Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Meta Ending Suspension of Trump’s Accounts

about.fb.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 77 posts

Re: Meta Ending Suspension of Trump’s Accounts

#41

Post by spamuel »

ihatepython wrote: post #35
rootusrootus wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be fair, it has been quite a while (not in our lifetime AFAIK) since we had a sitting president with such antisocial behavior tendencies. It was uncharted territory.

Bill Clinton? Bush? Obama? Not at all uncharted territory.

What happened between 2016 and 2020 in the name of making sure people understood that supporting Trump would not be tolerated truly boggles the mind.

For three years they used the FBI to threaten his family and jail his friends under an investigation into what we now know was a political campaign weapon falsified by the Clinton campaign. And the FBI knew that immediately as well. With Adam Schiff out there every day swearing that behind closed doors with the intelligence community he knew of big things that were going to come to light any day now.

But it worked. The political weapon did exactly what it was supposed to do.

Moreso than the right, it broke the left into the hyper-defensive ideological mess that it is right now. Fully embracing things that were mere crackpot ideas of their most wild-eyed constituents in the Obama years.

Re: Meta Ending Suspension of Trump’s Accounts

#42

Post by refurb »

thinking4real wrote: post #7

“The public should be able to hear what politicians are saying so they can make informed choices.” Oh that’s hilarious. After tech companies stifling a sitting president, now they are going to straight faced claim this like it means a damn thing. This is insulting to users’ intelligence.

I feel like I'm taking crazy pills reading this sentence from the "Oversight Board".

https://www.oversightboard.com/news/226612455899839-oversigh...

The Board found that the two posts by Mr Trump on 6 January severely violated Facebook's Community Standards and Instagram's Community Guidelines. "We love you. You're very special" in the first post, and "great patriots" and "remember this day forever" in the second post violated Facebook's rules prohibiting praise or support of people engaged in violence.

This seems like a ridiculous stretch of "praise of support of people engaged in violence" when right before "We love you." is "We have to have peace. So go home."

It's pretty clear this was a post facto decision - Trump needed to be banned, so let's see if we can come up with something to ban him for.

Re: Meta Ending Suspension of Trump’s Accounts

#43

Post by throwaway2729 »

ihatepython wrote: post #35
rootusrootus wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be fair, it has been quite a while (not in our lifetime AFAIK) since we had a sitting president with such antisocial behavior tendencies. It was uncharted territory.

Bill Clinton? Bush? Obama? Not at all uncharted territory.

Do you think we are all stupid?

Re: Meta Ending Suspension of Trump’s Accounts

#44

Post by throwaway2729 »

spamuel wrote: post #41
ihatepython wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bill Clinton? Bush? Obama? Not at all uncharted territory.

What happened between 2016 and 2020 in the name of making sure people understood that supporting Trump would not be tolerated truly boggles the mind. For three years they used the FBI to threaten his family and jail his friends under an investigation into what we now know was a political campaign weapon falsified by the Clinton campaign. And the FBI knew that immediately as well. With Adam Schiff out there every day…

Yes. It was not his racist statements or his incompetence. It was what Adam Schiff did. For pete's sake, FBI literally handed him the 2016 election.

Re: Meta Ending Suspension of Trump’s Accounts

#45

Post by refurb »

peterashford wrote: post #23
lazzlazzlazz wrote: post #10

It was insane that this ever happened, honestly. I'm interested to hear what history decides, but it's hard to sympathize with.

Obviously, your intuition differs, but my view (as a New Zealander) is that Trump absolutely broke the terms of use of the platforms he was on and deserved being banned. Free speech means that you can't be imprisoned for your political views, not that everyone owes you a platform.

But what specific terms did he break?

https://www.oversightboard.com/news/226612455899839-oversigh...

They said his comment "We have to have peace. So go home. We love you. You're very special." and "from great patriots who have been badly, unfairly treated for so long. Go home with love in peace. Remember this day forever!"

As "praising or supporting people committing violence".

He literally said "we have to have peace" and "go home" and that, to you, is "deserving being banned"?

Re: Meta Ending Suspension of Trump’s Accounts

#46

Post by spamuel »

throwaway2729 wrote: post #44
spamuel wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What happened between 2016 and 2020 in the name of making sure people understood that supporting Trump would not be tolerated truly boggles the mind. For three years they used the FBI to threaten his family and jail his friends under an investigation into what we now know was a political campaign weapon falsified by the Clinton campaign. And the FBI knew that immediately as well. With Adam Schiff out there every day…

Yes. It was not his racist statements or his incompetence. It was what Adam Schiff did. For pete's sake, FBI literally handed him the 2016 election.

What racist statements? Please say "rapists and murderers".

James Comey said a true thing - Hillary Clinton was under investigation for using a personally owned and possessed BES for official state department communications, which she destroyed when the FBI wanted to review its contents because what she was doing was illegal and a huge security problem. She was never charged.

And then the FBI went on to pretend well after they knew otherwise that the Clinton-fabricated Steele dossier might be legitimate.

Re: Meta Ending Suspension of Trump’s Accounts

#47

Post by stonogo »

sedivy94 wrote: post #31
stonogo wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>the crime of walking through a building; Why are you introducing inflammatory irrelevant misreprentations of the facts instead of addressing the point of my question?

That’s a reference to the dozens of Americans detained for over a year with no charges or due process. I would pick a different hill to die on.

Not that I believe you can show me anyone in prison for, or being charged with, "walking through a building," but the point of my question was whether it was impossible to believe that a change in policy at Meta could possibly be the result of good-faith reconsideration of the debate. Instead I got fanfiction with irrelevant agenda-fueled talking points. I'm not dying on any hills, I'm asking why the distraction instead of just considering the possibility that someone might agree with him. Getting this much flak about it is wild.

Re: Meta Ending Suspension of Trump’s Accounts

#48

Post by stonogo »

NtochkaNzvanova wrote: post #39
stonogo wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>the crime of walking through a building; Why are you introducing inflammatory irrelevant misreprentations of the facts instead of addressing the point of my question?

I addressed the point of your question directly by offering a plausible alternative explanation for what's going on here.

No, you wrote fanfiction about cartoon villains, without explaining at all why it's not even possible that this policy change could have come about through internal reconsideration of the merits of the ban within Meta. I don't know why you bothered, but it has nothing to do with my question.

Re: Meta Ending Suspension of Trump’s Accounts

#49

Post by fullmoon »

CamperBob2 wrote: post #5
rvz wrote: post #4

[flagged]

[flagged]

When writing those witty comparisons, do you ever stop and think about the millions of human beings that were murdered by actual fascism, or do you pretend that you actually give a damn and are fighting an internet fight against fascism?

Re: Meta Ending Suspension of Trump’s Accounts

#50

Post by [deleted] »

0xy wrote: post #30
el_benhameen wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trump-endorsed candidates underperformed in the midterms and in previous elections. Trump talking hurts the party. If anything, keeping him off the platforms until after the midterms helped Republicans.

Maybe they underperformed because the platforms he used to win in 2016 banned him? Make no mistake, Trump won in '16 because of Twitter & FB reach.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN