Live data from Hacker News

Facebook Bans Louis Farrakhan, Milo Yiannopoulos, InfoWars and Others

edition.cnn.com

661–670 of 776 posts

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

#661
post #544

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.

In the USA this doesnt seem to be true. I just looked up the stats. 23 and 27 murders of trans individuals in US over past 2 years. Avg US homicide rate is 5 deaths per 100,000 per year. There are roughly 1.5 million trans individuals so you'd expect 75 or so. However margin of error and confounding variables are massive so my point is just that it seems roughly normal, not that it's safer to be trans. This despite 1…

I know this is late but from what I recall trans women are approximately 4.3x more likely to be murdered(Trans people of color coalition and human rights campaign), and 1 out of 2 trans people have experienced violence (I forget where I've seen this).

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

#662

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…

I know this is late but from what I recall trans women are approximately 4.3x more likely to be murdered(Trans people of color coalition and human rights campaign), and 1 out of 2 trans people have experienced violence (I forget where I've seen this).

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

#663

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In someway these social networks amplify voices by their sharing and recommending and suggesting based on what users do, a normal city square doesn't amplify your voice. So this is different from walking past a demonstration or assembly in the city, it is more of an Inception movie-like warping of the entire city to bring everyone closer to these peoples voices.

> these social networks amplify voices by their sharing and recommending and suggesting based on what users do, a normal city square doesn't amplify your voice. Actually, a city square does exactly that, amplify your voice to all those that pass. The difference is that there are many city squares to stand in, whereas there are only a handful of social media companies. The problem here is Facebook's monopoly power, no…

> The difference is that there are many city squares to stand in, whereas there are only a handful of social media companies

I’m just not sure this holds up to any kind of scrutiny. There are tens if not hundreds of thousands of forums online where people can speak.

It’s a problematic analogy anyway, Facebook is not a public space, if we’re going insist on applying a real world physical analogue, they would be much closer to a city’s incredibly popular nightclub with a stage, which of course would never be required to give extremists or provocateurs free-reign of their equipment or stage. But even this analogy has problems.

I think the real argument is whether or not a company is free to associate its brand with whatever it likes.

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

#664
post #605

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The reach of facebook, or the reach of youtube, twitter etc, is so high, that if you want to disseminate a message, those _must_ be the platforms you use. This isn't true though. Alex Jones can disseminate his message through countless other websites, which have their own users. This is really just advocating for equal exposure of opinions, which isn't a free speech issue.

Not free speech but open platforms.

[deleted]

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

#665
post #538

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Freedom of speech != Freedom of reach

If you deny someone their freedom to speak then you deny others their freedom to choose to hear that speech. Hence, this is a freedom of speech issue.

When newspapers and nightly news were the main purveyors of news content should they have been forced to allow anyone with an opinion to air it publicly? I don't think so and I'm not sure I see much difference here. Those who weren't part of the establishment that wanted their voices heard made their own papers and shows, those banned from facebook/twitter/youtube can do the same.

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

#666

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…

The people getting banned are famous, this is exactly the moment when another platform can allow those people their speech and make a dent in facebook's monopoly.

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

#667

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?

> 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…

You think you're somehow in the right just because you use your real name on the Internet?

You must be pretty young because here's what I know: It doesn't matter how your politics swing, eventually the other side comes to power and seeks to punish it's opposite. So your candor, while refreshing, won't protect you. The only protection is anonymity, as much as you can get.

We live in an unprecedented era of technology destroying the very fabric of civilization. I don't know that we're going to survive this. We aren't going to survive it with any semblance of "freedom" in the Western legal sense of the word where law rules, where oligarchs don't get away with crimes while the "little people" suffer, and where there is room for individuals apart from the state. From my perspective, technology is quickly enabling despotism and it is happening faster in some places than others.

The worst part is, you won't know that you were judged by something you said online ten years ago when you were a goofball college student. You won't know because they won't tell you that. They just won't hire you for the job or whatever the situation happens to be.

Right now, the left is trying to blackball conservatives in the US mainly because their arguments are weak and they know the things they want to do are dastardly if they can get away with them. Like all communist revolutions, the perpetrators will stoop to murder and mayhem if they can get away with it. They have already left reasonableness and open debate far in the past and now they are seeking to consolidate power by force as necessary. This is all being done with the cooperation of big tech--Google, Facebook, Twitter, Apple. These companies have all been taken over by the far left, it seems. No clue how that all happened because last I looked, SV was a bunch of anarcho-capitalists trying to upset the status quo of the world. Next time I turn around, there's a bunch of typical commies in there cozying up to China! That can't end well.

I'm no fan of Alex Jones, btw. Alex Jones is controlled opposition. He is exists to get people to "look over here" to the safe distraction while the real evil plays out somewhere else.

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

#668
post #590

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 of what, exactly? In many smaller countries Facebook is nearly synonymous with the internet itself.

[deleted]

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

#669

Attitudes towards free speech have changed a lot in recent times. This is related to the rise of social media. The advent of social media had made it too easy to spread hate online. It started off innocently enough, with cat videos uploaded to youtube, but soon extremists were taking advantage of social media for radicalization purposes, and others even live-streaming mass murders. This has caused an upheaval in atti…

I am very much in favor of Free Speech myself. But I think the annoying thing people forget is that it's the job of society to determine what is okay and what isn't. The government isn't supposed to decide our morals, we tell the government what those should be. Society is deciding that this is not stuff we want. Society is rejecting these ideas, and Facebook or Cloudflare when they dropped the Daily Stormer, etc, ar…

"Society is rejecting these ideas,"

No it obviously isn't. If it were, there would be no need for bans whatsoever, they would simply have no audience.

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

#670
post #644
post #579

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

At least there's an option. Sure there's a problem but at least there's some level of ability to rectify. PDfs of my work show up on pirate sites who make money from ads all the time and I have little to no ability whatsoever to correct that.

That's just doing business in the current economy. You either have to ignore it or actively deal with it. Neither option will totally eliminate it.

Post reply on HN