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

551–560 of 776 posts

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

#551

Post by tortasaur »

anthony_doan wrote: post #549
stOneskull wrote: post #540

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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.

Of course they wouldn't, but I don't see why this is a point you would like to make. They would face the potential for real-life backlash if any of many mobs prowling the internet noticed their comment. You can post safely because you're voicing a majority-held opinion.

I'm not seeing the link between "there are people actively seeking to ruin the lives of those holding thoughts like yours" and "what you're saying is incorrect". The mob is always right?

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

#552

Post by mcguire »

BickNowstrom wrote: post #493
astura wrote: post #404

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The topic at hand is how fringe his beliefs are, not how accurate or original.

People use the bucket "fringe" to marginalize and ridicule people. To say how they are wrong and that the majority has the right answer. Did you know they are putting chemicals in the water that change the sex of frogs? Did you know that the government has weather weapons? The article supporting the claims talks of disturbing and ridiculous conspiracy theories, while these theories are factual. Even the pizzagate ema…

The chemicals in the water changing the sex of frogs (and fish) are herbicides, pesticides, and the output of chemical processes like paper processing. The people putting them there are doing so because it's considerably cheaper than not putting them there. This is not news; it's been known for decades.

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

#553

Post by chii »

ilikehurdles wrote: post #332
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…

> 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'…

> Monopolies of what, exactly?

Monopoly on platform reach. The reach of facebook, or the reach of youtube, twitter etc, is so high, that if you want to disseminate a message, those _must_ be the platforms you use. It's as if they own the radio spectrum, and you have to acquiesce to what they demand to use said spectrum.

Of course, i am free to use smoke signals to send my message, but who will receive it?

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

#554

Post by dang »

Pimpus wrote: post #282
ngcazz wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Milo Yiannopoulos getting the bully pulpit on TV and university stages, to say, as though it were a fait acompli, that trans people are sick is dangerous. Paul Joseph Watson spewing misinformation about the extent of the refugee crisis is dangerous.

Trans people absolutely are sick. Trying to normalize them is, ironically, dangerous and fringe.

If you post flamebait like this again we will ban you.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

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

#555

Post by sagartewari01 »

emilfihlman wrote: post #515
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…

What you are saying is wrong on so many levels. Be grateful that I'm not just replying with a 'scre w you' or 'put something in your mouth', cos that's what you deserve.

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

#556

Post by dang »

Splognosticus wrote: post #376
shaki-dora wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So someone asks for a nexus between Milo and white supremacists, and someone linking a source with a video of him serenading neo-nazis with their arms stretched out gets voted down? The it’s-about-free-speech-not-alt-right-sympathy shtick really needs some update...

[flagged]

Would you please not break the site guidelines by taking HN threads further into ideological flamewar? It's predictable, therefore tedious, therefore off-topic on this site.

Even if other comments are already going there, going there worse is not cool.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

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

#557

Post by tathougies »

sdenton4 wrote: post #497
tathougies wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There are specific cases of them calling on their fans to harass private citizens. Anyone with some semblance of awareness of US law knows free speech is not without limits. No one is entitled to online speech, believe it or not. So will CNN, MSNBC, and the Washington Post be banned from facebook for setting hundreds of doxxers and activists on a high school kid who smiled in a red hat? Man, the lack of introspecti…

So it's ok for Alex Jones to encourage doxxing constantly forever because some bad reporting happened in the main stream media once? Got it.

No not at all. I think they should be banned along with CNN and MSNBC. I don't see why when I suggested banning those two news outlets you immediately assumed it was nuts and the argument was to urban Alex Jones.

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

#558

Post by tenpies »

sdenton4 wrote: post #497
tathougies wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There are specific cases of them calling on their fans to harass private citizens. Anyone with some semblance of awareness of US law knows free speech is not without limits. No one is entitled to online speech, believe it or not. So will CNN, MSNBC, and the Washington Post be banned from facebook for setting hundreds of doxxers and activists on a high school kid who smiled in a red hat? Man, the lack of introspecti…

So it's ok for Alex Jones to encourage doxxing constantly forever because some bad reporting happened in the main stream media once? Got it.

> once?

How fast we forget: https://www.cnn.com/2017/07/04/politics/kfile-reddit-user-tr...

Or take your pick of mainstream media openly inciting violence: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nw9kyYEwg2

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

#559

Post by freewilly1040 »

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?

It wasn’t a mistake, he did what he did quite deliberately. And yeah, not everyone deserves a second chance.

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

#560

Post by Throwway32 »

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.

USENET was the equivalent of a public square on the Internet. It was overwhelmed by spam.

These networks have been curated from the get-go, for no reason other than to control spam. Then, to keep people hooked, they emphasized virality and controversy. These aspects make them quite unlike a town square.

Post reply on HN