try and come and take it, but be ready for a fight. Glad we got that sorted out at least. This is really just too dumb. Enjoy your shiny toys.

Go strip rights and push your authoritarian, fascist bullshit to someone else.

Glad we got that out of the way, you want to harm others and remove their natural rights to defense.

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#156

Post by PhantomGremlin » Thu, Dec 02, 2021, 5:08 AM UTC

umvi wrote: post #23

mc32 wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 acqui…

Also the president immediately expressing disappointment on Twitter at the jury's decision... what a slap in the face to due process

Also the president immediately expressing disappointment on Twitter at the jury's decision... what a slap in the face to due process

I don't think that's quite true. Biden's initial comment was "Look, I stand by what the jury has concluded," he said. "The jury system works, and we have to abide by it."

His handlers went on to later change the narrative.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/19/politics/joe-biden-kyle-ritte...

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#157

Post by rayiner » Thu, Dec 02, 2021, 5:16 AM UTC

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.

The really correct answer is that the police don’t allow rioters to burn down a city for two days so that idiot kids don’t feel the need to take the law into their own hands.

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#158

Post by mannerheim » Thu, Dec 02, 2021, 5:17 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…

Rittenhouse wasn't an 'active shooter' by any stretch of the definition of the word. Further, Grosskreutz knew that Rittenhouse wasn't one because he videod himself running after him asking where he was going, and Rittenhouse responded that he was going to the police. And yes, pointing a gun at someone is threatening their life, which makes shooting them self-defence.

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#159

Post by mrkstu » Thu, Dec 02, 2021, 5:19 AM UTC

trhway wrote: post #149

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…

>Having watched the videos, it was plainly obvious that in each case, Rittenhouse was acting in self-defense. my understanding is that you can't claim self-defense if you initiated violence yourself. Threatening unarmed people with a gun, pointing it at them is a credible threat of violence that the people have the right to defend themselves from, and that is what they tried to do in particular by chasing that gun wi…

Except he never pointed a gun at anybody that wasn’t already threatening/chasing him.

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#160

Post by jacquesm » Thu, Dec 02, 2021, 5:20 AM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #157

jacquesm wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

The really correct answer is that the police don’t allow rioters to burn down a city for two days so that idiot kids don’t feel the need to take the law into their own hands.

Two wrongs etc. Taking the law into your own hands just breeds more violence.