12 ms·

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 f

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
    But only the variety of flavors the platform decides you should get to choose from. See the problem?
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
- scarface74 7y ago
  And anyone is free to click on the text box on the top of their browser and go to any website they wish.
  - pixl97 7y ago
    And what percent do? Most of the US at this points uses Google, or even chrome directly to search google.
    - scarface74 7y ago
      And like I said in another post, if you want to be heard, you can’t take the lazy way out and hope SEO works for you. If rappers can figure out how to do guerilla marketing, I’m sure they can too. You’re telling me that they can’t find “1000 true fans” as a base? Farakhan in particular had a large following before the Internet was a thing.
    - IgorPartola 7y ago
      So the solution is to what? Make sure to show stuff from NASA, PETA, and the KKK on the same page to make sure we “both sides” everything?
linuxftw 7y ago
Yeah, it's dangerous to be exposed to viewpoints that differ from the mainstream. Conform.
- dblotsky 7y ago
  There are people who have different viewpoints (even very conservative ones) from the mainstream and they don’t get banned. What’s their secret? A mystery, to be sure.
naasking 7y ago
> These people did a lot of damage. A lot. Like what? If this damage is so prevalent then it should be easy to cite something specific.
- latortuga 7y ago
  Alex Jones popularized a propagated the myth of "Crisis Actors" and that Sandy Hook was a hoax. Trolls on the internet telling parents that their children aren't really dead, that they should exhume their bodies to prove that they really died, that they are being paid by the shadow government, that their grief looked too fake - all of this is real harm. We can talk about the doxing and the stalking and the harassment, but inflicting pain and suffering on people in a terrible situation is real harm too. When you have a platform and you use it to abuse people, real damage is done.
  - naasking 7y ago
    > Trolls on the internet telling parents that their children aren't really dead, that they should exhume their bodies to prove that they really died, that they are being paid by the shadow government, that their grief looked too fake - all of this is real harm. Did Alex Jones specifically incite his fans or these trolls to do this? If so, then he's legally culpable. If not, then why place the blame on him? The legal system has a fairly robust and time-tested system for assigning blame. The problem with assigning blame in "indirect influence" arguments such as yours, is that it can be used to blame almost anyone for almost anything. How indirect or how small does this influence need to be before you conclude that a person is not culpable for someone else's actions? If you can't delineate some specific set of clear and reasonable conditions, then it will simply be abused to censor any unpopular views, including progressive agendas.
    - joshuamorton 7y ago
      > Did Alex Jones specifically incite his fans or these trolls to do this? If so, then he's legally culpable Yes, and he's currently facing (multiple) lawsuits because of it. His defense appears to be that it was temporary hysteria. We'll see how that plays out.
emilfihlman 7y ago
>These people did a lot of damage. A lot. All in the name of free speech. It's pretty tiring hearing people complaining about banning the right of movement. I mean, why do you even need a right about being equal in front of the law? Bigger people contribute more and being free costs money anyways, why does it matter if someone owns you? Just be happy you were allowed to think this long for yourself! And stop being so entitled and accept the punishment, nobody owes you to be alive. It's your fault you dropped that tea and just fitting they'll drop your head as punishment.
- Daishiman 7y ago
  This literally makes no coherent argument.
  - emilfihlman 7y ago
    Free speech is a right, I'd argue a human right. Inalienable, guaranteed, innate and hugely important. Yes, you can live without it. But so you can live without the right of free movement, without equality before the law, without freedom, without right to being alive, and this is actually how most of our history was. These rights are a rather recent innovation. But should you? Should we? Eroding human rights only leads to dystopia. Human rights are an innovation of civilisation, of progress. Not being able to see that makes me very sad.
    - Daishiman 7y ago
      But rights don't live in a vacuum. The US has established that fighting words aren't free speech. Everywhere around we've recognized that speech has limits, and unlimited speech can be harassment, an invitation to destroy and much more. Speech isn't just a debate between intellectuals sitting in a lounge arguing about things in a wholly experimental matter. And saying that it is inalienable or innate without considering its true limits is merely a thought-terminating cliche that doesn't delve into the deeper considerations. And as mentioned above, free speech is just one right among many, sometimes in direct conflict with others. Thus, the resolution and primacy of rights is something left to courts, philosophers, and representatives. Germany has decided that your right to speech isn't higher than spreading hateful ideologies. The limit as to what constitutes a hateful ideology isn't firmly grounded, but so far courts there have acted in a consistent and pragmatic matter. I'd argue that the speech of people whose idea of speech is promoting the end of a race isn't really something we care about, and I can certainly construct a moral framework where their speech is fairly irrelevant and I don't think most of us are going to lose sleep over it.
shard972 7y ago
Ah so if something is deemed hateful by someone it should be removed from the internet. I find your comment quite hateful /s

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
  But only the variety of flavors the platform decides you should get to choose from. See the problem?
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
scarface74 7y ago
And anyone is free to click on the text box on the top of their browser and go to any website they wish.
- pixl97 7y ago
  And what percent do? Most of the US at this points uses Google, or even chrome directly to search google.
  - scarface74 7y ago
    And like I said in another post, if you want to be heard, you can’t take the lazy way out and hope SEO works for you. If rappers can figure out how to do guerilla marketing, I’m sure they can too. You’re telling me that they can’t find “1000 true fans” as a base? Farakhan in particular had a large following before the Internet was a thing.
  - IgorPartola 7y ago
    So the solution is to what? Make sure to show stuff from NASA, PETA, and the KKK on the same page to make sure we “both sides” everything?

linuxftw 7y ago

Yeah, it's dangerous to be exposed to viewpoints that differ from the mainstream. Conform.

dblotsky 7y ago
There are people who have different viewpoints (even very conservative ones) from the mainstream and they don’t get banned. What’s their secret? A mystery, to be sure.

naasking 7y ago

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

latortuga 7y ago
Alex Jones popularized a propagated the myth of "Crisis Actors" and that Sandy Hook was a hoax. Trolls on the internet telling parents that their children aren't really dead, that they should exhume their bodies to prove that they really died, that they are being paid by the shadow government, that their grief looked too fake - all of this is real harm. We can talk about the doxing and the stalking and the harassment, but inflicting pain and suffering on people in a terrible situation is real harm too. When you have a platform and you use it to abuse people, real damage is done.
- naasking 7y ago
  > Trolls on the internet telling parents that their children aren't really dead, that they should exhume their bodies to prove that they really died, that they are being paid by the shadow government, that their grief looked too fake - all of this is real harm. Did Alex Jones specifically incite his fans or these trolls to do this? If so, then he's legally culpable. If not, then why place the blame on him? The legal system has a fairly robust and time-tested system for assigning blame. The problem with assigning blame in "indirect influence" arguments such as yours, is that it can be used to blame almost anyone for almost anything. How indirect or how small does this influence need to be before you conclude that a person is not culpable for someone else's actions? If you can't delineate some specific set of clear and reasonable conditions, then it will simply be abused to censor any unpopular views, including progressive agendas.
  - joshuamorton 7y ago
    > Did Alex Jones specifically incite his fans or these trolls to do this? If so, then he's legally culpable Yes, and he's currently facing (multiple) lawsuits because of it. His defense appears to be that it was temporary hysteria. We'll see how that plays out.

emilfihlman 7y ago

>These people did a lot of damage. A lot. All in the name of free speech. It's pretty tiring hearing people complaining about banning the right of movement. I mean, why do you even need a right about being equal in front of the law? Bigger people contribute more and being free costs money anyways, why does it matter if someone owns you? Just be happy you were allowed to think this long for yourself! And stop being so entitled and accept the punishment, nobody owes you to be alive. It's your fault you dropped that tea and just fitting they'll drop your head as punishment.

Daishiman 7y ago
This literally makes no coherent argument.
- emilfihlman 7y ago
  Free speech is a right, I'd argue a human right. Inalienable, guaranteed, innate and hugely important. Yes, you can live without it. But so you can live without the right of free movement, without equality before the law, without freedom, without right to being alive, and this is actually how most of our history was. These rights are a rather recent innovation. But should you? Should we? Eroding human rights only leads to dystopia. Human rights are an innovation of civilisation, of progress. Not being able to see that makes me very sad.
  - Daishiman 7y ago
    But rights don't live in a vacuum. The US has established that fighting words aren't free speech. Everywhere around we've recognized that speech has limits, and unlimited speech can be harassment, an invitation to destroy and much more. Speech isn't just a debate between intellectuals sitting in a lounge arguing about things in a wholly experimental matter. And saying that it is inalienable or innate without considering its true limits is merely a thought-terminating cliche that doesn't delve into the deeper considerations. And as mentioned above, free speech is just one right among many, sometimes in direct conflict with others. Thus, the resolution and primacy of rights is something left to courts, philosophers, and representatives. Germany has decided that your right to speech isn't higher than spreading hateful ideologies. The limit as to what constitutes a hateful ideology isn't firmly grounded, but so far courts there have acted in a consistent and pragmatic matter. I'd argue that the speech of people whose idea of speech is promoting the end of a race isn't really something we care about, and I can certainly construct a moral framework where their speech is fairly irrelevant and I don't think most of us are going to lose sleep over it.

shard972 7y ago

Ah so if something is deemed hateful by someone it should be removed from the internet. I find your comment quite hateful /s