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

61–70 of 776 posts

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

#61

Post by hashmap »

nostromo wrote: post #19
bilbo0s wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wish all users had your capacity for reason. FB is private property. Play by their rules or GTFO. People who scream about censorship in instances such as these are being willfully dismissive of the property rights of others. And that's a dangerous road to start down.

Just because Facebook can do something doesn't mean Facebook should. Freedom of speech is much more than a legal concept about governments and governed. It's also a guideline on how we should structure an open society going at least back to Ancient Greece.

Right. It means you can't be forced to say anything - Facebook is under no obligation to proliferate things these people want to post.

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

#62

Post by rayiner »

res0nat0r wrote: post #24
ravenstine wrote: post #18

I'm not a fan of either of these people, but how exactly are Milo Yiannopolous and Paul Joseph Watson "dangerous"? Maybe it's not good material for people to be watching, but to call them "dangerous" comes off like the religious right of yore claiming that video games depicting violence are dangerous and need to be censored. I wouldn't normally step in to defend these people, but this article by CNN is a prime exampl…

Saying racist stuff constantly but playing it off as "ironic" and wearing a suit doesn't make it less racist. Good, they should have kicked these guys off years ago.

When you’re talking about someone like Farrakhan, and the explicit racial basis for slavery and segregation, is simply being “racist” sufficient justification for a ban? By that same token, can Facebook ban say Armenians for being racist against Turks? Should Facebook step blithely into these very complex issues?

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

#63

Post by amyjess »

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 recently re-entered the spotlight due to the controversy over the Women's March earlier this year.

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

#65

Post by r3bl »

danso wrote: post #34

Ignoring for now the larger debate over censorship, Facebook's implementation of this ban is suspect. All of these accounts have been alleged to be in violation for months, if not years, and some already had been partially banned (Alex Jones was banned from FB but not IG). Why now? Were there new violations? And/or is it a new policy change that affects how FB will be banning accounts moving forward? Is FB going to d…

They've announced a little over a month ago that they're going to ban white nationalist content: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19503094

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

#66

Post by username223 »

ravenstine wrote: post #18

I'm not a fan of either of these people, but how exactly are Milo Yiannopolous and Paul Joseph Watson "dangerous"? Maybe it's not good material for people to be watching, but to call them "dangerous" comes off like the religious right of yore claiming that video games depicting violence are dangerous and need to be censored. I wouldn't normally step in to defend these people, but this article by CNN is a prime exampl…

> how exactly are Milo Yiannopolous and Paul Joseph Watson "dangerous"?

"Pizzagate," for example. Milo and InfoWars pushed a loony conspiracy theory until some guy believed them enough to show up at a random restaurant with an assault rifle, which seems dangerous. They did it to sell fake nutritional supplements.

EDIT: They're welcome to continue ranting away on their own blogs, but I don't see any reason that Facebook should give them a free megaphone.

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

#67

Post by StanislavPetrov »

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.

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

#68

Post by ggggtez »

ravenstine wrote: post #18

I'm not a fan of either of these people, but how exactly are Milo Yiannopolous and Paul Joseph Watson "dangerous"? Maybe it's not good material for people to be watching, but to call them "dangerous" comes off like the religious right of yore claiming that video games depicting violence are dangerous and need to be censored. I wouldn't normally step in to defend these people, but this article by CNN is a prime exampl…

So, some guy I never heard of is not fringe because he has 1.6 million subscribers, but Facebook "used to be popular" because they only have 2.38 billion users?

Come on now. The numbers clearly show that to Facebook, 1.6 million subscribers is very fringe.

1.6 million doesn't even get you into the top 5000 on YouTube.

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

#69

Post by matt4077 »

olivermarks wrote: post #27
ravenstine wrote: post #18

I'm not a fan of either of these people, but how exactly are Milo Yiannopolous and Paul Joseph Watson "dangerous"? Maybe it's not good material for people to be watching, but to call them "dangerous" comes off like the religious right of yore claiming that video games depicting violence are dangerous and need to be censored. I wouldn't normally step in to defend these people, but this article by CNN is a prime exampl…

There has to be some sort of US free speech legal action that could be taken to stop this crack down by an internet platform company on free speech. I'm not sure how many people actually take FB seriously as a 'news' platform, but it can be useful to discuss the way corporate entities such as CNN present information on their specific home pages on Facebook.

That would amount to “forced speech”, which is an even bigger no-no than restricting free speech, both legally and morally. It’s the reason warrant canaries are a thing.

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

#70

Post by CamperBob2 »

rayiner wrote: post #62
res0nat0r wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Saying racist stuff constantly but playing it off as "ironic" and wearing a suit doesn't make it less racist. Good, they should have kicked these guys off years ago.

When you’re talking about someone like Farrakhan, and the explicit racial basis for slavery and segregation, is simply being “racist” sufficient justification for a ban? By that same token, can Facebook ban say Armenians for being racist against Turks? Should Facebook step blithely into these very complex issues?

My personal working definition of "racism" is any thought process that leads me to judge either an entire race or certain individuals within that race by the actions of other individuals within the race. That's no more justifiable if your name is Farrakhan than it is if your name is Yiannopoulos.

I don't know much about either of those people, though, so I can't say whether or not Facebook should boot them off.

Post reply on HN