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

391–400 of 776 posts

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

#391

Post by maximus1983 »

dullgiulio wrote: post #161
throwawaysea wrote: post #141

WHY THIS IS CENSORSHIP: I am seeing numerous comments claiming this is not censorship when it most definitely is. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship > Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information, on the basis that such material is considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or "inconvenient". Censorship can be conducted by a government, private institutions, and co…

Not giving a microphone to someone is not the same as censoring them.

These platforms are so large now and most of the public discourse happens on them. So it is effectively silencing them.

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

#392

Post by matt4077 »

cowwithbeef wrote: post #322
username223 wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. Why are the measles still a thing?

The MMR vaccine does not give full immunity(the reason booster shots exist), immigrants can enter the country while carrying the disease, and sometimes live virus vaccines like MMR can leave the people who get them contagious. The only ways to have zero cases of any disease in the country are to either eradicate it globally (like small pox), or to eradicate it nationally and prevent cross border transmission (like po…

I’m flagging this for the xenophobic/racist stereotype that immigrants are a major source of MMR. Recent data on measles, the disease currently in the news, show that rates in Central America are comparable to or even lower than in the US: https://www.who.int/immunization/monitoring_surveillance/bur...

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

#393

Post by gridlockd »

ilikehurdles wrote: post #346
gridlockd wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I had to look up the context for this and as expected it's not quite the way you make it sound.

You use the word "trans students" in the plural, but it was only a single student. The photo shown was a screen grab from an interview that this person themself chose to give to local television, in which their name and university association is displayed. It's not like Milo "outed" anyone here.

The speech in question:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-t1ufzttyUM&feature=youtu.be...

If this passes the threshold of "dangerous", that's a very low threshold.

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

#394

Post by floatingatoll »

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…

The same “slippery slope” argument that’s used to defend GPL3’s extraordinary licensing reach and “don’t let anyone search your phone” activism applies here as well.

Is it a slippery slope from Milo to White Supremacy? Yes. Does WS endorse violence towards others? Yes. Therefore, is it dangerous to others to give Milo a platform? Yes.

If you don’t believe in slippery slope arguments, that’s your right, but there’s quite a lot of sociology contradicting you, and the various internet platforms are realizing that the sociology (and memeticists) were probably right all along.

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

#395

Post by DuskStar »

reissbaker wrote: post #320
cat199 wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 perpetrate…

I think cat199's point was that Farrakhan isn't just 'anti semitic'. There's quite a lot wrong with the NOI besides that.

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

#396

Post by 50656E6973 »

munificent wrote: post #275
50656E6973 wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>What is it that blesses SV neo-something-or-other as the one true faction that has finally discovered the objective truth? They are self-anointed by nature of being de facto gate keepers of the global information flow. Similar to how the Church used to be the gatekeepers of information, and were compelled to silence "blasphemous" ideas that they didn't like.

They aren't self-anointed. We anointed them by using their platform. They're only gatekeepers because we user keeping choosing to walk through their gate instead of choosing any of the many other paths onto the Internet.

>They aren't self-anointed. We anointed them by using their platform

Nahhh, it's way more nuanced than that. They started as user friendly simple services with little to no purposeful mass censorship. Then the user base grew into the billions effectively creating captive audience due to the network effect. Then they became increasingly user hostile (i.e. switching from chronological timeline to a psychologically manipulative news feed) and got into the business of political mass censorship and electioneering; like a bait and switch.

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

#397

Post by colordrops »

Fellshard wrote: post #380
colordrops wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, you are arguing in very bad faith to ignore the millions dead in the middle east in the last 20 years due to sectarian fighting between abrahamic faiths.

Just one.

The level of discussion in this thread is unfortunate.

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

#398

Post by cybersnowflake »

All you guys using freemarket/private enterprise excuses to support this have no justification supporting net neutrality or any antidiscrimination 'public accommodation' laws ie (forced SSM cake baking, government interference in private business's choice of customer/employee). Either government steps in for the greater good or it doesn't. You can't have it both ways.

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

#399

Post by reissbaker »

DuskStar wrote: post #395
reissbaker wrote: post #320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 perpetrate…

I think cat199's point was that Farrakhan isn't just 'anti semitic'. There's quite a lot wrong with the NOI besides that.

Oh, I misunderstood then. Yeah, there's a lot there.

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

#400

Post by adamson »

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…

Wasn't Milo's book literally titled "Dangerous"?
Post reply on HN