36 ms·

Facebook Bans Louis Farrakhan, Milo Yiannopoulos, InfoWars and Others

• maximus1983 7y ago
  I am sure there will be many people cheering. However people don't seem to realise that just because it isn't you getting censored now, it may well be you in the future. What is deemed acceptable and what isn't deemed acceptable are quite transient. It wasn't long ago it was unacceptable/illegal to be a homosexual, but now it is at least (in the Western world) readily accepted. I wonder if facebook was around in the 1950s would they be banning prominent homosexuals?
  • fatbird 7y ago
    I think many people do realise it, and feel like it's a worthwhile risk. 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. And also, I may end up censored anyway for other reasons. Tolerating Milo et al. isn't really a bulwark protecting me.
    • naasking 7y ago
      > 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.
      • fatbird 7y ago
        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.
        • naasking 7y ago
          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.
          • fatbird 7y ago
            We already have the bureaucracy and social norms and the tyranny of the majority. We don't now, and never have, existed in a pure state of nature with respect to freedom of expression. What this banning does is move the border between acceptable and unacceptable. You're arguing it's a slippery slope, that the moving border will eventually steamroll right over me and I'll regret not stopping it earlier. "Slippery slope" is a fallacy. Legalizing gay marriage doesn't mean we'll legalize polygamy. Alcohol was made illegal and then legalized again. It's not a ratchet. We make collective decisions and live with them, and maybe change our minds later. And among the factors stalling social progress on issues like gay rights and women's rights, I don't believe censorship was the biggest or even a significant factor, compared to all the others.
            • naasking 7y ago
              > We don't now, and never have, existed in a pure state of nature with respect to freedom of expression. Agreed. But we've largely only supported censoring speech that's incitement to violence, because anything beyond that seems to result in untenable legal duties. Furthermore, one main point of protecting free speech rights is to protect the minority against the majority. Classifying that minority as ethically abhorrent is irrelevant. While democracy is a tyranny of the majority, we recognize fundamental, inalienable rights to check that tyranny. > You're arguing it's a slippery slope, that the moving border will eventually steamroll right over me and I'll regret not stopping it earlier. That's one argument but not nearly the only one. Another is that there currently exists no rigourous criteria by which to classify the speech that people are looking to censor, so a) every case will be decided inconsistently by people who have no training in adjudicating what should be a philosophical or legal matter, and b) it will sweep up a lot of innocent people and stifle important political debate (which has already happened). There are plenty more arguments, some of which I've elaborated on here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19819584 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19819584 > "Slippery slope" is a fallacy. Legalizing gay marriage doesn't mean we'll legalize polygamy Except there are non-fallacious slippery slopes. Gay marriage and polygamy have no factual basis in common, so there is no slope down which we can slip. That's why invoking the slippery slope is a fallacy in this case. Now consider instead legalizing bestiality specifically with, say, dogs. Why only dogs? There is no non-fallacious, factual basis for why bestiality with horses should not also be legal if you're going to allow dogs. This is a non-fallacious slippery slope. So you're asserting that the arguments I've presented are fallacious without actually pointing out the absence of a factual basis. As for asserting my factual basis, I can point out how Twitter and Facebook have already banned controversial politicians, thus effectively meddling in elections. I can also point to recent Supreme Court precedent that established that social media is a public square, and thus that First Amendment protections apply against. I can also point out how that actual studies on online radicalization failed to find any basis for the idea that online echo chambers and hate speech alone actually led to radicalization and violence, so the entire premise for the push to censor this speech is itself fallacious. So then what are we left with? What justification is there to censor these people? We're left only with mob rule and capitalist motives in appeasing advertisers. These are emphatically not compelling reasons to establish these new and dangerous norms. > It's not a ratchet. We make collective decisions and live with them, and maybe change our minds later. Or we could apply a bit of foresight and understanding of history and avoid the problems altogether. The fact that censorship of this sort can and has influenced elections means that we quite literally may not be able to change our minds later.
    • maximus1983 7y ago
      I don't think many people are thinking about it. Real damage? What do you mean? Letting people not speak and isolating them radicalises them which is actually harmful. Milo saying some edgy opinions isn't harming you and if you don't like it you don't have to pay attention to it. People in the past have fought and died for the right to speak their mind and many people today seem to want to easily to throw it away.
    • KozmoNau7 7y ago
      The far right are only pro-free speech for as long as it benefits them. Historically, whenever they or similar authoritarians have taken power, basic right such as free speech and the right to assemble are the very first things to be restricted. They are hypocrites in the extreme. They only want free speech for themselves, and no one else.
      • maximus1983 7y ago
        Far right is a dog whistle. It doesn’t really mean anything. E.g criticise the immigration policy, you will be labelled far right by some of the rags that are still somehow trading. As for whether free speech benefits those in the far right. Sure maybe it does but it also benefits everybody.
  • deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  • waer34tawer 7y ago
    It may be me in the future. In fact, it's already happened to me before! I've been banned from a few forums and IRC channels in my day. The people there didn't like what I had to say. Am I angry? No. Because I've also run my own forums, and relied on the ability to ban and moderate comments in order to maintain a useful discussion. But wait, Facebook isn't the same a forum, right? Well, it is, it's just bigger. Way bigger. The problem is how big it is. And how, in some countries, it's the only game in town (Facebook Basics). It may seem like Facebook is overly moderated, but given it's size, it's really the opposite. It's a big free for all where hatred, deliberate misinformation, and calls to violence happen all the time. (Example: Myanmar). If you post that stuff on HN, it will quickly get taken down. But Facebook is slow to moderate anything, their moderation system is opaque, and thus hate speech is allowed to fester. But not just fester. Facebook actually amplifies it. They see the engagement it gets and push it out to more people. So Facebook is not only negligent in their moderation, they are actively promoting toxic behavior. So long for Facebook being a "neutral platform." Acting like the bans are the problem is the wrong idea. Moderation is important to any internet community, including this one. But when you get banned from a place, it shouldn't amount to not having a voice at all. Facebook is destroying the public square by maintaining a monopoly on internet communication. We should work to break them up, regulate them, or encourage people to leave the site.
    • maximus1983 7y ago
      TBH Facebook is going to fall apart on its own with all these big tech companies. Google is starting to crack (lost 70billion this week) and I suspect some of the other large silicon valley giants will start to crumble in the next decade.
  • pjc50 7y ago
    > I wonder if facebook was around in the 1950s would they be banning prominent homosexuals? Of course they would. There's even a bit of that happening today: https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2018/10/03/facebook-blocked-many-gay-themed-ads-part-its-new-advertising-policy-angering-lgbt-groups/?utm_term=.f2539d998095 https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2018/10/03/faceboo... And this is before we get into the question of malicious application of the "real names" policy to trams people.
• whiddershins 7y ago
  “In some instances, when Facebook bans an individual or organization, it also restricts others from expressing praise or support for them on its platforms, the spokesperson said, adding that the company continues to view such action as the correct approach.”
• deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
• psychometry 7y ago
  ...and nothing of value was lost. Facebook is not the government. They have no obligation to allow all speech.
  • deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  • bilbo0s 7y ago
    I wish all users had your capacity for reason. FB is private property. Play by their rules or GTFO. People who scream about censorship in instances such as these are being willfully dismissive of the property rights of others. And that's a dangerous road to start down.
    • deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    • nostromo 7y ago
      Just because Facebook can do something doesn't mean Facebook should. Freedom of speech is much more than a legal concept about governments and governed. It's also a guideline on how we should structure an open society going at least back to Ancient Greece.
      • res0nat0r 7y ago
        There never has been a right to free speech on some private companies system.
        • vibrato 7y ago
          That is true for content publishers. However, if those systems are claimed to be public squares, then there is a right to free speech for citizens of the USA there. The tech companies cannot have it both ways. They want to be publishers, then take the responsibilities and liabilities of publishers. https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2018/09/05/jack-dorsey-says-twitter-is-a-public-square-more-than-5-times/ https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2018/09/05/jack-dorsey-says-t...
• fopen64 7y ago
  Regrettable. Are they banning radical left types? Of course not.
  • nickthegreek 7y ago
    Who is a radical left type on Facebook that you feel have crossed boundaries?
    • rudedogg 7y ago
      My personal belief is that Facebook shouldn't be trying to censor speech this way, it's impossible to be (or appear to be) impartial. The people who are booted off just go to their own corner of the internet and never have their ideas challenged. But to answer your question, https://www.facebook.com/kathygriffin/ https://www.facebook.com/kathygriffin/ comes to mind (with the beheaded Trump photo).
      • nickthegreek 7y ago
        The kathy griffin image was a twitter post, not a facebook post. And while that was not a good post, that was a single incident. I don't think it would be correct to put Kathy Griffin and Alex Jones in the same bucket.
        • sleepybrett 7y ago
          Also clearly art, not a threat, not misinformation. In bad taste, probably. Not a call to action.
        • rudedogg 7y ago
          > The kathy griffin image was a twitter post, not a facebook post. The article didn't really say, but I assume the bans are considered based on all their activity, not just Facebook. > And while that was not a good post, that was a single incident. The Convington Catholic School thing was another issue. Probably worse in that it was kind of a call to action: https://twitter.com/kathygriffin/status/1086932616392011776 https://twitter.com/kathygriffin/status/1086932616392011776 I think comedians especially should get a lot of slack, but I'd say this fits the bill for being "dangerous" based on the article. My point is that this won't be viewed as being fair no matter what Facebook does, and rules like these allow you to easily target basically anyone. I don't know the answer, especially when you're an international company. I do think it's going to cause more political animosity though.
• deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
• deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
• sasasassy 7y ago
  And in Russia they ban instead this or that free speech advocate. And in China it is some other group of people that cannot speak. And in India, and in Brasil, Iran, Pakistan, UK, etc. There are always offensive people or sensitive subjects. The only question is Facebook going to ban each group of people per country basis or globally. If globally, we are going to have a very limited, gray area of speech in Facebook.
  • lotsofpulp 7y ago
    Only happy birthdays, congrats for graduations/wedding/babies/house, and condolences for deaths.
    • yostrovs 7y ago
      Jehovah Witnesses don't celebrate birthdays or any other holiday. To them it's wrong to single out any specific day among the majesty of all the days that God created.
      • badger_bravo 7y ago
        I'm against Jehovah's Witnesses but that's a very pretty thought.
      • sigzero 7y ago
        That isn't why at all. They believe it is of pagan origin and no birthdays were celebrated in the Bible that didn't turn out badly.
  • aklemm 7y ago
    We don't need free speech on Facebook, but we do on the Internet. That's the difference in Russia and China, etc.
    • mrmuagi 7y ago
      Sorry to sound like I'm trying to gotcha you, but how on earth isn't Facebook a large subset of the Internet?
• ravenstine 7y ago
  I'm not a fan of either of these people, but how exactly are Milo Yiannopolous and Paul Joseph Watson "dangerous"? Maybe it's not good material for people to be watching, but to call them "dangerous" comes off like the religious right of yore claiming that video games depicting violence are dangerous and need to be censored. I wouldn't normally step in to defend these people, but this article by CNN is a prime example of why people don't trust the media. Note the use of the word "fringe" in reference to people like Paul Joseph Watson, despite the number of views and subscribers(1.6 million) he has on YouTube alone. The word "fringe" used to mean something a lot more, well... fringe, but it's obvious that CNN and other outlets believe that they are official while everyone not sanctioned by Big Advertising is fringe. Facebook used to be popular because it was, at one point, fun. If they're going to remove all the voices they think are "dangerous", what they're left with won't be fun or interesting. Just lukewarm, milquetoast, or worse... lopsided. Sadly, I suspect that Facebook's stock will continue to climb despite how restrictive it is, how uninteresting it is, and how many people are leaving it. EDIT: I do appreciate those who haven't taken my comment as a denial of wrongdoing by subjects I mentioned. My question was honest and I still stand by my comment on CNN.
  • res0nat0r 7y ago
    Saying racist stuff constantly but playing it off as "ironic" and wearing a suit doesn't make it less racist. Good, they should have kicked these guys off years ago.
    • WC3w6pXxgGd 7y ago
      What has he said that's racist?
    • rayiner 7y ago
      When you’re talking about someone like Farrakhan, and the explicit racial basis for slavery and segregation, is simply being “racist” sufficient justification for a ban? By that same token, can Facebook ban say Armenians for being racist against Turks? Should Facebook step blithely into these very complex issues?
• rayiner 7y ago
  There are some optical issues with a company that has widely recognized shortcomings in hiring African Americans banning the person who organized the Million Man March. (This is not an endorsement of Mr. Fartakhan’s politics. But man, that’s a hell of a sensitive subject for Facebook to wade into.)
• jerkstate 7y ago
  I used to be against this sort of thing, but now I think the faster Facebook, Twitter, and Google make themselves irrelevant for public discourse, the better. Their ad-based business model is just incompatible with free speech, and the more obvious that fact is to everyone, the better. I still think it's bad when non-branded content carriers like web hosts, CDNs, payment processors and banks ban clients based on ideology though.
• Theodores 7y ago
  For years 'InfoWars' was promoted on YouTube, allegedly they now ban Alex Jones and his brand of media, along with - now - Facebook. During the Bush years he did act as a 'gatekeeper' for people questioning the war. Rather than people get to useful facts they only got as far as Alex Jones rants. This had a useful effect of neutering anyone questioning the particulars of how the war started. I would not say it is sad to see him banned from every platform but you have to wonder if he has outlived his usefulness. The bigger problem is the recommendation algorithms, giving him the oxygen of publicity. People would never have discovered his content without these algorithms, unless a friend personally recommended 'Infowars' et al. We should still have the option to read or watch content that does not agree with us in the realm of politics. I have not read 'Mein Kampf' myself, however I have listened to that one clip of Hitler actually talking rather than delivering a speech. I found it useful for understanding a little bit more about that war. There may be neo-nazis we need to protect from such hate speech but it is also at a cost to understanding history. With Alex Jones there is that theory that he is the same person as Bill Hicks. That story does interest me and I would like the option to study some original Alex Jones content to see if that is a credible conspiracy story or just some entertaining hogwash. If every trace of Alex Jones is banned from the internet then I won't have that option.
• scarejunba 7y ago
  Sounds fine to me. HN bans and threatens to ban people too and that's a good thing.
  • jonny_eh 7y ago
    Exactly, nearly every online forum does the same thing. It's normal and healthy. Luckily, there's no shortage of forums to move on to.
  • staunch 7y ago
    Banning spammers and system abuse is one thing but it's probably not a good thing that HN bans people for other reasons. At the very least HN should have a public log showing all administrative censorship so people can judge it for themselves. Without transparency we simply don't know how this extremely influential social network is being manipulated by a tiny handful of people.
• kodz4 7y ago
  So if some critical mass of the population find Mark Zuckerburg offensive can we get him banned?
• cm2012 7y ago
  This is awesome news. Deplatforming works and these guys are so blatantly harmful.
  • Veen 7y ago
    Deplatforming works to achieve what exactly?
    • happytoexplain 7y ago
      Stemming the spread of hatred and violence.
      • deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
      • naasking 7y ago
        1. Is there evidence that they've actually incited hatred and violence? If so, then they've violated the law. If there's no such evidence, then what justification would you use now? 2. Where's the evidence that hatred and violence are spreading? 3. Where's your evidence that censoring is successful in "stemming the spread of hatred and violence"?
      • fs2 7y ago
        Except the videos of Watson aren't spreading hate or violence but he is just another person with an opinion. Because it's unpopular opinion and because he worked with Infowars in the past it's easy to make him into the "bad guy".
    • jonny_eh 7y ago
      It works to remove platforms from people who spread hate and misinformation. https://mashable.com/article/milo-yiannopoulos-deplatforming-alex-jones/ https://mashable.com/article/milo-yiannopoulos-deplatforming...
      • tjenkinsqs 7y ago
• davidw 7y ago
  I think this is one of the more interesting and important debates of our time. As so much moves online, we realize that our speech belongs to these huge companies. On one hand, it's great to see these toxic people kicked off, because deplatforming them works wonders in terms of stopping them from spreading their hate. I think most of us have some doubts as to how it might play out in the future, though, and there are of course questions about how healthy it is for such huge corporations to have that much sway in the first place. There are all kinds of other shenanigans going on with many of these companies too: https://popular.info/p/trump-ad-contagion-spreads-on-facebook https://popular.info/p/trump-ad-contagion-spreads-on-faceboo...
• danso 7y ago
  Ignoring for now the larger debate over censorship, Facebook's implementation of this ban is suspect. All of these accounts have been alleged to be in violation for months, if not years, and some already had been partially banned (Alex Jones was banned from FB but not IG). Why now? Were there new violations? And/or is it a new policy change that affects how FB will be banning accounts moving forward? Is FB going to do bans for a specific user across all platforms, instead of a platform-by-platform basis?
  • r3bl 7y ago
    They've announced a little over a month ago that they're going to ban white nationalist content: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19503094 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19503094
    • razius 7y ago
      The problem is what is white nationalism and who defines it? A lot of the opposition is labeled as white nationalism.
  • threatofrain 7y ago
    The timing isn’t suspicious given that they are increasingly late to this position.
• iscrewyou 7y ago
  It’s only unfortunate that it took social networks this long to ban their toxic behavior and talk. These people did a lot of damage. A lot. All in the name of free speech. And to those saying, just because Facebook can, doesn’t mean they should. These people had the same freedom. Just because they can, they shouldn’t. But they chose hatred. And here we are. You reap what you sow. Facebook doesn’t owe them anything. Edit: a couple of words.
  • WC3w6pXxgGd 7y ago
    Just because you disagree with Milo's opinions or consider him toxic is not a reason to ban him.
  • chronogram 7y ago
    Thanks. I can’t stand those typical placating responses by normal people and those “isn’t it dangerous when a company can have company policies” types are so annoying.
  • Chris_Chambers 7y ago
    NPC detected.
  • dgzl 7y ago
    Some people like to have an unlimited variety of opinions available, and others like to live in an echo chamber. Facebook is very good at creating echo chambers.
    • thex10 7y ago
      This sets up a false dichotomy. There are plenty of opinions of a variety of flavors available after removing these people.
      • deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
      • geomark 7y ago
• SolaceQuantum 7y ago
  I don't know about Paul Joseph but I believe Milo has had cases of publicly naming, threatening to name, doxxing, and mocking trans women that study on the campuses that he's spoken at. I belive this is dangerous behavior due to statistic that trans people are especially vulnerable for being murdered compared to the rest of the American population.
  • Veen 7y ago
    If a group is marginally more likely to suffer violence, anyone mocking them should be denied access to widely used communications platforms? Doesn’t really make sense, does it?
    • SolaceQuantum 7y ago
      Trans people are not marginally more likely to suffer violence. They're significantly more likely to suffer violence, on the rate of several times more than the general population.
      • Veen 7y ago
        And banning Milo from Facebook is going to somehow improve that situation is it? Milo the loud mouthed cretin’s tame insults are responsible for the incidence of violence against trans women?
        • SolaceQuantum 7y ago
          The bar Facebook has set is not that they will improve the situation of all trans women everywhere. The bar set is that Facebook will removing people known for dangerous speech. The question is "has Milo committed dangerous speech?". I answered "yes, I believe so, I recall incidents that can be interpreted as such". Also, I did see what you wrote before you edited it out. That was an unfortunate, accusatory comment in bad faith and I'm glad you removed it.
          • deleted 7y ago
• cwyers 7y ago
  Putting 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.
  • amyjess 7y ago
    Farrakhan recently re-entered the spotlight due to the controversy over the Women's March earlier this year.
  • cm2012 7y ago
    He has a current active large social media following.
  • WC3w6pXxgGd 7y ago
    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.
    • somecontext 7y ago
      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-service-today-2018-08-31/6/ https://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/aretha-franklin-funeral-ser...
• StanislavPetrov 7y ago
  The ignorance in these comments is astounding. Facebook has already banned many anti-war voices that can in no way be construed as "racist" or bigoted. Its one thing to claim that private companies have the right to silence and censor people, and quite another to cheer on the practice as somehow being desirable.
  • gridlockd 7y ago
    > "many anti-war voices" Care to name some names?
    • StanislavPetrov 7y ago
      Over 800 have been banned including Anti-media and Police the Police. Here is a list of only a few: https://thefreethoughtproject.com/social-media-purge-top-ten-sites/ https://thefreethoughtproject.com/social-media-purge-top-ten...
      • gridlockd 7y ago
        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 called out for purging political accounts too far left and right of center, after it removed more than 800 pages just in time for the 2018 midterm elections. Some had millions of followers. Many of the affected pages were supposedly sharing links between groups using fake accounts, which then clicked "Like" on the posts, artificially upping their engagement numbers. This "inauthentic behavior" violates Facebook's anti-spam policies and goes against "what people expect" from Facebook, the company said." That's basically platform abuse, so a ban is warranted as well. To be clear, I'm not necessarily in favor of banning any of these "alternative media" outlets, but I can imagine why those may have been banned.
        • 7y ago
• deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
• m0zg 7y ago
  Now let's proceed to people who are _actually_ causing harm, such as, for example, anti-vaxxers, antifa, etc. Alex Jones, chemtrails, give me a break. He doesn't even believe in that shit himself. :-) In fact, let's also ban CNN from there. It has been peddling fake conspiracy theories and divided the country for the past 2 years pretty much non-stop. That's kinda harmful innit?
  • bilbo0s 7y ago
    So they should ban all the people you want banned, because, you've got a better handle on what's "dangerous"?
    • m0zg 7y ago
      Isn't that what they're doing already? How is Alex Jones "dangerous"? He's a joke, he doesn't even take himself seriously. If the stated goal is to minimize harm, then CNN has caused far more harm to the American people than Alex Jones ever will.
      • bilbo0s 7y ago
        So it is that you have a better handle on who is "dangerous" and who is not than FB does. Why do you feel your analysis is any more valid than FB's? Just as a matter of full disclosure, my position is, FB's private property, FB's rules. Just like my house, or yours I suspect, if you don't like the rules you have to leave. So that's my position on this whole thing. I'm just wondering why you think we should trust your word over FB's?
        • m0zg 7y ago
          There was no "analysis" there, it's purely a political move, don't get confused.
• danielovichdk 7y ago
  Funny how most of you doesn't seem to understand that it's not the banned people who are dangerous. It's Facebook. Stay off the platform and encourage others to do the same. Read news from respected news outlets and remember that there are always multiple sides to a story.
  • ehsankia 7y ago
    Why not both? They're dangerous in different ways, but just because Facebook has its set of issues doesn't mean those people should have a platform to spread their non-sense to the masses.
    • gridlockd 7y ago
      Can you explain to me how Milo is dangerous? I can see the case for Alex Jones, who spreads the kind of misinformation that leads certain individuals to "take action". But Milo? He's basically a clown.
      • ilikehurdles 7y ago
        Speaking at universities with his clearly anti-trans message while projecting the photos and identities of trans students at those universities during his speeches is clearly dangerous.
        • gridlockd 7y ago
          I had to look up the context for this and as expected it's not quite the way you make it sound. You use the word "trans students" in the plural, but it was only a single student. The photo shown was a screen grab from an interview that this person themself chose to give to local television, in which their name and university association is displayed. It's not like Milo "outed" anyone here. The speech in question: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-t1ufzttyUM&feature=youtu.be&t=2959 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-t1ufzttyUM&feature=youtu.be... If this passes the threshold of "dangerous", that's a very low threshold.
      • 7y ago
• throwawaysea 7y ago
  WHY THIS IS CENSORSHIP: I am seeing numerous comments claiming this is not censorship when it most definitely is. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship > Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information, on the basis that such material is considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or "inconvenient". Censorship can be conducted by a government, private institutions, and corporations. From Merriam-Webster (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/censorship https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/censorship), where there is no mention of 'censorship' being a government-specific concept: > the institution, system, or practice of censoring From Oxford (https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/censorship https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/censorship), where again there is no mention of 'censorship' being a government-specific concept: > The suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, films, news, etc. that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security. We know Facebook is a private corporation. That's irrelevant, as such actions are censorship regardless. So please stop repeating the false claim that this isn't censorship because Facebook can do whatever it wants as a private entity. WHY FREE SPEECH MATTERS: Proponents of free speech are pro free speech as a general concept and principle, beyond what protections are afforded under American law today. The idea of free speech predates the existence of the United States. Free speech is hugely valuable to defend, because what society finds acceptable or unacceptable is very much subjective and changes with time/location/culture/setting/leadership/etc. Having an open exchange of ideas is good and necessary for the long-term health and stability of society. Furthermore, making available ideas that challenge current understanding is necessary if we care about being a collectively truth-seeking society. Free societies are durable over the long term when they protect these rights at all times, for all people, for all ideologies. As a rule of thumb, if the speech in question is not advocating for direct physical violence, it should be permitted. Getting into the business of censoring indirect or non-physical harm is a huge slippery slope. We could frame virtually any idea as having some downstream negative externality and suggest that it should be disallowed. For example, capitalism, socialism, and communism could all be attacked in this manner. Should books on those topic be dropped? WHY PRIVATE PLATFORMS' CENSORSHIP IS CONCERNING: Large privately-owned platforms carry so much discourse across today's society, that censorship and deplatforming in those spaces has the same impact as governmental censorship, for most intents and purposes. Even if these corporations do not constitute what we might traditionally call a "monopoly", they control a large-enough share of traffic to have significant impact when they take artificial actions. That is, they constitute a digital public square. That sizable impact is exactly why they are being targeted (not just on this topic but others) by activists or other agents pushing for deplatforming/censorship favorable to their causes. The big risk is this: when only a few entities funnel so much societal discourse or control our communication infrastructure or process payments, those entities making arbitrary decisions about who they serve has similar impacts/risks to the government imposing similar restrictions through the law. These companies should not act as a thought police and should not impose their own personal governance above what is minimally required by the law. Nor should they rely on the judgment of an angry mob to make decisions.
• MeltySmelty 7y ago
  lolibturdz.
• dgzl 7y ago
  I imagine the people who are happy about this event aren't very fun at parties.
  • dblotsky 7y ago
    I imagine people who say others aren’t fun at parties, are themselves not very fun at parties.
    • dgzl 7y ago
      I'm not the one advocating exclusivity.
• shiado 7y ago
  It's always funny when these threads come up and people who ostensibly hold the progressive viewpoint that corporations have an inordinate amount of power and influence suddenly pull out their Ayn Rand books and Gadsden flags and argue that corporations should be able to do anything they want because they are a private entity.
  • amanaplanacanal 7y ago
    I dunno. I can certainly believe both, corporations do have an inordinate amount of power. But I also believe we should not take away any corporation's free speech rights either.
  • solipsism 7y ago
    People don't fit squarely into your simplistic black and white categories.
  • belltaco 7y ago
    It's also funny that people who ostensibly hold the conservative viewpoint that the government should not regulate corporations at all suddenly want the government to force companies and individuals to give away their property rights and host hateful speech.
• intopieces 7y ago
  >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.
  • ceejayoz 7y ago
    Yes, Facebook is taking some steps in WhatsApp to reduce the speed at which misinformation travels. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_WhatsApp_lynchings 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-limit-fake-news-facebook-twitter https://www.vox.com/2019/1/25/18197002/whatsapp-message-limi...
    • intopieces 7y ago
      That sounds closer to anti-spam than target censorship. WeChat (and even the messaging feature in DiDi!) have keyword filters that block messages with certain words. That sounds like the direction Facebook is headed with this banning of people and talking about them.
• interlocutor 7y ago
  Attitudes towards free speech have changed a lot in recent times. This is related to the rise of social media. The advent of social media had made it too easy to spread hate online. It started off innocently enough, with cat videos uploaded to youtube, but soon extremists were taking advantage of social media for radicalization purposes, and others even live-streaming mass murders. This has caused an upheaval in attitudes towards free speech. There needs to be limits. People started imposing limits to free speech. For example, consider that UC Berkeley, renowned for giving birth to the Free Speech Movement, is now making news for banning controversial/harmful speech, such as that by Ann Coulter. The people (as opposed to governments) have decided that some censorship is in order. This is a natural evolution of societal norms. This particular evolution was causated by the excesses seen in social media. It is befitting to see that a social media company, Facebook, is now in the news for censoring harmful speech. This type of censorship, as opposed to absolute free speech, will be the new normal.
  • JakeTheAndroid 7y ago
    I am very much in favor of Free Speech myself. But I think the annoying thing people forget is that it's the job of society to determine what is okay and what isn't. The government isn't supposed to decide our morals, we tell the government what those should be. Society is deciding that this is not stuff we want. Society is rejecting these ideas, and Facebook or Cloudflare when they dropped the Daily Stormer, etc, are deciding that this isn't what they want as part of their society. If a bulk of society does want these ideas, these people will move to a new platform that supports them, and people will use them and make the ideas mainstream. Stop complaining that society is rejecting ideas they don't like. It's literally how it works.
    • chasd00 7y ago
      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.
      • 7y ago
• pdeuchler 7y ago
  Hilarious. With the exception of Farrakhan, Facebook (and youtube, twitter, etc) is largely responsible for these people having such large platforms in the first place. But of course now they'll unilaterally censor them to widespread acclaim, deflecting criticism from the left for their participation and profiting off such demagogues, and whipping the right into a further frenzy about censorship and giving credence to these people's claims that they're censored "for truth". Everyone wins except the common man, who now must deal with the chilling effects of media and communication monopolies having the power of judge, jury, and executioner when it comes to speech. No need to censor people you don't like if you just capriciously censor people without warning or due process... people will censor themselves for you after that. Remember the problem isn't that these people had platforms, the problem is those platforms accepted money to promote and advertise these people. I'm sure facebook loved having these people churning around their recommendation engines, they probably drove engagement like crazy. But now the backlash isn't worth the profit, so we all have to pay the consequences. Remember that sunlight is the best disinfectant, and "deplatforming" these people might make them as personalities go away, but their ideas and propaganda will surely fester and grow in the darker corners of the internet. Milo is a joke even among the alt-right now, but his vitriol and invective continue to grow in popularity.
  • KozmoNau7 7y ago
    Sunlight has repeatedly shown to be counterproductive. Some people use any kind of platform they can get, any sort of media attention, to spread their views. They don't care that they get ridiculed, because their followers just see that as further proof of media conspiracies and bias. It just confirms and reinforces their prejudices. Deplatforming works. Free speech does not mean you have a right to use any platform you choose, nor does it shield you from the consequences of your speech. The deeper and darker the corners where they hide and the harder it is to stumble across by accident, the harder it is for them to spread their viewpoints. See Voat and Gab for relevant examples. Only the really hardcore believers went there when Reddit and Twitter said "that's it, get off our platforms".
• Animats 7y ago
  Farrakhan? He's been around forever. He's 85. He's the guy who set up the Million Man March in 1995. Compared to other 1960s black activists, he's not that extreme. Also, no way is he "far right". Far left, maybe.
  • vxNsr 7y ago
    He's a rabid anti-semite and has been for most of his career. His hate for jews is on the same level as Alex Jones' hate for gay frogs
    • SlowRobotAhead 7y ago
      Yea, Farrakhan belongs on the censored list. He's absolutely a racist and show be disavowed by everyone everywhere. In Jones's gay frog case... there are chemicals that turn frogs gay - that's the strangest thing about his critics... using that to point out how much of a lunatic he is, but... Atrazine [0] IDK... Maybe I'm just bad at hating conservatives... but if I was trying to mock a personality for being crazy, I'd choose something a little less plausible. https://www.livescience.com/10957-pesticide-turns-male-frogs-females.html https://www.livescience.com/10957-pesticide-turns-male-frogs...
      • kevinh 7y ago
        The link you posted is titled "Pesticide Turns Male Frogs into Females". Saying that makes the frogs "gay" raises questions about the person making that assertion.
        • razius 7y ago
          It's done in such a way to break it down into easily digestible sound bytes so that the message is spread.
• qwsxyh 7y ago
  Once again, I find it ironic to be holding an absolutist free speech view on a website that automatically deletes opinions the community doesn't like.
  • AnimalMuppet 7y ago
    Turn on "show dead" in your profile. They aren't deleted; they're hidden.
  • dblotsky 7y ago
    Free speech has nothing to do with the right to be listened to.
    • Fins 7y ago
      But did Facebook force you to read Farrakhan or Jones before they got kicked out?
• badatshipping 7y ago
  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 following. If they didn't exist, alternative services would spring up. But alternative services know they can't compete with FB/YouTube/Twitter, so none exist. When people say "if you don't like FB's rules, use another service" it ignores that Facebook is the reason there isn't another service and thus has some responsibility to uphold values we've collectively decided as a society are important. The issue is not whether Facebook is breaking the law but whether philosophically the market leader in a category should get to decide who can use their product when their product category is fundamental to modern life. Saying "no one is owed a platform" brings us no closer to an answer.
  • throwawayjava 7y ago
    > ..when their product category is fundamental to modern life. FB/YT/Twitter are not fundamental to modern life. They aren't even fundamental to gaining an audience. Lots of businesses[1] manage to turn handsome profits without advertising on those platforms. [1] And that's what infowars/milo are -- businesses looking for make a profit by producing social commentary and then selling ad space / books / videos / merch for more than it costs to produce the commentary.
    • SlowRobotAhead 7y ago
      >FB/YT/Twitter are not fundamental to modern life. Neither are cakes. But people on left celebrating Facebook for doing what they want on their platform - seem quite similar to the people on the left also trying to get a baker forced to make a cake. Can't have it both ways. (edited for clarity)
      • deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
      • 7y ago
• otvsh 7y ago
  I'm wondering if a tipping point will be reached where so many people will be deplatformed that users will start to flock to uncensored sites (think of Gab, but it doesn't have to be Gab) en masse to be able to read what they want to read, to the point where those sites will have enough "normal" users that they won't be complete cesspools like Voat is.
  • temptemptemp111 7y ago
    Gab is a psyop. Gab.ai == Gabbai. They're collecting private information of dissidents and creating fake supply of "white supremacy" because the demand is so high.
  • Karunamon 7y ago
    What will come first is one of these companies (probably Twitter, Facebook, or Google) will overreach in some way (like nuking the President's account or something else equally outlandish) and force a legal fight on the matter. The nature of free speech on the internet, when the internet is an interconnected series of other people's back yards, is not a fight that Silicon Valley would prefer to have. This idea carries some amount of legal precedent for physical locations [1]. They'd also rather not have their status as platforms vs publishers reevaluated - the more control they exert, the closer they come to that point of being a publisher, and therefore responsible for the content they host. [1]: https://law.justia.com/cases/california/supreme-court/3d/23/899.html https://law.justia.com/cases/california/supreme-court/3d/23/...
• l33tbro 7y ago
  Well done Facebook PR. You've successfully spun this to be about 'toxic' individuals, when the fact remains that it's the architecture of your platform that is tearing away at our social fabric. How much longer will these money-printing giants remain unaccountable, unregulated, and a publlic health risk?
• bitL 7y ago
  Hmm, all Facebook is going to achieve is that they lose any influence on supporters/viewers of those they kicked out, instead of algorithmicaly managing them by some dark patterns. It's now trivial to set up an ActivityPub service on an own server that replaces 70% of FB/Instagram/YouTube functionality and that gap in useful services will be shrinking. So they will have a short-term win and long-term an ever larger group without any influence over as the window of acceptable discourse will be shifting further in its current trajectory, pushing more of previously accepted opinions over the edge, kicking out more users in the process.
  • fullshark 7y ago
    They will achieve ensuring no ads appear next to a post from these guys.
• threatofrain 7y ago
  Facebook is not a public square. I love public spaces. Shouldn’t we pay for one? I don’t care if Facebook has a darling reputation; ought it run our public and private meeting spaces?
  • thinkingemote 7y ago
    Are there any public spaces on the internet? I can't think of any. I'm not sure it would be possible to build one, legally, either.
    • threatofrain 7y ago
      I view government funded web presence as a digital public space, it’s just not a meeting space. To me the difference in funding determines who has power.
      • thinkingemote 7y ago
        Ahh yes! And every real public space has its by laws and regulations too. Thanks.
  • dblotsky 7y ago
    There are many public spaces outside of Facebook, and they’re paid for with taxes.
    • threatofrain 7y ago
      Yes and what about digital meeting spaces; public-funded IRC?
• meaninglessness 7y ago
  Waaaayyy too much credit given to these alleged “influencers” and douche bros. They actually aren’t very influential. Influencers are simply not engaging and interesting enough to be successful on their own. More often than not they are resonating with realities on the ground. The spinelessness and the one-sided pontifications of those that the douche bro audience members are repelled from needs to be factored into equation. You can stamp out all the douche bros you want. The reality though, is that there’s nothing offered that placates the urges they feed into, and the vapid attempts at as much placation as can be stomached are often uncanny valley sock puppet versions of what the douche bros are typically offering on tap. Almost a believable forgery, but nutritious ingredients all missing, and it tastes like a zero calorie version. Then again, the fake news narrative was never a real problem to begin with. It’s just a manufactured narrative that feeds into other objectives. It’s like: well now that our shitty roommate flipped over their car and killed themselves in a drunk driving accident, let’s empty out the garage, and get rid of all their useless hoarder possessions, and start parking our car in there.
• deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
• wh-what-if 7y ago
  Maybe... Maybe... it’s all bullshit. Maybe none of this is real. Maybe even the Facebook bans are a lie?
• cybersnowflake 7y ago
  All you guys using freemarket/private enterprise excuses to support this have no justification supporting net neutrality or any antidiscrimination 'public accommodation' laws ie (forced SSM cake baking, government interference in private business's choice of customer/employee). Either government steps in for the greater good or it doesn't. You can't have it both ways.
• pmarreck 7y ago
  I suggest a machine should be taught how to identify conversations about the merit of "deplatforming", and then use the ML to autoban those conversations in order to teach a valuable lesson in civics
• lazzlazzlazz 7y ago
  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.
  • pas 7y ago
    https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19814795 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19814795
  • raarts 7y ago
    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.
    • Vaskivo 7y ago
      > they have stupid followers who commit the actual damage Then shouldn't we ban/punish these followers?
      • raarts 7y ago
        Punished by the legal system absolutely. Banned by court order yes.
• village-idiot 7y ago
  I have a very hard time getting worked up over deplatforming. Social media companies are private, if they want to ban odeous asshats that is their right. Those who dislike it can go to Gab.
• Simulacra 7y ago
  I don't agree with this at all. If they want to put a big warning on it, contain the posts, etc. that's fine, but banning is not cool. One person's radical fascist is another person's ardent hero. Facebook should support freedom of speech, not freedom from speech.
  • oliveshell 7y ago
    The only thing that the constitutional right to freedom of speech guarantees is that the government cannot arrest you for what you say. It doesn’t give you the right to continue using someone’s platform as a megaphone if they decide you’re an asshole. Being banned from Facebook doesn’t mean that these people no longer have the right or ability to spread their message. They can use another platform, or make (or host!) their own website, or print and distribute literature, or go stand on a street corner with an actual megaphone. Facebook is not the government, and— agree with it or not— they can decide who uses their platform and how. (For the record, I’m not a fan of Facebook.)
    • Simulacra 7y ago
      My apologies, perhaps I was not clear in my previous statement. I recognize that this is a private corporation, hence why I said in my last sentence that Facebook should support freedom of speech, not freedom from speech, which I meant as on their platform.
    • im3w1l 7y ago
      These platforms were commanded by official government bodies to censor. The house homeland security committee wrote an open letter to Facebook, Youtube, Twitter and Microsoft after the Christchurch attack > Your companies must respond to these toxic and violent ideologies with resources and attention. Now Milo is being kicked out. Now Infowars is being kicked out. It's a clear act of government censorship. Why do you think they wrote to all big platforms at once? Because they want to completely shut the information down. They want to eliminate the possibility of going elsewhere. They want to eliminate choice completely. They want to eliminate this speech.
  • amanaplanacanal 7y ago
• charliebrownau 7y ago
  The LEFT always eats its own and refuses to handle valid criticism against its Anti Western + Anti Freedom push in Western "" Democracy "" countries Just like Google , Twatter and other "woke" companies, they follow the LEFT's definition of "hate speech" which is anything the LEFT hates Its just more examples of how authoritarian and much the Western LEFT is like China (LEFT WING Communist )and German Nazis (LEFT WING National Socialist Party) AU Current Government = GLOBAL LEFT WING Socialists NZ Current Government = GLOBAL LEFT WING Socialists CA Current Government = GLOBAL LEFT WING Socialists UK Current Government = GLOBAL LEFT WING Socialists All 3 main parties in UK are now GLOBAL LEFT WING All 3 main parties in AU are now GLOBAL LEFT WING
• charliebrownau 7y ago
  Gday Platforms that censor speech List :- * Facebook * Twitter * Google & Youtube * TUMBLR * Pateron * Stripe * Paypal * Twitch * Spotify * Apple * Sony * pin interest * LinkedIn * Mailchimp * Wordpress * mastodon * azure * Mastercard * Godaddy * MEDIUM * Shopify * Cloudflare * pusher * WIKI * Reddit * teespring * Slack * coinbase * GOFUNDME * VISA * Square * Bitpay * ROKU * Netflix * Indiegogo * Disqus * VIMEO Regards, Charliebrowau
• thatoneuser 7y ago
  This is what we get for letting these shady social media companies get into the center of our discourse. Just remember even if you dislike people who are banned, it could be your people next. Social media should reflect the first amendment. Let's get with the times here...
  • SantalBlush 7y ago
    Equal exposure of all opinions is not a First Amendment issue.
    • thatoneuser 7y ago
      Thanks for the social media company shilling. We all appreciate the overlords sneaking propaganda in!
• partiallypro 7y ago
  Still waiting on them to ban antivax pages which harm a vast amount more people
• bashwizard 7y ago
  I dislike them just as much as anyone else but banning and censorship is wrong and actually dangerous in the long term.
• razius 7y ago
  Nobody is talking that it's not just the account that got banned but even sharing the content is not possible anymore. How is that not censorship?
  • daryl_zero 7y ago
    Banning hate speech is not censorship. You can't know what's hate speech tho, only comrade Andropov can know that.
• graphememes 7y ago
  There are people that believe this isn't censorship?
• EricShun 7y ago
  It won't be long until we get the following from Snaptubeface: https://www.whatsonweibo.com/chinese-media-warn-wechat-group-admins-you-can-be-arrested-for-what-happens-in-your-group-chat/ https://www.whatsonweibo.com/chinese-media-warn-wechat-group...
• EricShun 7y ago
  It won't be long until we get this: https://www.whatsonweibo.com/chinese-media-warn-wechat-group-admins-you-can-be-arrested-for-what-happens-in-your-group-chat/ https://www.whatsonweibo.com/chinese-media-warn-wechat-group...
• abstract7 7y ago
  If Facebook and Google are private companies and they can ban whomever they want, why can't they have a policy to not hire each other's employees? FYI, i don't like any of those stances.
• luord 7y ago
  I don't even know who these people are, but I do think that this is censorship, specially if it's true (as the article quotes about Loomer) that they've never actually advocated harm or the like.