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

Facebook removed a fact-check on anti-abortion video after Ted Cruz complained

businessinsider.nl

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 148 posts

Re: Facebook removed a fact-check on anti-abortion video after Ted Cruz complained

#51

Post by mrguyorama »

simion314 wrote: post #41

I am not from US so can someone explain why the antiabortion thing seem rise in this last year? Is there some elections and some party is trying to gain votes or some social media trend? My question is about the timing(why now?) and not on "who is the good/bad guy" here.

It's not just now? Anti-abortion has been a huge part of the Republican platform for a very long time, maybe at least the 60's? At least since Roe v Wade (1973). The reason is that there's a large swath of voters who only seem to care about abortion abolition, and will vote for anyone who pushes it, no matter what.

Re: Facebook removed a fact-check on anti-abortion video after Ted Cruz complained

#52

Post by jowsie »

yellow_postit wrote: post #24
dvt wrote: post #15

It's unfortunate that big tech is essentially acting as a "morality arbiter" in such cases -- perhaps we need not only a separation of church and state, but also of tech and state.

How are they in this case? Seems like a straightforward fact based claim. The one side claimed there is never a medical reason for terminating a pregnancy and the fact check organization listed a series of such medical condition such.

What's stranger is that the person claiming there's no medical reason for termination then goes on to list an acceptable medical reason for termination (ectopic pregnancy).

Re: Facebook removed a fact-check on anti-abortion video after Ted Cruz complained

#53

Post by snark42 »

bonerman69 wrote: post #36
Kaveren wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

if you want a social network where you can say whatever you want without interference go use gab or 4chan. it's facebook's choice whether or not they want to do this. edit: "whatever you want" supposed to be figure of speech, seemingly this must be pointed out.

You mean 8chan? I don't know about gab but you can not say whatever you want on 4chan...

> but you can not say whatever you want on 4chan

Since when? Probably depends on which board you're talking about I guess.

Re: Facebook removed a fact-check on anti-abortion video after Ted Cruz complained

#54

Post by Barrin92 »

yourbandsucks wrote: post #30
otachack wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The separation of church and state has been doing wonders, so far. \s

Why the sarcasm? Are people being defenestrated in Prague and I didn't notice? Religious conflict has been on a huge downswing for like 300 years.

If I had to make a guess the users comment aims at the American system where a privatisation of religion in combination with unrestricted free religious speech has mostly let to radicalisation.

The alternative would be models like the UK, Germany or Denmark, where although churches have state representation, the reverse is also true and the state has effectively securalised and reigned religious institutions in.

Re: Facebook removed a fact-check on anti-abortion video after Ted Cruz complained

#55

Post by jjulius »

hartator wrote: post #45
jjulius wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it's not. Please re-read my post. I said that "the fact check itself" is not political. I did not defend the political bias of the video itself. You would also do well to actually read the article, especially the screenshot of the fact-check. You'll notice that the fact-check, per my post, simply addresses the facts of the issue and does not make a single political statement. Edit: You also modified my statement…

The thing is FB is not fact checking leftist videos the same way they were doing with the right. Untrue facts about guns for example are never pointed out. Like almost every guns are semi-automatic. Including revolvers and handguns. Making banning semi-automatic weapons in profit of handguns a non-sense.

>The thing is FB is not fact checking leftist videos the same way they were doing with the right.

Can you please provide data that supports this statement?

>Untrue facts about guns for example are never pointed out.

Using absolutes such as "never" in a statement like that can often be a bit of a stretch. Like my last question, do you have proof that Facebook has never fact-checked a single gun video?

Re: Facebook removed a fact-check on anti-abortion video after Ted Cruz complained

#56

Post by save_ferris »

simion314 wrote: post #41

I am not from US so can someone explain why the antiabortion thing seem rise in this last year? Is there some elections and some party is trying to gain votes or some social media trend? My question is about the timing(why now?) and not on "who is the good/bad guy" here.

Abortion was long considered a settled issue due to the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision many years ago. However, a lot of attention has been directed at the current court, which has insinuated that they're interested in overturning the ruling, which would be chaotic and deeply controversial.

Re: Facebook removed a fact-check on anti-abortion video after Ted Cruz complained

#57

Post by dvt »

AlexandrB wrote: post #23
dvt wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your inflammatory pseudo-counter-argument doesn't change the fact that abortion in cases of non-life-threatening births remains morally problematic. The personhood debate is nontrivial and unless, like e.g., Peter Singer, you're willing to (excuse the pun) throw the baby out with the bathwater, justification for mid-to-late-term abortions is quite difficult and rife with edge cases.

However forcing someone to carry a baby to term is also morally problematic. Even non-life-threatening births carry risks of bodily harm.

> However forcing someone to carry a baby to term is also morally problematic

There are plenty of pro-choice arguments, but this is not a very good one.

Coercion is often justifiably used when lives are at stake. For example, the government might "force" sick people in a quarantine given an epidemic outbreak. What you want to show is that the fetus is not a person and, therefore, doesn't have the same rights as the mother. This is difficult, but not impossible -- although there are some concessions that need to be made along the way.

Re: Facebook removed a fact-check on anti-abortion video after Ted Cruz complained

#58

Post by simion314 »

ceejayoz wrote: post #47
simion314 wrote: post #41

I am not from US so can someone explain why the antiabortion thing seem rise in this last year? Is there some elections and some party is trying to gain votes or some social media trend? My question is about the timing(why now?) and not on "who is the good/bad guy" here.

The Supreme Court's rightward shift under Trump is likely to have significant impact on the legality of abortion in the US.

Is Trump and his group declared anti-abortion? Would this gain more votes the one lost?

I was thinking that our politicians would use a technique to say or do something controversial at convenient time so all media and public would be distracted from the actual thing happening. This smells like such a thing but it is probably what you said;

Re: Facebook removed a fact-check on anti-abortion video after Ted Cruz complained

#59

Post by bdamm »

cybersnowflake wrote: post #29
pjc50 wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Going" downhill? https://www.vox.com/2015/12/1/9827886/abortion-clinic-attack... "Since 1977 there have been eight murders, 17 attempted murders, 42 bombings, and 186 arsons targeted at abortion clinics and providers across the United States. In some cases, a small group of clinics have been targeted multiple times."

8 murders in 42 years for something as hotbutton as abortion? Wow...given how the msm constantly carries on about this stuff you'd think prolifers were flying planes into abortion clinics every other day. Every so often I see stories of people murdered because they didn't want an abortion, why not keep a running tally of that? How does that stack up against the 60 million deaths since 73 for the other side? How many…

Unborn babies are always biologically distinguishable from babies that are already born. Unborn babies haven't yet taken a breath, have not been exposed to light, and still gather nutrients from the placenta. Inflation of the lungs happens immediately after birth, among a cascade of other events that happen quickly following birth, clearly distinguishing an unborn baby from a born baby.

Re: Facebook removed a fact-check on anti-abortion video after Ted Cruz complained

#60

Post by spamizbad »

AlexandrB wrote: post #23
dvt wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your inflammatory pseudo-counter-argument doesn't change the fact that abortion in cases of non-life-threatening births remains morally problematic. The personhood debate is nontrivial and unless, like e.g., Peter Singer, you're willing to (excuse the pun) throw the baby out with the bathwater, justification for mid-to-late-term abortions is quite difficult and rife with edge cases.

However forcing someone to carry a baby to term is also morally problematic. Even non-life-threatening births carry risks of bodily harm.

Not to mention the psychological trauma of carrying a child that can be "safely" birthed but will immediately begin a slow, painful death after leaving the womb. This is the typical case for most so-called "late term abortions" that everyone clutches their pearls over.

Anyway, I find people's thinking around the morals of abortion to be quite fluid . The termination rate of pregnancies with chromosomal abnormalities far exceeds the percentage of people who identify as "pro choice" and cannot be explained simply by pro-choice people being more prone to fetuses with such conditions.

Post reply on HN