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

Ad Boycott of Facebook Keeps Growing

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 307 posts

Re: Ad Boycott of Facebook Keeps Growing

#251

Post by sangnoir »

RestlessMind wrote: post #244
adamsea wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What exactly is the propaganda part? Can you provide a specific example, so folks have something concrete to agree or disagree with? And, do you mean with their news reporting, as opposed to their editorials?

Here is one example of a broad topic where NYT's bias is very clear - immigration. Articles on this topic over the past year: https://www.google.com/search?q=immigrants+site:nytimes.com&... What I have observed is that NYT's coverage slants heavily towards supporting immigration, both legal and illegal. For illegal immigration, they run stories which tend to evoke maximum sympathy (DACA, impact on women / young kids…

That appears to be confirmation bias - the NYT also put out sympathetic articles on anti-immigration people of the "a day in the life of a friendly neighborhood racist" type.

Re: Ad Boycott of Facebook Keeps Growing

#252

Post by danans »

bhupy wrote: post #250
danans wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But St Johns church is not a public space Lafayette Square is a public place, and that is where POTUS cleared peaceful protectors with force, so that he could walk across it for his photo op at the church. If it were an issue of protecting St John's Church property, they could have cleared just that property, and brought the president in with a helicopter. But the whole point was to demonstrate the show of force ag…

I think you have that backwards. The "photo op" incident occurred weeks ago, and James Mattis rightfully condemned it. The current spate of boycotts appear to be in response to Facebook's refusal to remove a post by Trump directly referring to the "Black House Autonomous Zone". That's why the focus is on St. John's church and statues — it's what is currently happening right now . I will include the text of Trump's po…

Yes, it sounds like we were talking about different incidents.

I personally support Facebook's ability to make the decision to either allow or disallow president's posts - within the parameters of the law - regardless of whether I would agree with their decision.

The question is whether the parameters of law allow for a public official to issue credible threats of violence again citizens over mass media channels, and under what conditions.

The actual use of force by this president in his shameful photo op incident in front of the church has clearly demonstrated without a shadow of doubt that his threat of disproportional violence against protesters - even for trivial purposes - is credible.

The legality of all this is not a settled issue, and is something the courts may have to decide.

Re: Ad Boycott of Facebook Keeps Growing

#253

Post by bhupy »

danans wrote: post #252
bhupy wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you have that backwards. The "photo op" incident occurred weeks ago, and James Mattis rightfully condemned it. The current spate of boycotts appear to be in response to Facebook's refusal to remove a post by Trump directly referring to the "Black House Autonomous Zone". That's why the focus is on St. John's church and statues — it's what is currently happening right now . I will include the text of Trump's po…

Yes, it sounds like we were talking about different incidents. I personally support Facebook's ability to make the decision to either allow or disallow president's posts - within the parameters of the law - regardless of whether I would agree with their decision. The question is whether the parameters of law allow for a public official to issue credible threats of violence again citizens over mass media channels, and…

The courts have already decided. The Brandenburg v Ohio precedent establishes the "imminent lawless action" test.

Issuing threats of (legal) force against citizens that they perceive to be breaking the law fails the "imminent lawless action" test, and is currently within the parameters of the law.

Re: Ad Boycott of Facebook Keeps Growing

#254

Post by danans »

bhupy wrote: post #253
danans wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, it sounds like we were talking about different incidents. I personally support Facebook's ability to make the decision to either allow or disallow president's posts - within the parameters of the law - regardless of whether I would agree with their decision. The question is whether the parameters of law allow for a public official to issue credible threats of violence again citizens over mass media channels, and…

The courts have already decided. The Brandenburg v Ohio precedent establishes the "imminent lawless action" test. Issuing threats of (legal) force against citizens that they perceive to be breaking the law fails the "imminent lawless action" test, and is currently within the parameters of the law.

From the Brandenburg v Ohio wiki page:

> The U.S. Supreme Court reversed Brandenburg's conviction, holding that government cannot constitutionally punish abstract advocacy of force or law violation

Brandenburg was an individual private citizen advocating "abstractly" for violence against black and Jews as a representative of his private organization (the KKK). His speech rights were protected then by the case.

However, we will almost certainly have court cases in the near future that will test the protections of hate speech, which is what we would more readily call Brandenburg's speech today.

POTUS is a public official and in this incident was speaking in his role as a public official with the power to use force, and issuing a concrete threat against a specific target. He is speaking as the government itself because he is invoking the government's powers.

It's not at all clear that Brandenburg v Ohio protects this sort of speech. There is plenty for the courts to still consider.

Re: Ad Boycott of Facebook Keeps Growing

#255

Post by bhupy »

danans wrote: post #252
bhupy wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you have that backwards. The "photo op" incident occurred weeks ago, and James Mattis rightfully condemned it. The current spate of boycotts appear to be in response to Facebook's refusal to remove a post by Trump directly referring to the "Black House Autonomous Zone". That's why the focus is on St. John's church and statues — it's what is currently happening right now . I will include the text of Trump's po…

Yes, it sounds like we were talking about different incidents. I personally support Facebook's ability to make the decision to either allow or disallow president's posts - within the parameters of the law - regardless of whether I would agree with their decision. The question is whether the parameters of law allow for a public official to issue credible threats of violence again citizens over mass media channels, and…

> The actual use of force by this president in his shameful photo op incident in front of the church has clearly demonstrated without a shadow of doubt that his threat of disproportional violence against protesters - even for trivial purposes - is credible.

No matter how "credible", Brandenburg v Ohio's overruled Schenck v US and Whitney v California, the latter of which held that speech that merely advocated violence could be made illegal.

Hess v Indiana further clarified that speech that amounted to nothing more than advocacy of illegal action at some indefinite future time is protected by 1A.

And finally, just because violence is disproportional, doesn't automatically make it "illegal". The threat of the use of legal force against vandalism, while "disproportionate", is entirely a valid use of speech for a politician, advocating a legal use of the police force.

Your problem with this appears to be that police force is, today, legal. This is orthogonal to Trump's proclamations, and even more orthogonal to Facebook's platform.

Re: Ad Boycott of Facebook Keeps Growing

#256

Post by bhupy »

danans wrote: post #254
bhupy wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The courts have already decided. The Brandenburg v Ohio precedent establishes the "imminent lawless action" test. Issuing threats of (legal) force against citizens that they perceive to be breaking the law fails the "imminent lawless action" test, and is currently within the parameters of the law.

From the Brandenburg v Ohio wiki page: > The U.S. Supreme Court reversed Brandenburg's conviction, holding that government cannot constitutionally punish abstract advocacy of force or law violation Brandenburg was an individual private citizen advocating "abstractly" for violence against black and Jews as a representative of his private organization (the KKK). His speech rights were protected then by the case. Howeve…

> POTUS is a public official and in this incident was speaking in his role as a public official with the power to use force, and a concrete threat against a concrete target.

Yes, but that use of force is not lawless. Police use of force against vandalism is currently legal. Calling for that is also legal, because it fails the "lawless" portion of the "imminent lawless action" test.

Similarly, if POTUS calls for war against a specific nation (or group), it is within his rights to do that, no matter how violent or deadly war may be. War isn't a lawless action (for better or for worse). As such, the Commander in Chief declaring the intent to call on the legislature to approve a war is also protected, for the same reason.

Re: Ad Boycott of Facebook Keeps Growing

#257

Post by s_y_n_t_a_x »

danans wrote: post #202
s_y_n_t_a_x wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We shouldn't give up our freedoms because you think some people can't think for themselves. They can think for themselves, you just don't understand their thoughts & perspective through your bias/bubble. Censoring is wrong, period. Win your arguments on merit, not by silencing the other side.

> Win your arguments on merit, not by silencing the other side. In the wild world of unmoderated social media, "merit" at scale reduces to "the most salacious information that feeds what the audience wants to believe, regardless of whether it is grounded in evidence". It's just a propaganda rally, ultimately underpinnned by the old ominous maxim "might is right", with the target being a group who is not present in th…

> People don't have as innate a desire for intellectual rigor in deconstructing untruths as you or I would like.

This is an elitist point of view, and I don't think you are as good at deconstructing untruths as you'd like to believe.

> If anything, many people want to be lied to if the lie dovetails with their feelings and agendas.

> I don't know - it's hard to judge another person's deep desires.

So you think you can mindread people and you know what "many people" want?

You just admitted it's hard to judge another persons desires.

This all misses the main point. This mob agenda targets Republicans and hoists Democrats and their tech CEO/shareholder puppets to the position of Ministry of Truth.

It's incredibly obvious that the other platforms fell into line and Facebook is receiving the mob's attention until they submit as well. This isn't about the wellbeing of people or you knowing best, it's about power-grabbing, corruption, and censorship.

I'm glad Zuck is taking this stance and I'm glad he has a majority.

Re: Ad Boycott of Facebook Keeps Growing

#258

Post by dragonwriter »

bhupy wrote: post #255
danans wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, it sounds like we were talking about different incidents. I personally support Facebook's ability to make the decision to either allow or disallow president's posts - within the parameters of the law - regardless of whether I would agree with their decision. The question is whether the parameters of law allow for a public official to issue credible threats of violence again citizens over mass media channels, and…

> The actual use of force by this president in his shameful photo op incident in front of the church has clearly demonstrated without a shadow of doubt that his threat of disproportional violence against protesters - even for trivial purposes - is credible. No matter how "credible", Brandenburg v Ohio's overruled Schenck v US and Whitney v California, the latter of which held that speech that merely advocated violenc…

> And finally, just because violence is disproportional, doesn't automatically make it "illegal".

Yes, actually, it does. Specifically, police force that is not “objectively reasonable” in the circumstances in which it is used constitutes an unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment [0], and is therefore directly prohibited by that Amendment for the federal government and prohibited by the Fourteenth Amendment, which has been held to fully incorporate the search and seizure provisions of the Fourth, for the States. It is, also, when done under color of law a federal crime (in certain cases, a capital crime) under 18 USC § 242 and a federal tort under 42 USC § 1983, both prohibiting deprivation of Constitutionally protected rights under color of law.

> Your problem with this appears to be that police force is, today, legal.

I don't know about the grandparent, but my problem is that federal officials, including law enforcement officers, are committing violations of the federal Constitution which are also federal crimes against people who are merely calling for accountability for what are, among other things, a systematic pattern of similar federal, including capital, crimes and Constitutional violations that federal (and state and local, which have concurrent jurisdiction) law enforcement have been a mixture of actively complicit in and non- and mal-feasant in failing to prosecute.

[0] Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989)

Re: Ad Boycott of Facebook Keeps Growing

#259

Post by skewart »

three_seagrass wrote: post #223
skewart wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What’s more, the NY Times has a strong business interest in convincing advertisers not to advertise on Facebook. I’m a bit skeptical of anything they publish these days about Facebook, Google, and other companies that could potentially threaten their access to clicks, just given their financial incentives to weaken these companies as much as possible.

>the NY Times has a strong business interest in convincing advertisers not to advertise on Facebook. How so?

For one thing, Facebook competes with the NYT for advertising dollars. If Facebook and Instagram are less appealing places to run adds for a company then maybe that company will spend more of its advertising budget on NYT ads instead.

More broadly though, they have an incentive to weaken companies like Facebook and Google, which are effectively gatekeepers for a lot of traffic to NYT articles. Clicking on an article shared on Facebook, or clicking through to an article in a Google search result are very common ways for people to land on the NYT website. Not only is this traffic valuable to the NYT for ad revenue it's also very valuable for selling subscriptions - people are more likely to subscribe if they have been seeing and reading free articles. I think it's safe to assume the people running the NYT are aware of this dependency on search and social media platforms and are eager to do anything they can to minimize it. I have no idea how much bias, if any, actually creeps into reporting - hopefully it's none! But the business incentives are enough to make me approach any article from almost any media company about Google or FB with a dose of healthy skepticism.

Re: Ad Boycott of Facebook Keeps Growing

#260

Post by bhupy »

dragonwriter wrote: post #258
bhupy wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The actual use of force by this president in his shameful photo op incident in front of the church has clearly demonstrated without a shadow of doubt that his threat of disproportional violence against protesters - even for trivial purposes - is credible. No matter how "credible", Brandenburg v Ohio's overruled Schenck v US and Whitney v California, the latter of which held that speech that merely advocated violenc…

> And finally, just because violence is disproportional, doesn't automatically make it "illegal". Yes, actually, it does. Specifically, police force that is not “objectively reasonable” in the circumstances in which it is used constitutes an unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment [0], and is therefore directly prohibited by that Amendment for the federal government and prohibited by the Fourteenth Amendment,…

Yes, but we are not talking about an unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment, we are talking about the use of police force to prevent vandalization, which is the topic of the current tweet/post in question. That's hardly ambiguous.
Post reply on HN