Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can an anti-Semite marry a Jewish person? Can a black supremacist marry a white person?
Yes to both
then how serious is their hatred?
Facebook Bans Louis Farrakhan, Milo Yiannopoulos, InfoWars and Others
731–740 of 776 posts
Re: Facebook Bans Louis Farrakhan, Milo Yiannopoulos, InfoWars and Others
#732Earlier quoted context omitted.
>These people did a lot of damage. A lot. All in the name of free speech. It's pretty tiring hearing people complaining about banning the right of movement. I mean, why do you even need a right about being equal in front of the law? Bigger people contribute more and being free costs money anyways, why does it matter if someone owns you? Just be happy you were allowed to think this long for yourself! And stop being so…
This literally makes no coherent argument.
Free speech is a right, I'd argue a human right. Inalienable, guaranteed, innate and hugely important. Yes, you can live without it.
But so you can live without the right of free movement, without equality before the law, without freedom, without right to being alive, and this is actually how most of our history was. These rights are a rather recent innovation.
But should you? Should we? Eroding human rights only leads to dystopia. Human rights are an innovation of civilisation, of progress.
Not being able to see that makes me very sad.
Re: Facebook Bans Louis Farrakhan, Milo Yiannopoulos, InfoWars and Others
#733Earlier quoted context omitted.
>These people did a lot of damage. A lot. All in the name of free speech. It's pretty tiring hearing people complaining about banning the right of movement. I mean, why do you even need a right about being equal in front of the law? Bigger people contribute more and being free costs money anyways, why does it matter if someone owns you? Just be happy you were allowed to think this long for yourself! And stop being so…
Please don't post flamewar comments here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Flamewar? Only in some self serving interpretation. These same rules disagree with you on your comment.
Free speech is a right, I'd argue a human right. Inalienable, guaranteed, innate and hugely important. Yes, you can live without it.
But so you can live without the right of free movement, without equality before the law, without freedom, without right to being alive, and this is actually how most of our history was. These rights are a rather recent innovation.
But should you? Should we? Eroding human rights only leads to dystopia. Human rights are an innovation of civilisation, of progress.
Re: Facebook Bans Louis Farrakhan, Milo Yiannopoulos, InfoWars and Others
#734Earlier quoted context omitted.
>These people did a lot of damage. A lot. All in the name of free speech. It's pretty tiring hearing people complaining about banning the right of movement. I mean, why do you even need a right about being equal in front of the law? Bigger people contribute more and being free costs money anyways, why does it matter if someone owns you? Just be happy you were allowed to think this long for yourself! And stop being so…
None of what you wrote even remotely compares to the parent comment. You're trying to be witty by using a simile but it's falling flat.
Do explain how it's falling flat? It's exactly a point against what OP argues, that trading (human) rights for "security" (theatre) is a good trade, which it absolutely is not.
Re: Facebook Bans Louis Farrakhan, Milo Yiannopoulos, InfoWars and Others
#735Earlier quoted context omitted.
>These people did a lot of damage. A lot. All in the name of free speech. It's pretty tiring hearing people complaining about banning the right of movement. I mean, why do you even need a right about being equal in front of the law? Bigger people contribute more and being free costs money anyways, why does it matter if someone owns you? Just be happy you were allowed to think this long for yourself! And stop being so…
What you are saying is wrong on so many levels. Be grateful that I'm not just replying with a 'scre w you' or 'put something in your mouth', cos that's what you deserve.
Wanna explain that stance? I specifically argued against losing (human) rights in a trade for "security".
Re: Facebook Bans Louis Farrakhan, Milo Yiannopoulos, InfoWars and Others
#736Putting Louis Farrakhan first, when his relevance has faded a while ago, seems to be a way of trying to paint this as a "both sides" thing.
Farrakhan is a prominent leftist. He was at Aretha Franklin's funeral, seated next to Bill Clinton. The leaders of the Women's March are big fans of his.
For some context in case anyone is curious, here is a photo of part of the front row at Aretha Franklin's funeral, featuring (in order) Louis Farrakhan, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson and Bill Clinton: https://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/aretha-franklin-funeral-ser...
Re: Facebook Bans Louis Farrakhan, Milo Yiannopoulos, InfoWars and Others
#737Every 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…
No, they are not monopolies.
Traditional monopolies "control supply of a good or service, and where the entry of new producers is prevented or highly restricted."
In this case, the supply of a good or service (social networking, webpage indexing and searching) are not controlled by Facebook and Google because they aren't finite resources. Anyone can index the web and anyone can build a social network and Google/Facebook aren't going to crush you with lawsuits or some other nefarious tactic to maintain their position (AFAIK).
Entry of new producers of these services is not prevented or highly restricted. New social networks and search engines pop up all the time.
What Facebook and Google have is massive, large scale user loyalty. Despite alternatives existing (Bing, Mastadon, DuckDuckGo, Myspace, etc.), users are voluntarily choosing to use Google and Facebook. This is not a monopoly.
I think we may need a new term for this situation.
Re: Facebook Bans Louis Farrakhan, Milo Yiannopoulos, InfoWars and Others
#738Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
True. Or left-wing, depending on who is downvoting. It's the one thing the authoritarians have in common.
Re: Facebook Bans Louis Farrakhan, Milo Yiannopoulos, InfoWars and Others
#739Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I think it's clear to most readers, separately from their leftness or rightness, how badly your comment broke the site guidelines. Why not just take them to heart and follow them? It's mostly not that hard, and will have the nice side effect of making your posts more persuasive.
Re: Facebook Bans Louis Farrakhan, Milo Yiannopoulos, InfoWars and Others
#740Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Monopolies of what, exactly? Monopoly on platform reach. 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. It's as if they own the radio spectrum, and you have to acquiesce to what they demand to use said spectrum. Of course, i am free to use smoke signals to send my message, but who will receive it?
>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.
it's not equal exposure at all, it's equal opportunity for exposure.
i can post a comment on FB and get 0 likes, that doesn't give me equal exposure to the latest nike video on their page.
denying opportunity for exposure is giving that platform the ultimate authority on what shouldn't be able to be exposed in society, if society is reliant on that platform.
i don't want alex jones to have exposure, but i don't want an exec deciding what's next on the chopping block. a page suggesting publicly available employee salaries? they shouldn't have that power