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

311–320 of 776 posts

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

#311

Post by [deleted] »

latortuga wrote: post #204
naasking wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Alex Jones popularized a propagated the myth of "Crisis Actors" and that Sandy Hook was a hoax. Trolls on the internet telling parents that their children aren't really dead, that they should exhume their bodies to prove that they really died, that they are being paid by the shadow government, that their grief looked too fake - all of this is real harm. We can talk about the doxing and the stalking and the harassment…

[deleted]

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

#312

Post by bitL »

Hmm, all Facebook is going to achieve is that they lose any influence on supporters/viewers of those they kicked out, instead of algorithmicaly managing them by some dark patterns. It's now trivial to set up an ActivityPub service on an own server that replaces 70% of FB/Instagram/YouTube functionality and that gap in useful services will be shrinking. So they will have a short-term win and long-term an ever larger group without any influence over as the window of acceptable discourse will be shifting further in its current trajectory, pushing more of previously accepted opinions over the edge, kicking out more users in the process.

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

#313

Post by throwawayjava »

justinmchase wrote: post #181
Mirioron wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think private platforms could act as the town square as long as we demand that platforms beyond a certain size can't just censor whatever they like. Make protections in section 230 of the communications decency act dependent on providing a platform for free speech if the platform is large.

I think it should just be based on the sing-up model. If you allow open signup then you don't get to censor those users. If you want to be able to control their speech then make them sign a contract and agree to pay them money. It should just straight up not be legal for facebook to ban, block or delete the content of certain users while also having an open sign up model.

This would kill millions of completely apolitical websites with strong user communities.

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

#314

Post by drak0n1c »

shehryarrr wrote: post #289
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…

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.

For what it's worth, Alex Jones retracted his Sandy Hook reaction years ago and apologized. Since then he has repeatedly scolded his followers telling listeners not to harass the parents. Same with the specific pizza restaurant. The damage is already done, of course, but it is not continual.

There is a recent long-form interview on Joe Rogan where you can hear it from himself - the beginning is focused on his apology: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-5yh2HcIlkU

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

#315

Post by SlowRobotAhead »

throwawayjava wrote: post #286
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…

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

Neither are cakes. But people on left celebrating Facebook for doing what they want on their platform - seem quite similar to the people on the left also trying to get a baker forced to make a cake.

Can't have it both ways.

(edited for clarity)

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

#316

Post by frabbit »

cm2012 wrote: post #125
Mirioron wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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! I think most of the people were interested in it for entertainment, just like people are interested in horoscopes for entertainment. Or would you argue that all these newspapers that had horoscopes in them pushed fringe co…

Horoscropes don't have a victim. Stuff like elders of zion portrays jewish people as villains, to real and tangible consequences (did you know anti-semitic hate crimes are up around 300% of the last two years?).

What about Madeleine Albright spreading the idea the killing hundreds of thousands of children is `a price worth paying' on every media platform in the US?

What about the relentless promotion of capitalism and growth which is ultimately going to see us all as victims?

I detest the right-wing in all its forms, including its Democrat and Republican wings but I cannot see any ultimately positive outcome in banning their views.

(Yes, private corporations have a right to do as they like etc, etc , etc)

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

#317

Post by naasking »

spitfire wrote: post #299
naasking wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

A trove of emails between Steve Bannon, Breitbart, Milo and I think Paul Joseph Watson were released a while ago. In those emails Bannon instructs Milo/etc to target specific groups. There were multiple instances of this throughout the emails. They were coordinating and planning to falsely target groups with their hate speech, With the full knowledge that their targeting would cause repercussions in the real world. I…

> In those emails Bannon instructs Milo/etc to target specific groups. There were multiple instances of this throughout the emails.

I suppose you mean the Breitbart emails. Targeting groups would not surprise me, they obviously have an agenda and bias, like most organizations. The real question is whether these same emails actually suggest that they don't believe the propaganda they published, and that they're just doing it to fulfill ulterior motives.

Edit: I see now you added considerably more text. Sorry to hear about your friend, but I don't see how Breitbart is any worse in principle than hocking crystals and astrology (and I know people who have stopped meds from this kind of influence). As long as they are not directly inciting violence, we should be policing actions not words.

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

#318

Post by losteric »

ben_w wrote: post #258
losteric wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I would argue that when a website get enough users, it should be seen as a government. The number is as ill-defined as “how many grains of sand makes a heap”, but FB is now defining the social interactions of more people than the largest single nation state. On the other paw, I don’t believe in absolute freedom of speech, because the very power which makes the freedom worth having also enables it to cause harm. I thi…

Do you mean it should be seen as a public space?

I agree there is an argument for regulating large for-profit social media sites as a public utilities... but I can't see how they are "a government" in and of themselves.

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

#319

Post by jsjw7sbw »

Mirioron wrote: post #136
ngcazz wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Paul Joseph Watson spewing misinformation about the extent of the refugee crisis is dangerous. Is it any more dangerous than the lies politicians spewed about it in Europe though? We know that a bunch of those politicians straight up either lied or didn't know what they were talking about. We have had terror attacks carried out in Europe by refugees or asylum seekers that have killed people. Some sources even claim…

It's the classic leftist projection again

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

#320

Post by reissbaker »

cat199 wrote: post #167
reissbaker wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Farrakhan was banned for being a notorious anti-Semite; being black doesn't give you a free pass to incite hatred against Jews. This isn't a complex issue.

NOI (and by extension Farrakhan) is not simply 'anti semitic'. They are black supremacist.

Nope: https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/indi...

To quote:

"Farrakhan blames Jews for the slave trade, plantation slavery, Jim Crow, sharecropping and general black oppression. Farrakhan’s tone grew more belligerent in June 2010, when he sent letters to several leaders of the Jewish community as well as the Southern Poverty Law Center demanding that they acknowledge the evils they have perpetrated and that they work to further Farrakhan’s goals. The letter ended with a threat to “ruin and destroy your power and influence here and throughout the world” if his terms were not met."

Post reply on HN