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

161–170 of 442 posts

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#161

Post by dragonwriter »

ctdonath wrote: post #60
dragonwriter wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> by culling §230-protected content in a clearly biased manner Facebook etc is establishing themselves as "publisher" culpable for libelous & criminal content. No, they aren't. True, if it were not online, Facebook's involvement with selection of which provided content to promote might make them a publisher (it's kind of hard, because both bookstores and other distributors and publishers, offline, actively select con…

You omit the qualifications for that exemption, which speak heavily toward good faith and minimal impact, which FB/T/etc are going way beyond and will likely have to defend in court with difficulty.

> You omit the qualifications for that exemption

No, I don't, because there aren't any that are relevant here.

> which speak heavily toward good faith and minimal impact

No, 230 has an additional immunity for good faith effort by a provider or user to restrict access to material “the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected” [47 USC § 230(c)(2)], which is in addition to the blanket protection from being treated as a publisher [42 USC § 230(c)(1)]. But note that since this is for material the provider feels is objectionable, the “good faith” involved is nothing like neutrality. There is no “good faith” caveat of any kind on the immunity in § 230(c)(1).

“Minimal impact” doesn't figure into it at all; neither the phrase nor any condition or restriction accurately summarized by it appears anywhere in § 230. That's complete fabrication.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230#

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#162

Post by jacquesm »

RubberMullet wrote: post #139
jacquesm wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I bring a sandwich to work I intend to eat it. If I bring a ball to the park I'm going to play with it. If I bring a loaded weapon to a riot I intend to use it. Normal people do not walk into riots with loaded guns unless they want to partake in that riot.

If you wear a seat belt while driving a car do you intend to crash? Do you have any idea how many people were open carrying that night and never fired a shot? Rittenhouse hit every target he aimed at and all whom had attacked him. 100% of the people who didn't attack Rittenhouse were not shot. That is not trigger happy. And Rittenhouse didn't even fire the first shot, Ziminski did. Who is "normal" at a riot? The peop…

Are you seriously comparing a seat belt with a gun? Sorry, I can't follow you there.

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#163

Post by rayiner »

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.

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 and America. Many of these communities never rebound after riots like this. Destroying city blocks like this is profoundly anti-social and damaging to the people who live there.

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#164

Post by rayiner »

jacquesm wrote: post #91
cdot2 wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Youd rather he be dead? That would be better?

No, I'd rather he stayed at home, rather than to play at police officer as a trigger happy youth.

The police officers had been standing down for two days!

I don’t know what things are like in the Netherlands. But in Bangladesh, we still use guns to protect ourselves from people like the ones Rittenhouse killed. The only difference is that we technically have “gun control” so only the affluent people who can afford a guard to carry their gun for them can protect themselves.

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#165

Post by rayiner »

siva7 wrote: post #36
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…

This case is so weird from a european pov. Rittenhouse would be certainly convicted of murder in countries like germany. The self-defense argument would get you some laughs at the trial.

As far as I can tell that’s not because of a real difference in self defense law, but because of a difference in gun laws. But the gun laws in America are what they are. Many people at this riot were armed: https://vimeo.com/461063053. Listen to all the gun fire at the end of the video.

Judging Rittenhouse as if he was in Germany makes no sense. Watch the video—this wasn’t Germany, it was Iraq. In Germany, the police would never have allowed armed rioters to burn down multiple city blocks over two days.

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#166

Post by esyir »

gpm wrote: post #126
cryptonector wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The policy that the facts must be omitted might be an act of defamation, or, because it was published, libel.

The policy was suposedly that "we will [...] remove content containing praise or support of Rittenhouse", that's not a policy of removing or omitting facts, that's a policy of removing opinions. Facts are neither praise nor support. Facebook is entitled to only repeat whatever opinions it wants to repeat, by virtue of the first amendment.

Sure, and once it's making it's own opinion dominant, it should no longer be treated as a platform, but a publisher.

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#167

Post by RobotCaleb »

jacquesm wrote: post #162
RubberMullet wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you wear a seat belt while driving a car do you intend to crash? Do you have any idea how many people were open carrying that night and never fired a shot? Rittenhouse hit every target he aimed at and all whom had attacked him. 100% of the people who didn't attack Rittenhouse were not shot. That is not trigger happy. And Rittenhouse didn't even fire the first shot, Ziminski did. Who is "normal" at a riot? The peop…

Are you seriously comparing a seat belt with a gun? Sorry, I can't follow you there.

: shrug: you compared it to a sandwich

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#168

Post by GhettoComputers »

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.

He is studying nursing. He was making sure people stayed safe and had first aid with him.

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#169

Post by GhettoComputers »

jacquesm wrote: post #160
rayiner wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The really correct answer is that the police don’t allow rioters to burn down a city for two days so that idiot kids don’t feel the need to take the law into their own hands.

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.

Re: Facebook reverses Kyle Rittenhouse policy

#170

Post by GhettoComputers »

vkou wrote: post #138
School-Cotton wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not the contradiction you seem to think it is. It's easy to imagine scenarios where two parties could be legitimately acting in self-defense, because of what they reasonably -- but possibly incorrectly -- believe about the other's motive. This kind of very easy dramatic escalation is exactly why carrying rifles around on the street at all should be illegal. But that's a separate question from the one of whethe…

I think you've outlined exactly the kind of contradiction that I think it is - a moral, not a legal one. The laws on the books encourage this sort of insane behaviour, and as a result, two people are dead, but legally speaking, nobody's at fault. I'm not blaming any of this on the jury . Had the facts gone even a little differently, one person would have been dead, and again, it's unlikely that anyone would have been…

If you attack someone openly carrying a rifle, don’t expect a good outcome. Only an insane person would do that.
Post reply on HN