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

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

#721

Post by Mirioron » Fri, May 03, 2019, 7:19 PM UTC

frabbit wrote: post #316

cm2012 wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Horoscropes don't have a victim. Stuff like elders of zion portrays jewish people as villains, to real and tangible consequences (did you know anti-semitic hate crimes are up around 300% of the last two years?).

What about Madeleine Albright spreading the idea the killing hundreds of thousands of children is `a price worth paying' on every media platform in the US? What about the relentless promotion of capitalism and growth which is ultimately going to see us all as victims? I detest the right-wing in all its forms, including its Democrat and Republican wings but I cannot see any ultimately positive outcome in banning their…

>I detest the right-wing in all its forms,

>but I cannot see any ultimately positive outcome in banning their views.

Careful there, that might be a right wing view depending on who you ask.

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

#722

Post by Mirioron » Fri, May 03, 2019, 7:25 PM UTC

SEJeff wrote: post #419

Mirioron wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How many people do you think were interested in old school conspiracy theories like Area 51 [1] or the protocols of the elders of zion [2]? Henry ford printed half a million copies of the latter! I think most of the people were interested in it for entertainment, just like people are interested in horoscopes for entertainment. Or would you argue that all these newspapers that had horoscopes in them pushed fringe co…

How's this for starters? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milo_Yiannopoulos#Violence_aga...

Did you actually read his comment?

How is saying "I can't wait for X" the same as asking for X? The statement means that something is going to happen. It isn't a threat nor a request.

If I say "I can't wait for the pendulum to swing the other way" it doesn't mean I'm going to affect the pendulum in any way. So I don't see how that statement makes him dangerous.

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

#723

Post by naasking » Fri, May 03, 2019, 7:30 PM UTC

belltaco wrote: post #564

naasking wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> These people did a lot of damage. A lot. Like what? If this damage is so prevalent then it should be easy to cite something specific.

>In September 2014, conspiracy theorist Alex Jones, who runs the website InfoWars, which had previously claimed that the murders were a "false flag" attack perpetrated by the government, made a new conspiracy claim that "no one died" at Sandy Hook Elementary School because the Uniform Crime Reports showed no murders in Newtown for 2012, and that the victims were "child actors. Gene Rosen, a Newtown resident who was r…

Thanks for the detailed review. It sounds like the people who actually committed harassment and issued threats are being charged, as it should be.

Alex Jones is himself probably a little unhinged, but why does the responsibility for what other unhinged people do fall on him? Did he specifically incite this harassment or violence? He's already being sued for his alleged part in this, so the law will decide his culpability.

But I still fail to see what this has to do with whether or not people with controversial views should have a right to use services like Facebook or Twitter, like any other citizen. I've expanded on the problems with these new norms here if you're interested: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19819584

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

#724

Post by naasking » Fri, May 03, 2019, 7:34 PM UTC

DanBC wrote: post #711

naasking wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not irrelevant. The OP said that "no one is entitled to online speech". That's an unqualified statement which my link disproves. If they had instead qualified it as, "no one has a right to speech on Facebook", that's a different claim (arguably also false depending on the circumstances).

You seem to be confusing two different rights. The right to Internet access is not the right to say whatever you like on the Internet.

I suggest reading the first sentence from the link I posted.

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

#725

Post by Mirioron » Fri, May 03, 2019, 7:39 PM UTC

nikkwong wrote: post #459

Mirioron wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How many people do you think were interested in old school conspiracy theories like Area 51 [1] or the protocols of the elders of zion [2]? Henry ford printed half a million copies of the latter! I think most of the people were interested in it for entertainment, just like people are interested in horoscopes for entertainment. Or would you argue that all these newspapers that had horoscopes in them pushed fringe co…

I definitely understand your perspective and such mirrored mine for a long time. I will also be the first to concede that if the first amendment doesn't protect this kind of speech, then really, what does it protect? With that said, we have to understand that large swaths of the American population get almost all of their "news" from the figures they follow on Facebook and it ends up codifying the belief systems by w…

>Alex Jones being the preeminent example here; my otherwise levelheaded friend bought an AK because of him to prepare for the upcoming class warfare

Your friend bought an AK because people like Alex Jones are being deplatformed and there are people openly calling for violence (eg antifa). Your friend is afraid of a civil war. It takes two to fight.

>I think Facebook has probably extrapolated the siloing effect that social media has on groups forward a few years and come to the conclusion that certain groups (namely the far and alt right) base much of their ideology on not only hate, but conspiracies and misinformation.

What you need to understand is that these companies seem to have an anti-conservative bias. Notice how when antifa attacks people it seems to not be much of a problem. There are antifa chapters that openly sell merchandise. Yet we see people in antifa cause millions in property damages, attack people with bike locks and other forms of violence. Antifa has a long history of violence in Europe. What you need to understand is that many of these companies are partisan or at least tend towards partisan actions. Do you think people demanding the abolishment of capitalism and the intuition of communism are somehow the good guys?

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

#726

Post by Mirioron » Fri, May 03, 2019, 7:40 PM UTC

Fnoord wrote: post #336

Mirioron wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How many people do you think were interested in old school conspiracy theories like Area 51 [1] or the protocols of the elders of zion [2]? Henry ford printed half a million copies of the latter! I think most of the people were interested in it for entertainment, just like people are interested in horoscopes for entertainment. Or would you argue that all these newspapers that had horoscopes in them pushed fringe co…

>> >They're dangerous in the same way that, say, anti-vax views are dangerous [3]. > You have to show some evidence for a wild claim like that, because you're insinuating that Paul Joseph Watson and Milo are getting people killed. I have no clue who these people are, but since I happen to have a young child I actually put some effort into figuring out the pros and cons of vaccination. Turns out that the people who do…

That's my point - if you want to say a person is as dangerous as antivaxxing then you have to show some evidence.

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

#727

Post by chimpburger » Fri, May 03, 2019, 7:46 PM UTC

dang wrote: post #604

chimpburger wrote: post #439

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no evidence to back up your claims that he has white supremacist beliefs. You people are delusional and obsessed with leftist/SJW ideology. No logic behind your reasoning. Everyone who disagrees with you is Nazi/homophobe/racist/whitesupremacist/etc. Insanity.

Even by the abject standards of this shitty thread, your comment here crosses into name-calling and personal attack. Posting like that is a bannable offense here. Would you mind reviewing the guidelines and taking the spirit of this site to heart? https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

I know the rules, and I don't mind getting banned. It's easy to make a new account. I am sick and tired of toxic insane leftist morons getting all the non-leftists banned / deplatformed everywhere, just for having opposing views. This backwards third world shit needs to stop.

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

#728

Post by Fins » Fri, May 03, 2019, 8:04 PM UTC

belltaco wrote: post #571

naasking wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The whole idea of free speech rights rests on the assumption that speech can cause action. No, free speech is a natural right. The recognition of free speech is not contingent on any outside factors aside from the recognition that humans speak just like they breath. > There have been quite a few recent shooting sprees where the perpetrators either explicitly referenced online personae, or the investigation revealed…

>So? Did these shooters also go to the grocery store? It's ridiculous to ban Coca Cola because a shooter predominantly drank diet coke. This is ridiculous, if drinking diet coke made people violent and go on shooting sprees against innocent people, it'd be banned. We all know they're radicalized on places like 4chan, 8chan, Voat, Gab.ai, many alt-right subreddits, alt-right YouTube channels and Facebook accounts.

Would you also support deplatforming Sen. Sanders as well then? It was his supporter who went on a shooting spree, and I don't think he was a big fan of Jones or Milo.

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

#729

Post by gridlockd » Fri, May 03, 2019, 9:12 PM UTC

StanislavPetrov wrote: post #281

gridlockd wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't really say why these where banned. From a cursory glance, some of these fall into the "anti-vaxxer" and "anti-trans" group. Also, some accounts that you may call "anti-war" or "anti-police" are posting very graphic images of war or "police work". Those bans are warranted on terms of service grounds. As for the "over 800" you mention, here's what the source (RT) actually says: "Facebook is again being calle…

You don't have to imagine - its because they are at odds with the official government narrative. Make no mistake, this has nothing to do with "right" or "left" or "hate speech" or "graphic imagery" and it has everything about regaining control of public discourse - a control that was lost with the explosion of the internet. Its a concerted effort, across every major tech platform, to use restrictive policies (that ar…

I don't think your source supports your claims. Anyway, I don't think you should be downvoted.

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

#730

Post by SantalBlush » Fri, May 03, 2019, 9:16 PM UTC

brigandish wrote: post #638

SantalBlush wrote: post #502

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have little sympathy for free-market-leaning personalities who feel the sting of market forces with regard to censorship. They essentially want these platforms to be regulated like utilities, all while they simultaneously disparage utilities.

A lot of people who support the notion of free markets also support there being some regulation, especially for things like monopolies (which end up distorting markets until they resemble unfree ones). It’s a spectrum, not black and white.

Just to make sure we're on the same page, by "free-market-leaning" I mean opposing government regulations in markets. Advocating for some regulation is generally not considered supportive of a free market; on the contrary, that's just supportive of a market.