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

181–190 of 442 posts

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#181

Post by chii »

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.

> controlled from the top down?

but the facebook/social media isn't "controlled from the top down" - it's people deliberately choosing to _only_ consume them (thus giving those media companies defacto control over people's tuned set of information sources).

I'm saying that most people don't care enough to look for separate sources and do their own critical thinking.

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#182

Post by jacquesm »

rayiner wrote: post #163
jacquesm wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

It’s not a “bunch of cars.” It’s the livelihoods of a couple of immigrants who did nothing to deserve having their business destroyed. It’s not just some buildings. It’s people’s community. Their businesses, their places of recreation, their community gathering places. That built environment was the labor of many people who left more to their kids than they started with. Property is the difference between Bangladesh…

Yes, you're right, death penalty right there!

The difference between Bangladesh and America is a bit more than just property, and the difference between either and some other places in the world is that they are both extremes.

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#183

Post by jacquesm »

GhettoComputers wrote: post #169
jacquesm wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

He brought first aid for the protestors, was cleaning up graffiti and also was ready to defend himself with a weapon if he needed.

He'll be a Saint next!

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#184

Post by Nursie »

maccolgan wrote: post #154
Nursie wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm aware what was being protested. I'm not sure that makes any of it any better.

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#185

Post by GhettoComputers »

jacquesm wrote: post #183
GhettoComputers wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He brought first aid for the protestors, was cleaning up graffiti and also was ready to defend himself with a weapon if he needed.

He'll be a Saint next!

If someone attacked a medic openly carrying a gun and the medic defend themselves against several assailants, do you blame the medic?

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#186

Post by GhettoComputers »

finite_jest wrote: post #179
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

Remember when Twitter promised it was the free speech sms of the Internet? I forgot until recently.

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#187

Post by Nursie »

neartheplain wrote: post #153
Nursie wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

OK, as usual, someone picks up on one of the least important bits to intimate that the whole point must be wrong. Perhaps if you'd read past that you might have been able to address the theme rather than one of the less important parts.

OK great, the mother wasn't involved, TIL. But the rest stands, there is so much wrong with the whole picture leading up to the (inevitable) tragedy.

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#188

Post by GhettoComputers »

jaybrendansmith wrote: post #147
Nursie wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Indeed. My point of view is as a parent of a 16-year old myself. Kyle's parent needs to be locked up here. She's the guilty party, as the supposed guardian of this child. Kyle, defending himself in that bizarro situation, and given current law in that state, was innocent. But there's no world in which a parent should allow that situation to EVER occur. If we dropped a bunch of armed teenagers in the middle of a riot,…

The world isn’t neatly 18 or under 18. Grown children who were aged adults attacked a teen openly carrying a rifle. The guilty party is the aggressors who decided to lawlessly attack a person with every right to defend themselves. He went to administer first aid and was seen cleaning graffiti. She raised him well.

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#189

Post by mannerheim »

jacquesm wrote: post #130
esyir wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

They didn't lose their lives for destroying cars. They lost them for attacking Rittenhouse.

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#190

Post by Nursie »

londgine wrote: post #150
Nursie wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the UK, aside from guns being highly regulated, taking the gun to a protest would be taken as a sign of intent to use it and the rest of the events would be interpreted in that light. Of course in the UK he'd be looking at multiple years in prison just for the gun offence, and it's also less likely someone else would be waving a gun around in his direction.

In the UK I assume that taking a gun anywhere would be illegal. So let's use a different analogy. If there was a protest in the UK and someone brought pepper spray, would that be interpreted as a sign to use it? If during that hypothetical protest, there were people jump kicking him and swinging skateboards at him, and he used the pepper spray, would he be charged with battery for bringing the pepper spray in the fir…

> If there was a protest in the UK and someone brought pepper spray, would that be interpreted as a sign to use it?

Pepper spray is also illegal in the UK.

> If during that hypothetical protest, there were people jump kicking him and swinging skateboards at him, and he used the pepper spray, would he be charged with battery for bringing the pepper spray in the first place?

Basically, going prepared with any form of weapon in the UK is illegal.

If you picked up something off the street, a piece of 2x4 that was lying around, that sort of thing, then you're likely to be OK if it's clear you were under attack. But if you're packing weapons ahead of time to go out to an event then you should either not go or expect that you will be charged with a criminal offence if you get involved in any trouble.

Post reply on HN