Facebook Indefinitely Suspends Trump • Hacker News Board

Re: Facebook Indefinitely Suspends Trump

#421

Post by propogandist » Thu, Jan 07, 2021, 5:00 PM UTC

andy_ppp wrote: post #158

ezekg wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yet there was no censorship occurring when the left \b\b\b\b opposing side was encouraging domestic terrorism.

This is a really weird statement, one not backed by facts. Name a mainstream left wing person who was encouraging violence?

Remember many (although not all) of the BLM protests often evolved into violent riots, although the media has refused to cover them as such. They were all classified as peaceful protests and they were all immune from any negative covid coverage;

Vice President-elect Kamala Harris: https://youtu.be/5XxLR2r5oPg

Pelosi: https://www.youtube.com/embed/3fsG5tyxRjw?rel=0 [1]

Rep Maxine Waters; https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/rep-waters-dr...

Rep Ayanna Pressly; https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/aug/17/ayanna-pres...

[1] https://www.businessinsider.com/migrant-children-in-cages-20... // https://www.logically.ai/factchecks/library/aca6ab76

Re: Facebook Indefinitely Suspends Trump

#422

Post by efdee » Thu, Jan 07, 2021, 5:00 PM UTC

tetrometal wrote: post #378

What is unbelievable about that? It's completely reasonable. People were pissed about lack of election transparency. All they wanted were real audits of the election, but all they got was "Shut up, go home, there's no evidence, stop looking into things."

Every single case got struck down by judges. People were pissed about a lack of election transparency that wasn't actually there. If the opinion of judges wasn't enough to convince them, what makes you think that of an auditor would make a difference?

Re: Facebook Indefinitely Suspends Trump

#423

Post by xbar » Thu, Jan 07, 2021, 5:00 PM UTC

Brain-breaking social media platforms have polarized and radicalized us. Zuckerberg's attempts to play both sides and pre-empt a legislative response ring hollow, but that does not make this a bad business nor political decision, in the moment.

Re: Facebook Indefinitely Suspends Trump

#424

Post by rat87 » Thu, Jan 07, 2021, 5:00 PM UTC

Dirlewanger wrote: post #301

kevinmgranger wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When you're more or less encouraging a coup, the "fire in a crowded theater" analogy couldn't be more applicable.

Stop saying it was a coup. A bunch of mostly unarmed morons weren't overtaking anything.

it was an attempted coup its stupidity and lack of success don't change that

Re: Facebook Indefinitely Suspends Trump

#425

Post by pixxel » Thu, Jan 07, 2021, 5:00 PM UTC

Kapura wrote: post #315

This is pathetic, and I would be embarrassed to be a Facebook employee after what has transpired over the past 5 years. Extremely too little too late. The damage has already been done, and done, and done. Over and over again. Journalism is a husk of what it was before Facebook's algorithms became the primary way many consume news. Engagement as the key performance metric has damaged the human project. This company ca…

I personally know of two companies that actively refuse to interview recent Facebook employees. Of course most companies see Facebook employment as a positive.

Re: Facebook Indefinitely Suspends Trump

#426

Post by cbradford » Thu, Jan 07, 2021, 5:00 PM UTC

hundchenkatze wrote: post #381

mechnesium wrote: post #362

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, all he said was: "Big Protest in D.C. on January 6th. Be there, will be wild!" Protest is protected by the first amendment.

What happened was NOT a protest.

As CNN would say.. Fiery but mostly peaceful protest

Re: Facebook Indefinitely Suspends Trump

#427

Post by awb » Thu, Jan 07, 2021, 5:01 PM UTC

aprdm wrote: post #44

Regardless of being the right thing to do or not, it is very interesting to see a software platform banning a president of a country. Interesting times.

Since the election results became apparent cable outlets have begun cutting away from the President’s speeches and tech companies have begun censoring the President’s speech.

Absolutely nothing has changed in the President’s speech or behavior since his 1st speech announcing his candidacy 5 years ago.

We needed a John Hancock 5 years ago that was willing to draw a line on violent speech and disinformation regardless of the consequences. Instead we got media leadership with their thumbs to the wind ignoring their platform policies and hiding behind a “public interest” rationale.

Too little too late.

Re: Facebook Indefinitely Suspends Trump

#428

Post by djsumdog » Thu, Jan 07, 2021, 5:01 PM UTC

andrepd wrote: post #175

I don't like the thought of trillion-dollar advertising companies being the custodians of the platforms where (sadly) a majority of speech in the world happens. That being said, if direct calls to violence and to insurrection against a democracy aren't grounds to take away your megaphone, then what is? If you're a free speech maximalist you'll be opposed to any sort of "censorship" (then again, people with those view…

> direct calls to violence and to insurrection against a democracy

Why do you believe this? The very last message Trump put out was telling people to go home. I've covered both BLM and Trump reallies and I've always felt safer at every Trump protest than at BLM. Even in the case of yesterday, we're seeing clear media manipulation. No one is covering how Trump supporters were let in; how Capitol Police lowered barricades.

Either Capitol Police were terribly incompetent at protecting one of the most secure buildings in the US, or they let this happen. There are videos of people taking selfies with capital police and patting them on the shoulder, thanking them for their service inside the building!

> But if you believe inciting violence and other kinds of things should be punished by law, then you can hardly disagree with this.

YES! Lets' arrest every single person who burned and looted a building during the BLM protests and put them all in jail! Every last one.

Same with the people who went in to the Cap building and stole things. Those are federal crimes; that will get you 3 ~ 8 years! I'm for that too.

Oh and that Federal Guard that shot the Air Force woman, he certainly needs to go to jail.

Only some of those things will happen. Pay attention to which ones.

Re: Facebook Indefinitely Suspends Trump

#429

Post by kansface » Thu, Jan 07, 2021, 5:01 PM UTC

ArnoVW wrote: post #312

kevinmgranger wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When you're more or less encouraging a coup, the "fire in a crowded theater" analogy couldn't be more applicable.

Personally I always feel that the "fire in a crowded theater" is too specific to convince people. Why not use more "every day" examples? * I can't say I earned $0 last year --> tax fraud * I can't say "fuck you" to a judge --> contempt of court * I can't say my software will make you pretty --> advertising fraud * I can't say you robbed me yesterday --> libel I know this is a very European attitude, and always gets A…

Free speech exists in the public square, not on a W2 (you could claim you earned $0 last year all you want, just not to the IRS). In the cases of fraud/libel, the specifics matter.

> it seems obvious that free speech is not absolute

We agree on this, but disagree on where to draw the line. Limiting free speech is an endorsement of the government limiting what I am legally permitted to see, read, and hear. I am unwilling to let the government make that determination on my behalf.

> Just like the right to bear arms does not mean that I can own any type of military weapon.

Private citizens (presumably including the founding fathers) actually used to own canons before the creation of a permanent, federal army!

Re: Facebook Indefinitely Suspends Trump

#430

Post by efdee » Thu, Jan 07, 2021, 5:01 PM UTC

mechnesium wrote: post #362

q3 wrote: post #335

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>direct calls to violence and to insurrection against a democracy Did Trump really call for violence? Are those tweets still accessible somewhere? (Serious question, I did not follow his account.)

No, all he said was: "Big Protest in D.C. on January 6th. Be there, will be wild!" Protest is protected by the first amendment.

In what world is a call for a "wild protest" not a call for violence?