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

191–200 of 776 posts

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

#191

Post by bilbo0s »

m0zg wrote: post #157
bilbo0s wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So they should ban all the people you want banned, because, you've got a better handle on what's "dangerous"?

Isn't that what they're doing already? How is Alex Jones "dangerous"? He's a joke, he doesn't even take himself seriously. If the stated goal is to minimize harm, then CNN has caused far more harm to the American people than Alex Jones ever will.

So it is that you have a better handle on who is "dangerous" and who is not than FB does.

Why do you feel your analysis is any more valid than FB's?

Just as a matter of full disclosure, my position is, FB's private property, FB's rules. Just like my house, or yours I suspect, if you don't like the rules you have to leave. So that's my position on this whole thing. I'm just wondering why you think we should trust your word over FB's?

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

#192

Post by aklemm »

sasasassy wrote: post #11

And in Russia they ban instead this or that free speech advocate. And in China it is some other group of people that cannot speak. And in India, and in Brasil, Iran, Pakistan, UK, etc. There are always offensive people or sensitive subjects. The only question is Facebook going to ban each group of people per country basis or globally. If globally, we are going to have a very limited, gray area of speech in Facebook.

We don't need free speech on Facebook, but we do on the Internet. That's the difference in Russia and China, etc.

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

#193

Post by naasking »

happytoexplain wrote: post #73
Veen wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Deplatforming works to achieve what exactly?

Stemming the spread of hatred and violence.

1. Is there evidence that they've actually incited hatred and violence? If so, then they've violated the law. If there's no such evidence, then what justification would you use now?

2. Where's the evidence that hatred and violence are spreading?

3. Where's your evidence that censoring is successful in "stemming the spread of hatred and violence"?

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

#194

Post by BickNowstrom »

astura wrote: post #108
waer34tawer wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Yeah and for Alex Jones: The government has ‘weather weapons’ Chemicals in the water are turning frogs gay Robert Mueller is a demon, and also a pedophile The Sandy Hook shooting was staged Hillary Clinton is running a child sex ring out of a pizza parlor Source: https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/14/alex-jones-5-most-disturbing...

The government has weather weapons.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_Modification_Con... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weather_warfare https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Popeye

Chemicals in the water are turning the frogs gay.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-environment-potomac/sex-c...

For Mueller, Sandy Hook, and Pizzagate, Alex Jones speculated and reported on these existing conspiracy theories. He did not invent them. He apologized for Pizzagate and Sandy Hook, and blames his rants on psychosis.

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

#195

Post by pjc50 »

maximus1983 wrote: post #2

I am sure there will be many people cheering. However people don't seem to realise that just because it isn't you getting censored now, it may well be you in the future. What is deemed acceptable and what isn't deemed acceptable are quite transient. It wasn't long ago it was unacceptable/illegal to be a homosexual, but now it is at least (in the Western world) readily accepted. I wonder if facebook was around in the…

> I wonder if facebook was around in the 1950s would they be banning prominent homosexuals?

Of course they would. There's even a bit of that happening today: https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2018/10/03/faceboo...

And this is before we get into the question of malicious application of the "real names" policy to trams people.

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

#196

Post by bilbo0s »

t_dunks wrote: post #159
bilbo0s wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Someone comes to your house. Your private property. They proceed to call your daughter a whore. Do you and your daughter kick them out? Or Do you and your daughter try to explain to them why your daughter's not a whore while you all sit in your living room? It's a personal dilemma. I'll admit it. But for my part, the guy's getting thrown out on his rear if he insults my daughters, significant other, or my mother or g…

Yea it would mean you're not open to discourse about that topic. Your totally within your rights to not want to discuss your daughter being a whore or not, but yes then you're not open in regards to that subject. And there is plenty a chance of that person being correct. Furthermore, there is a very significant different between Facebook (which acts like a town square) vs your private dwelling.

>Your [sp.] totally within your rights to not want to discuss your daughter being a whore...

And do you believe me to be violating a "...moral principle..." by refusing the discussion? Or, more precisely, do you feel my daughter and I have a moral obligation to openly discuss such subjects? Are we "...absolutely violating the moral principle..." of Freedom of Speech by bouncing the loudmouth?

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

#197

Post by justinmchase »

samdoidge wrote: post #105
waer34tawer wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> The illuminati is controlling your mind with chemitrails Do you have any source at all for this? He seemed to be beyond 'chemtrails' from what I had seen of him, and indeed he has a video stating: > Another viral YouTube video purporting to show a pilot forgetting to turn off chemtrails as a plane comes in to land is another example of how baseless conspiracy theories distract from genuine issues and cover-ups.

What are you saying that this unilateral and overly simplistic declaration of his views used to advocate for his censorship may also be inaccurate? Who could have ever predicted that was a possibility?? Oh well too late, I guess we should let that be a lesson to us all not to even try to buck mainstream narratives.

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

#198

Post by naasking »

jonny_eh wrote: post #166
tjenkinsqs wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There's a difference between "making a mistake" and being an agent whose goal is to spread hate and misinformation.

Where's the proof that they are intentionally and maliciously hateful rather than simply being mistaken about those you think they hate?

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

#199

Post by m0zg »

bilbo0s wrote: post #191
m0zg wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't that what they're doing already? How is Alex Jones "dangerous"? He's a joke, he doesn't even take himself seriously. If the stated goal is to minimize harm, then CNN has caused far more harm to the American people than Alex Jones ever will.

So it is that you have a better handle on who is "dangerous" and who is not than FB does. Why do you feel your analysis is any more valid than FB's? Just as a matter of full disclosure, my position is, FB's private property, FB's rules. Just like my house, or yours I suspect, if you don't like the rules you have to leave. So that's my position on this whole thing. I'm just wondering why you think we should trust your…

There was no "analysis" there, it's purely a political move, don't get confused.

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

#200

Post by StanislavPetrov »

gridlockd wrote: post #160
StanislavPetrov wrote: post #67

The ignorance in these comments is astounding. Facebook has already banned many anti-war voices that can in no way be construed as "racist" or bigoted. Its one thing to claim that private companies have the right to silence and censor people, and quite another to cheer on the practice as somehow being desirable.

> "many anti-war voices" Care to name some names?

Over 800 have been banned including Anti-media and Police the Police. Here is a list of only a few:

https://thefreethoughtproject.com/social-media-purge-top-ten...

Post reply on HN