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

541–550 of 776 posts

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

#541

Post by wnoise »

rhizome wrote: post #405
vowelless wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s great that the site decides. It is exerting editorial control in this case. Hence, they should be liable for the speech that they do allow. Which means, they should be sueable if a user does slander on their platform, posts copyrightable material, etc.

> Hence, they should be liable for the speech that they do allow You're going to have to repeal §230 of the CDA, then. https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230 Good luck.

Well, FOSTA/SESTA has already started to dismantle it...

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

#542

Post by simongr3dal »

scarface74 wrote: post #501
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.

I might be playing the devil's advocate a little bit now, but If what these people are saying is truly that toxic that they can be excluded from facebook, twitter, podcast directories, etc. If they really do incite violence and harrasment and spread misinformation.

What's stopping them from ending up like the daily stormer, being "deplatformed" from cloudflare, or ending up like the pirate bay, being blocked by a lot of ISPs world wide?

Or maybe they just deserve it if they can garner enough attention and infamy to get themselves blocked from a hosting company.

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

#543

Post by dx87 »

scarface74 wrote: post #501
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.

Until the their payment processors refuse to do business with them due to political pressure. I guess they could accept money orders or cryptocurrency, but services are centralized to the point that "just create your own website" isn't a simple solution any more.

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

#544

Post by 55555 »

SolaceQuantum wrote: post #78
Veen wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If a group is marginally more likely to suffer violence, anyone mocking them should be denied access to widely used communications platforms? Doesn’t really make sense, does it?

Trans people are not marginally more likely to suffer violence. They're significantly more likely to suffer violence, on the rate of several times more than the general population.

In the USA this doesnt seem to be true. I just looked up the stats. 23 and 27 murders of trans individuals in US over past 2 years. Avg US homicide rate is 5 deaths per 100,000 per year. There are roughly 1.5 million trans individuals so you'd expect 75 or so. However margin of error and confounding variables are massive so my point is just that it seems roughly normal, not that it's safer to be trans. This despite 15% of female transgenders having worked at some time in the sex industry, more involvement with drugs, etc.

If you want some crazy (depressing) stats, look up trans suicide rates. Although I would speculate that only like 1 in 40 attempts succeeds.

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

#545

Post by avinium »

justinmchase wrote: post #212
MagicPropmaker wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Milo is an "edgy" comedian. His shtick is to be provocative. I can't imagine he's dangerous in any real way. Offensive, yes, but not dangerous.

Milo disagrees: https://www.amazon.com/Dangerous-Milo-Yiannopoulos/dp/069289... lol

Eminem also had a track called "Criminal", highlighting the absurdity of labels that people throw around for things they don't like.

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

#546

Post by tropo »

Consultant32452 wrote: post #534
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 not forget that the SCOTUS has ruled Twitter is an official communications platform of the White House. Therefore Trump is not able to block people. It's a weird legal ruling, and it's hard to imagine this doesn't have implications for the rest of us. Can Twitter block you from participating in official White House communications?

It's more than weird. It's a crazy ruling.

The press room in the Whitehouse is an official communications platform of the White House. With that ruling as precedent, can I barge in there? I can even behave better than Jim Acosta.

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

#547

Post by WC3w6pXxgGd »

cwyers wrote: post #48

Putting Louis Farrakhan first, when his relevance has faded a while ago, seems to be a way of trying to paint this as a "both sides" thing.

Farrakhan is a prominent leftist. He was at Aretha Franklin's funeral, seated next to Bill Clinton. The leaders of the Women's March are big fans of his.

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

#548

Post by kevinh »

SlowRobotAhead wrote: post #301
vxNsr wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He's a rabid anti-semite and has been for most of his career. His hate for jews is on the same level as Alex Jones' hate for gay frogs

Yea, Farrakhan belongs on the censored list. He's absolutely a racist and show be disavowed by everyone everywhere. In Jones's gay frog case... there are chemicals that turn frogs gay - that's the strangest thing about his critics... using that to point out how much of a lunatic he is, but... Atrazine [0] IDK... Maybe I'm just bad at hating conservatives... but if I was trying to mock a personality for being crazy, I…

The link you posted is titled "Pesticide Turns Male Frogs into Females". Saying that makes the frogs "gay" raises questions about the person making that assertion.

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

#549

Post by anthony_doan »

stOneskull wrote: post #540
anthony_doan wrote: post #516

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 an…

that was ages ago. he has apologised for questioning sandy hook and talked about it many times, including the recent joe rogan talk. can people not make mistakes? once we're wrong, are we always wrong?

> can people not make mistakes?

I'm sure everyone make mistakes.

I'm not entirely sure if people have made mistake where they stated the the death of children were just a plot to take away guns, that those where child actors and then before I continue I would like to briefly talk about my InforWar products. Buy this rape whistle to support InfoWar. Oh where was I? Right, making money off of the dead kids.

And you're saying this as if this is the only outrageous incidents he have done.

I want you to say it with your real name instead of a pseudo name.

Like how I'm stating my belief on this subject with my real name. Because I'm sure as hell you wouldn't be defending Alex Jones' actions.

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

#550

Post by 0x445442 »

notafraudster wrote: post #536
SlowRobotAhead wrote: post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>FB/YT/Twitter are not fundamental to modern life. Neither are cakes. But people on left celebrating Facebook for doing what they want on their platform - seem quite similar to the people on the left also trying to get a baker forced to make a cake. Can't have it both ways. (edited for clarity)

You can have it both ways. Positions can be motivated either by process out outcome. A process position is "businesses should/should not be able to deny service to people based on ". An outcome position is "We should protect gay couples and not white supremacists". You might not agree with the particular position, you might prefer developing supposedly content-neutral process positions, but many people think that the…

Good arguments can be made that both charities and businesses should be tax exempt. As a sovereign nation, NK should be allowed nuclear weapons if China has them. And the US shouldn't have a standing army, at least if we're being governed by the rules of or founders.

All your examples ultimately boil down to force and have little to do with what ought to be.

Post reply on HN