Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Facebook Indefinitely Suspends Trump

facebook.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

961–970 of 1001 posts

Re: Facebook Indefinitely Suspends Trump

#961

Post by tptacek »

djsumdog wrote: post #549
horsawlarway wrote: post #431

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Shut the fuck up. Seriously. I live in Fulton county. My wife worked the polls. We're engaged in the democratic process here. This was audited to hell and back. It was checked, and checked again. It was checked by both parties. It was checked by the courts. It was checked by the governor, by the secretary of state, by the media, it was even checked by the fucking companies who made the ballot machines. So when you sa…

Just because you worked there doesn't mean you know everything that went on. How do you even explain the pipe burst that never happened and the counting that continued. Everything in your area might have been on the up and up, but things happened you may have not seen: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=keANzinHWUA Also keep in mind Georgia never did re-canvasing and when they did a re-count, they recounted the IMAGES o…

Finally, that "leaked" call between Trump and the GA sectary of state everyone went ape shit over, did you know that was literally illegal. It was a Settlement Call, lawyers on both side were present (and named) and all of that was privileged. The GA Sec of State should be in jail right now. He won't be.

Calls between attorneys negotiating a settlement aren't privileged. The "confidentiality" of settlement negotiations isn't confidentiality in the normal sense; rather, it simply establishes that you can't take material from settlement discussions and introduce it as evidence in a subsequent civil trial: it frees the parties to discuss things without having to worry about answering for every word they say in a subsequent trial.

If you've ever been involved in a civil conflict, you've noticed: every single piece of paper exchanged is marked "confidential settlement communication". You can publish all of it if you want.

You don't have to take my word for it (though: I've been in civil disputes, noticed this, and asked about it); legal experts on Twitter were dunking on pundits for thinking these conversations were confidential in the normal sense.

Re: Facebook Indefinitely Suspends Trump

#963

Post by richardARPANET »

nova22033 wrote: post #137
richardARPANET wrote: post #60

Zuck the PHP dev thinks he's Emperor.

He is the CEO of the company and gets to decide. You understand that facebook is a private company, right? Trump's 1A rights aren't being denied any more than Fox news is denying AOC her 1A rights by not giving her her own show.

ItS a PrIVAtE CoMPaNY! BuILD YOur 0wN InTERnet!

Re: Facebook Indefinitely Suspends Trump

#964

Post by nobody9999 »

molbioguy wrote: post #674
esoterica wrote: post #630

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not a public utility and being widely used does not make it one. Lots of people eat at McDonald's and get coffee from Starbucks, that does not make McDonald's or Starbucks a public utility.

It's treated as such by a lot of it's users. They do not have expectations of being censored. The items you mention are paid services. Facebook isn't for most of its users.

>It's treated as such by a lot of it's users. They do not have expectations of being censored. The items you mention are paid services. Facebook isn't for most of its users.

I'll preface this by saying that I don't use Facebook because I find its business model to be exploitative and invasive for a whole host of reasons.

FB users may treat it as a public forum, but that doesn't mean that it is a public forum.

There are a number of reasons (this is not an exhaustive list) why FB users might think it is a public forum:

1. They never read the terms of service;

2. They assume that they have free speech rights on the platform -- see (1) above;

3. They don't recognize that FB exists to make money selling advertising, and that advertisers are their customers, not them (again, see (1) above). Advertisers are notoriously picky about what sort of content they want their ads seen next to. And the customer is always right;

4. They don't think about the fact that Facebook's servers are the private property of Facebook, and Facebook can do (or not) whatever it wants with its private property[0].

[0] I'd point out that this is a very good thing. Because if Facebook doesn't have private property rights, then neither do you. Or me, for that matter. And if that's the case, I can come over to your house and project gay, furry porn in HD at full volume, on your walls -- all night, every night.

Re: Facebook Indefinitely Suspends Trump

#965

Post by amrangaye »

autokad wrote: post #727
wrsh07 wrote: post #624

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I tend to think that the business model of a cable news room is pretty fundamentally broken. Insofar as you value investigative journalism or pieces with some depth, you will be disappointed by organizations that host ESPN style shout fests, but they're produced for exactly the same reasons. It's cheap to make garbage filler content. When you see that all of the channels are deeply flawed, it's because they're incent…

John Oliver? are you kidding me? he purposely takes things out of context, cartoonizes and dehumanizes the opposition, uses comedy as a shield to make substantial counter points, etc etc. His goal is less about engagement (like a news media) and more abut driving a deeper wedge between people. John Oliver is a curse upon humanity, he makes this world worse.

“A curse upon humanity”? Aren’t you getting a bit carried away? You may not like the contents of the show but fact is he presents a lot of really complex issues in an easily digestible, shareable format, for people who only follow the 24/7 (shallow) news cycle and get their understanding from sound bites. Not to mention the hyperbole of “all of humanity” - his audience is not even all of America :)

Re: Facebook Indefinitely Suspends Trump

#967

Post by fsdfgsfsdfsdfsd »

boston_clone wrote: post #107
fsdfgsfsdfsdfsd wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bullshit

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tcfcTB9-S2s Here is the video, in all its slurred shame.

Can't watch right now, but I am sure he didn't mention "Camp Auschwitz". Your interpretation is Bullshit.

Re: Facebook Indefinitely Suspends Trump

#968

Post by nobody9999 »

uncoder0 wrote: post #53
ndjdjxjsjdjdhd wrote: post #32

> involving use of our platform to incite violent insurrection against a democratically elected government. From my understanding the video that got banned asked everyone to go home peacefully but then continued to claim election fraud?

You are correct the video all the platforms are using to justify the bans explicitly asked people to go home. Previously he had urged them to be peaceful which they mostly were as evidenced by the fact that no capitol staff or police were in any way injured during the incident. edit: Leaving my comment intact as there are people who have replied. VBProgrammer pointed out that a portion of my statement is not true. Th…

>peaceful which they mostly were as evidenced by the fact that no capitol staff or police were in any way injured during the incident.

At least one Capitol police officer is dead. Beaten to death with a fire extinguisher.

Many of the folks arrested had cable ties similar to those used by police to "handcuff" people. One insurrectionist was found with materials to make molotov cocktails.

Re: Facebook Indefinitely Suspends Trump

#969

Post by nobody9999 »

drak0n1c wrote: post #927
tolbish wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This ban rings hollow. You're 100% correct that Trump has been provoking violence for years now (e.g. "If she [Hillary] gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks...although the Second Amendment people ... maybe there is" / "When the looting starts, the shooting starts"). Zuckerberg just knows now that Democrats will be in power so this is a safe move to appear like he hasn't been perfectly fine helping Trump…

Those statements you gave as examples weren’t so clear cut. The first was in the context of talking about court cases that the judges will see. It was probably referencing 2A legal defense and litigator orgs like the NRA and GOA. The second example capped off a paragraph about curfew measures to prevent daytime protests from being overtaken by nighttime looting. Therefore it could be an empirical statement about trag…

>The second example capped off a paragraph about curfew measures to prevent daytime protests from being overtaken by nighttime looting. Therefore it could be an empirical statement about tragedies that tend to and have followed looting and is using that to justify his preventive measures. If he meant it normatively and wanted to shoot people he probably wouldn’t have pushed preventative measures.

The second example was a blatantly racist dog whistle[0].

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/When_the_looting_starts,_the_s...

Re: Facebook Indefinitely Suspends Trump

#970

Post by nobody9999 »

tetrometal wrote: post #571
efdee wrote: post #422

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every single case got struck down by judges. People were pissed about a lack of election transparency that wasn't actually there. If the opinion of judges wasn't enough to convince them, what makes you think that of an auditor would make a difference?

I think the truth will eventually come out. I HOPE that those claiming sufficient fraud to effect the election are dead wrong. The alternative would be a nightmare. That's why the media and big tech shouldn't have buried their head in the sand. "Every single case got struck down by judges" is not a new argument to my ears. Do you think most of those judges heard actual evidence, or were throwing cases out on procedur…

>"Every single case got struck down by judges" is not a new argument to my ears. Do you think most of those judges heard actual evidence, or were throwing cases out on procedural grounds? Have you considered that question?

Yes. And I even read complaints filed, responses to those complaints, arguments and rulings. And you can too (here's a summary of many of the cases, with links and citations to the actual court documents)[0].

I could tell you what conclusions I drew, but I won't. Don't believe me or anyone else. Read the court documents yourself. They are matters of public record.

[0] https://electioncases.osu.edu/2021/01/summary-of-post-electi...

Post reply on HN