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

511–520 of 776 posts

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

#511

Post by Retra »

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…

The answer is to break up the monopoly (assuming it really is one.) Then it doesn't matter so much if they boot people off their platform.

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

#512

Post by wesammikhail »

davidw wrote: post #93
Veen wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And banning Milo from Facebook is going to somehow improve that situation is it? Milo the loud mouthed cretin’s tame insults are responsible for the incidence of violence against trans women?

Yes, it works https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/12/5/18125507/m...

Zack Beauchamp? really? I have no schtick in this debate but damn!! Using Vox´s Zack Beauchamp´s journalistic compass as a judge on what "works" is like if a dude linked you to flatearth.com to prove that circles are actually squares...

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

#513

Post by pixl97 »

scarface74 wrote: post #503
dgzl wrote: post #162

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.

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

And what percent do? Most of the US at this points uses Google, or even chrome directly to search google.

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

#514

Post by marcus_holmes »

tomohawk wrote: post #365
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…

Monopolies do not get to just call themselves a private concern, able to do what they want. We only tolerate monopolies with suitable regulation. For example, we do not allow water, electricity, or other things provided by monopolies to be cut by a company when the company disagrees with the customer's political or other views. In addition, the US federal government only exists to protect the innumerable rights of US…

it's the other way around. Facebook has always been a private concern. At some point it became an effective monopoly. That doesn't stop it from continuing to be a private concern. The process of going from private concern to public concern is called "nationalisation"; the government forcibly buys out the shareholders of Facebook and runs it as a public asset.

The shareholders of Facebook are entitled to run their company as they see fit. Because they own it. Like you can paint the walls of your house whatever colour you like, and if visitors don't like it, then that's their problem.

If we think that Facebook has grown too powerful and intrusive into society to be governed by its shareholders, then nationalisation is completely the correct way to go.

Of course, which nation gets to buy Facebook is another concern... given its global reach, is it really appropriate for the US government to own it? Should the UN "globalise" it instead of the US "nationalising" it?

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

#515

Post by emilfihlman »

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. All in the name of free speech.

It's pretty tiring hearing people complaining about banning the right of movement. I mean, why do you even need a right about being equal in front of the law? Bigger people contribute more and being free costs money anyways, why does it matter if someone owns you? Just be happy you were allowed to think this long for yourself! And stop being so entitled and accept the punishment, nobody owes you to be alive. It's your fault you dropped that tea and just fitting they'll drop your head as punishment.

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

#516

Post by anthony_doan »

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…

Let's take your argument that these corporations are monopoly as truth for a moment, there are still rules.

In the USA, just because we have the first amendment doesn't mean you're not responsible for your words. Fighting words is a thing (it's actually a term), verbal harassment is a thing, etc...

Alex Jones from InfoWar sic his followers to harass the Sandy Hook victims' parents. He was free to say what he wants and then he got ban for inciting unsavory actions.

To be real fair here, I'm pretty dang sure in Facebook's ToS, they have something like no porn allow. Nobody blink an eye on that because that make sense and it's probably some where in the ToS (terms of service). Yet here we got a guy that's advocating his listeners to harass people and a vocal minority of Americans are all up in arm about it. He most likely violated some rules in the ToS.

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

#517

Post by shard972 »

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…

Ah so if something is deemed hateful by someone it should be removed from the internet.

I find your comment quite hateful /s

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

#518

Post by shard972 »

rco8786 wrote: post #510
naasking wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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, ...

Wow, Louis is really getting down with the kids these days.

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

#519

Post by amanaplanacanal »

Simulacra wrote: post #452

I don't agree with this at all. If they want to put a big warning on it, contain the posts, etc. that's fine, but banning is not cool. One person's radical fascist is another person's ardent hero. Facebook should support freedom of speech, not freedom from speech.

What Facebook actually supports is not pissing off their customers. Their business is based on advertising. Advertisers are their customers. I'm not sure why anybody expects anything else.

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

#520

Post by emilfihlman »

aklemm wrote: post #192
sasasassy wrote: post #11

And in Russia they ban instead this or that free speech advocate. And in China it is some other group of people that cannot speak. And in India, and in Brasil, Iran, Pakistan, UK, etc. There are always offensive people or sensitive subjects. The only question is Facebook going to ban each group of people per country basis or globally. If globally, we are going to have a very limited, gray area of speech in Facebook.

We don't need free speech on Facebook, but we do on the Internet. That's the difference in Russia and China, etc.

So do share: most of the Internet is owned by corporations. Which part of that should be free speech protected? Should Google DNS be able to pick and choose? How about routing certain IPs? Why not? IPs are sold and corporations own those just fine and DNS is an open system, just set up your own and don't act entitled!

The cognitive dissonance plaguing most people in this matter is absolutely astonishing.

Post reply on HN