5 ms·

This entire comment is a strawman. This is not the same as "arbitrary platform bias". This is not Facebook saying "we have a certain political view and we talke

This entire comment is a strawman. This is not the same as "arbitrary platform bias". This is not Facebook saying "we have a certain political view and we talked to the government and they agreed so no other views are acceptable". This is them stopping stupid people from killing a lot of other people. Also, your rights aren't affected. This is Facebook telling stupid people to shut up and stop spreading fud that could actually hurt people, not the government breaking up peaceful and legal assemblies.

smitty1e 6y ago
This is the government suppressing speech by proxy. Even if it survives legal review, this harms the spirit of the Bill of Rights, which is incorporated against the States. Voters should reply in November with their ballots as appropriate.
- agildehaus 6y ago
  Where's the government in this? The government isn't forcing Facebook's hand.
  - Lammy 6y ago
    The government can be forcing Facebook's hand by making Facebook fearful of being investigated, fined, broken up, etc if they are found to have allowed manipulation of the 2020 election in any way, and the coronavirus and related topics have become unfortunately intertwined in that.
    - CamperBob2 6y ago
      Huh? If any forcing is going on -- which there isn't -- they would presumably be forced to toe the Trump party line, not to suppress or censor it. Wouldn't the present Federal government be happy if Facebook were to encourage protests and general disrespect for warnings from health authorities? If anything, Facebook's actions here are courageous. It takes a lot to get me to defend Facebook, but the arguments popping up in this thread are proving to be more than sufficient.
      - sfkdjf9j3j 6y ago
        Well, the official Trump party line is indeed that social distancing and other restrictions are still necessary. This is a very confusing situation since the protesters against the protective measures seem to be almost exclusively from Trump's base.
- CamperBob2 6y ago
  And forcing Facebook to publish points of view they disagree with doesn't harm the Bill of Rights?
  - a1369209993 6y ago
    Of course not. Facebook is a corporation; people are what have rights.
    - CamperBob2 6y ago
      So Facebook is an organization of what, robots? Are you OK with similar rights being stripped from your hometown newspaper on the grounds that they are a "corporation", despite the explicit specification of the press as a protected entity in the First Amendment?
    - otterley 6y ago
      As assemblies of people, corporations have rights. In fact, the right of the people to peaceably assemble and petition the Government for redress of grievances is explicitly protected in the First Amendment of the Constitution.
    - oldsklgdfth 6y ago
      In America, corporations are people. Citizens United v. FEC
      - SamWhited 6y ago
        This doesn't mean what you think it means. Not all rights that attach to people attach to corporations. The bill of rights doesn't uniformly apply to corporations, and different rights may or may not attach under certain circumstances.
        a1369209993 6y ago
        More importantly, the government declaring something doesn't make true. See anything from the entire Soviet Union to the various attempts to legislate that π = 3.
LyndsySimon 6y ago
> not the government breaking up peaceful and legal assemblies But the government is breaking up peaceful and legal assemblies. While I don't have the article handy, there have been arrests over the past few days for refusing to leave. As for "legal" - the First Amendment is very clear on this matter. The federal government (and through the incorporation doctrine, the governments of the several states) is specifically denied the power to prohibit this.
- monksy 6y ago
  > peaceful and legal assemblies They're not peaceful. They have members sharing the coronavirus within the groups. Additionally, they are putting enforcement agents at risk in dealing with it. You basically have members of the groups shooting other members. (without the direct acknowledgment that it was them and the initial impact)
- toomuchtodo 6y ago
  The Federal Government is granted these powers through federal statute, the Commerce Clause within the Constitution, and executive order of POTUS. Also: > In addition to serving as medical functions, isolation and quarantine also are “police power” functions, derived from the right of the state to take action affecting individuals for the benefit of society. https://www.cdc.gov/quarantine/specificlawsregulations.html https://www.cdc.gov/quarantine/specificlawsregulations.html https://www.cdc.gov/quarantine/aboutlawsregulationsquarantineisolation.html https://www.cdc.gov/quarantine/aboutlawsregulationsquarantin...
- vvanders 6y ago
  How is this different than shouting fire in a crowded theatre?
  - dependenttypes 6y ago
    We had a thread about this yesterday actually. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22914333 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22914333
- deleted 6y ago
0xy 6y ago
This would only be true if coronavirus was more deadly than the dramatic increase in poverty that the resulting economic destruction of the shutdown will cause, which is extremely doubtful. Unemployment is deadly. The mortality rate while in poverty is over 2.5x.
- edmundsauto 6y ago
  You need to account for positive second order effects, e.g. reduced deaths from pollution. That pushes "extremely doubtful" firmly into "we can't even guess if quarantine will be a net plus or minus" in the 2020 death rate. It also heavily depends on how long quarantine goes on for -- would the mortality rates be changed from a 1 year recession? Or would it take many years?
  - 0xy 6y ago
    People don't just drop dead upon becoming unemployed. It's just a higher per year mortality rate. Also, economic destruction is not necessarily temporary. A very large number of industries, companies and communities will be permanently wiped out from this.
    - edmundsauto 6y ago
      How do we know the higher per year mortality rate from poverty will exceed the lower death rate from reduced pollution, reduced car accidents, etc? It's not clear how these balance. There are also industries growing, and industries that will be created. And some of the industries that may be permanently eliminated may be a net positive -- cruise lines are a complete blight. I don't know what the net-net will look like, but it's important to push back on the assumption that economic downfall will be all negative in terms of lives lost.
- glitcher 6y ago
  Source?
  - 0xy 6y ago
whiddershins 6y ago
People always think they are serving the greater good when they curtail someone’s rights. It’s not generally people sitting around maliciously wanting to oppress other people. It’s more often someone who thinks they are doing good, and that “right” is just in the way.
- FpUser 6y ago
  "People always think they are serving the greater good when they curtail someone’s rights." always - really? Corporations lobbying government to curtail people's rights are driven by the desire for the greater good? Why am I in big doubt.
- esoterica 6y ago
  You don't have the right to post on Facebook unless they want you to. They paid for the servers, not you. If you want to organize a protest, find another host or buy your own servers.

smitty1e 6y ago

This is the government suppressing speech by proxy. Even if it survives legal review, this harms the spirit of the Bill of Rights, which is incorporated against the States. Voters should reply in November with their ballots as appropriate.

agildehaus 6y ago
Where's the government in this? The government isn't forcing Facebook's hand.
- Lammy 6y ago
  The government can be forcing Facebook's hand by making Facebook fearful of being investigated, fined, broken up, etc if they are found to have allowed manipulation of the 2020 election in any way, and the coronavirus and related topics have become unfortunately intertwined in that.
  - CamperBob2 6y ago
    Huh? If any forcing is going on -- which there isn't -- they would presumably be forced to toe the Trump party line, not to suppress or censor it. Wouldn't the present Federal government be happy if Facebook were to encourage protests and general disrespect for warnings from health authorities? If anything, Facebook's actions here are courageous. It takes a lot to get me to defend Facebook, but the arguments popping up in this thread are proving to be more than sufficient.
    - sfkdjf9j3j 6y ago
      Well, the official Trump party line is indeed that social distancing and other restrictions are still necessary. This is a very confusing situation since the protesters against the protective measures seem to be almost exclusively from Trump's base.
CamperBob2 6y ago
And forcing Facebook to publish points of view they disagree with doesn't harm the Bill of Rights?
- a1369209993 6y ago
  Of course not. Facebook is a corporation; people are what have rights.
  - CamperBob2 6y ago
    So Facebook is an organization of what, robots? Are you OK with similar rights being stripped from your hometown newspaper on the grounds that they are a "corporation", despite the explicit specification of the press as a protected entity in the First Amendment?
  - otterley 6y ago
    As assemblies of people, corporations have rights. In fact, the right of the people to peaceably assemble and petition the Government for redress of grievances is explicitly protected in the First Amendment of the Constitution.
  - oldsklgdfth 6y ago
    In America, corporations are people. Citizens United v. FEC
    - SamWhited 6y ago
      This doesn't mean what you think it means. Not all rights that attach to people attach to corporations. The bill of rights doesn't uniformly apply to corporations, and different rights may or may not attach under certain circumstances.
      - a1369209993 6y ago
        More importantly, the government declaring something doesn't make true. See anything from the entire Soviet Union to the various attempts to legislate that π = 3.

LyndsySimon 6y ago

> not the government breaking up peaceful and legal assemblies But the government is breaking up peaceful and legal assemblies. While I don't have the article handy, there have been arrests over the past few days for refusing to leave. As for "legal" - the First Amendment is very clear on this matter. The federal government (and through the incorporation doctrine, the governments of the several states) is specifically denied the power to prohibit this.

monksy 6y ago
> peaceful and legal assemblies They're not peaceful. They have members sharing the coronavirus within the groups. Additionally, they are putting enforcement agents at risk in dealing with it. You basically have members of the groups shooting other members. (without the direct acknowledgment that it was them and the initial impact)
toomuchtodo 6y ago
The Federal Government is granted these powers through federal statute, the Commerce Clause within the Constitution, and executive order of POTUS. Also: > In addition to serving as medical functions, isolation and quarantine also are “police power” functions, derived from the right of the state to take action affecting individuals for the benefit of society. https://www.cdc.gov/quarantine/specificlawsregulations.html https://www.cdc.gov/quarantine/specificlawsregulations.html https://www.cdc.gov/quarantine/aboutlawsregulationsquarantineisolation.html https://www.cdc.gov/quarantine/aboutlawsregulationsquarantin...
vvanders 6y ago
How is this different than shouting fire in a crowded theatre?
- dependenttypes 6y ago
  We had a thread about this yesterday actually. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22914333 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22914333
deleted 6y ago

0xy 6y ago

This would only be true if coronavirus was more deadly than the dramatic increase in poverty that the resulting economic destruction of the shutdown will cause, which is extremely doubtful. Unemployment is deadly. The mortality rate while in poverty is over 2.5x.

edmundsauto 6y ago
You need to account for positive second order effects, e.g. reduced deaths from pollution. That pushes "extremely doubtful" firmly into "we can't even guess if quarantine will be a net plus or minus" in the 2020 death rate. It also heavily depends on how long quarantine goes on for -- would the mortality rates be changed from a 1 year recession? Or would it take many years?
- 0xy 6y ago
  People don't just drop dead upon becoming unemployed. It's just a higher per year mortality rate. Also, economic destruction is not necessarily temporary. A very large number of industries, companies and communities will be permanently wiped out from this.
  - edmundsauto 6y ago
    How do we know the higher per year mortality rate from poverty will exceed the lower death rate from reduced pollution, reduced car accidents, etc? It's not clear how these balance. There are also industries growing, and industries that will be created. And some of the industries that may be permanently eliminated may be a net positive -- cruise lines are a complete blight. I don't know what the net-net will look like, but it's important to push back on the assumption that economic downfall will be all negative in terms of lives lost.
glitcher 6y ago
Source?
- 0xy 6y ago

whiddershins 6y ago

People always think they are serving the greater good when they curtail someone’s rights. It’s not generally people sitting around maliciously wanting to oppress other people. It’s more often someone who thinks they are doing good, and that “right” is just in the way.

FpUser 6y ago
"People always think they are serving the greater good when they curtail someone’s rights." always - really? Corporations lobbying government to curtail people's rights are driven by the desire for the greater good? Why am I in big doubt.
esoterica 6y ago
You don't have the right to post on Facebook unless they want you to. They paid for the servers, not you. If you want to organize a protest, find another host or buy your own servers.