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

611–620 of 776 posts

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

#611

Post by razius »

kevinh wrote: post #548
SlowRobotAhead wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yea, Farrakhan belongs on the censored list. He's absolutely a racist and show be disavowed by everyone everywhere. In Jones's gay frog case... there are chemicals that turn frogs gay - that's the strangest thing about his critics... using that to point out how much of a lunatic he is, but... Atrazine [0] IDK... Maybe I'm just bad at hating conservatives... but if I was trying to mock a personality for being crazy, I…

The link you posted is titled "Pesticide Turns Male Frogs into Females". Saying that makes the frogs "gay" raises questions about the person making that assertion.

It's done in such a way to break it down into easily digestible sound bytes so that the message is spread.

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

#612

Post by scarface74 »

dx87 wrote: post #543
scarface74 wrote: post #501

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anyone can set up a website, create an email list, etc., do some guerrilla marketing the old fashion way. If their followers were truly that in love with them, surely they can find a way to fund their own website.

Until the their payment processors refuse to do business with them due to political pressure. I guess they could accept money orders or cryptocurrency, but services are centralized to the point that "just create your own website" isn't a simple solution any more.

Even though I don’t care either way about these people, it does bother me that ISPs could take away their access. If I had controversial views where I couldn’t find anyone to host my site, I could set up a few servers in my home. Someone somewhere would give me basic DNS. I guess they could still make money via personal appearances? Farrakhan at least has shown he knows how to get his word out without the Internet.

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

#613

Post by dblotsky »

thatcat wrote: post #577
marcus_holmes wrote: post #514

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

If 4 billion people are in your house, is it really still your house?

Yeah, just with 4 billion people in it.

The analogy also doesn’t work because it’s impossible to have 4 billion people in your house.

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

#614

Post by dblotsky »

acct1771 wrote: post #570
latortuga wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Alex Jones popularized a propagated the myth of "Crisis Actors" and that Sandy Hook was a hoax. Trolls on the internet telling parents that their children aren't really dead, that they should exhume their bodies to prove that they really died, that they are being paid by the shadow government, that their grief looked too fake - all of this is real harm. We can talk about the doxing and the stalking and the harassment…

To be clear, you're not claiming that crisis actors/political theatre is a myth...right?

Sounds like it’s already pretty clear.

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

#615

Post by razius »

belltaco wrote: post #562
Consultant32452 wrote: post #534

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's not forget that the SCOTUS has ruled Twitter is an official communications platform of the White House. Therefore Trump is not able to block people. It's a weird legal ruling, and it's hard to imagine this doesn't have implications for the rest of us. Can Twitter block you from participating in official White House communications?

I think the difference is that you can still read Trump's tweets if you're banned from Twitter, but you cannot read Trump's tweets if you're blocked by Trump on Twitter. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DCNIGiUUIAALZrR.jpg

But you cannot participate in the discussion, that's the point.

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

#616

Post by dblotsky »

threatofrain wrote: post #334

Facebook is not a public square. I love public spaces. Shouldn’t we pay for one? I don’t care if Facebook has a darling reputation; ought it run our public and private meeting spaces?

There are many public spaces outside of Facebook, and they’re paid for with taxes.

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

#617

Post by ehsankia »

gridlockd wrote: post #201
ehsankia wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why not both? They're dangerous in different ways, but just because Facebook has its set of issues doesn't mean those people should have a platform to spread their non-sense to the masses.

Can you explain to me how Milo is dangerous? I can see the case for Alex Jones, who spreads the kind of misinformation that leads certain individuals to "take action". But Milo? He's basically a clown.

At the surface he mind seem harmless, but he uses very similar tactics to Alex Jones behind the scenes. He will often make insane statements, and once he's called out on it, he pulls the "I was obviously joking, were you stupid enough to think I actually meant that" card. The issue is that his followers most definitely take him seriously, and that's exactly how he's dangerous.

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

#618

Post by ehsankia »

cat199 wrote: post #171
ehsankia wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed, Milo is not too different from Info Wars. These people use the classic tactic of saying something insanely outlandish, and when they are called out on it, they just use the "I was obviously sarcastic" card. Even if they are just joking, their followers most definitely take their message at face value, and that's exactly why they are dangerous.

> These people use the classic tactic of saying something insanely outlandish, and when they are called out on it, they just use the "I was obviously sarcastic" card. So, like, the 'Saturday Night Live Card'?

SNL is a comedy sketch. You go in with the expectation of satire and sarcasm. Milo and InfoWars most definitely don't act like they are joking, they purposefully tread the line, and use the "joke" excuse for when they happen to cross it.

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

#619

Post by Fellshard »

colordrops wrote: post #397
Fellshard wrote: post #380

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just one.

The level of discussion in this thread is unfortunate.

I get pretty irritated with intentional imprecision, as usually it's attempting to obfuscate what's actually happening. Unidirectional violence from exactly one religion should not be then generalized to a family of religions.

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

#620

Post by xzel »

stOneskull wrote: post #581
libraryatnight wrote: post #565

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I’m pretty sure in terms of larger media followings most don’t sink to the “Sandyhook was a false flag” level.
Post reply on HN