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

171–180 of 442 posts

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#171

Post by GhettoComputers »

oh_sigh wrote: post #125
vineyardmike wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Mass murderers aren’t banned in search, and he is not a mass murderer, being attacked by several people and defending himself does not make him a murderer.

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#172

Post by GhettoComputers »

esyir wrote: post #134
chii wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Is it really a healthy democracy if the flows of information are controlled from the top down? If I provide you with a tuned set of information in which everything says what I cant, I can get you to believe whatever I want. This is just changing the source of said influence, not removing it.

Has it ever been different?

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#173

Post by gpm »

esyir wrote: post #166
gpm wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Sure, and once it's making it's own opinion dominant, it should no longer be treated as a platform, but a publisher.

I mean, that "distinction" doesn't exist under current law - you can be both, or neither. Facebook is both. Even if you amended the law to create such a distinction though, attempting to place companies under it based on whether or not they moderated based on viewpoint would be a content based restriction on speech, and violate the constitution. The government isn't allowed to punish people (including groups of people such as companies), or remove privileges, based on the content of speech, with very narrow exceptions.

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#174

Post by anshumankmr »

Might be downvoted but there was a fact checker website that denied at the time President Trump’s claim that Kyle had acted in self defense. This was a year ago and I saw it for myself as still being up a few weeks ago. I am not an American and I really see both sides here. The jury system worked as per the law defined in the US (and I am not a pro 2A person ) but I also agree that most likely increase vigilantism which will be good for no one.

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/sep/01/donald-tru...

It is still up.

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#175

Post by anshumankmr »

anshumankmr wrote: post #174

Might be downvoted but there was a fact checker website that denied at the time President Trump’s claim that Kyle had acted in self defense. This was a year ago and I saw it for myself as still being up a few weeks ago. I am not an American and I really see both sides here. The jury system worked as per the law defined in the US (and I am not a pro 2A person ) but I also agree that most likely increase vigilantism wh…

It is still up as of now.

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/sep/01/donald-tru...

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#178

Post by umvi »

PhantomGremlin wrote: post #156
umvi wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

I think you are right actually. At the time though I don't think I ever saw that initial statement. I seem to remember only seeing stories about the second statement - Biden being "concerned and angry" about the verdict!

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#179

Post by finite_jest »

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 really think we should bring back a version of fairness doctrine [1] or right of reply [2] targeted at platforms like Facebook or Twitter. This is not really my area of expertise, but I suspect that might be more effective and practical than repealing Section 230 for addressing blatant censorship like this.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine

[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_reply

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#180

Post by TeeMassive »

zdragnar wrote: post #141
TeeMassive wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

At the very least, Biden was not an elected official when he made his first remark, merely running for office I think. Several highly public figures have also made comments after the trial, continuing to call him a murderer (and white supremacist) even though he was found not guilty. I am fairly certain that he isn't considered a public figure, aside from the trial itself, so the bar for libel and slander is much low…

Fair point about Biden not being a president at the time. Although good luck having a judge willing to be the one putting a president on trial.

Also, being accused of a criminal offense and making the news is pretty much the definition of being a public figure.

> Nick Sandmann got absolutely massive settlements

Nick Sandmann had no public presence before.

Post reply on HN