Live data from Hacker News

Facebook Bans Louis Farrakhan, Milo Yiannopoulos, InfoWars and Others

edition.cnn.com

341–350 of 776 posts

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

#341
post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When you’re talking about someone like Farrakhan, and the explicit racial basis for slavery and segregation, is simply being “racist” sufficient justification for a ban? By that same token, can Facebook ban say Armenians for being racist against Turks? Should Facebook step blithely into these very complex issues?

I think Farrakhan is a really tough case. First, he's cartoonishly anti-semitic and has been for years. He's as much of a hate monger as any of the other people who were banned and that's enough reason to ban him. That given, he has also materially supported vulnerable populations in a way that few organizations have. He has pushed very hard for black people to be proud of their blackness and to create narratives in…

Farrakhan is, to be frank, not a tough case. There are plenty of people who have incited mass hatred who also were, not coincidentally, very much promoters of their own ethnic identity and superiority. Yes, black people have faced and continue to face unjust oppression. But that doesn't give carte blanche for anti-Semitism, with quotes like:

“The Jews, a small handful, control the movement of this great nation, like a radar controls the movement of a great ship in the waters. … The Jews got a stranglehold on the Congress."

Or implying that Jews are subhuman insects:

“I’m not an anti-Semite. I’m anti-Termite.”

Or veiled calls to violence:

“And you do with me as is written, but remember that I have warned you that Allah will punish you. You are wicked deceivers of the American people. You have sucked their blood. You are not real Jews, those of you that are not real Jews. You are the synagogue of Satan, and you have wrapped your tentacles around the U.S. government, and you are deceiving and sending this nation to hell. But I warn you in the name of Allah, you would be wise to leave me alone. But if you choose to crucify me, know that Allah will crucify you.”

Or explicit calls to violence:

"Can that be the holy land, and you have gay parades, and want to permit to have a gay parade in Jerusalem when no prophet ever sanctioned that behavior. How can that be the Israel, how can that be Jerusalem with secular people running the holy land when it should be the holy people running the holy land. That land is gonna be cleansed with blood!"

Seriously, this is cut and dry. There are plenty of other people to lionize for e.g. promoting black bodies. And if wanting to kill all the Jews and loudly, repeatedly proclaiming his belief that they're evil and worthy of death to his religious followers on social media isn't a big enough deal to make it non-complicated, we're talking about the guy who called for the death of Malcolm X and whose religious followers carried out his assassination within months. He is violent and deranged and his followers have acted violently at his behest before.

(Also, respectfully, I don't think Farrakhan's anti-Semitic proclamations feel particularly "cartoonish" to the Jews he's targeting.)

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

#342
post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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'?

Do you not find a difference between a show that bills itself as comedy and satire and a site that bills itself as news and info?

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

#343

Earlier quoted context omitted.

both of them pretty clearly are on our radar for their political speech (feminism is cancer, “free speech”, soros conspiracies, etc). Given what we know about social media and violence, entertainment value should be a secondary concern.

"Given what we know about social media and violence" you mean how social media is akin to a pressure relief valve, and how actual violence has gone down since it took off? And how this is probably about clicks and stirring the pot than actual violence, and how this is just going to completely backfire? Shall we burn some books too?

was thinking more along the lines of this study, which shows that "right-wing anti-refugee sentiment on Facebook predicts violent crimes against refugees in municipalities with higher social media usage."

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3082972

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

#344

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…

the important thing everyone misses is that these platforms claim protection from liability on what is post because they claim they dont control what users post. So they user the 1st amendment and claim to just be a platform for everyone to speak but then they choose who gets to speak. If the new york times posts a libelous article written by a freelancer they still get sued because they choose to run the article. How is it different with facebook if they are choosing who can be members?

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

#345

Facebook is not a public square. I love public spaces. Shouldn’t we pay for one? I don’t care if Facebook has a darling reputation; ought it run our public and private meeting spaces?

Are there any public spaces on the internet? I can't think of any. I'm not sure it would be possible to build one, legally, either.

I view government funded web presence as a digital public space, it’s just not a meeting space. To me the difference in funding determines who has power.

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

#346

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why not both? They're dangerous in different ways, but just because Facebook has its set of issues doesn't mean those people should have a platform to spread their non-sense to the masses.

Can you explain to me how Milo is dangerous? I can see the case for Alex Jones, who spreads the kind of misinformation that leads certain individuals to "take action". But Milo? He's basically a clown.

Speaking at universities with his clearly anti-trans message while projecting the photos and identities of trans students at those universities during his speeches is clearly dangerous.

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

#347

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…

> The issue is not whether Facebook is breaking the law but whether philosophically the market leader in a category should get to decide who can use their product when their product category is fundamental to modern life. Saying "no one is owed a platform" brings us no closer to an answer.

By acceding to public pressure, doesn't that demonstrate that these "market leaders" don't actually get to decide what content they host? FB/YT/Twitter/Reddit have consistently dragged their feet on removing extremist content. I think the last couple years have been proof that a laissez-faire model of governing the online public sphere has been a spectacular failure.

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

#348
post #282
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.

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

Is this flame bait or do you actually believe this? It saddens me to see this here on HN

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

#349
post #13
post #7

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

Louis Farrakhan is leftist, right?

His politics are more closely aligned with the right. In fact I can’t think of one thing that’s liberal about him.

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

#350

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 d…

You're suggesting Julius Steicher shouldn't have been charged in the Nuremberg trials?

There is a direct comparison to the actions taken leading up to and during WWII and now. It's the exact same material being published again.

In fact in some cases it's literally the exact same "Jew pulling puppet strings of from above" posters/ads as were in WWII. You can look up some of the ads Brexit leave campaigns have put out.

There absolutely is a direct plan to incite violence, check the emails. These guys just know if they don't directly say it they're not accountable.

One of a few Nazi Jewish puppet master posters: https://www.ushmm.org/media/emu/get?irn=542389&mm_irn=44098&... One of a few Soros puppet master posters: https://morningmail.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/soros-pup...

And of course a video of Bannon laying things out: https://twitter.com/brexit_sham/status/1117536807242149893

Post reply on HN