39 ms·

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 b

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 8y 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 8y ago
  What has he said that's racist?
- rayiner 8y 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?
  - CamperBob2 8y ago
    My personal working definition of "racism" is any thought process that leads me to judge either an entire race or certain individuals within that race by the actions of other individuals within the race. That's no more justifiable if your name is Farrakhan than it is if your name is Yiannopoulos. I don't know much about either of those people, though, so I can't say whether or not Facebook should boot them off.
  - rhizome 8y ago
    >is simply being “racist” sufficient justification for a ban It can be, if the site decides it is. Other places, it isn't!
    - vowelless 8y ago
      It’s great that the site decides. It is exerting editorial control in this case. Hence, they should be liable for the speech that they do allow. Which means, they should be sueable if a user does slander on their platform, posts copyrightable material, etc.
      - balfirevic 8y ago
        > It is exerting editorial control in this case. > Hence, they should be liable for the speech that they do allow. I see this sentiment often on HN, as if the latter somehow logically and necessarily follows from the former. It doesn't, and if that is what you advocate then you should justify it with proper arguments.
        vowelless 8y ago
        The argument is about whether Facebook is a platform or a publisher. This discussion has been going on for years and not just on HN. Being a platform, like ATT telephone lines, bring certain protections from lawsuits of content. The core of net neutrality is also based on a similar idea; with net neutrality, platforms (cable companies) can not between distinguish services (like throttling Netflix). In the exact same vein, if Facebook is a platform, it cannot distinguish between the “services” (users producing the content) unless that content is federally criminally illegal. With this, they are not liable for civil matters like slander. However, if Facebook is a publisher, meaning it can editorialize the content (similar to att choosing to throttle Netflix ), then it will become liable just like every other publishing company (nytimes, nymag, Rolling Stones, you name it). Hope this helps. There is a lot more info about this on the internet. There were even House hearings on this topic. I encourage you to go look them up.
- bartimus 8y ago
  Any examples of Milo making a racist remark? Afaik his criticism is mainly towards certain cultures. Not races.
  - threeseed 8y ago
    Given that there is such a high correlation between religion, race and cultural background I don't think it's always possible to say that racism is fine but bigotry and xenophobia aren't. They are all inextricably linked.
    - colordrops 8y ago
      We need to be able to criticize cultures, as they are choices and not unchangeable traits at birth, and some cultural behaviors are absolutely unhealthy. Your premise opens up certain cultures to be immune to criticism, which is a terrible thing.
    - bartimus 8y ago
      You choose your beliefs. Not your genes. That's the problem with racism. Genes are not a thing you can hold someone accountable for.
    - tathougies 8y ago
      In America, there isn't really. For the most part, immigrant groups have adopted a culture completely or substantially different than the one from which their ancestors came.
  - kevincrane 8y ago
    The reason he was (finally) banned from Twitter was for encouraging his racist supporters to harass Leslie Jones and send her gorilla memes (a wildly racist trope, as you know). So yes, he's racist.
    - maximus1983 8y ago
      He didn't encourage any of his fans to harass Leslie Jones. That is misinformation. Leslie Jones was making quite a number of remarks about people that were criticising the Ghostbuster movie trailer. Milo made one comment saying she looked like a dude (which is quite rude). Most of the other comments towards her were made hours before he retweeted her.
olivermarks 8y ago
There has to be some sort of US free speech legal action that could be taken to stop this crack down by an internet platform company on free speech. I'm not sure how many people actually take FB seriously as a 'news' platform, but it can be useful to discuss the way corporate entities such as CNN present information on their specific home pages on Facebook.
- ztoben 8y ago
  Legitimate question, is free speech guaranteed on Facebook's platform? Or do they get to decide what content is okay and what isn't?
  - the_watcher 8y ago
    Not guaranteed by the Constitution
  - anoonmoose 8y ago
    They get to decide. Legally they are like a bar or a restaurant or a mall, it's their property, they can kick you out for practically any reason, protected classes aside, and political belief is not a protected class in the US.
  - r3bl 8y ago
    "Free speech" doesn't apply to private entities at all. They have full rights to refuse service to someone for whatever reason they want to, same as any other business. Obligatory XKCD: https://xkcd.com/1357/ https://xkcd.com/1357/
    - Udik 8y ago
      I don't agree at all. What about an energy company denying you connection to the grid because they don't like you? Or the telephone company doing the same? And what if these companies are monopolies in the area, or if there is only a handful of companies and they all make the same decision- perhaps out of fear of losing other customers to the competition? Facebook is a de facto monopoly in the social networks space, and it's deciding to deny service to specific individuals based on their political opinions. It's not something I'm willing to shrug off as unimportant. And I have to disagree with xkcd too on this one. Protecting the freedom of speech means setting limits to the freedom of others to harm you when they don't like what you say. People are free to disagree and switch channel/ unfollow/ stop buying a newspaper/ etc. But harassment and mobbing are a different matter.
dguaraglia 8y ago
At the end of the day, that's for Facebook to decide. If Facebook decides they don't want to host content from them, that's their choice as the private company they are. People keep bringing up "freedom of speech" when it comes to these trolls, like the world owes them something.
- StanislavPetrov 8y ago
  That would only be true if Facebook was truly private and not taking direction from government-funded entities like the Atlantic Council. The government isn't simply allowed to outsource censorship to do an end-run around the 1st Amendment. This remains true whether or not they claim to be doing so because of the dastardly Russians or anyone else. http://fortune.com/2018/05/17/facebook-atlantic-council-election-propaghanda/ http://fortune.com/2018/05/17/facebook-atlantic-council-elec...
  - anoonmoose 8y ago
    "Despite its connections, the Council is by charter independent of the U.S. government and NATO, a registered 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization."[1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_Council https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_Council I guess what I'm saying is, Facebook is a private company by any reasonable legal interpretation.
    - StanislavPetrov 8y ago
      Their claims of independence are irrelevant - they are funded directly by NATO. Its a pity the Hacker News woke crowd is so hostile to the 1st Amendment - a sign of the times. http://www.thinktankwatch.com/2013/02/atlantic-council-releases-donor-list.html http://www.thinktankwatch.com/2013/02/atlantic-council-relea...
      - anoonmoose 8y ago
        I'm not hostile to the 1A, I just recognize that the Constitution applies to actions made by the government and not by private companies. Facebook can take money from NATO and still be private.
mbostleman 8y ago
Agreed. Facebook and Twitter are private companies so they can do whatever they want as far as I'm concerned. But given their reach, it is disturbing that their censorship of content (and CNN's inevitable approval of it) is clearly political bubble motivated. Recent examples are James Woods and the Unplanned movie. While far more egregious speech (assuming the same standard) on the other side is given a pass. It would be great if they would list all those that are blocked (maybe only the high profile ones) so that we could have some actual data around it.
aeturnum 8y ago
> The word "fringe" used to mean something a lot more, well... fringe Did it? 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! >how exactly are Milo Yiannopolous and Paul Joseph Watson "dangerous"? I think "dangerous" is probably not quite the right word. They're dangerous in the same way that, say, anti-vax views are dangerous [3]. The views themselves won't hurt you or hurt me. They're 'just' opinions. However, at some point, allowing those views on your platform make you complicit in promoting pandemics. You're not directly responsible exactly, but you're involved somehow. Where the "line" is and how we talk about it isn't clear, but I think there is a line somewhere and I feel pretty comfortable that the people Facebook banned are probably on the other side of it. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Area_51#UFO_and_other_conspiracy_theories https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Area_51#UFO_and_other_conspira... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Protocols_of_the_Elders_of_Zion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Protocols_of_the_Elders_of... [3] https://www.cdc.gov/measles/cases-outbreaks.html https://www.cdc.gov/measles/cases-outbreaks.html Edit: I should note, lest anyone think this is all "in the past," that people still claim that "the protocols" is an authentically jewish document that describes real Jewish people.
- Mirioron 8y ago
  >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 conspiracy theories on the level of flat earth? >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. >Where the "line" is and how we talk about it isn't clear, but I think there is a line somewhere and I feel pretty comfortable that the people Facebook banned are probably on the other side of it. Until it inevitably comes back to bite you or something you like.
  - 8y ago
danso 8y ago
Don't know about Watson, but Milo had been previously slapped for an Instagram post that was seen as cheering on an attempted mail bomb attack in October: https://www.thedailybeast.com/instagram-refuses-to-pull-down-milo-post-praising-mail-bombs https://www.thedailybeast.com/instagram-refuses-to-pull-down...
username223 8y ago
> how exactly are Milo Yiannopolous and Paul Joseph Watson "dangerous"? "Pizzagate," for example. Milo and InfoWars pushed a loony conspiracy theory until some guy believed them enough to show up at a random restaurant with an assault rifle, which seems dangerous. They did it to sell fake nutritional supplements. EDIT: They're welcome to continue ranting away on their own blogs, but I don't see any reason that Facebook should give them a free megaphone.
- bdcravens 8y ago
  If we are measuring effects, shouldn't they start banning anti-vaxxers?
  - astura 8y ago
    Indigogo and GoFundMe already do.
  - cm2012 8y ago
    They are: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/mar/07/facebook-anti-vaxx-vaccine-hoax-ads https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/mar/07/facebook-...
  - dymk 8y ago
    Guess what, they've already started! https://newsroom.fb.com/news/2019/03/combatting-vaccine-misinformation/ https://newsroom.fb.com/news/2019/03/combatting-vaccine-misi...
  - username223 8y ago
    Yes. Why are the measles still a thing?
    - cowwithbeef 8y ago
      The MMR vaccine does not give full immunity(the reason booster shots exist), immigrants can enter the country while carrying the disease, and sometimes live virus vaccines like MMR can leave the people who get them contagious. The only ways to have zero cases of any disease in the country are to either eradicate it globally (like small pox), or to eradicate it nationally and prevent cross border transmission (like polio).
ggggtez 8y ago
So, some guy I never heard of is not fringe because he has 1.6 million subscribers, but Facebook "used to be popular" because they only have 2.38 billion users? Come on now. The numbers clearly show that to Facebook, 1.6 million subscribers is very fringe. 1.6 million doesn't even get you into the top 5000 on YouTube.
waer34tawer 8y ago
You're being disingenuous! Paul Joseph Watson believes: - 9/11 was an inside job - The illuminati is controlling your mind with chemitrails - Soy beans are making men docile and feminine. Sounds pretty fringe to me. Don't care how many views he has. He also incites hate against muslims, which I'd say, makes him pretty dangerous. My opinion of Facebook's actions is a separate matter. But the narrative you're pushing to justify your argument - it's complete BS.
- sneakernets 8y ago
  One of his YouTube contemporaries pointed out that his "supplements" he sold contained nothing but soy derivatives, and instead of acknowledging it, decided to dress in drag and scream at a camera for several minutes. I wish I were making that up.
  - lghh 8y ago
    Hbomberguy did the video about it in case anyone is wondering.
- mindslight 8y ago
  > - 9/11 was an inside job And yet the opposing simplistic narrative of "Terrorists hate our freedom" has caused orders of magnitude more harm. Hundreds of thousands of lives lost! But since that is the power-structure-approved message, it was/is heartily repeated (along side yellow cake, aluminum tubes, etc). If someone can't grasp the bigger ideas of multiple independent actors each with their own divergent motivations, suicide attackers acting out of desperation for long term grievances, etc, I'd rather them end up at "inside job" instead of the officially sanctioned propaganda that ended up mobilizing so much death.
  - ben_w 8y ago
    How many deaths would have happened if everyone in group “inside job” switched opinions with everyone in group “they hate our freedoms”? It’s not often good for mortality rates if the people turn against their government, even when they are right to do so.
cirgue 8y ago
> 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. Honestly, I hope that Facebook becomes more restrictive and more censorship-oriented. That would make alternative platforms more viable and increase diversity in online media. I'm also 100% opposed to the idea that private companies should be permitted to or expected to function as the town square. That, more than censorship, is the real threat to freedom of speech and freedom of thought. Facebook, twitter, and youtube, by the nature of their ranking algorithms and the structure of the service, have a huge influence on what and how ideas spread without explicitly pushing or censoring content.
- Mirioron 8y ago
  I think private platforms could act as the town square as long as we demand that platforms beyond a certain size can't just censor whatever they like. Make protections in section 230 of the communications decency act dependent on providing a platform for free speech if the platform is large.
  - justinmchase 8y ago
    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.
    - throwawayjava 8y ago
      This would kill millions of completely apolitical websites with strong user communities.
      - cirgue 8y ago
        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.
coldtea 8y ago
>I'm not a fan of either of these people, but how exactly are Milo Yiannopolous and Paul Joseph Watson "dangerous"? They don't adhere 100% to the established views of the 10% of "good people". Hence, they are, if not dangerous, bad.
- creaghpatr 8y ago
  Well, Milo did write a memoir titled "Dangerous"...
  - coldtea 8y ago
    Well, Michael Jackson also had a record of that name, and it one of his tamest and more indifferent, so there's that!
- eropple 8y ago
  "They" out and attack trans people and intentionally-and-maliciously spin up their literally-not-figuratively crazy followers to inundate with death threats the parents of kids who died in school shootings. Where I come from, having a speaker own the results of that sort of thing isn't particularly controversial and I would think that you, specifically you, could find it within you to be better than this.
  - coldtea 8y ago
    >"They" out and attack trans people Do they? This is the video you're perhaps referring to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h2oV1QKUMdM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h2oV1QKUMdM and the person in question was commented upon because they were already in the news as a trans activist making a scene in that same campus (to be allowed to the women's toilets). What counts as an "outing" at this point? You might not like the tone or politics, but this is tame stuff, pumped up into some kind of evily evil monstery, because it doesn't follow the "Bien-pensant" etiquette. Which is the whole shtick of such people -- to give some controversial opinions and not the same-old. Besides, people have been making fun and attacking all kinds of other people they disagree with -- or just wanna take a shot at -- for ages, without being de-platformed. Does it only matter when it's done from people on the right/conservative side (similarly to how, back in the day, it mattered only when it was done from the left/progressive side)? The fussy way people are these days, they would run Zappa and Carlin off the stage today, never mind someone like Hunter Thompson...
ngcazz 8y ago
Milo Yiannopoulos getting the bully pulpit on TV and university stages, to say, as though it were a fait acompli, that trans people are sick is dangerous. Paul Joseph Watson spewing misinformation about the extent of the refugee crisis is dangerous.
- anbop 8y ago
  Doesn’t the medical establishment consider trans people to be “sick,” in that they have the disorder known as gender dysphoria?
- Mirioron 8y ago
  >Paul Joseph Watson spewing misinformation about the extent of the refugee crisis is dangerous. Is it any more dangerous than the lies politicians spewed about it in Europe though? We know that a bunch of those politicians straight up either lied or didn't know what they were talking about. We have had terror attacks carried out in Europe by refugees or asylum seekers that have killed people. Some sources even claim that quite many people have died [0], but I am not sure how credible this is. [0] https://www.heritage.org/sites/default/files/2018-06/BG3314.pdf https://www.heritage.org/sites/default/files/2018-06/BG3314....
  - jsjw7sbw 8y ago
    It's the classic leftist projection again
  - razakel 8y ago
    >We have had terror attacks carried out in Europe by refugees or asylum seekers that have killed people. For some bizarre reason, people get angry when you bomb them.
    - tastygreenapple 8y ago
      Yes, this is why America started its war on terror after 9/11.
sinemetu11 8y ago
By dangerous they mean dangerous to advertisers. Facebook's decisions like this have nothing to do with harm to humans. It's to profit.
reaperducer 8y ago
despite the number of views and subscribers(1.6 million) he has on YouTube alone. I'm not saying that far-out views should be banned from the intarwebs, but 0.023% of the world's population sounds pretty fringe to me. Heck, it's only 0.4% of the United States. Not even a rounding error.
- zorked 8y ago
  Not to mention that bots and fake accounts are in widespread use by the far-right, so follower numbers are not really credible.
aklemm 8y ago
He's dangerous as he stokes the kind of fear, based on falsehoods, that cause a government such as ours to split up migrant families with no regard as to how to reunite them. And that's just the beginning of what will happen based on the kind of rhetoric Trump and Yiannopolous put out.
- aklemm 8y ago
  Would love to hear downvoters make their case.
MagicPropmaker 8y ago
Milo is an "edgy" comedian. His shtick is to be provocative. I can't imagine he's dangerous in any real way. Offensive, yes, but not dangerous.
- justinmchase 8y ago
  Milo disagrees: https://www.amazon.com/Dangerous-Milo-Yiannopoulos/dp/069289344X https://www.amazon.com/Dangerous-Milo-Yiannopoulos/dp/069289... lol
  - drak0n1c 8y ago
    That doesn't rule out the likely possibility that he chose that title tongue-in-cheek because many people kept labeling him as such.
    - cowwithbeef 8y ago
      It's pretty obviously tongue-in-cheek. I think you replied to a troll making his own tongue-in-cheek joke.
  - avinium 8y ago
    Eminem also had a track called "Criminal", highlighting the absurdity of labels that people throw around for things they don't like.
meej 8y ago
Milo calls himself "dangerous", FWIW. It was the title of his book. Now he gets to own it.
tomphoolery 8y ago
do you think Louis Farrakhan is inherently dangerous or something?
- berbec 8y ago
  Black supremacy should be treated the same as white supremacy. There is nothing wrong with pride in your race, but when it comes at the expense of others, there needs to be a line drawn.
  - SeanAppleby 8y ago
    I would argue that there kind of is something inherently wrong with externalizing pride in your race beyond a point, even if it's not belittling another group. It's arbitrary. It's a grouping that was largely invented to divide people. Even if people the same color as you did amazing things, that doesn't mean anything about you. Variance within groups is enormous. Variance between groups is comparatively small. You should take pride in things that you actually deserve, that you earned. Even if people that share a genetic and cultural background with you are amazing, it's fundamentally the same problem as being outwardly proud of how successful your parents are. Sure, privately being proud that your dad is a great self-made CEO is okay, but making it a part of your identity or projecting that outwards as though that reflects your personal worth is insane and disfunctional. I get that most people talking about pride in their race are trying to counter a racist narrative that makes people feel bad about their race, and I completely support that, but I really don't think it should go further than helping everyone feel comfortable and accepted in their skin.
djsumdog 8y ago
Safetyism I'd highly recommend the book "The Coddling of the American Mind." I just finished it and it talks a lot about our current cultural migration to seeing words == violence. Words are NOT violence. Violence is violence. Eric Clanton, a UC Berkley employee hit a trump supporter with a bike lock, causing a skull fracture. He got three yeas probation. I'm not a fan of Trump either, but he could have killed that man, and should have gotten at least 3~6 months in jail for assault. Violence is violence. Words are not dangerous (with the exception of specific calls to violence--which are not protected under US speech). New Zealand is fining a man $10k NZD for distributing the recent shooters manifesto; which honestly just makes that Aussie loon's words even more valuable in the eyes of many. As far as the article and social media, who cares. Maybe this will finally get people to start paying to host their own stuff again. Big centralized social media is the opposite of what originally made the Internet awesome. The big players are focused on money, making us cattle, and their services have been shown to make us more anxious and depressed. FB can do what they want with their platform, and if these people are calling for specific violence (Jones sometimes does cause he's just a moron; the others listed are fairly careful though), well that's not even protected under free speech laws in countries that have them. I extract my Facebook events via the ical link and use the messenger with 3rd party apps. When I do log in to Facebook, I go directly to my profile page and I have 50+ notifications. I want to try to hit 100.
pier25 8y ago
> 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. Isn't it already?
throwawayjava 8y ago
> but how exactly are Milo Yiannopolous and Paul Joseph Watson "dangerous"? They are dangerous to ad revenue. Maybe they are also dangerous in other ways, but those discussions are a red herring. Danger to ad revenue is the only danger large publicly traded internet companies actually care about.
smrtinsert 8y ago
Milo is a known associate and darling of the alt-right. Facebook by definition is milquetoast and that's part of what makes it great. This is like accusing Disney of being boring by not having an voice from the alt-right. Your post borders on concern trolling.
leonroy 8y ago
Giving equal air time to falsehoods and inciteful language is in my opinion dangerous. An anti-vaxxer should not be given the same air time as a scientifically accredited researcher who has decades of research behind them. We don't give holocaust deniers a platform and I don't believe we should give any other racial or religious hate speech anything remotely approaching equal air time. Facebook is a platform that allows children (13+) and families to share posts and content. I don't see how they can simultaneously provide an environment for religious and racial hate speech and anti-vaxxers to spread their FUD without compromising on one or the other. Either you're family friendly or you're a platform for 'edgy' content. The right to free speech (in the US at least) is a tremendous and wonderful thing but there's no mention that every fool should be given equal air time in every newspaper, TV programme or now on private content platforms like Facebook. There are sites aimed at providing a haven for edgy or outright false and inciteful speech. Facebook and in my opinion Twitter are not it.
floatingatoll 8y ago
The same “slippery slope” argument that’s used to defend GPL3’s extraordinary licensing reach and “don’t let anyone search your phone” activism applies here as well. Is it a slippery slope from Milo to White Supremacy? Yes. Does WS endorse violence towards others? Yes. Therefore, is it dangerous to others to give Milo a platform? Yes. If you don’t believe in slippery slope arguments, that’s your right, but there’s quite a lot of sociology contradicting you, and the various internet platforms are realizing that the sociology (and memeticists) were probably right all along.
adamson 8y ago
Wasn't Milo's book literally titled "Dangerous"?
microwavecamera 8y ago
> 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 fringe noun 1. A decorative border. 2. A marginal or peripheral part. 3. Those members of a political party, or any social group, holding unorthodox views. Nope, still means the same thing or are we not trusting dictionaries now also?
thatoneuser 8y ago
Idk how HN will receive this but it's because CNN hard shills for the left. They're circumventing first amendment principles because of their power. They want to I censor anything that disagrees with their propaganda. I've never voted Republican.

res0nat0r 8y 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 8y ago
What has he said that's racist?
rayiner 8y 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?
- CamperBob2 8y ago
  My personal working definition of "racism" is any thought process that leads me to judge either an entire race or certain individuals within that race by the actions of other individuals within the race. That's no more justifiable if your name is Farrakhan than it is if your name is Yiannopoulos. I don't know much about either of those people, though, so I can't say whether or not Facebook should boot them off.
- rhizome 8y ago
  >is simply being “racist” sufficient justification for a ban It can be, if the site decides it is. Other places, it isn't!
  - vowelless 8y ago
    It’s great that the site decides. It is exerting editorial control in this case. Hence, they should be liable for the speech that they do allow. Which means, they should be sueable if a user does slander on their platform, posts copyrightable material, etc.
    - balfirevic 8y ago
      > It is exerting editorial control in this case. > Hence, they should be liable for the speech that they do allow. I see this sentiment often on HN, as if the latter somehow logically and necessarily follows from the former. It doesn't, and if that is what you advocate then you should justify it with proper arguments.
      - vowelless 8y ago
        The argument is about whether Facebook is a platform or a publisher. This discussion has been going on for years and not just on HN. Being a platform, like ATT telephone lines, bring certain protections from lawsuits of content. The core of net neutrality is also based on a similar idea; with net neutrality, platforms (cable companies) can not between distinguish services (like throttling Netflix). In the exact same vein, if Facebook is a platform, it cannot distinguish between the “services” (users producing the content) unless that content is federally criminally illegal. With this, they are not liable for civil matters like slander. However, if Facebook is a publisher, meaning it can editorialize the content (similar to att choosing to throttle Netflix ), then it will become liable just like every other publishing company (nytimes, nymag, Rolling Stones, you name it). Hope this helps. There is a lot more info about this on the internet. There were even House hearings on this topic. I encourage you to go look them up.
bartimus 8y ago
Any examples of Milo making a racist remark? Afaik his criticism is mainly towards certain cultures. Not races.
- threeseed 8y ago
  Given that there is such a high correlation between religion, race and cultural background I don't think it's always possible to say that racism is fine but bigotry and xenophobia aren't. They are all inextricably linked.
  - colordrops 8y ago
    We need to be able to criticize cultures, as they are choices and not unchangeable traits at birth, and some cultural behaviors are absolutely unhealthy. Your premise opens up certain cultures to be immune to criticism, which is a terrible thing.
  - bartimus 8y ago
    You choose your beliefs. Not your genes. That's the problem with racism. Genes are not a thing you can hold someone accountable for.
  - tathougies 8y ago
    In America, there isn't really. For the most part, immigrant groups have adopted a culture completely or substantially different than the one from which their ancestors came.
- kevincrane 8y ago
  The reason he was (finally) banned from Twitter was for encouraging his racist supporters to harass Leslie Jones and send her gorilla memes (a wildly racist trope, as you know). So yes, he's racist.
  - maximus1983 8y ago
    He didn't encourage any of his fans to harass Leslie Jones. That is misinformation. Leslie Jones was making quite a number of remarks about people that were criticising the Ghostbuster movie trailer. Milo made one comment saying she looked like a dude (which is quite rude). Most of the other comments towards her were made hours before he retweeted her.

olivermarks 8y ago

There has to be some sort of US free speech legal action that could be taken to stop this crack down by an internet platform company on free speech. I'm not sure how many people actually take FB seriously as a 'news' platform, but it can be useful to discuss the way corporate entities such as CNN present information on their specific home pages on Facebook.

ztoben 8y ago
Legitimate question, is free speech guaranteed on Facebook's platform? Or do they get to decide what content is okay and what isn't?
- the_watcher 8y ago
  Not guaranteed by the Constitution
- anoonmoose 8y ago
  They get to decide. Legally they are like a bar or a restaurant or a mall, it's their property, they can kick you out for practically any reason, protected classes aside, and political belief is not a protected class in the US.
- r3bl 8y ago
  "Free speech" doesn't apply to private entities at all. They have full rights to refuse service to someone for whatever reason they want to, same as any other business. Obligatory XKCD: https://xkcd.com/1357/ https://xkcd.com/1357/
  - Udik 8y ago
    I don't agree at all. What about an energy company denying you connection to the grid because they don't like you? Or the telephone company doing the same? And what if these companies are monopolies in the area, or if there is only a handful of companies and they all make the same decision- perhaps out of fear of losing other customers to the competition? Facebook is a de facto monopoly in the social networks space, and it's deciding to deny service to specific individuals based on their political opinions. It's not something I'm willing to shrug off as unimportant. And I have to disagree with xkcd too on this one. Protecting the freedom of speech means setting limits to the freedom of others to harm you when they don't like what you say. People are free to disagree and switch channel/ unfollow/ stop buying a newspaper/ etc. But harassment and mobbing are a different matter.

dguaraglia 8y ago

At the end of the day, that's for Facebook to decide. If Facebook decides they don't want to host content from them, that's their choice as the private company they are. People keep bringing up "freedom of speech" when it comes to these trolls, like the world owes them something.

StanislavPetrov 8y ago
That would only be true if Facebook was truly private and not taking direction from government-funded entities like the Atlantic Council. The government isn't simply allowed to outsource censorship to do an end-run around the 1st Amendment. This remains true whether or not they claim to be doing so because of the dastardly Russians or anyone else. http://fortune.com/2018/05/17/facebook-atlantic-council-election-propaghanda/ http://fortune.com/2018/05/17/facebook-atlantic-council-elec...
- anoonmoose 8y ago
  "Despite its connections, the Council is by charter independent of the U.S. government and NATO, a registered 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization."[1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_Council https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_Council I guess what I'm saying is, Facebook is a private company by any reasonable legal interpretation.
  - StanislavPetrov 8y ago
    Their claims of independence are irrelevant - they are funded directly by NATO. Its a pity the Hacker News woke crowd is so hostile to the 1st Amendment - a sign of the times. http://www.thinktankwatch.com/2013/02/atlantic-council-releases-donor-list.html http://www.thinktankwatch.com/2013/02/atlantic-council-relea...
    - anoonmoose 8y ago
      I'm not hostile to the 1A, I just recognize that the Constitution applies to actions made by the government and not by private companies. Facebook can take money from NATO and still be private.

mbostleman 8y ago

Agreed. Facebook and Twitter are private companies so they can do whatever they want as far as I'm concerned. But given their reach, it is disturbing that their censorship of content (and CNN's inevitable approval of it) is clearly political bubble motivated. Recent examples are James Woods and the Unplanned movie. While far more egregious speech (assuming the same standard) on the other side is given a pass. It would be great if they would list all those that are blocked (maybe only the high profile ones) so that we could have some actual data around it.

aeturnum 8y ago

> The word "fringe" used to mean something a lot more, well... fringe Did it? 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! >how exactly are Milo Yiannopolous and Paul Joseph Watson "dangerous"? I think "dangerous" is probably not quite the right word. They're dangerous in the same way that, say, anti-vax views are dangerous [3]. The views themselves won't hurt you or hurt me. They're 'just' opinions. However, at some point, allowing those views on your platform make you complicit in promoting pandemics. You're not directly responsible exactly, but you're involved somehow. Where the "line" is and how we talk about it isn't clear, but I think there is a line somewhere and I feel pretty comfortable that the people Facebook banned are probably on the other side of it. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Area_51#UFO_and_other_conspiracy_theories https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Area_51#UFO_and_other_conspira... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Protocols_of_the_Elders_of_Zion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Protocols_of_the_Elders_of... [3] https://www.cdc.gov/measles/cases-outbreaks.html https://www.cdc.gov/measles/cases-outbreaks.html Edit: I should note, lest anyone think this is all "in the past," that people still claim that "the protocols" is an authentically jewish document that describes real Jewish people.

Mirioron 8y ago
>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 conspiracy theories on the level of flat earth? >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. >Where the "line" is and how we talk about it isn't clear, but I think there is a line somewhere and I feel pretty comfortable that the people Facebook banned are probably on the other side of it. Until it inevitably comes back to bite you or something you like.
- 8y ago

danso 8y ago

Don't know about Watson, but Milo had been previously slapped for an Instagram post that was seen as cheering on an attempted mail bomb attack in October: https://www.thedailybeast.com/instagram-refuses-to-pull-down-milo-post-praising-mail-bombs https://www.thedailybeast.com/instagram-refuses-to-pull-down...

username223 8y ago

> how exactly are Milo Yiannopolous and Paul Joseph Watson "dangerous"? "Pizzagate," for example. Milo and InfoWars pushed a loony conspiracy theory until some guy believed them enough to show up at a random restaurant with an assault rifle, which seems dangerous. They did it to sell fake nutritional supplements. EDIT: They're welcome to continue ranting away on their own blogs, but I don't see any reason that Facebook should give them a free megaphone.

bdcravens 8y ago
If we are measuring effects, shouldn't they start banning anti-vaxxers?
- astura 8y ago
  Indigogo and GoFundMe already do.
- cm2012 8y ago
  They are: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/mar/07/facebook-anti-vaxx-vaccine-hoax-ads https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/mar/07/facebook-...
- dymk 8y ago
  Guess what, they've already started! https://newsroom.fb.com/news/2019/03/combatting-vaccine-misinformation/ https://newsroom.fb.com/news/2019/03/combatting-vaccine-misi...
- username223 8y ago
  Yes. Why are the measles still a thing?
  - cowwithbeef 8y ago
    The MMR vaccine does not give full immunity(the reason booster shots exist), immigrants can enter the country while carrying the disease, and sometimes live virus vaccines like MMR can leave the people who get them contagious. The only ways to have zero cases of any disease in the country are to either eradicate it globally (like small pox), or to eradicate it nationally and prevent cross border transmission (like polio).

ggggtez 8y ago

So, some guy I never heard of is not fringe because he has 1.6 million subscribers, but Facebook "used to be popular" because they only have 2.38 billion users? Come on now. The numbers clearly show that to Facebook, 1.6 million subscribers is very fringe. 1.6 million doesn't even get you into the top 5000 on YouTube.

waer34tawer 8y ago

You're being disingenuous! Paul Joseph Watson believes: - 9/11 was an inside job - The illuminati is controlling your mind with chemitrails - Soy beans are making men docile and feminine. Sounds pretty fringe to me. Don't care how many views he has. He also incites hate against muslims, which I'd say, makes him pretty dangerous. My opinion of Facebook's actions is a separate matter. But the narrative you're pushing to justify your argument - it's complete BS.

sneakernets 8y ago
One of his YouTube contemporaries pointed out that his "supplements" he sold contained nothing but soy derivatives, and instead of acknowledging it, decided to dress in drag and scream at a camera for several minutes. I wish I were making that up.
- lghh 8y ago
  Hbomberguy did the video about it in case anyone is wondering.
mindslight 8y ago
> - 9/11 was an inside job And yet the opposing simplistic narrative of "Terrorists hate our freedom" has caused orders of magnitude more harm. Hundreds of thousands of lives lost! But since that is the power-structure-approved message, it was/is heartily repeated (along side yellow cake, aluminum tubes, etc). If someone can't grasp the bigger ideas of multiple independent actors each with their own divergent motivations, suicide attackers acting out of desperation for long term grievances, etc, I'd rather them end up at "inside job" instead of the officially sanctioned propaganda that ended up mobilizing so much death.
- ben_w 8y ago
  How many deaths would have happened if everyone in group “inside job” switched opinions with everyone in group “they hate our freedoms”? It’s not often good for mortality rates if the people turn against their government, even when they are right to do so.

cirgue 8y ago

> 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. Honestly, I hope that Facebook becomes more restrictive and more censorship-oriented. That would make alternative platforms more viable and increase diversity in online media. I'm also 100% opposed to the idea that private companies should be permitted to or expected to function as the town square. That, more than censorship, is the real threat to freedom of speech and freedom of thought. Facebook, twitter, and youtube, by the nature of their ranking algorithms and the structure of the service, have a huge influence on what and how ideas spread without explicitly pushing or censoring content.

Mirioron 8y ago
I think private platforms could act as the town square as long as we demand that platforms beyond a certain size can't just censor whatever they like. Make protections in section 230 of the communications decency act dependent on providing a platform for free speech if the platform is large.
- justinmchase 8y ago
  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.
  - throwawayjava 8y ago
    This would kill millions of completely apolitical websites with strong user communities.
    - cirgue 8y ago
      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.

coldtea 8y ago

>I'm not a fan of either of these people, but how exactly are Milo Yiannopolous and Paul Joseph Watson "dangerous"? They don't adhere 100% to the established views of the 10% of "good people". Hence, they are, if not dangerous, bad.

creaghpatr 8y ago
Well, Milo did write a memoir titled "Dangerous"...
- coldtea 8y ago
  Well, Michael Jackson also had a record of that name, and it one of his tamest and more indifferent, so there's that!
eropple 8y ago
"They" out and attack trans people and intentionally-and-maliciously spin up their literally-not-figuratively crazy followers to inundate with death threats the parents of kids who died in school shootings. Where I come from, having a speaker own the results of that sort of thing isn't particularly controversial and I would think that you, specifically you, could find it within you to be better than this.
- coldtea 8y ago
  >"They" out and attack trans people Do they? This is the video you're perhaps referring to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h2oV1QKUMdM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h2oV1QKUMdM and the person in question was commented upon because they were already in the news as a trans activist making a scene in that same campus (to be allowed to the women's toilets). What counts as an "outing" at this point? You might not like the tone or politics, but this is tame stuff, pumped up into some kind of evily evil monstery, because it doesn't follow the "Bien-pensant" etiquette. Which is the whole shtick of such people -- to give some controversial opinions and not the same-old. Besides, people have been making fun and attacking all kinds of other people they disagree with -- or just wanna take a shot at -- for ages, without being de-platformed. Does it only matter when it's done from people on the right/conservative side (similarly to how, back in the day, it mattered only when it was done from the left/progressive side)? The fussy way people are these days, they would run Zappa and Carlin off the stage today, never mind someone like Hunter Thompson...

ngcazz 8y ago

Milo Yiannopoulos getting the bully pulpit on TV and university stages, to say, as though it were a fait acompli, that trans people are sick is dangerous. Paul Joseph Watson spewing misinformation about the extent of the refugee crisis is dangerous.

anbop 8y ago
Doesn’t the medical establishment consider trans people to be “sick,” in that they have the disorder known as gender dysphoria?
Mirioron 8y ago
>Paul Joseph Watson spewing misinformation about the extent of the refugee crisis is dangerous. Is it any more dangerous than the lies politicians spewed about it in Europe though? We know that a bunch of those politicians straight up either lied or didn't know what they were talking about. We have had terror attacks carried out in Europe by refugees or asylum seekers that have killed people. Some sources even claim that quite many people have died [0], but I am not sure how credible this is. [0] https://www.heritage.org/sites/default/files/2018-06/BG3314.pdf https://www.heritage.org/sites/default/files/2018-06/BG3314....
- jsjw7sbw 8y ago
  It's the classic leftist projection again
- razakel 8y ago
  >We have had terror attacks carried out in Europe by refugees or asylum seekers that have killed people. For some bizarre reason, people get angry when you bomb them.
  - tastygreenapple 8y ago
    Yes, this is why America started its war on terror after 9/11.

sinemetu11 8y ago

By dangerous they mean dangerous to advertisers. Facebook's decisions like this have nothing to do with harm to humans. It's to profit.

reaperducer 8y ago

despite the number of views and subscribers(1.6 million) he has on YouTube alone. I'm not saying that far-out views should be banned from the intarwebs, but 0.023% of the world's population sounds pretty fringe to me. Heck, it's only 0.4% of the United States. Not even a rounding error.

zorked 8y ago
Not to mention that bots and fake accounts are in widespread use by the far-right, so follower numbers are not really credible.

aklemm 8y ago

He's dangerous as he stokes the kind of fear, based on falsehoods, that cause a government such as ours to split up migrant families with no regard as to how to reunite them. And that's just the beginning of what will happen based on the kind of rhetoric Trump and Yiannopolous put out.

aklemm 8y ago
Would love to hear downvoters make their case.

MagicPropmaker 8y ago

Milo is an "edgy" comedian. His shtick is to be provocative. I can't imagine he's dangerous in any real way. Offensive, yes, but not dangerous.

justinmchase 8y ago
Milo disagrees: https://www.amazon.com/Dangerous-Milo-Yiannopoulos/dp/069289344X https://www.amazon.com/Dangerous-Milo-Yiannopoulos/dp/069289... lol
- drak0n1c 8y ago
  That doesn't rule out the likely possibility that he chose that title tongue-in-cheek because many people kept labeling him as such.
  - cowwithbeef 8y ago
    It's pretty obviously tongue-in-cheek. I think you replied to a troll making his own tongue-in-cheek joke.
- avinium 8y ago
  Eminem also had a track called "Criminal", highlighting the absurdity of labels that people throw around for things they don't like.

meej 8y ago

Milo calls himself "dangerous", FWIW. It was the title of his book. Now he gets to own it.

tomphoolery 8y ago

do you think Louis Farrakhan is inherently dangerous or something?

berbec 8y ago
Black supremacy should be treated the same as white supremacy. There is nothing wrong with pride in your race, but when it comes at the expense of others, there needs to be a line drawn.
- SeanAppleby 8y ago
  I would argue that there kind of is something inherently wrong with externalizing pride in your race beyond a point, even if it's not belittling another group. It's arbitrary. It's a grouping that was largely invented to divide people. Even if people the same color as you did amazing things, that doesn't mean anything about you. Variance within groups is enormous. Variance between groups is comparatively small. You should take pride in things that you actually deserve, that you earned. Even if people that share a genetic and cultural background with you are amazing, it's fundamentally the same problem as being outwardly proud of how successful your parents are. Sure, privately being proud that your dad is a great self-made CEO is okay, but making it a part of your identity or projecting that outwards as though that reflects your personal worth is insane and disfunctional. I get that most people talking about pride in their race are trying to counter a racist narrative that makes people feel bad about their race, and I completely support that, but I really don't think it should go further than helping everyone feel comfortable and accepted in their skin.

djsumdog 8y ago

Safetyism I'd highly recommend the book "The Coddling of the American Mind." I just finished it and it talks a lot about our current cultural migration to seeing words == violence. Words are NOT violence. Violence is violence. Eric Clanton, a UC Berkley employee hit a trump supporter with a bike lock, causing a skull fracture. He got three yeas probation. I'm not a fan of Trump either, but he could have killed that man, and should have gotten at least 3~6 months in jail for assault. Violence is violence. Words are not dangerous (with the exception of specific calls to violence--which are not protected under US speech). New Zealand is fining a man $10k NZD for distributing the recent shooters manifesto; which honestly just makes that Aussie loon's words even more valuable in the eyes of many. As far as the article and social media, who cares. Maybe this will finally get people to start paying to host their own stuff again. Big centralized social media is the opposite of what originally made the Internet awesome. The big players are focused on money, making us cattle, and their services have been shown to make us more anxious and depressed. FB can do what they want with their platform, and if these people are calling for specific violence (Jones sometimes does cause he's just a moron; the others listed are fairly careful though), well that's not even protected under free speech laws in countries that have them. I extract my Facebook events via the ical link and use the messenger with 3rd party apps. When I do log in to Facebook, I go directly to my profile page and I have 50+ notifications. I want to try to hit 100.

pier25 8y ago

> 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. Isn't it already?

throwawayjava 8y ago

> but how exactly are Milo Yiannopolous and Paul Joseph Watson "dangerous"? They are dangerous to ad revenue. Maybe they are also dangerous in other ways, but those discussions are a red herring. Danger to ad revenue is the only danger large publicly traded internet companies actually care about.

smrtinsert 8y ago

Milo is a known associate and darling of the alt-right. Facebook by definition is milquetoast and that's part of what makes it great. This is like accusing Disney of being boring by not having an voice from the alt-right. Your post borders on concern trolling.

leonroy 8y ago

Giving equal air time to falsehoods and inciteful language is in my opinion dangerous. An anti-vaxxer should not be given the same air time as a scientifically accredited researcher who has decades of research behind them. We don't give holocaust deniers a platform and I don't believe we should give any other racial or religious hate speech anything remotely approaching equal air time. Facebook is a platform that allows children (13+) and families to share posts and content. I don't see how they can simultaneously provide an environment for religious and racial hate speech and anti-vaxxers to spread their FUD without compromising on one or the other. Either you're family friendly or you're a platform for 'edgy' content. The right to free speech (in the US at least) is a tremendous and wonderful thing but there's no mention that every fool should be given equal air time in every newspaper, TV programme or now on private content platforms like Facebook. There are sites aimed at providing a haven for edgy or outright false and inciteful speech. Facebook and in my opinion Twitter are not it.

floatingatoll 8y ago

The same “slippery slope” argument that’s used to defend GPL3’s extraordinary licensing reach and “don’t let anyone search your phone” activism applies here as well. Is it a slippery slope from Milo to White Supremacy? Yes. Does WS endorse violence towards others? Yes. Therefore, is it dangerous to others to give Milo a platform? Yes. If you don’t believe in slippery slope arguments, that’s your right, but there’s quite a lot of sociology contradicting you, and the various internet platforms are realizing that the sociology (and memeticists) were probably right all along.

adamson 8y ago

Wasn't Milo's book literally titled "Dangerous"?

microwavecamera 8y ago

> 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 fringe noun 1. A decorative border. 2. A marginal or peripheral part. 3. Those members of a political party, or any social group, holding unorthodox views. Nope, still means the same thing or are we not trusting dictionaries now also?

thatoneuser 8y ago

Idk how HN will receive this but it's because CNN hard shills for the left. They're circumventing first amendment principles because of their power. They want to I censor anything that disagrees with their propaganda. I've never voted Republican.