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

Meta deletes popular 1M follower account after Kuwaiti request

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 167 posts

Re: Meta deletes popular 1M follower account after Kuwaiti request

#121

Post by ciupicri »

dotancohen wrote: post #116
edent wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. Everyone has a story about being stuck behind an irate American who can't understand why their currency isn't accepted abroad. I've seen it in the UK - when a tourist tried to leave a tip in dollars for a bemused waiter.

In Romania, at least a few decades ago, tips from foreigners were expected to be in dollars. Tipping in Lei would be weird.

No one expected anything and there wasn't any weirdness in getting a tip in your national currency. It's just that people happily accepted strong/popular foreign currency like the US dollar (I think that the Deutsche Mark was another option).

Sometimes you could even pay with it even if it wasn't officially accepted. Getting some money and then exchanging it yourself into the national currency (so that the accounting books are in order) is better than getting no money. And if it's a fuss, just charge a big extra, there's no need to make a big deal out of it.

Re: Meta deletes popular 1M follower account after Kuwaiti request

#122

Post by JumpCrisscross »

ebbi wrote: post #119
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> there aren't any coherent organisations that claim to be Zionist That you have to put up straw men sort of proves my point. Yes, there are coherent Zionist organisations (including political parties and lobbying groups). Some (perhaps many, hell, maybe even most) of these are fascist and ethno-religious supremacist. We can make meaningful statements about them because, as you said, they're "coherent organisations t…

Where's the straw man? I wonder what the underlying ideology of Zionism is that makes these Zionist organisations all act in the same way, for the same cause. It seems you don't know what Zionism is, or just purposely deflecting because you do know what it is, but carrying out Hasbara here.

> there aren't any coherent organisations that claim to be Zionist >> Where's the straw man?

Nobody argued "there aren't any coherent organisations that claim to be Zionist." That's literally how straw men work.

> makes these Zionist organisations all act in the same way

I haven't seen this level of coherence. But I also haven't seen anyone argue this properly. Instead it's always this "I have secret knowledge" nonsense.

> seems you don't know what Zionism is

Quite possibly. I've read the Wikipedia and have discussed it with Egyptian, Jordanian and Israeli acquaintances in America and Europe. I haven't seen anything to suggest it can be considered a philosophically, methodologically or politically unified movement in anything but its aim of establishing a Jewish nation-state, a goal which isn't inherently fascist or religious supremacist (but which is, again, inherently segregationist, though so is arguably an nation-building exercise).

Again, I think the analogy to folks who rail against Antifa as if it's a coherent ideology and organisation is apt. If you press any of those people for an explanation, you get similar 'you don't know what Antifa is' and 'you're probably Antifa' deflections. (Note: I'm not attacking you per se. I'm attacking the rhetoric. I'm engaging because I have a hint of a sense that you know something interesting that I'd like to learn.)

Re: Meta deletes popular 1M follower account after Kuwaiti request

#123

Post by prasadjoglekar »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #111
montroser wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't have a constitutional right to post on Facebook. When you invest your life into platforms run by for profit corporations, you agree to play by their rules. Merging state and big tech is not going to help.

> You don't have a constitutional right to post on Facebook Which is why OP describes the U.S. enacting legislation creating a statutory right.

Au contraire, enacting such a law is akin to forcing FB to support certain speech. That itself is unconstitutional and any such legislation would be struck down.

Re: Meta deletes popular 1M follower account after Kuwaiti request

#124

Post by sampo »

KaiserPro wrote: post #21
Tyrubias wrote: post #13

In a sane world, the US as a supposed bastion of free speech and personal liberties would enact legislation that requires companies to provide a specific, articulable reason for suspending accounts due to rules violations and offer everyone the chance to appeal. That would serve as a counterbalance to more authoritarian regimes insisting companies like Meta censor people, even if the US can’t guarantee it for people…

> requires companies to provide a specific, articulable reason for suspending accounts wouldn't that violate free speech though? forcing a company to keep something up/take something down is entirely up to them no?

> wouldn't that violate free speech though?

Free speech can mean two things:

(1) The general philosophical postulate, that society is better when there is a high level of freedom in the exchange of ideas and critique of other's ideas.

(2) One aspect of the above is that government should not censor speech. Like the 1st amendment in USA.

But if most public discourse takes place on forums owned by companies, and the companies start to practice high levels of censorship, then we might formally satisfy (2) but still won't get the cultural benefits of (1).

Re: Meta deletes popular 1M follower account after Kuwaiti request

#125

Post by ebbi »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #122
ebbi wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where's the straw man? I wonder what the underlying ideology of Zionism is that makes these Zionist organisations all act in the same way, for the same cause. It seems you don't know what Zionism is, or just purposely deflecting because you do know what it is, but carrying out Hasbara here.

> there aren't any coherent organisations that claim to be Zionist >> Where's the straw man? Nobody argued "there aren't any coherent organisations that claim to be Zionist." That's literally how straw men work. > makes these Zionist organisations all act in the same way I haven't seen this level of coherence. But I also haven't seen anyone argue this properly. Instead it's always this "I have secret knowledge" nonse…

> Nobody argued "there aren't any coherent organisations that claim to be Zionist."

You literally said "These aren't coherent organisations, just loose collections of aligned folks."

The Israeli government isn't a 'loose collection of aligned folks'

AIPAC isn't a 'loose collection of aligned folks'

Jewish National Fund isn't a 'loose collection of aligned folks'

> I haven't seen this. But I also haven't seen anyone argue this properly. Instead it's always this "I have secret knowledge" nonsense.

You might be out of your depth here, then. I'd suggest you do some reading before trying to argue your points here, because you're not doing a good job of it.

> in anything but its aim of establishing a Jewish nation-state

And what does it take for a peoples to establish their own 'Jewish nation-state' on a bit of land that had people living there already? Hint: you could quote David Ben-Gurion's own words. I'll start it off for you:

"The Arabs will need to go, but one needs an opportune moment for making it happen, such as a war" - David Ben-Gurion, writing to his son, 1937

"In internal discussions, in instructions to his people, the 'Old Man' demonstrated a clear stand: it was better that the smallest possible number of Arabs remain within the area of the state" - Michael Bar-Zohar, biographer of David Ben-Gurion

"I am for compulsory transfer. I do not see anything immoral in it." - David Ben-Gurion to the Jewish Agency Executive, June 1938.

"Every attack has to end with occupation, destruction and expulsion." - David Ben-Gurion.

- -

"I don't understand your optimism," Ben-Gurion declared. "Why should the Arabs make peace? if I was an Arab leader I would never make terms with Israel. That is natural: we have taken their country. Sure, God promised it to us, but what does that matter to them? Our God is not theirs. We come from Israel, it's true, but two thousand years ago, and what is that to them? There has been anti-Semitism the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They only see one thing: we have come here and stolen their country. Why should they accept that? They may perhaps forget in one or two generations' time, but for the moment there is no chance. So it's simple: we have to stay strong and maintain a powerful army. Our whole policy is there. Otherwise the Arabs will wipe us out."

- The Jewish Paradox by Nahum Goldmann

Re: Meta deletes popular 1M follower account after Kuwaiti request

#126

Post by philistine »

KaiserPro wrote: post #21
Tyrubias wrote: post #13

In a sane world, the US as a supposed bastion of free speech and personal liberties would enact legislation that requires companies to provide a specific, articulable reason for suspending accounts due to rules violations and offer everyone the chance to appeal. That would serve as a counterbalance to more authoritarian regimes insisting companies like Meta censor people, even if the US can’t guarantee it for people…

> requires companies to provide a specific, articulable reason for suspending accounts wouldn't that violate free speech though? forcing a company to keep something up/take something down is entirely up to them no?

Free speech is specifically limiting the government’s ability to limit your speech, not private enterprise, and its limited to the US. The US government can legally try to restrict the speech of … I don’t know let’s say Palestinians.

Re: Meta deletes popular 1M follower account after Kuwaiti request

#127

Post by xboxnolifes »

KaiserPro wrote: post #21
Tyrubias wrote: post #13

In a sane world, the US as a supposed bastion of free speech and personal liberties would enact legislation that requires companies to provide a specific, articulable reason for suspending accounts due to rules violations and offer everyone the chance to appeal. That would serve as a counterbalance to more authoritarian regimes insisting companies like Meta censor people, even if the US can’t guarantee it for people…

> requires companies to provide a specific, articulable reason for suspending accounts wouldn't that violate free speech though? forcing a company to keep something up/take something down is entirely up to them no?

I'd think, in a sane world, an individuals free speech trumps a company's.

Re: Meta deletes popular 1M follower account after Kuwaiti request

#128

Post by JumpCrisscross »

ebbi wrote: post #125
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> there aren't any coherent organisations that claim to be Zionist >> Where's the straw man? Nobody argued "there aren't any coherent organisations that claim to be Zionist." That's literally how straw men work. > makes these Zionist organisations all act in the same way I haven't seen this level of coherence. But I also haven't seen anyone argue this properly. Instead it's always this "I have secret knowledge" nonse…

> Nobody argued "there aren't any coherent organisations that claim to be Zionist." You literally said "These aren't coherent organisations, just loose collections of aligned folks." The Israeli government isn't a 'loose collection of aligned folks' AIPAC isn't a 'loose collection of aligned folks' Jewish National Fund isn't a 'loose collection of aligned folks' > I haven't seen this. But I also haven't seen anyone a…

> The Israeli government isn't a 'loose collection of aligned folks' AIPAC isn't a 'loose collection of aligned folks' Jewish National Fund isn't a 'loose collection of aligned folks'

Sure. These are coherent organisations. Talking about them is meaningful. Talking about "Zionists" is nonsense.

> what does it take for a peoples to establish their own 'Jewish nation-state' on a bit of land that had people living there already?

Lots of options! Ben-Gurion's was a supremacist one. (I wouldn't argue it was fascist.)

Look, you're making a good argument the people and groups you're citing have elements of these traits. Again, that's meaningful. Being trope-y and going off about Zionists will appeal to people who already agree with you, and that's fine, ra ra-ing is fun, but it isn't intellectually honest or particulalry productive other than for stroking the egos of folks who turned this into their pet discussion topic.

Re: Meta deletes popular 1M follower account after Kuwaiti request

#129

Post by funimpoded »

giancarlostoro wrote: post #72
funimpoded wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I once spent an hour or so tracking down and reading parts of the twitter files specifically highlighted by people loudly complaining about them (as I figured those would be the worst bits) and it was mostly pretty yawn-worthy in context. That might be why they didn't get more attention.

So you're saying that the FBI using Twitter as a proxy to violate US citizens First Amendment right is not an issue? Because that's my entire point. There is absolutely no context that okays the FBI doing this, once you open pandoras box, you allow other administrations (including the current) to use the same "power" that they should have never had to begin with.

“Yo, this violates your rules” and then twitter sometimes going “yep, true, we’ll do something” and sometimes “nah” is pretty low on my list of concerns, yeah.

Then again I also don’t think any company should have the reach any of the major media companies do these days. But antitrust and media-diversity regulations and laws have been out of fashion since the ‘70s.

Re: Meta deletes popular 1M follower account after Kuwaiti request

#130

Post by _DeadFred_ »

toasty228 wrote: post #27
Tyrubias wrote: post #13

In a sane world, the US as a supposed bastion of free speech and personal liberties would enact legislation that requires companies to provide a specific, articulable reason for suspending accounts due to rules violations and offer everyone the chance to appeal. That would serve as a counterbalance to more authoritarian regimes insisting companies like Meta censor people, even if the US can’t guarantee it for people…

> the US as a supposed bastion of free speech Only americans believe that, this is almost as dumb as when they try to use dollars in Europe, "but it is valid tender I tell you!" or when they believe their TSA precheck works in China

dang has made clear this sort of nationalistic generalities aren't allowed on HN. I'm guessing he'll be clearing out a bunch of these comments.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48100358

Post reply on HN