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

171–180 of 776 posts

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

#171

Post by cat199 »

ehsankia wrote: post #165
SolaceQuantum wrote: post #44

I don't know about Paul Joseph but I believe Milo has had cases of publicly naming, threatening to name, doxxing, and mocking trans women that study on the campuses that he's spoken at. I belive this is dangerous behavior due to statistic that trans people are especially vulnerable for being murdered compared to the rest of the American population.

Indeed, Milo is not too different from Info Wars. These people use the classic tactic of saying something insanely outlandish, and when they are called out on it, they just use the "I was obviously sarcastic" card. Even if they are just joking, their followers most definitely take their message at face value, and that's exactly why they are dangerous.

> These people use the classic tactic of saying something insanely outlandish, and when they are called out on it, they just use the "I was obviously sarcastic" card.

So, like, the 'Saturday Night Live Card'?

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

#172

Post by losteric »

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?

Facebook is a corporation and their website is private property. You have no free speech.

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

#173

Post by linuxftw »

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…

Yeah, it's dangerous to be exposed to viewpoints that differ from the mainstream. Conform.

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

#174

Post by naasking »

aeturnum wrote: post #132
naasking wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 causin…

I don't think I could connect Jones or Yiannopolous specifically to anything, just as I couldn't connect, say, Andrew Wakefield to any single specific case of parents forgoing vaxines. I also think the ideas that Jones and Yiannopolous promote are easily seen to be harmful. Yiannopolous has promoted violence against journalists and associated himself with white supremacist movements. Jones has promoted the harassment…

> Andrew Wakefield to any single specific case of parents forgoing vaxines.

You're right, you can't because the anti-vaxx movement is as old as vaccines themselves. Wakefield's license was revoked for actually legitimate reasons. For his actions in falsifying data, not for expressing the idea that vaccines cause autism.

> I also think the ideas that Jones and Yiannopolous promote are easily seen to be harmful. Yiannopolous has promoted violence against journalists and associated himself with white supremacist movements.

Incitement to violence is a crime. We have processes for reporting crimes and seeing justice is done.

> I suppose it's up to you if you feel those ideas could cause harm - I feel they (and other ideas both have promoted) do.

"Ideas causing harm" is exactly the wrong way to look at it. Actions cause harm.

Sometimes ideas lead to action, but we should always police the action, not the thoughts. We start down a dangerous path to thoughtcrime as soon as someone is no longer permitted to think or express an idea.

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

#175

Post by lsh123 »

waer34tawer wrote: post #72
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…

You're being disingenuous! Paul Joseph Watson believes: - 9/11 was an inside job - The illuminati is controlling your mind with chemitrails - Soy beans are making men docile and feminine. Sounds pretty fringe to me. Don't care how many views he has. He also incites hate against muslims, which I'd say, makes him pretty dangerous. My opinion of Facebook's actions is a separate matter. But the narrative you're pushing t…

Watson was my morning laugh story on FB for years, I’ll miss him.

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

#176

Post by Faark »

ALittleLight wrote: post #77
bilbo0s wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wish all users had your capacity for reason. FB is private property. Play by their rules or GTFO. People who scream about censorship in instances such as these are being willfully dismissive of the property rights of others. And that's a dangerous road to start down.

There is the legal idea of free speech, which constrains Congress, but also the moral idea of free speech which says you should let people with different opinions talk to each other and work out their disagreements verbally. Facebook is, of course, not violating the legal principle of free speech. They are absolutely violating the moral principle. In the same way, if someone came over to your house and made some poli…

I agree with the spirit of your first sentence. This is exactly what we want.

> you should let people with different opinions talk to each other and work out their disagreements verbally

But this part is sadly not happening. Less than ever is there any reason to form a consensus. Social repercussions don't seem to work anymore, now that everyone can find communities believing in whatever they want to, no matter how incompatible those believes are with those of others. We have to find ways to reverse that trend, before it can only be resolved with violence. Everyone of us, including cooperation like facebook, taking responsibility seems like one of the best options we have.

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

#177

Post by naasking »

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…

> These people did a lot of damage. A lot.

Like what? If this damage is so prevalent then it should be easy to cite something specific.

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

#178

Post by badger_bravo »

yostrovs wrote: post #59
lotsofpulp wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Only happy birthdays, congrats for graduations/wedding/babies/house, and condolences for deaths.

Jehovah Witnesses don't celebrate birthdays or any other holiday. To them it's wrong to single out any specific day among the majesty of all the days that God created.

I'm against Jehovah's Witnesses but that's a very pretty thought.

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

#179

Post by aklemm »

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…

He's dangerous as he stokes the kind of fear, based on falsehoods, that cause a government such as ours to split up migrant families with no regard as to how to reunite them. And that's just the beginning of what will happen based on the kind of rhetoric Trump and Yiannopolous put out.

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

#180

Post by shiado »

It's always funny when these threads come up and people who ostensibly hold the progressive viewpoint that corporations have an inordinate amount of power and influence suddenly pull out their Ayn Rand books and Gadsden flags and argue that corporations should be able to do anything they want because they are a private entity.
Post reply on HN