Live data from Hacker News

Facebook Bans Louis Farrakhan, Milo Yiannopoulos, InfoWars and Others

edition.cnn.com

591–600 of 776 posts

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

#591

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think Farrakhan is a really tough case. First, he's cartoonishly anti-semitic and has been for years. He's as much of a hate monger as any of the other people who were banned and that's enough reason to ban him. That given, he has also materially supported vulnerable populations in a way that few organizations have. He has pushed very hard for black people to be proud of their blackness and to create narratives in…

So you've established that it's desirable for black people to be proud of their blackness. Is it desirable for white people to be proud of their whiteness? If you allow for one of these and not the other, you'd be a racist.

Please don't take royal roads to internet flamewars on HN. There's nothing new to be had from any of these arguments. If you want to rehearse them, please do so some other place.

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

Edit: you've done this a lot and we've warned you before. If you continue, we're going to have to ban you. Not for ideological reasons; for boredom avoidance reasons.

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

#592

This is what we get for letting these shady social media companies get into the center of our discourse. Just remember even if you dislike people who are banned, it could be your people next. Social media should reflect the first amendment. Let's get with the times here...

Equal exposure of all opinions is not a First Amendment issue.

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

#593

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you've established that it's desirable for black people to be proud of their blackness. Is it desirable for white people to be proud of their whiteness? If you allow for one of these and not the other, you'd be a racist.

Oh my sweet summer child. What does being proud to be white mean to you?

Please don't respond to flamebait with more of the same. That only leads to hell, and we're trying for this site not to go there.

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

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

#594
post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> to create narratives in which blackness is not looked down upon. This is good, needed work. so like: In the Nation of Islam, both God and the devil are human beings. Elijah Muhammad identified the devil as the white man, the Caucasian race. According to Elijah, though the black race is many trillions of years old, the white race began a mere six thousand years ago with Yakub, one of the Black Gods of this time cycl…

As if other religions had a sane non violent healthy mythology. Please.

Please don't take HN threads further into flamewar, let alone generic religious flamewar.

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

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

#595

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.

The only thing that the constitutional right to freedom of speech guarantees is that the government cannot arrest you for what you say. It doesn’t give you the right to continue using someone’s platform as a megaphone if they decide you’re an asshole. Being banned from Facebook doesn’t mean that these people no longer have the right or ability to spread their message. They can use another platform, or make (or host!)…

These platforms were commanded by official government bodies to censor. The house homeland security committee wrote an open letter to Facebook, Youtube, Twitter and Microsoft after the Christchurch attack

> Your companies must respond to these toxic and violent ideologies with resources and attention.

Now Milo is being kicked out. Now Infowars is being kicked out. It's a clear act of government censorship.

Why do you think they wrote to all big platforms at once? Because they want to completely shut the information down. They want to eliminate the possibility of going elsewhere. They want to eliminate choice completely. They want to eliminate this speech.

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

#596

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm fairly old, thanks, and I understand that Farrakhan has been a loud voice in America. But a radical anti-Semite who uses social media to promote violence against Jews being banned from FB is, IMO, the right thing to do. Being a black political figure isn't an excuse. > Farrakhan has always been anti-Semitic, and nonetheless many black people have been willing to overlook that. Have the Jews he's been targeting wi…

Let me be clear: I think antisemitism should get you banned from Facebook (in the abstract). But if you think that's what this conversation is about, then you're missing the point entirely. My point is: Who are you or I, or the almost entirely white executive leadership and board at Facebook to make the judgment call that his antisemitism justifies silencing his other views, in contravention to how black people have…

Being a culturally significant figure in black politics isn't a good reason to keep someone who's attempting to incite mass murder against a minority religious group on a forum like Facebook. You mention the picture of him standing next to Obama: that's actually a fairly famous photo. Obama explicitly rejected and denounced Farrakhan [1] when he ran for president, and in an ironic turn of events (considering the nascent alt-right's smear of Obama as being supposedly-Muslim) Farrakhan later accused Obama of being "the first Jewish president" who was "selected before he was elected ... [by] rich, powerful members of the Jewish community." [2]

Silencing Farrakhan in general on Facebook is a consequence of silencing his particularly horrifying views about Jews and removing access to the platform he uses to spread them. This isn't because he's a culturally significant black man, it's because he's an anti-Semite. The others de-platformed along with him are not fellow black leaders, they are racists and conspiracy theorists who are similarly dangerous and have similarly used these platforms to spread hatred to millions of followers.

> The original post I was replying to didn't specifically mention antisemitism, it said "racism" is justification for banning someone.

While on the one hand you're claiming to only refer to the hypothetical question of a black leader who is anti-white, you also specifically defend Farrakhan's presence on social media, and question whether Facebook should be able to ban specifically him for his anti-Semitism; for example:

> I don’t know how old you are, but I think you’re being ignorant about the full spectrum of what Farrakhan represents. He co-organized the Million Man March, which was a defining event in the 1990s, much like the Ferguson shooting is today . . . Maybe the anti-semitism alone warrants a ban. Maybe any one of his extreme view warrants a ban. But it’s very problematic for Facebook, a company with almost no black leadership, to be making that call.

If we were talking about a hypothetical black leader who was anti-white (and whether you can call that racism is, IMO, up for debate), and who was not virulently anti-Semitic, I would definitely agree that's a harder question to answer; I'd probably be against banning someone like that, for reasons that are long and complicated and that you'd probably agree with. That isn't what happened here, though, and it's not who we've been talking about: we've been talking about Farrakhan, who's in both my opinion and Obama's opinion fairly indefensible.

[1]: https://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/02/26/obama-denounces-fa...

[2]: https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/indi...

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

#597

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're being disingenuous! Paul Joseph Watson believes: - 9/11 was an inside job - The illuminati is controlling your mind with chemitrails - Soy beans are making men docile and feminine. Sounds pretty fringe to me. Don't care how many views he has. He also incites hate against muslims, which I'd say, makes him pretty dangerous. My opinion of Facebook's actions is a separate matter. But the narrative you're pushing t…

One of those there is not like the other. Just because we hear repeatedly that the 9/11 story is fully understood doesn't make it true. There is absolutely nothing far fetched about the idea of a conspiracy around 9/11, whether the the evidence is there or not. The motives are there and there is plenty of evidence of lying and false flags throughout history, including recently in the US. Please read on Operation Nort…

I don't know what "inside job" means to everyone here, but it's pretty clear that elements of the Bush administration had foreknowledge of the 9/11 attacks.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks_advance-k...

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

#598

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>We have had terror attacks carried out in Europe by refugees or asylum seekers that have killed people. For some bizarre reason, people get angry when you bomb them.

Yes, this is why America started its war on terror after 9/11.

Because Iraq bombed us? When did that happen?

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

#599

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually you're not entirely correct. Private property rights have been ignored in court cases before where that property was the "public square". This has come up in cases of corporation-owned/built towns meant to house workers that then violated their residents (i.e, employees and their families) free speech rights in said towns. Constitutionally protected speech was upheld vs Private Property rights. There have be…

This is super interesting. What was the specific argument for company towns? I'm not a lawyer, but I could imagine an argument where since the company town took on government functions, then it therefore should be treated as such with regards to constitutional protections. Am I close?

[deleted]

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

#600

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually you're not entirely correct. Private property rights have been ignored in court cases before where that property was the "public square". This has come up in cases of corporation-owned/built towns meant to house workers that then violated their residents (i.e, employees and their families) free speech rights in said towns. Constitutionally protected speech was upheld vs Private Property rights. There have be…

This is super interesting. What was the specific argument for company towns? I'm not a lawyer, but I could imagine an argument where since the company town took on government functions, then it therefore should be treated as such with regards to constitutional protections. Am I close?

I don't exactly recall but I think they focussed just on private property rights since extraterritoriality isn't a thing (really that would make the government panic).
Post reply on HN