Live data from Hacker News

Facebook Bans Louis Farrakhan, Milo Yiannopoulos, InfoWars and Others

edition.cnn.com

581–590 of 776 posts

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

#581

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?

Alex Jones knows he's wrong from the start and does it anyway until he gets to a point where he has to either apologize or make excuses. "Can people not make mistakes?" is such a horseshit question when you're talking about Alex Jones or any of his ilk.

it doesn't matter. just about every media is like that. many are much worse.

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

#582

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?

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

how do you know he questioned sandy hook deliberately? he questions a lot. and he has the right. we have the right to question. and we have the right to be wrong. you sound like a dictator - "he doesn't deserve a second chance!". he's his own boss, you're not his.

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

#583

The ignorance in these comments is astounding. Facebook has already banned many anti-war voices that can in no way be construed as "racist" or bigoted. Its one thing to claim that private companies have the right to silence and censor people, and quite another to cheer on the practice as somehow being desirable.

It's alarming. I feel like the common sentiment on censorship, and many other issues, among my in-group has shifted under my feet. We have existing laws against harassment and terroristic threats, and in the case of Alex Jones it seems to me that those legal avenues are being pursued properly, so de-platforming serves only to create a dangerous precedent. As an anti-war leftist, I know that my group is next on the chopping block if it's not there already.

Yes these are private platforms, but that line of reasoning ignores the extent of the coordination between governments and these corporations. Do any of you Americans ever think how this kind of precedent will play out in smaller countries, where Facebook blindly does the bidding of corrupt governments? The internet and social media networks are the telephone and mail systems of the 21st century. At least until it is more feasible to have an online presence without going through multiple corporations as intermediaries, I think we need to be more diligent about protecting even the ugliest forms of speech on private platforms.

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

#584

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.

You seem to think that it is courageous to echo the dominant opinion that a majority of talking heads and blue checkmarks on Twitter agree with...try doing something radical like criticizing the U.S. war machine, or Israel, or endless neoliberal regime change and see how that works out for you...you'll find out you can criticize these things using your real name, but they'll be concrete consequences

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

#585
post #553

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'…

> 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?

If you can use facebook, youtube or twitter to reach lots of people, how could any one of them be a monopoly on reach?

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

#586
post #553

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'…

> 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?

>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.

This isn't true though. Alex Jones can disseminate his message through countless other websites, which have their own users. This is really just advocating for equal exposure of opinions, which isn't a free speech issue.

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

#587

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 com…

> The shareholders of Facebook are entitled to run their company as they see fit. Because they own it.

That isn't entirely true when we are talking about "customer discrimination"...we'd be having a completely different conversation if Facebook came out and said "we're going to ban Filipinos" or "we're banning those who express anti-war sentiments"...it's a lot easier when the people being persecuted are right-wing nationalists, anti-Israel, or conspiracy nuts...

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

#588

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

I like to think the link is that if people truly think that their discussion and what they've presented than they have nothing to fear. Nor are they willing to sacrifice their integrity for it.

The best possible way of doing this would be if the person is basing this argument from the basis of good intention and good will and that they know the subject is of good. But if you can't do that perhaps deep down in side you know there is something wrong with your position. If you still believe in it you ought to have a solid argument.

Not this every people make mistakes as if all mistakes are the same argument. A distracted mother caused a car accident that kill someone. A drunken driver killed someone in a car accident. Both are mistakes but they're not equal, if they were then one of them wouldn't be likely to have a harsher punishment.

Having a real name forces at person to be honest, civil and actually put real effort into the discussion.

I like to think the people who hides behind these fake names are more like those Klanmen hiding behind those white hooded costumes. I'm not alluding to racism but it is either because deep down inside they know they're wrong or they're not brave enough to stand on their own feet or unwilling to put effort into making a solid argument.

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

#589
post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not what the above poster said, and you know it. You say "marginally", "anyone", "mocking". But the people in question aren't anyone, and they aren't just mocking. 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.

> 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…

They should be suspended with a warning, yes. If they continue to do it, they should be banned.

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

#590

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?

In many smaller countries Facebook is nearly synonymous with the internet itself.

Post reply on HN