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

191–200 of 442 posts

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#191

Post by finite_jest »

dannyr wrote: post #76
neartheplain wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree that events leading up to the shooting were problematic. If respected media commentators had not glorified riots or villianized the justified police shooting of Jacob Blake, or if the Mayor of Kenosha had requested further National Guard in advance of the second night of riots, or if the police had not abandoned downtown Kenosha to a mob armed with rifles and handguns, none of this would have happened. The im…

You conveniently omitted George Floyd, Breonna Taylor and Philando Castle. The riots were not glorified. It was the outcome of the unjustified violence against African Americans. "threaten to kill a kid defending local homes and businesses" Rittenhouse is the one who is armed. People might not have attacked him if he's not brandishing a firearm.

Maybe not glorified, but certainly whitewashed. The "Fiery but Mostly Peaceful" chyron will remain in memories for a long time. [1]

[1]: The Hill: "CNN ridiculed for 'Fiery But Mostly Peaceful' caption with video of burning building in Kenosha" https://archive.ph/oTwP7

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#192

Post by esyir »

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 made that decision themselves.

This isn't a case where they attacked him and then he pulled out a pistol and shot them. This was open carry with a rifle. To answer the point you made, they made the decision to attack a clearly armed man and thus evaluated that attacking those cars was worth their own lives.

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#193

Post by esyir »

gpm wrote: post #173
esyir wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 peopl…

I'd agree with you, but we hold publishers liable to whatever they publish.

My understanding is as follows. As a platform, the rationale for section 230 protections is that you are not the one making the comments, and are thus just a platform for the speech of others. The speaker, and not the platform, is thus the one liable for the speech. Conversely, a publisher, while not the one writing (contributors write, and the publisher publishes), still bears the brunt of the liability.

I thus think it is intuitive (to me at least), that after a degree of control is exercised, this flips into being more like a publisher than a platform, and should be treated as such. The question then becomes where to draw that line.

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#195

Post by maccolgan »

Nursie wrote: post #184
maccolgan wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Do you think the police would act proactively in a protest like that?

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#196

Post by tarsinge »

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 am not American and I didn’t follow these events but sorry for me after watching that video it’s still complicated: the self-defense seems justified, but the initial issue of protecting property with guns is not: material possession and private property is not on the same level as human life. I understand a law allows it in that state hence the jury logical decision, but that doesn’t make it right, just legal. Had he not posed with an assault rifle in the first place two people would not be dead today, he is still morally responsible for that to me. So in the end I surprisingly understand Facebook choice.

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#197

Post by finite_jest »

GhettoComputers wrote: post #186
finite_jest wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Good old days of the yore, when Twitter's general manager quoted the CEO saying "We are the free speech wing of the free speech party" [1], and the ACLU would rigorously defend free expression.

[1]: Guardian (2012) https://archive.ph/0HnBB#selection-2031.1-2031.153

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#198

Post by RC_ITR »

mannerheim wrote: post #158
RC_ITR wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Rittenhouse had just actively shot two people.

Is your argument that he was passive or that guns don’t shoot?

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#199

Post by RC_ITR »

hasdf wrote: post #124
RC_ITR wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

He didn’t pull the trigger and kill anyone.

He’s a chaotic good, sure. Rittenhouse is lawful evil.

That’s all.

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#200

Post by RC_ITR »

neartheplain wrote: post #120
RC_ITR wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Uhhhh, why is a teenager who isn’t legally allowed to drink in charge of armed protection of capital?

It’s fine, you can say out loud that you don’t value the lives of people you disagree with.

Post reply on HN