Why is it announced from Zuckerberg's profile page and not from the official Facebook page?
Facebook Indefinitely Suspends Trump
591–600 of 1001 posts
Re: Facebook Indefinitely Suspends Trump
#592Earlier quoted context omitted.
coup is a bit much. this happens from time to time at the state level, protesters push their way into chambers. they should have just been arrested, the police dropped the ball.
This went a bit further than a protest I would think.
No it absolutely did not. Stop buying the bullshit the media is feeding you.
Re: Facebook Indefinitely Suspends Trump
#593Earlier quoted context omitted.
Genuine request as I've seem this framing a lot and cannot understand it: Can you point to the specific things that occurred which you believe were part of an attempted coup, and why you believe they were?
Trump wanted Pence to violate them constitution and overturn the election. When Pence refused he then went to an angry protest and told them to match the Capitol and fight like hell. The then refused to deploy the National Guard to protect the Capitol and reportedly was thrilled at the fact that the certification was interrupted by the rioters. After much pressure he finally put out a weak statement telling the riote…
All of it
Re: Facebook Indefinitely Suspends Trump
#594This was going to happen regardless of yesterday's events. Anyone working in close proximity to the activist groups on campus knows this already.
Yesterday has provided perfect cover for folks to do what they want to by using their positions in these companies for political reasons.
Unfortunately many folks think the ends justify the means. Patriot act, WMD in Iraq, FISA courts, now arbitrary banning of politicians by morally dubious companies.
What could possibly go wrong?
If you made a list of Trump's top 10 most outrageous posts they would all hinge on some opinionated postmodernist take on his statements.
Re: Facebook Indefinitely Suspends Trump
#595Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem I see with that line of argument is that it basically means you're arguing we can't do anything about it and just have to accept whatever actions people take regardless of the impacts of those actions. It reads to me like "it's hard, so let us just do nothing".
I mean, Facebook just suspended Trump, so it seems like we are doing something, we’re just arguing about where the lines should be. I don’t think it’s wrong to note that revolutionary ideas both good and bad come from the fringes and that some consequential positive influences might be deplatformed in the future. This is one of the few times in history the “good guys” have had the power to control the narrative. We s…
Many comments are arguing saying this already crossed the line and that FB are not the good guys here.
There are (or were) comments on this page with people saying they deleted their Facebook accounts over this.
Of course I disagree and find it hilariously ironic that this would be the straw that broke the camel's back, but that's just me.
Re: Facebook Indefinitely Suspends Trump
#596I know Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, Reddit and all the rest don't count as broadcast media but I feel like we got here in part because the 1987 elimination of FCC's fairness doctrine slowly allowed a shift in how we communicate with each other. We went from specious claims and conspiracy theories being the subject matter of newsletters to their public broadcast to millions via talk radio ~and Fox News~, thus allowin…
You can't be fair when you only blame Fox for fact-free content when the same fact-free content(just inverted) is peddled by all the other mass media outlets. They just cater to a different bubble.
So there is no truth at all?
Re: Facebook Indefinitely Suspends Trump
#597All of these HN comments are defending shouting "Fire!" falsely in a theater under the guise of it being a slippery slope before all speech is lost. I have lost a lot of respect for these slippery slope arguments because they are easy to make and ignore the obvious problem which is that some speech shouldn't be tolerated... Especially intolerant or harmful speech.
> Especially intolerant or harmful speech.
That is far too vague.
Re: Facebook Indefinitely Suspends Trump
#598I know Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, Reddit and all the rest don't count as broadcast media but I feel like we got here in part because the 1987 elimination of FCC's fairness doctrine slowly allowed a shift in how we communicate with each other. We went from specious claims and conspiracy theories being the subject matter of newsletters to their public broadcast to millions via talk radio ~and Fox News~, thus allowin…
> It'll be interesting to see if whoever replaces Ajit Pai holds a different view on public intercourse over the airwaves.
Really hoping you mean "public discourse" :-)
Re: Facebook Indefinitely Suspends Trump
#599Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem I see with that line of argument is that it basically means you're arguing we can't do anything about it and just have to accept whatever actions people take regardless of the impacts of those actions. It reads to me like "it's hard, so let us just do nothing".
That's right. You have to have a society with enough moral fiber that it self-polices and restrains itself almost down to the individual level.
Sure, but you seem to be implying that government has no place in how we self-police and restrain ourselves. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Government is not an external entity which subjugates us, it is the tool by which we settle our grievances with each other without beating each other to death with rocks. To facilitate that, we give government the exclusive right to police us. And I would argue part of that duty extends to ensuring that the populace is informed and aware of the facts of the situation.
In our rush to condemn the reprehensible aspects of government we have lost sight of the goal, which is to promote civil society and respect for our fellow man.
Re: Facebook Indefinitely Suspends Trump
#600> involving use of our platform to incite violent insurrection against a democratically elected government. From my understanding the video that got banned asked everyone to go home peacefully but then continued to claim election fraud?
There's a phrase "Talking out of both sides of your mouth." He said what he believed the urging of politicans, media and oppositional citizens wanted by saying "go home" while continuing to say what his base wanted to hear - "we won in a landslide and it was stolen." Each side could choose to only hear what they want, or recognize it for the manipulation it is. We know what his followers will do - hear what they want…
And when politicians call each other Nazis, or when Joe Biden claimed that Mitt Romney wanted to re-enslave black people?
Seems like you're only going to apply your "inciting violence" claim to one side. I watched cities burn over the summer and intense levels of violence... And yet no one on the left trotted out speech bans and "incitement to violence" claims. It's obvious you're selectively targeting enforcement of intentionally vague standards. Federal buildings were being accosted in Portland and Seattle just a few months ago and the mayors supported them. Haven't seen their accounts banned.