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

Facebook Bans Louis Farrakhan, Milo Yiannopoulos, InfoWars and Others

edition.cnn.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

501–510 of 776 posts

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

#501

Post by scarface74 »

badatshipping wrote: post #252

Every time this subject comes up, someone inevitably says something like "Facebook is a private corporation, the first amendment only applies to the government, and if you want to use Facebook you have to play by their rules. No one is owed a platform." Platforms like Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter are basically monopolies. They are the only services in their class to take seriously if you're looking to gain a follow…

Anyone can set up a website, create an email list, etc., do some guerrilla marketing the old fashion way.

If their followers were truly that in love with them, surely they can find a way to fund their own website.

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

#502

Post by SantalBlush »

badatshipping wrote: post #252

Every time this subject comes up, someone inevitably says something like "Facebook is a private corporation, the first amendment only applies to the government, and if you want to use Facebook you have to play by their rules. No one is owed a platform." Platforms like Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter are basically monopolies. They are the only services in their class to take seriously if you're looking to gain a follow…

I have little sympathy for free-market-leaning personalities who feel the sting of market forces with regard to censorship. They essentially want these platforms to be regulated like utilities, all while they simultaneously disparage utilities.

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

#503

Post by scarface74 »

dgzl wrote: post #162
iscrewyou wrote: post #35

It’s only unfortunate that it took social networks this long to ban their toxic behavior and talk. These people did a lot of damage. A lot. All in the name of free speech. And to those saying, just because Facebook can, doesn’t mean they should. These people had the same freedom. Just because they can, they shouldn’t. But they chose hatred. And here we are. You reap what you sow. Facebook doesn’t owe them anything. E…

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.

And anyone is free to click on the text box on the top of their browser and go to any website they wish.

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

#504

Post by cm2012 »

tastygreenapple wrote: post #426
smrtinsert wrote: post #375

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If someone is married to a woman they can't be a misogynist?

Can an anti-Semite marry a Jewish person? Can a black supremacist marry a white person?

Yes to both

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

#505

Post by tptacek »

rayiner wrote: post #488
tptacek wrote: post #385

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes? Facebook should ban racism against Turkish people? I'm not sure I see how that's an interesting or difficult call to make.

I don’t know if I agree with that. The Turkish ethnostate tried to wipe Armenians off the map. Who is Facebook to tell Armenians how they can express their response to that?

They're Facebook. They run Facebook. That is the source from which they draw their authority to ban racism against the 80 million men, women, and children who inhabit Turkey. On Facebook, I mean.

I take your point and am not trying to be snarky. I just don't see the problem here. The legitimate historical grievances of Armenians are orthogonal to what Facebook should allow to happen on their platform.

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

#506

Post by tptacek »

balls187 wrote: post #500
tptacek wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Black", in the "African American" sense we're talking about here, is a distinct and coherent culture, ironically one forcibly created by white slave traders who kidnapped Africans and stripped them of their names, languages, and cultures and left them in 19th century North America to build a new one for themselves, which they did. American Black culture includes jazz and (later) hip-hop, the Harlem Renaissance, a hu…

There is no point in attempting to argue with racists.

Who's arguing? The question was asked, and I'm answering it. This is like one of the very few social controversies you can resolve axiomatically in an HN comment.

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

#507

Post by [deleted] »

toasterlovin wrote: post #432
ilikehurdles wrote: post #332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Platforms like Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter are basically monopolies Monopolies of what, exactly? I admit to sometimes looking at entertaining videos on youtube. About an hour or maximum two hours a week worth. I'm not sure what you're suggesting that facebook and twitter are monopolizing. I haven't used the former in years and the latter just about ever -- aside from maybe five tweets over the course of twitter'…

I'm not fully thought out on this, but I think a decent starting analogy would be to a public square or space in a city. These companies hold a monopoly on the online equivalent of that because of the way network effects work.

[deleted]

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

#508

Post by pmarreck »

colordrops wrote: post #454
pmarreck wrote: post #414

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hate to break the news to you, but... https://qr.ae/TWIst4 "...Anti-religion has caused more deaths than religion" I'm no fan of abrahamic faiths nor religion in general, though. I just try to separate fact from fiction. I'm kept very busy. ;)

Are you arguing that the middle east would be more violent without religion? I said nothing about secular groups being non violent by the way.

I'm arguing that we have no way to tell if religion is simply just the excuse to make war instead of some other tribal us-vs-them mentality, which humans (throughout history, alas) are wont to do

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

#509

Post by rco8786 »

badatshipping wrote: post #252

Every time this subject comes up, someone inevitably says something like "Facebook is a private corporation, the first amendment only applies to the government, and if you want to use Facebook you have to play by their rules. No one is owed a platform." Platforms like Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter are basically monopolies. They are the only services in their class to take seriously if you're looking to gain a follow…

I’m curious what definition of monopoly you’re using here

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

#510

Post by rco8786 »

naasking wrote: post #177
iscrewyou wrote: post #35

It’s only unfortunate that it took social networks this long to ban their toxic behavior and talk. These people did a lot of damage. A lot. All in the name of free speech. And to those saying, just because Facebook can, doesn’t mean they should. These people had the same freedom. Just because they can, they shouldn’t. But they chose hatred. And here we are. You reap what you sow. Facebook doesn’t owe them anything. E…

> These people did a lot of damage. A lot. Like what? If this damage is so prevalent then it should be easy to cite something specific.

Pizzagate, gamergate, sandy hook hoax, subscribe to pewdiepie, ...
Post reply on HN