Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Facebook Bans Louis Farrakhan, Milo Yiannopoulos, InfoWars and Others

edition.cnn.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 776 posts

Re: Facebook Bans Louis Farrakhan, Milo Yiannopoulos, InfoWars and Others

#121

Post by naasking »

aeturnum wrote: post #46
ravenstine wrote: post #18

I'm not a fan of either of these people, but how exactly are Milo Yiannopolous and Paul Joseph Watson "dangerous"? Maybe it's not good material for people to be watching, but to call them "dangerous" comes off like the religious right of yore claiming that video games depicting violence are dangerous and need to be censored. I wouldn't normally step in to defend these people, but this article by CNN is a prime exampl…

> The word "fringe" used to mean something a lot more, well... fringe Did it? How many people do you think were interested in old school conspiracy theories like Area 51 [1] or the protocols of the elders of zion [2]? Henry ford printed half a million copies of the latter! >how exactly are Milo Yiannopolous and Paul Joseph Watson "dangerous"? I think "dangerous" is probably not quite the right word. They're dangerous…

> They're dangerous in the same way that, say, anti-vax views are dangerous [3]. The views themselves won't hurt you or hurt me. They're 'just' opinions. However, at some point, allowing those views on your platform make you complicit in promoting pandemics.

Are they? We have plenty of rigourous evidence supporting the dangers of anti-vaxx, but I've seen little data on Yiannopolous or Watson or even Alex Jones causing anything like a comparable social pandemic. Unless you can provide this evidence, your analogy fails.

Re: Facebook Bans Louis Farrakhan, Milo Yiannopoulos, InfoWars and Others

#122

Post by aeturnum »

rayiner wrote: post #62
res0nat0r wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Saying racist stuff constantly but playing it off as "ironic" and wearing a suit doesn't make it less racist. Good, they should have kicked these guys off years ago.

When you’re talking about someone like Farrakhan, and the explicit racial basis for slavery and segregation, is simply being “racist” sufficient justification for a ban? By that same token, can Facebook ban say Armenians for being racist against Turks? Should Facebook step blithely into these very complex issues?

I think Farrakhan is a really tough case.

First, he's cartoonishly anti-semitic and has been for years. He's as much of a hate monger as any of the other people who were banned and that's enough reason to ban him.

That given, he has also materially supported vulnerable populations in a way that few organizations have. He has pushed very hard for black people to be proud of their blackness and to create narratives in which blackness is not looked down upon. This is good, needed work.

Members of the black community have spoken about and wrestled with this difficulty. [1][2] I don't think I can add anything other than to agree his situation is more complicated, though I also agree that he should be excluded from the public square as long as he continues to promote hatred.

[1] https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/03/nation-... [2] https://www.theroot.com/a-word-about-louis-farrakhan-and-tam...

Re: Facebook Bans Louis Farrakhan, Milo Yiannopoulos, InfoWars and Others

#123

Post by Chris_Chambers »

iscrewyou wrote: post #35

It’s only unfortunate that it took social networks this long to ban their toxic behavior and talk. These people did a lot of damage. A lot. All in the name of free speech. And to those saying, just because Facebook can, doesn’t mean they should. These people had the same freedom. Just because they can, they shouldn’t. But they chose hatred. And here we are. You reap what you sow. Facebook doesn’t owe them anything. E…

NPC detected.

Re: Facebook Bans Louis Farrakhan, Milo Yiannopoulos, InfoWars and Others

#125

Post by cm2012 »

Mirioron wrote: post #115
aeturnum wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The word "fringe" used to mean something a lot more, well... fringe Did it? How many people do you think were interested in old school conspiracy theories like Area 51 [1] or the protocols of the elders of zion [2]? Henry ford printed half a million copies of the latter! >how exactly are Milo Yiannopolous and Paul Joseph Watson "dangerous"? I think "dangerous" is probably not quite the right word. They're dangerous…

> How many people do you think were interested in old school conspiracy theories like Area 51 [1] or the protocols of the elders of zion [2]? Henry ford printed half a million copies of the latter! I think most of the people were interested in it for entertainment, just like people are interested in horoscopes for entertainment. Or would you argue that all these newspapers that had horoscopes in them pushed fringe co…

Horoscropes don't have a victim. Stuff like elders of zion portrays jewish people as villains, to real and tangible consequences (did you know anti-semitic hate crimes are up around 300% of the last two years?).

Re: Facebook Bans Louis Farrakhan, Milo Yiannopoulos, InfoWars and Others

#126

Post by reaperducer »

ravenstine wrote: post #18

I'm not a fan of either of these people, but how exactly are Milo Yiannopolous and Paul Joseph Watson "dangerous"? Maybe it's not good material for people to be watching, but to call them "dangerous" comes off like the religious right of yore claiming that video games depicting violence are dangerous and need to be censored. I wouldn't normally step in to defend these people, but this article by CNN is a prime exampl…

despite the number of views and subscribers(1.6 million) he has on YouTube alone.

I'm not saying that far-out views should be banned from the intarwebs, but 0.023% of the world's population sounds pretty fringe to me.

Heck, it's only 0.4% of the United States. Not even a rounding error.

Re: Facebook Bans Louis Farrakhan, Milo Yiannopoulos, InfoWars and Others

#127

Post by jesterman81 »

whatshisface wrote: post #120
aeturnum wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The word "fringe" used to mean something a lot more, well... fringe Did it? How many people do you think were interested in old school conspiracy theories like Area 51 [1] or the protocols of the elders of zion [2]? Henry ford printed half a million copies of the latter! >how exactly are Milo Yiannopolous and Paul Joseph Watson "dangerous"? I think "dangerous" is probably not quite the right word. They're dangerous…

> allowing those views on your platform make you complicit Every faction since the dawn of history has said that the views of the other factions are objectively harmful. What is it that blesses SV neo-something-or-other as the one true faction that has finally discovered the objective truth?

Finally somebody gets it!!!! This is refreshing!

Re: Facebook Bans Louis Farrakhan, Milo Yiannopoulos, InfoWars and Others

#128

Post by cm2012 »

tjenkinsqs wrote: post #109
jonny_eh wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It works to remove platforms from people who spread hate and misinformation. https://mashable.com/article/milo-yiannopoulos-deplatforming...

So will CNN, MSNBC, FoxNews, etc. finally be de-platformed for "Weapons of Mass Destruction". This has caused actual destruction in terms of trillions of dollars, thousands of American lives and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's lives and the rise of ISIS with massive destruction in the middle east.

Can you figure out why CNN, MSNBC and Fox are different from the people banned in the above article?

Re: Facebook Bans Louis Farrakhan, Milo Yiannopoulos, InfoWars and Others

#130

Post by naasking »

ggggtez wrote: post #84
Veen wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If a group is marginally more likely to suffer violence, anyone mocking them should be denied access to widely used communications platforms? Doesn’t really make sense, does it?

That's not what the above poster said, and you know it. You say "marginally", "anyone", "mocking". But the people in question aren't anyone, and they aren't just mocking. There are specific cases of them calling on their fans to harass private citizens. Anyone with some semblance of awareness of US law knows free speech is not without limits. No one is entitled to online speech, believe it or not.

> No one is entitled to online speech, believe it or not.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_Internet_access

Post reply on HN