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

251–260 of 442 posts

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#251

Post by stjohnswarts »

Ancapistani wrote: post #113
SquishyPanda23 wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't shoot someone in the US for swinging something at your head. Otherwise all bar fights would end in gun violence like in a cheesy Western film.

> You can't shoot someone in the US for swinging something at your head. In every state of which I’ve ever been a resident, responding with lethal force in such a case is in fact legal.

If that something is a deadly weapon sure. If it's fisticuffs and shoving then no it's not unless someone has you on the ground and is pounding away with no sign of letting up. I would say you would need to be beat half to death though or the jury is going to laugh at you.

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#252

Post by stjohnswarts »

GhettoComputers wrote: post #188
jaybrendansmith wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

lol he didn't go to render first aid. He was there to be a tough guy. I agree with the outcome of the trial but let's not actually be naive enought to believe that made up garbage.

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#253

Post by stjohnswarts »

Benjammer wrote: post #7
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…

Somehow I watched 1 or 2 videos on twitter right at the time, and got a good sense of what happened, that ended up being consistent with the jury ruling. These weren't even political posts, just some OSINT people I follow. I was not aware of any "misleading media narrative," since I don't consume any mainstream media outside of occasional twitter posts. Once the trial started I was actually very surprised how many pe…

On the flip side facebook absolutely should be able to control what's on their platform as a private company. You can't have it both ways. They have freedom of speech as well as to the right to control their property and do business with whom they choose. I can't stop someone from spouting nonsense on the public sidewalk in front of my store, but if they try it inside my store then I can absolutely kick them out.

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#254

Post by stjohnswarts »

uncoder0 wrote: post #3
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…

Facebook is very damaging to the fabric of society and this is just further evidence of it all. If Facebook employed an even remotely accurate sample of the population based on political leanings and backgrounds for their content policy team this would have never happened. I think the amount of blame the left and media placed on Facebook for the 2016 election of President Trump are to majorly to blame for the whole s…

So are tiktok, twitter, instagram, reddit, fox news, and a host of lesser knowns. Are you going to make social media/"news services" illegal?

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#255

Post by stjohnswarts »

slibhb wrote: post #75

The funny thing about social media companies censoring is how they keep making the case for free speech over and over again without realizing it. Mill: > First, if any opinion is compelled to silence, that opinion may, for aught we can certainly know, be true. To deny this is to assume our own infallibility. Secondly, though the silenced opinion be an error, it may, and very commonly does, contain a portion of truth;…

Facebook can choose to host whatever opinions they like as they own the platform. Obviously as long as those "opinions" are legal and not such things as terroristic threats, etc. That also is free speech and the right to with your property as you like.

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#257

Post by judge2020 »

esyir wrote: post #193
gpm wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

the only thing 230 does is make it so “platforms” CAN moderate speech and exercise control, without having to take on the legal liability like a newspaper publisher.

Before 230, there was already effectively a distinction in that, if you ran a forum and did absolutely no moderation, you were never liable for the content - but then you also couldn’t remove any content that was vulgar, racist, hateful to other users, etc. which is why section 230 is part of the “Communications Decency Act”. Without it, social media just choose between not moderating anything, and vetting every post (and probably only allowing posts from a small group of verified people and businesses).

LegalEagle has a good rundown: https://youtu.be/eUWIi-Ppe5k?t=4m18s

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#258

Post by School-Cotton »

trhway wrote: post #231
polartx wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Threatening unarmed people with a gun a) he never threatened anyone. In fact, he demonstrated better gun safety than, say, a Hollywood actor/producer 3 times his age. b) how can you claim the crowd was unarmed? Of the 3 people that stuck around to be searched, 2 of them had weapons. A skateboard used as a bludgeon. And a Glock pistol that was drawn from concealment and pointed at his head.

>In fact, he demonstrated better gun safety Ah! so that is what responsible gun owner's gun safety looks like - 2 dead 1 wounded just because that stupid POS wanted to get off playing with a gun feeling all powerful. He didn't even bother to check on his victims and render first help (his skills he was so boasting about to journalists just 15 minutes before he killed his first victim), nor attempted to call for help…

> i just watch those Kenosha videos and see that only those militia gun fetishists are having guns

No, this isn’t a matter for debate — it’s an established fact of the case, agreed to by all parties, that Gaige Grosskreutz was carrying a pistol. He also admitted under oath that Rittenhouse only shot him after he pointed the pistol at him.

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#259

Post by tarsinge »

MaxikCZ wrote: post #209
tarsinge wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The path from protecting property to protecting lives might be shorter than one wants to believe. People usually are not destroying property of others because its moral compared to taking lives, they do so because they left the morals of our society behind in the first place. Wanna take a bet that the guy running at you and screaming just want to tear your shirt? >Had he not posed with an assault rifle in the first p…

I think you miss my point. I’m not questioning the self-defense, it’s pretty clear in the video, but the moral responsibility of someone protecting a property by being in the street with a rifle in the first place (I’m not talking about personal home invasion here).

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#260

Post by padastra »

tarsinge wrote: post #259
MaxikCZ wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The path from protecting property to protecting lives might be shorter than one wants to believe. People usually are not destroying property of others because its moral compared to taking lives, they do so because they left the morals of our society behind in the first place. Wanna take a bet that the guy running at you and screaming just want to tear your shirt? >Had he not posed with an assault rifle in the first p…

I think you miss my point. I’m not questioning the self-defense, it’s pretty clear in the video, but the moral responsibility of someone protecting a property by being in the street with a rifle in the first place (I’m not talking about personal home invasion here).

Agree 100%. Many riots / burning of buildings / lootings were allowed while media spurred them on and called them peaceful protests. Police in many cities gave up on enforcement.

In those scenarios the state no longer has a monopoly on violence.

Post reply on HN