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

281–290 of 776 posts

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

#281

Post by StanislavPetrov »

gridlockd wrote: post #254
StanislavPetrov wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

It doesn't really say why these where banned. From a cursory glance, some of these fall into the "anti-vaxxer" and "anti-trans" group. Also, some accounts that you may call "anti-war" or "anti-police" are posting very graphic images of war or "police work". Those bans are warranted on terms of service grounds. As for the "over 800" you mention, here's what the source (RT) actually says: "Facebook is again being calle…

You don't have to imagine - its because they are at odds with the official government narrative. Make no mistake, this has nothing to do with "right" or "left" or "hate speech" or "graphic imagery" and it has everything about regaining control of public discourse - a control that was lost with the explosion of the internet. Its a concerted effort, across every major tech platform, to use restrictive policies (that are selectively enforced) to ban alternative policies on "service grounds". You could try googling some more information about this, but Google has likewise deranked and delisted alternative voices. Everyone interested in freedom of speech and freedom of thought should be horrified by this assault on free discource - it leads to only one place.

https://www.truthdig.com/articles/the-silencing-of-dissent/

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

#282

Post by Pimpus »

ngcazz wrote: post #111
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…

Milo Yiannopoulos getting the bully pulpit on TV and university stages, to say, as though it were a fait acompli, that trans people are sick is dangerous. Paul Joseph Watson spewing misinformation about the extent of the refugee crisis is dangerous.

Trans people absolutely are sick. Trying to normalize them is, ironically, dangerous and fringe.

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

#283

Post by tptacek »

vibrato wrote: post #238
dragonwriter wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“Black” and “White” as identities are both products of White racism (outside of White racism, individual ethnic identities have historically been prominent, but not a racial identity.) Positive Black racial identity is a reaction against White racism, whereas White racial identity is it's continuation. And it remains the case that the effort to advance a broad crosd-ethnic White racial identity is intimately connecte…

And black identity is detached from black supremacist ideology? In fact, logic is useful in evaluating the world. All of it.

"Black", in the "African American" sense we're talking about here, is a distinct and coherent culture, ironically one forcibly created by white slave traders who kidnapped Africans and stripped them of their names, languages, and cultures and left them in 19th century North America to build a new one for themselves, which they did. American Black culture includes jazz and (later) hip-hop, the Harlem Renaissance, a huge chunk of 20th century dance, African American Vernacular English, Black churches (and the civil rights movement), soul food, and so on.

Other coherent cultures include the Irish, Italians, Polish, Russians, and, of course, Germans, French, and English. Parades are held for these cultures; entire sections of major cities are named for them, museums are erected for them, &c.

What people on message boards seem to have a problem with is the idea that "Black" is a culture with similar standing to the Irish --- or rather, they'd prefer to believe that there is a coherent "White" culture that functions similar to Black culture. There is not; the suggestion otherwise is literally an expression of anti-Black racism, as you can see from the way "white culture" has gradually co-opted formerly out-grouped Irish, Italian, and Jewish people, in solidarity against integration with Black people.

Nobody seriously protests the South Side Irish Parade (unless they live in Beverly and care about their lawns), the Polish American Museum, or the New York Columbus Day Parade. They do protest parades of "white pride", for reasons I assume are now obvious to you.

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

#284

Post by drak0n1c »

nickthegreek wrote: post #8
fopen64 wrote: post #7

Regrettable. Are they banning radical left types? Of course not.

Who is a radical left type on Facebook that you feel have crossed boundaries?

ChapoTrapHouse routinely incites its followers toward being OK with harrassment, property crime, and violence with their class warfare rants and advocating for mass property redistribution. They aren't on FB though.

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

#285

Post by tathougies »

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.

Oh? who gets to decide mercy?

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

#286

Post by throwawayjava »

badatshipping wrote: post #252

Every time this subject comes up, someone inevitably says something like "Facebook is a private corporation, the first amendment only applies to the government, and if you want to use Facebook you have to play by their rules. No one is owed a platform." Platforms like Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter are basically monopolies. They are the only services in their class to take seriously if you're looking to gain a follow…

> ..when their product category is fundamental to modern life.

FB/YT/Twitter are not fundamental to modern life.

They aren't even fundamental to gaining an audience. Lots of businesses[1] manage to turn handsome profits without advertising on those platforms.

[1] And that's what infowars/milo are -- businesses looking for make a profit by producing social commentary and then selling ad space / books / videos / merch for more than it costs to produce the commentary.

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

#287

Post by kansface »

bilbo0s wrote: post #99
ALittleLight wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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…

Your analogy works great except that "someone" is actually 1/4 of the humans currently alive, your "house" is now the primary, perhaps only, communication medium for those ~2 billion people, and its a couple million people in your basement calling your daughter a whore.

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

#288

Post by naasking »

schmidtc wrote: post #271
naasking wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Facebook is a corporation not a government agency and they have the right to control their own products. It's always fascinating how quick people are to jump on the free market bandwagon when it suits their ends. Free speech protections also sometimes apply to privately managed public spaces, like malls. > These individuals are free to shout their ideas in the public square. Facebook is arguably the new public squa…

It's always fascinating how quick people are to jump on the slippery slope bandwagon when it suits their ends. Your suggestion that privately held malls are subject to free speech protections is misleading. See Lloyd Corp. v. Tanner. There are counter examples of course, be these apply only in niche situations. Regardless, Facebook is not a public space. It's very much a private space. Suggesting that Facebook be tre…

> Your suggestion that privately held malls are subject to free speech protections is misleading. See Lloyd Corp. v. Tanner.

Not misleading at all, I said it sometimes applies, which is true because some states recognize it as a right and some don't.

> Regardless, Facebook is not a public space. It's very much a private space.

A private space that anyone and everyone can freely access, and are, in fact, encouraged to frequent as much as humanly possible, and arguably has become intrinsic to the daily life of many, perhaps most, Americans. In fact, it's probably one of their primary means of socializing with friends and family, and definitely a medium for political discourse. Arguing it's a private space seems increasingly flimsy, frankly.

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

#289

Post by shehryarrr »

naasking wrote: post #121
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…

> 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…

Re Alex Jones: The targeted and continual harassment of the parents of Sandy Hook victims is definitely dangerous. Not to even mention the promotion of the pizza gate conspiracy which inspired someone to walk into a pizza place with an assault weapon. Different types of danger but still danger.

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

#290

Post by ravenstine »

waer34tawer wrote: post #232
ravenstine wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

>I can't possibly watch all of his videos, and I'm not even subscribed to him. His association with conspiracy theories is the main thing he's known for. In order to claim that his views are not dangerous, you have to had heard of him. And if you've heard of him, very likely it was because of the fringe views he has. > All I did was ask a question, and you're accusing me of bad intent. Perhaps I'm wrong, and I apolog…

> And if you've heard of him, very likely it was because of the fringe views he has.

I couldn't really tell you why I've been exposed to Paul Joseph Watson. Maybe it's because I watch Joe Rogan and Tim Poole's shows.

> Perhaps I'm wrong, and I apologize. The internet is swarming with people who argue in bad faith to promote an agenda. They feign ignorance of things, hold contradictory positions, and derail discussions all while claiming to be perfectly innocent. I mistook you for one of the trolls. And that's exactly what the trolls want.

No hard feelings, and I apologize for any ignorance I may have on the issue. It's understandable, and I know what you mean about those sorts of trolling tactics. I'd rather people sometimes mistake others for trolls than fall for trolls all the time.

Post reply on HN