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

41–50 of 776 posts

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

#41

Post by ztoben »

olivermarks wrote: post #27
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…

There has to be some sort of US free speech legal action that could be taken to stop this crack down by an internet platform company on free speech. I'm not sure how many people actually take FB seriously as a 'news' platform, but it can be useful to discuss the way corporate entities such as CNN present information on their specific home pages on Facebook.

Legitimate question, is free speech guaranteed on Facebook's platform? Or do they get to decide what content is okay and what isn't?

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

#42

Post by [deleted] »

maximus1983 wrote: post #2

I am sure there will be many people cheering. However people don't seem to realise that just because it isn't you getting censored now, it may well be you in the future. What is deemed acceptable and what isn't deemed acceptable are quite transient. It wasn't long ago it was unacceptable/illegal to be a homosexual, but now it is at least (in the Western world) readily accepted. I wonder if facebook was around in the…

[deleted]

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

#43

Post by tashoecraft »

olivermarks wrote: post #27
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…

There has to be some sort of US free speech legal action that could be taken to stop this crack down by an internet platform company on free speech. I'm not sure how many people actually take FB seriously as a 'news' platform, but it can be useful to discuss the way corporate entities such as CNN present information on their specific home pages on Facebook.

It's a companies private platform, free speech does not apply, facebook can do any sort of censorship they wish.

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

#44

Post by SolaceQuantum »

I don't know about Paul Joseph but I believe Milo has had cases of publicly naming, threatening to name, doxxing, and mocking trans women that study on the campuses that he's spoken at. I belive this is dangerous behavior due to statistic that trans people are especially vulnerable for being murdered compared to the rest of the American population.

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

#45

Post by dclusin »

olivermarks wrote: post #27
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…

There has to be some sort of US free speech legal action that could be taken to stop this crack down by an internet platform company on free speech. I'm not sure how many people actually take FB seriously as a 'news' platform, but it can be useful to discuss the way corporate entities such as CNN present information on their specific home pages on Facebook.

Freedom of speech is only enforced by the courts w.r.t government entities. Private companies can censor speech for any reason, including "I feel like it."

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

#46

Post by aeturnum »

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 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 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. You're not directly responsible exactly, but you're involved somehow.

Where the "line" is and how we talk about it isn't clear, but I think there is a line somewhere and I feel pretty comfortable that the people Facebook banned are probably on the other side of it.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Area_51#UFO_and_other_conspira... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Protocols_of_the_Elders_of... [3] https://www.cdc.gov/measles/cases-outbreaks.html

Edit: I should note, lest anyone think this is all "in the past," that people still claim that "the protocols" is an authentically jewish document that describes real Jewish people.

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

#47

Post by checkyoursudo »

jdlyga wrote: post #13
fopen64 wrote: post #7

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

Louis Farrakhan is leftist, right?

While I have no definitive answer, Farrakhan to me has mostly seemed like an extremist who doesn't neatly fit into the (probably overly simplistic) right-left dichotomy.

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

#49

Post by danso »

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…

Don't know about Watson, but Milo had been previously slapped for an Instagram post that was seen as cheering on an attempted mail bomb attack in October:

https://www.thedailybeast.com/instagram-refuses-to-pull-down...

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

#50

Post by mindslight »

bilbo0s wrote: post #12
psychometry wrote: post #5

...and nothing of value was lost. Facebook is not the government. They have no obligation to allow all speech.

I wish all users had your capacity for reason. FB is private property. Play by their rules or GTFO. People who scream about censorship in instances such as these are being willfully dismissive of the property rights of others. And that's a dangerous road to start down.

By that reasoning, people who "scream" demanding that all races be let into restaurants are also being willfully dismissive of the property rights of others.
Post reply on HN