Facebook Bans Louis Farrakhan, Milo Yiannopoulos, InfoWars and Others • Hacker News Board

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

#641

Post by exergy » Fri, May 03, 2019, 8:28 AM UTC

threatofrain wrote: post #633

badatshipping wrote: post #252

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…

I don't care if Facebook is a monopoly -- they are an advertising business and their incentives are fundamentally misaligned to serve as a public institution. Even if they weren't a monopoly, if they were the darling of the world in terms of PR, they're still the wrong organization to serve public needs. If people think we should have digital public spaces, then we should be paying for it as a public. We have parks a…

Nailed it. Fundamentally, this is the first thing that needs to be said about the subject.

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

#642

Post by dredmorbius » Fri, May 03, 2019, 8:32 AM UTC

ilikehurdles wrote: post #332

badatshipping wrote: post #252

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 may be divided into four kinds.

I. Where the monopolist lies not the exclusive power of production but only certain exclusive facilities as a producer, and can increase, with imdimimished or even increased facility, the amount of his produce....

II. A second kind of monopoly is in the opposite extreme. It exists where price is checked neither by the hopes nor by the fears of the producer, where no competition is dreaded, and no increased supply can be effected. The owners of some vinyards have such a monopoly....

III. A third and more frequent kind of monopoly lies between these two extremes, and is neither so strict as the last, nor so comparatively open as the first. This comprises those cases in which the monopolist is the only producer, but, by the application of additional labow and abstinence, can indefinitely increase his production. The book trade affords an illustration....

IV. The fourth and last class of monopolies exists where production must be assisted by natural agents, limited in number, and varying in power, and repaying with less and less relative assistance every increase in the amount of the labour and abstinence bestowed on them.

-- Nassau William Senior, An Outline Of The Science Of Political Economy, (1836, 1872) pp. 103-106.

https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.59405/page/n11...

Arguably, FB are a monopoly of all four types.

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

#643

Post by username3 » Fri, May 03, 2019, 8:34 AM UTC

naasking wrote: post #220

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…

> 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. Did Alex Jones specifically incite his fans or these trolls to do this? If so, then he's legally culpable. If not, then why place the blame on him? The legal…

Watch Alex Jones on Joe Rogan’s podcast on YouTube. They address Sandy Hook in the beginning.

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

#644

Post by bsder » Fri, May 03, 2019, 8:44 AM UTC

verall wrote: post #579

bsder wrote: post #525

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> FB/YT/Twitter are not fundamental to modern life. And, yet, content creators must upload their content to YouTube or someone else will--even if they host it somewhere else. Therefore, YouTube is either a monopoly or a bad-faith actor--your choice--and we will, unfortunately, need laws to bring YouTube to heel.

You can pre-register with content-id and then aggressively dmca. I'm not saying it's fun or easy just that there are totally songs and artists that are completely scrubbed from youtube.

So, I, as a content creator, have to give my information to YouTube, whom I actively avoided in the first place, as well as spend an active part of my day policing rather than creating in order to prevent YouTube from monetizing my content?

And no part of this statement strikes you as a problem?

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

#645

Post by kgraves » Fri, May 03, 2019, 8:57 AM UTC

speedplane wrote: post #639

stOneskull wrote: post #540

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?

> he has apologised for questioning sandy hook and talked about it many times ... can people not make mistakes? Of course people make mistakes, and as adults, they should know that there are consequences to making mistakes. A stock trader that bets on the wrong stock has to deal with the consequences of losing money. A murderer who shows remorse must still serve their sentence. Similarly, a conspiracy theory peddler…

Then what is enough then? Death?

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

#646

Post by DanBC » Fri, May 03, 2019, 9:00 AM UTC

razakel wrote: post #371

DanBC wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Wakefield's license was revoked for actually legitimate reasons. For his actions in falsifying data, not for expressing the idea that vaccines cause autism. It's useful to read the entire thing. https://www.scribd.com/doc/25983372/FACTS-WWSM-280110-Final-... But imagine a doctor that merely says "Don't get vaccines, they cause autism" but doesn't falsify any data. That doctor is probably going to be erased from the…

>But imagine a doctor that merely says "Don't get vaccines, they cause autism" but doesn't falsify any data. That doctor is probably going to be erased from the English register. No, but they would likely be censured. A doctor has to spectacularly screw up to get struck off. It's not done lightly. One obstetrician accidentally decapitated a baby during birth and kept her licence. Wakefield faked data, concealed two f…

Hold on - I'm not defending Wakefield. I'm saying he did a lot more than falsifying data. The falsifying data alone would eb enough to strike him off, but he did a lot more than that.

> A doctor has to spectacularly screw up to get struck off. It's not done lightly. One obstetrician accidentally decapitated a baby during birth and kept her licence.

You're talking about medical error, and I agree you're right there.

I'm talking about dishonesty, and doctors (in England) get struck off for dishonesty relatively easily.

Mistakes happen, and can be remediated. Dishonesty is seen as harder to remediate.

No patient harm, but over charging the patient: https://www.mpts-uk.org/-/media/mpts-rod-files/miss-susan-li...

False expenses claims, no patient harm: https://www.mpts-uk.org/-/media/mpts-rod-files/dr-kirsten-te...

Failure to report to duty; not paying back a debt to the employer (no patient harm): https://www.mpts-uk.org/-/media/mpts-rod-files/dr-chokkaling...

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

#647

Post by maeln » Fri, May 03, 2019, 9:07 AM UTC

kgraves wrote: post #645

speedplane wrote: post #639

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> he has apologised for questioning sandy hook and talked about it many times ... can people not make mistakes? Of course people make mistakes, and as adults, they should know that there are consequences to making mistakes. A stock trader that bets on the wrong stock has to deal with the consequences of losing money. A murderer who shows remorse must still serve their sentence. Similarly, a conspiracy theory peddler…

Then what is enough then? Death?

Hyperbole don't bring anything to the discussion.

The consequences was that he was ban from several services. There is also a defamation lawsuit against him. That is how it work in a lawful society.

And whatever happen, yes mistake happen, and yes you can apologies. But nobody is obligated to forgive you.

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

#648

Post by jaziek » Fri, May 03, 2019, 9:24 AM UTC

rthrowayay wrote: post #151

SolaceQuantum wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trans people are not marginally more likely to suffer violence. They're significantly more likely to suffer violence, on the rate of several times more than the general population.

I tried to find statistics for this claim by looking at homicide risk but was unable to find anything supporting it. Possibly this is true in non-western countries. For example here is a look at the data that claims tran people are less at risk in the UK. https://www.google.com/amp/s/fairplayforwomen.com/trans-murd... I suspect there are lots of confounders if you wanted to isolate the risk that trans brings. For exa…

Fair play for women is a notoriously anti trans organisation. I wouldn't go looking for trans related statistics there.

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

#649

Post by Veen » Fri, May 03, 2019, 9:30 AM UTC

viraptor wrote: post #227

Veen wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suppose you’re aware that it’s not unknown for members of the trans community to “call on their fans to harass private citizens”. Would you like them banned too? In fact, Milo has been the victim of many such calls for harassment. To be clear, I had personal interactions with Milo many years ago when he ran a technology magazine in the UK. I’ve never met a more unpleasant individual and I would be happy to never he…

> for members of the trans community to “call on their fans to harass private citizens” And you're free to raise that issue on its own merit when it happens. You're also welcome to report it to the social network it's posted on for moderation/banning. This does not change anything about banning Milo.

You avoided the question. Do you think members of the trans community who call for the harassment of private citizens should be banned from Facebook?

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

#650

Post by anthony_doan » Fri, May 03, 2019, 9:42 AM UTC

TKWasRight wrote: post #584

anthony_doan wrote: post #549

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. 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 ou…

My criticism is that the real reason why these people aren't going to use their real name is because their opinion is rooted in hatred. That's why it's unpopular.

Other thread have pointed out unpopular opinions will have get mob that's why they hide.

Well let see three unpopular opinions.

1. The earth is flat.

2. A religious person going to a university with signs saying, "Gays are going to hell."

3. Bunch of people with Tiki torches chanting, "Jews will not replace us."

Which one do you think will get a mob? All 3 of them.

Which one is more likely to get into confrontations? The 3rd one and it's because it's coming from hate. It's the degree of hatred in the unpopular opinion that will get a rowdy mob.

What exactly do these people that take these hateful stances expect?

> 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...

I have no idea what you're definition of these subjects are.

But okay I'll go for it.

I don't support USA being involve with the current conflict in Yemen. I know I'm a begger that's choosing, but I've recently have tried my best to not apply to companies that are directly involved in war.

Israel occupation of the West Bank is wrong. UN have recognized it and it hinder the process of peace between Israel and Palestine.

I have no idea what this neoliberal regime is. But it seems like you're trying to get me to spit out some radical unpopular opinion.

If these things I've stated aren't unpopular to you. Then perhaps the reason unpopular opinions being unpopular is because, well, the majority of the people don't support it or hold radical views.