471–480 of 776 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Some people like to have an unlimited variety of opinions available, and others like to live in an echo chamber. Facebook is very good at creating echo chambers.
This sets up a false dichotomy. There are plenty of opinions of a variety of flavors available after removing these people.
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…
I've never voted Republican.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Saying racist stuff constantly but playing it off as "ironic" and wearing a suit doesn't make it less racist. Good, they should have kicked these guys off years ago.
Any examples of Milo making a racist remark? Afaik his criticism is mainly towards certain cultures. Not races.
Social media should reflect the first amendment. Let's get with the times here...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Facebook is arguably the new public square, which is precisely my point. Hey, I think Clay Shirky wants his point from 2008 back. Since we actually have more than 10 years to have reflected on this idea, we can now see it's patently nonsense, given that the idea of the "public square" doesn't encompass harvesting the conversations which happen therein, aggressive tailored marketing, and leaking of personal informat…
> given that the idea of the "public square" doesn't encompass harvesting the conversations which happen therein, aggressive tailored marketing, and leaking of personal information from everyone who crosses through. Oh, so marketers aren't allowed to poll, film or listen in on conversations that happen out in public? In fact that's perfectly legal. > Facebook capitalises on the notion of a public square. That does no…
Is HN not a public forum as well? Are my constitutional rights being violated when a moderator deletes something a post here on HN?
What about all those shadow banned users, are they entitled to their free speech on any website that allows comments?
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.…
Lewis v. Jones deposition[1] @ 6:15-9:10 you'll find a clip of Jones on the day of the Sandy Hook shooting saying it was staged. If Jones didn't "invent" the ridiculous theory then whoever did got word of it to Alex Jones at record speed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Did you seriously just link to Buzzfeed? No further comment.
Buzzfeed and Buzzfeed News are very different. Your dismissal is pretty ignorant.
I think not differentiating the branding better was a mistake, considering buzzfeed is synonymous with clickbait.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How about white supremacy? Islamism? Communism? Westboro Baptist church? The more radical parts of Black Lives Matter? I don't think Facebook needs to host people who's political opinions they don't share but it can be tricky the draw the line.
Why not, just allow everything that is legal? There is no need to be the arbiter of what is right for the world.
If the wider population actually started using Gab and Minds without hesitation like they use Facebook and Twitter, the extremists would be immediately drowned out and only constitute a tiny fraction of 1%, the same as in reality, and their threads would be filled with counter-arguments rather than reaffirmations.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am very much in favor of Free Speech myself. But I think the annoying thing people forget is that it's the job of society to determine what is okay and what isn't. The government isn't supposed to decide our morals, we tell the government what those should be. Society is deciding that this is not stuff we want. Society is rejecting these ideas, and Facebook or Cloudflare when they dropped the Daily Stormer, etc, ar…
Society isn't deciding, Facebook is deciding. I personally think Facebook can do whatever the please with their website. However, if they remove the users they don't like then that implies they approve of the users that remain.
Facebook doesn't care about shit, but their bottom line. They have proven that time and time again. This should highlight the social pressures, because they are not legally responsible as far as anyone can tell. Thus, society is deciding.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As if other religions had a sane non violent healthy mythology. Please.
ah yes, argumentum ad cultural relitivismus. does this actually negate my point? nevermind the fact that it is not actually true.. christanity, buddhism, sikhism, etc. among many, many, others do not have racism as part of their theological core doctrines . This is not to say that strands of any haven't misused the theology in the name of racism, but your claim is patently false.
In any case what does it matter? What matters is how many people suffer and die at the behest of a religion, regardless if you can pinpoint racism or not.