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

381–390 of 776 posts

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

#381

Post by ebg13 »

hackerpacker wrote: post #310
jeffrom wrote: post #147

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?

> you mean how social media is akin to a pressure relief valve, and how actual violence has gone down since it took off?

I would love to see sources for this. It sounds very interesting and I want to know more.

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

#382

Post by XorNot »

hackerpacker wrote: post #310
jeffrom wrote: post #147

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?

All these people promote toxic communities that drive away users and lead to harassment and doxing.

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

#383

Post by razakel »

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…

>We have had terror attacks carried out in Europe by refugees or asylum seekers that have killed people.

For some bizarre reason, people get angry when you bomb them.

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

#384

Post by XorNot »

aeturnum wrote: post #132
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…

I don't think I could connect Jones or Yiannopolous specifically to anything, just as I couldn't connect, say, Andrew Wakefield to any single specific case of parents forgoing vaxines. I also think the ideas that Jones and Yiannopolous promote are easily seen to be harmful. Yiannopolous has promoted violence against journalists and associated himself with white supremacist movements. Jones has promoted the harassment…

The parents of Sandy Hook victims receive harassment and death threats to this day because of Alex Jones promoting the narrative that they're "crisis actors".

He does ongoing, tangible harm.

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

#385

Post by tptacek »

rayiner wrote: post #62
res0nat0r wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Saying racist stuff constantly but playing it off as "ironic" and wearing a suit doesn't make it less racist. Good, they should have kicked these guys off years ago.

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?

Yes? Facebook should ban racism against Turkish people? I'm not sure I see how that's an interesting or difficult call to make.

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

#386

Post by MockObject »

aeturnum wrote: post #272
vibrato wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you've established that it's desirable for black people to be proud of their blackness. Is it desirable for white people to be proud of their whiteness? If you allow for one of these and not the other, you'd be a racist.

I spoke imprecisely and I appreciate the opportunity to be more specific. You're right that the Nation promotes the inherent superiority of black people. I didn't mean to endorse that view. Many of the narratives that describe worlds where black bodies are "lesser than" white bodies are written by people who believe in white-supremacist ideas (even if they don't support the philosophy explicitly - Thomas Jefferson co…

> Many of the narratives that describe worlds where black bodies are "lesser than" white bodies

In a thread about dehumanizing speech, you're referring to human beings as "bodies". Huh.

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

#387

Post by maximus1983 »

kevincrane wrote: post #249
bartimus wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Any examples of Milo making a racist remark? Afaik his criticism is mainly towards certain cultures. Not races.

The reason he was (finally) banned from Twitter was for encouraging his racist supporters to harass Leslie Jones and send her gorilla memes (a wildly racist trope, as you know). So yes, he's racist.

He didn't encourage any of his fans to harass Leslie Jones. That is misinformation.

Leslie Jones was making quite a number of remarks about people that were criticising the Ghostbuster movie trailer.

Milo made one comment saying she looked like a dude (which is quite rude). Most of the other comments towards her were made hours before he retweeted her.

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

#388

Post by doublekill »

munificent wrote: post #269
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…

Alex Jones deserves to be de-platformed and probably put in jail for the trauma his behavior caused to the parents of Sandy Hook victims, if nothing else.

So you are saying that Alex Jones is a dangerous criminal, and that I can make the world a better place by taking him out, killing his vile speech, if nothing else?

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

#390

Post by MockObject »

balfirevic wrote: post #230
vowelless wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The argument is about whether Facebook is a platform or a publisher. This discussion has been going on for years and not just on HN. Being a platform, like ATT telephone lines, bring certain protections from lawsuits of content. The core of net neutrality is also based on a similar idea; with net neutrality, platforms (cable companies) can not between distinguish services (like throttling Netflix). In the exact same…

> Hope this helps. Thanks for the clarification, but I don't find it convincing. I disagree with the underlying premise that we should clump social media into (only) two categories (platforms and publishers) where if you exercise any editorial control you are immediately categorized as "publisher" (category that is appropriate for an entity that explicitly and deliberately chooses everything it publishes) and where o…

> I disagree with the underlying premise that we should clump social media into (only) two categories (platforms and publishers)

If I'm not mistaken, this is a matter of existing case law, so our agreement or disagreement doesn't really matter.

Post reply on HN