Facebook Bans Louis Farrakhan, Milo Yiannopoulos, InfoWars and Others • Hacker News Board

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

#401

Post by spraak » Thu, May 02, 2019, 10:14 PM UTC

frabbit wrote: post #316

cm2012 wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Horoscropes don't have a victim. Stuff like elders of zion portrays jewish people as villains, to real and tangible consequences (did you know anti-semitic hate crimes are up around 300% of the last two years?).

What about Madeleine Albright spreading the idea the killing hundreds of thousands of children is `a price worth paying' on every media platform in the US? What about the relentless promotion of capitalism and growth which is ultimately going to see us all as victims? I detest the right-wing in all its forms, including its Democrat and Republican wings but I cannot see any ultimately positive outcome in banning their…

For what it's worth, I agree*

*I know that "me too" comments are discouraged here, but when I see someone so downvoted I'd like to show my support, even though it doesn't really offer anything.

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

#402

Post by hackerpacker » Thu, May 02, 2019, 10:16 PM UTC

jeffrom wrote: post #343

hackerpacker wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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

that study is a case study in selection bias by someone with a political agenda.

You can't just look at actions by one somewhat arbitrary group against another, and not look at the actions of anyone else, unless you are expressly trying to be misleading.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_crime_in_Germa...

You can see that the other "group" here, whos actions are deliberately being ignored by the author and everyone else with an agenda, have brought a lot of violence of their own to the table. Or at least have enough conflicting data points to not pretend to "know" something about facebook and framed studies.

"The group represented roughly 2 percent of the German population by end of 2017,[10] but was suspected of committing 8.5 percent of crimes (violations off the German alien law are not included). The numbers suggest that the differences could at least to some extent have to do with the fact that the refugees are younger and more often male than the average German. The statistics show that the asylum-group is highly overrepresented for some types of crime. They account for 14.3 percent of all suspects in crimes against life (which include murder, manslaughter and involuntary manslaughter), 12.2 percent of sexual offences, 11.4 percent of thefts and 9.7 percent of body injuries The report also shows differences between the origin of migrants. Syrians are underrepresented as suspects, whereas citizens from most African countries, especially northern Africans are strongly overerrepresented. Afghans and Pakistanis are particularly overerrepresented in sexual offenses.[7][10]"

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

#403

Post by DuskStar » Thu, May 02, 2019, 10:16 PM UTC

faissaloo wrote: post #156

donatj wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While the first two points are obviously blatantly false, soy does contain high levels of phytoestrogen which there are some studies indicating it may cause your body to perceive increased estrogen levels. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3074428/

Sure but the body can't actually use phytoestrogen the same way so it's harmless. If you want to now what's making men docile and feminine look towards pollution of the air and water supplies.

> If you want to know what's making men docile and feminine look towards pollution of the air and water supplies.

But not the food supplies? Just air and water?

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

#404

Post by astura » Thu, May 02, 2019, 10:19 PM UTC

BickNowstrom wrote: post #194

astura wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah and for Alex Jones: The government has ‘weather weapons’ Chemicals in the water are turning frogs gay Robert Mueller is a demon, and also a pedophile The Sandy Hook shooting was staged Hillary Clinton is running a child sex ring out of a pizza parlor Source: https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/14/alex-jones-5-most-disturbing...

The government has weather weapons. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_Modification_Con... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weather_warfare https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Popeye Chemicals in the water are turning the frogs gay. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-environment-potomac/sex-c... For Mueller, Sandy Hook, and Pizzagate, Alex Jones speculated and reported on these existing conspiracy theories.…

The topic at hand is how fringe his beliefs are, not how accurate or original.

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

#405

Post by rhizome » Thu, May 02, 2019, 10:20 PM UTC

vowelless wrote: post #116

rhizome wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> is simply being “racist” sufficient justification for a ban It can be, if the site decides it is. Other places, it isn't!

It’s great that the site decides. It is exerting editorial control in this case. Hence, they should be liable for the speech that they do allow. Which means, they should be sueable if a user does slander on their platform, posts copyrightable material, etc.

>Hence, they should be liable for the speech that they do allow

You're going to have to repeal §230 of the CDA, then.

https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230

Good luck.

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

#406

Post by elliekelly » Thu, May 02, 2019, 10:20 PM UTC

BickNowstrom wrote: post #361

elliekelly wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

- De La Rosa v. Alex Jones et al. (D-1-GN-18-001842) - Heslin v. Alex Jones et al. (D-1-GN-18-001835) - Fontaine v. Alex Jones et al. (D-1-GN-18-001605) - Scarlett Lewis vs. Alex Jones, InfoWars LLC et al. (D-1-GN-18-006623)

I am familiar with those lawsuits. Alex Jones did not promote harassment. He did not even factually conclude that Sandy Hook was a hoax, just floated the possibility. He reported on anomalies, on the conspiracy, on using Sandy Hook as a pretext to take away guns, on Adam Lanza probably using big pharma drugs. He stated that he understands why people would see Sandy Hook as a hoax, because history shows other events h…

> He did not even factually conclude that Sandy Hook was a hoax, just floated the possibility.

So on April 16, 2013 on his YouTube channel when he said “Sandy Hook was staged, and the evidence is overwhelming” he was just “floating the possibility?”

That’s an awfully definitive statement from someone who’s supposedly speaking of a hypothetical.

Edit: I also see you managed to sneak an edit into your first comment after I provided the citations. What originally read "Can you support your statements" now reads "Can you support your statements with direct quotes." A+ effort at moving the goal posts.

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

#407

Post by thinkingemote » Thu, May 02, 2019, 10:22 PM UTC

threatofrain wrote: post #345

thinkingemote wrote: post #339

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Ahh yes! And every real public space has its by laws and regulations too. Thanks.

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

#408

Post by pmarreck » Thu, May 02, 2019, 10:22 PM UTC

I suggest a machine should be taught how to identify conversations about the merit of "deplatforming", and then use the ML to autoban those conversations in order to teach a valuable lesson in civics

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

#409

Post by dariusj18 » Thu, May 02, 2019, 10:23 PM UTC

serf wrote: post #354

cm2012 wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Horoscropes don't have a victim. Stuff like elders of zion portrays jewish people as villains, to real and tangible consequences (did you know anti-semitic hate crimes are up around 300% of the last two years?).

>Horoscropes don't have a victim. they don't? it's a multi-million dollar industry that sells non-information to people; some of these people so stupid that they ingest it as factual gospel and use it to run their lives. I'm not against it, but it doesn't take a lot of mental gymnastics to see the harmful aspects of horoscopes. The victimization of Andy Kaufman and Steve Jobs using psychic quackery, although differen…

I think the difference is, if a horoscope writer started giving truly dangerous advice, like, "Today's a good day to get bitten by a snake," they would be be considered more dangerous to those who believe in them.

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

#410

Post by rudedogg » Thu, May 02, 2019, 10:24 PM UTC

nickthegreek wrote: post #154

rudedogg wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My personal belief is that Facebook shouldn't be trying to censor speech this way, it's impossible to be (or appear to be) impartial. The people who are booted off just go to their own corner of the internet and never have their ideas challenged. But to answer your question, https://www.facebook.com/kathygriffin/ comes to mind (with the beheaded Trump photo).

The kathy griffin image was a twitter post, not a facebook post. And while that was not a good post, that was a single incident. I don't think it would be correct to put Kathy Griffin and Alex Jones in the same bucket.

> The kathy griffin image was a twitter post, not a facebook post.

The article didn't really say, but I assume the bans are considered based on all their activity, not just Facebook.

> And while that was not a good post, that was a single incident.

The Convington Catholic School thing was another issue. Probably worse in that it was kind of a call to action:

https://twitter.com/kathygriffin/status/1086932616392011776

I think comedians especially should get a lot of slack, but I'd say this fits the bill for being "dangerous" based on the article.

My point is that this won't be viewed as being fair no matter what Facebook does, and rules like these allow you to easily target basically anyone. I don't know the answer, especially when you're an international company. I do think it's going to cause more political animosity though.