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

691–700 of 776 posts

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

#691

Post by ceejayoz »

intopieces wrote: post #183

>In some instances, when Facebook bans an individual or organization, it also restricts others from expressing praise or support for them on its platforms Will it restrict people from saying these things in WhatsApp? If they already have the infrastructure for wholesale censorship like this, perhaps a China re-launch is right around the corner. They might be able to give WeChat a run for their RMB.

Yes, Facebook is taking some steps in WhatsApp to reduce the speed at which misinformation travels.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_WhatsApp_lynchings

Specifically, making it a bit harder to rapidly forward large numbers of messages to large groups of people.

https://www.vox.com/2019/1/25/18197002/whatsapp-message-limi...

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

#692

Post by Veen »

viraptor wrote: post #658
Veen wrote: post #649

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Yes, I did. I'm familiar with Milo situation, but not with situations you have in mind. I'm happy with Facebook banning anyone breaking their policies. I do not agree with many of their policies. In general, I'd expect the answer would be "yes" - but without knowing specific cases and what you mean by "harassment", I can't answer.

So for you this is an issue of property rights? Facebook owns the platform and so they can ban whomever they like for breaching their policies, which they should be free to choose without interference?

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

#693

Post by belorn »

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…

Harassment is illegal as is conspiracy to commit harassment. Since we all view harassment to be illegal, a case where there is evidence that a person "sic their followers" to commit harassment should be sent to the legal system, or if that fails we should make a law so that future cases will be addressed through the legal system.

I think the reason we don't is simply because we want to allow speech that result in "bad" people getting harassed but not "good" people, and since different political sides define good and bad differently, what we get is platforms making the decision for us. Personally I would prefer a law instead.

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

#694

Post by cirgue »

throwawayjava wrote: post #313
justinmchase wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it should just be based on the sing-up model. If you allow open signup then you don't get to censor those users. If you want to be able to control their speech then make them sign a contract and agree to pay them money. It should just straight up not be legal for facebook to ban, block or delete the content of certain users while also having an open sign up model.

This would kill millions of completely apolitical websites with strong user communities.

Agreed, this is an absolutely terrible idea. If you want to say whatever you want and be free from censorship, host your content on your own site.

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

#695

Post by [deleted] »

Eleopteryx wrote: post #640
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…

>should get to decide who can use their product Semantically it's not a question of "who can use their product" it's a question of in what fashion are users permitted to use their product, what behaviors are/n't allowed on that platform. Facebook didn't institute or enforce a "no Louis Farrakhans" policy. They set boundaries on what kind of behavior is or isn't acceptable for continued membership and participation on…

[deleted]

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

#696

Post by humantiy »

toofy wrote: post #657
speedplane wrote: post #634

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you can use facebook, youtube or twitter to reach lots of people, how could any one of them be a monopoly on reach? Even though they are competing for attention, they each use different mediums. As an analogy, it's like only having one radio station, one TV station, and one magazine. There needs to be dozens of each for there to be a true marketplace of ideas.

There are many many video content hosting sites, there are countless twitter clones, and there are a crazy amount of sites doing things like Facebook with profiles and such. Because people are choosing to use mainly those doesn’t stop anyone from using others. This isn’t like a utility or phone company where people literally had no alternatives. No one is stopping any of us from connecting to Mastodon for example and…

> There are many many video content hosting sites, there are countless twitter clones, and there are a crazy amount of sites doing things like Facebook with profiles and such.

I think the point is yes there are alternatives however given the size/reach of FB, YT, and twitter even those alternatives really aren't competing with them. They own the market share for what do and even many of those alternatives (ie mastodon) post on twitter or FB news or service updates. I'd say the alternatives don't even make up 5% use over FB, YT, or twitter.

Is it a monopoly in the normal sense of the word probably not, but the issue remains that alternatives are niche and truly don't directly compete. I think though as things like people being banned, creators being demonetized or the numerous other things that have happened in the last year to show users of these platforms the problems; we might see these alternatives pick up ground as these people with followings and clout get kicked off or decide to find alternatives. They get too big for their own good and in the process they will end up fragmenting their communities causing some to take alternatives serious.

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

#697

Post by raarts »

beasteurope wrote: post #687
JakeTheAndroid wrote: post #479

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Who themselves have been recently outed for internal rampant racism and sexism.

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

#698

Post by humantiy »

colejohnson66 wrote: post #655
stOneskull wrote: post #582

Earlier quoted context omitted.

how do you know he questioned sandy hook deliberately? he questions a lot. and he has the right. we have the right to question. and we have the right to be wrong. you sound like a dictator - "he doesn't deserve a second chance!". he's his own boss, you're not his.

What is there to question? If Sandy Hook was a real shooting or not? It was. There’s nothing to question.

There is always plenty to question. Motives being one, response being another, heck even timing. I can think of plenty of things you can question when situations like this happen. Doesn't mean they get answered or aren't the most obvious answer.

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

#699

Post by raarts »

maeln wrote: post #647
kgraves wrote: post #645

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If you are sent to prison at least you get out after a while. But online banning has no such provision.

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

#700

Post by raarts »

lazzlazzlazz wrote: post #412

I'm very familiar with all of these banned people and institutions, and I'm not at all convinced they're "dangerous". I'm not sure what the benefits are, and I'm much more concerned that their exact misdeeds never seem clearly articulate, even by people who seem extremely interested in having them silenced.

The rationale is they have stupid followers who commit the actual damage.

I fail to see why they aren't prosecuted. You're not anonymous on Facebook. And you shouldn't be on twitter, and youtube as well.

Post reply on HN