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

681–690 of 776 posts

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

#681

Post by Veen »

SolaceQuantum wrote: post #661
55555 wrote: post #544

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

As a counterpoint, ten trans people were murdered in the UK in the last ten years. About one per year in a population of of 66 million. A high estimate of the number of trans people in the UK is around 500,000. On average, there is a one in one hundred thousand chance of being murdered in the UK each year.

Given those figures, trans people are considerably less likely to be murdered than non-trans people. Even if we take the lowest estimate of the number of trans people I've seen — around 200,000 — non-trans people are still twice as likely to be murdered as trans people.

https://transrespect.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/TvT_TMM_...

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...

(And I don't think Milo is responsible for a single one of those murders)

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

#682

Post by brigandish »

logosmonkey wrote: post #665
brigandish wrote: post #635

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

No, they should not have forced to allow all comers to air an opinion (not that that would necessarily have been a bad thing), but the situation you've given is one of a time with healthy competition between a plurality of media outlets. If any one of them a) was a monopoly in its sector, and b) was also providing a platform initially to anyone that wanted one, then I would agree with the comparison.

Considering the Patreon fuss and now Mastercard's "human rights committee", it's not only "build your own website", it's rapidly moving towards "build your own bank". It's not realistic.

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

#683

Post by turk73 »

brigandish wrote: post #635
taytus wrote: 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.

My sentiments about this issue are mixed. I don't really like ISIS using our networks and our services for their propaganda. Should those who promote the sexual exploitation of children be given a free pass, too?

What concerns me isn't censorship, it's that LEGITIMATE speech is being censored. I'm not sure where Alex Jones falls on that spectrum, but labeling him as a hate monger is just an easy way to quell that speech and make it unavailable. I don't see that man as a neo-Nazi, although I don't think neo-Nazis are any big threat versus neo-communists or whatever the actually violent groups who have large numbers of followers are out there. One thing is certain, far right violence is not a problem in the US, despite what the media wants us to think. The truly violent mob behavior is on the left and it has the approval of the media and many large city councils and mayors. How else could ANTIFA have such free rein across the Western US?

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

#684

Post by naasking »

fatbird wrote: post #482
naasking wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The cost of avoiding a hypothetical future in which I'm censored is accepting the real damage they're doing in the here and now. What damage? Be specific. I think censoring people should require a considerable specificity as to their "crimes" before they're exiled.

Others have gotten into this with you about the specific damage, and my point was less "yay, censor them!" than the argument that not deplatforming them somehow protects me. It doesn't, even hypothetically.

Arguably censoring them does expose you to something worse: it establishes a bureaucracy and social norms that are perfectly fine with crushing unpopular and diverse opinions. It's a simple tyranny of the majority.

Sure, you consider this speech abhorrent, but switch the scenario around and consider how enforcing these types of norms stalled real social progress in the past: gay rights, women's rights, rights for visible minorities. You're dreaming if you don't think these new norms won't be applied against you.

So I disagree, not deplatforming does protect you.

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

#685

Post by Faark »

ALittleLight wrote: post #578
Faark wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with the spirit of your first sentence. This is exactly what we want. > you should let people with different opinions talk to each other and work out their disagreements verbally But this part is sadly not happening. Less than ever is there any reason to form a consensus. Social repercussions don't seem to work anymore, now that everyone can find communities believing in whatever they want to, no matter how i…

Consensus shouldn't be the goal. Exposure to the other side and other ideas should be. Some people will be persuaded, some won't be. Some people will find value in knowing more sides of an issue. Some people will be satisfied by sharing their ideas as they want. When I make an important decision I like to explore options and arguments for and against those options. Imagine that your kids are of the age they need to b…

> Consensus shouldn't be the goal.

Not for everything, correct. But there also are ideas that can hardly coexist and areas were consensus seems necessary. Politics is an obvious one, since at the end of the day the laws we make will govern all of us.

> You google it, read the arguments of the vaccine-autism connection people and decide that - no, they probably don't. You're now free to vaccinate your children with confidence.

It'd be great if the world / human nature worked that way. But then we also wouldn't have got to a point were falling vaccination rates are a problem.

> [..] If you post about it online then you'll be banned [..]

Simply banning everyone doesn't sound like a good way to form consensus, doesn't it? That's a bit of a straw man, isn't it? Have you ever seen someone advocating for banning someone for genuinely asking questions? Do you think the people this article is about were just asking questions?

But yeah, determining who is a bad faith actor isn't an easy task. Especially in highly divisive times.

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

#686

Post by ceejayoz »

turk73 wrote: post #676
pas wrote: post #631

Earlier quoted context omitted.

could you point to a worse medium (and show some examples of its badness)?

The New York Times? Read about how the Spanish American War got started and what role the media played in it. Read about Puerto Rico. None of this is new. What is new is how far the media elite have tried to take it this time. They dropped all semblance of objectivity out of fear that Trump would become some kind of despot. Or was the real fear that unconscionable crimes would be exposed? What would the people do if…

I suspect the "point to a worse medium" request was for a medium today, not the 1890s.

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

#687

Post by beasteurope »

JakeTheAndroid wrote: post #479
chasd00 wrote: post #366

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Society isn't deciding, Facebook is deciding. I personally think Facebook can do whatever the please with their website. However, if they remove the users they don't like then that implies they approve of the users that remain.

Facebook is deciding because society is pressuring them to decide. Facebook doesn't care about shit, but their bottom line. They have proven that time and time again. This should highlight the social pressures, because they are not legally responsible as far as anyone can tell. Thus, society is deciding.

It's not pressure from society, it's pressure from specific activist groups like the SPLC.

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

#689

Post by TheOperator »

anthony_doan wrote: post #516
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…

Let's take your argument that these corporations are monopoly as truth for a moment, there are still rules. In the USA, just because we have the first amendment doesn't mean you're not responsible for your words. Fighting words is a thing (it's actually a term), verbal harassment is a thing, etc... Alex Jones from InfoWar sic his followers to harass the Sandy Hook victims' parents. He was free to say what he wants an…

>Alex Jones from InfoWar sic his followers to harass the Sandy Hook victims' parents.

Thats a skewed depiction of what happened. What happened was the biggest conspiracy theorist on the internet ran a few articles about the hottest conspiracies on the internet (crisis actors, etc) just asking questions. Alex Jones notably believes just about everything is a conspiracy. This naturally led to people deciding to "find the truth theirselves".

Alex Jones really hurt those families but I don't believe he had intent. I think he just didn't quite realise what the consequences of his actions would be.

Ironically the people criticizing Jones for spreading this conspiracy have popularized the conspiracy more than Jones himself. while critizing Jones for spreading this conspiracy. Media coverage is thought to be one of the primary drivers of schhol shootings.

I just don't see a great deal of consistency in the excommunication of Jones. Which isn't to say he shouldn't be banned. He's the epitome of fake news. Yet I notice how facebook itself gets away with providing a service that helps mass murder go Viral. Jones at least doesn't have blood on his hands like Facebook does.

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

#690

Post by brigandish »

Shish2k wrote: post #652
vageli wrote: post #632

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Freedom of speech != Freedom of reach Can you explain what you mean by this?

You can yell whatever you like, but nobody is obligated to sell you a megaphone

Could that be extended to "You can yell whatever you like, but nobody is obligated to sell you water"?

My point being, why should what you say be of any concern to the seller? Unless, of course, they're trying to control the conversation.

If they were, well, that would be really sinister.

Post reply on HN