8 ms·
Facebook Employees Slam Zuckerberg over Militia Groups and QAnon After Kenosha
- ArkVark 6y agoWhat about deplatforming BLM, which seems to be the major driver for this unrest and criminal activity? As can be seen clearly in the video, the 17 year old was running away and defending himself against multiple attackers, some of whom were themselves armed.
- benmw333 6y agoAre you referring to the popular group Bigots Love Marxism?
- cafard 6y agoMaybe he's aligned with Cliven Bundy and down on the Bureau of Land Management.
- vkou 6y agoBLM isn't the driver for unrest. On-going (For decades) criminal behaviour by police forces is the driver for unrest. People don't go out to protest, to get shot by less-lethal bullets, to get gassed, to have flashbangs thrown at them because they are bored. They do it because they are tired and angry, and because their cause is just.
- DamnYuppie 6y agoThis is blatantly wrong propaganda. The number of police murders of all races over the last 40 years doesn't sum up to the number of black on black murders committed in just one year. Most crime in the US is committed by 6% of the population, black males. More cops are killed by black men per year then they kill but no one cries for them even when the cop is black, the hypocrisy and stupidity of BLM is staggering.
- martythemaniak 6y agoI enjoy seeing these political threads here on HN. It's good for this place to finally have a look in the mirror and see what's there.
- pstuart 6y agoIt's disheartening to see so much racism among the community here.
- meheleventyone 6y agoHopefully its more single issue trolls. They're new, low karma accounts and HN is going to be a target for proletarization.
- pstuart 6y agoUnfortunately not. Racism is a disease that affects all walks of life.
- insickness 6y agoIt's disheartening to hear people refer to anything and everything as 'racism' to the point it's lost all meaning.
- pstuart 6y agoFraming BLM as being a source of violence is racist AF. I was called a racist on HN because I said "white people suck" in the context of White Nationalism. If one doesn't think that systemic racism is real or a problem, then that individual is either ignorant or racist.
- jaywalk 6y ago"white people suck" is a cut and dried racist comment, regardless of context.
- DamnYuppie 6y agoAgreed they turn a blind eye to the real problem and blame others. BLM has killed more innocent people then all police combined this year, which is sad as the entire premise of their platform is that police are brutalizing the black communities. When there were all of 9 shootings last year, oppsies looks like they upped the number to 14 recently, of which only one was unarmed and not a known and wanted criminal. Yet over 6000 black on black murders occur every year. The stupidity of it all is nearly overwhelming.
- Covzire 6y agoThe media inverts everything, it's how they make money right now and it's awful. CNN anchors are literally one Baghdad Bob after another. The most hilarious memes right now are those with "mostly peaceful" protests where behind the anchor huge fires are raging.
- voldacar 6y agoRadio Rwanda comes to mind too
- huntermeyer 6y agoWhen I hear people say "mostly peaceful" when referring to the protests and "a few bad apples" when referring to police I like to remind them of the fact that the peaceful majority are irrelevant when there are radicals in their ranks. Just look back at the lesson of history. https://youtu.be/YnOF7y-KuHE?t=127 https://youtu.be/YnOF7y-KuHE?t=127
- vkou 6y agoThe difference between the two groups is that one is organized, and its leadership has an obligation to control the behaviour of its members. There's no chief-of-a-protest who can take administrative action against some anonymous drunk idiot throwing a brick into a window. There is, however, a chief-of-police who can theoretically do the same about the, ah, bad apples. Practically, the various chiefs of police seem to be doing everything they can to protect those bad apples from the consequences of their behaviour. Also, between civilians and police, the police should know better. We give them guns and a mandate to uphold the law, and pay them lots of money to do so. But instead of zero tolerance for criminal behaviour in their ranks, it's all coverups, collusion, the thin blue line, punishing whistleblowers, and lobbying for legislature that grants them them immunity to the consequences.
- darkwizard42 6y agoAre you talking about the armed teenager who drove 12 miles across state lines and put his armed self in a dangerous situation willingly? Not sure you get to call it self-defense at that time
- tome 6y agoWhat's the significance of 12 miles here?
- meheleventyone 6y agoHe's not living on scene defending his property. A lot of places in the US privilege that scenario for self-defence when otherwise your actions would be prosecuted. If you take a rifle and drive to a trouble spot you could be construed as looking for trouble.
- DuskStar 6y agoHe was, however, defending his workplace. Supposedly he worked at one of the car dealerships in the area. (and then left to try to provide medical assistance and was unable to regroup with his group at that dealership)
- tedivm 6y agoThe fact that he illegally transported a gun over state lines to "defend" a community he wasn't part of and which didn't want him there to begin with.
- basch 6y agoDepends on how you define the community. The police were thanking him for being out there, for his support, and giving out water bottles. (Top video in the article, skip about a minute in) 1:40 something in. Police: "Are you Protecting that building" Crowd: "yes" Police: "Thank you." https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/08/26/jacob-blake-kenosha-police-protests/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/08/26/jacob-blake...
- Larrikin 6y agoWhy does a 17 year old have an illegal fire arm? Do criminals who have shot someone get to use self defense as an excuse for shooting more people that are trying to stop them?
- insickness 6y agoFirearms are not illegal in Wisconsin. It is open carry. As for Rittenhouse being underage, there are exceptions for guns and rifles for 16 and 17 year olds. https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/crime/2020/08/26/wisconsin-open-carry-law-kyle-rittenhouse-legally-have-gun-kenosha-protest-shooting-17-year-old/3444231001/ https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/crime/2020/08/26/wiscons...
- huntermeyer 6y agoSomeone answered your first question. I'll answer your second. In many US-states, if a convicted felon (barred from owning a gun) uses a gun in self-defense (say defending against an intruder) they can still be charged with illegal possession. In fact, even more stringent, say their spouse used the gun, and the felon had access to it, they can be charged with what's called constructive possession of a firearm.
- wavefunction 6y agoI'd like to see some evidence that BLM is the major driver for any criminal activities or "unrest." Instead it seems to be the continued extrajudicial killings and woundings of American citizens that always seems to proceed these protests and the frankly appalling reaction of American law enforcement to some criticism and democratic attempts to reform what is supposed to be a constructive and positive institution in American society.
- derision 6y agoThis most recent incident in Kenosha was not "extrajudicial". The man had a knife and a fireman and was not complying with the officers. And in either case, that is not a situation that justifies burning buildings and destroying properties. Anarchy is not a solution to any problem.
- tedivm 6y agoThe knife was in his car and they found it afterwords, it wasn't on him at the time. Not complying with officers should not mean a death sentence. This isn't Judge Dread. Other countries besides the US manage to not regularly murder black people- in fact most countries don't have anywhere near the level of police murder that the US has.
- dazilcher 6y ago"The knife was in his car and they found it afterwords" You mean the knife was in the car he was trying to get into at the time he was shot?
- alexilliamson 6y ago5 days of riots after MLKs death got us a landmark civil rights bill.
- pstuart 6y agoPro tip: Fox news viewers are ill-informed. You may want to consider opening your mind a bit more. https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2016/07/21/a-rigorous-scientific-look-into-the-fox-news-effect/#59e45c8712ab https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2016/07/21/a-rigorous-sci...
- throwaway45349 6y agoWhat a pretentious comment. I'm not in favour of deplatforming either BLM or QAnon, even though I do agree with the GP in this case. Maybe you should consider the fact that other people have valid opinions, just because you don't think they're correct.
- pstuart 6y agoIf you think that BLM is starting the riots, then you are not aware of the Boogaloo 2 movement. These "militias" want to start a race war and they are the ones fanning the flames of violence. Case in point: https://www.startribune.com/police-umbrella-man-was-a-white-supremacist-trying-to-incite-floyd-rioting/571932272/ https://www.startribune.com/police-umbrella-man-was-a-white-...
- reuben_scratton 6y agoCould we stop trying to make Facebook responsible for every damn thing that happens?
- JamisonM 6y agoCan we try to make Facebook responsible for every damn thing that happens on their platform?
- nickff 6y agoThe problem is that excessive blaming will foster high levels of risk aversion, as seen in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24304275 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24304275
- JamisonM 6y agoThis is a case of advocating to suppress one kind of speech because it will lead to the suppression of another kind of speech. So maybe there isn't a problem here? If the act of criticizing Facebook changes Facebook's behaviour because we've observed people are doing bad things linked to Facebook's current practices that is just the marketplace of ideas in action, isn't it?
- nickff 6y ago>"This is a case of advocating to suppress one kind of speech because it will lead to the suppression of another kind of speech. So maybe there isn't a problem here?" >"If the act of criticizing Facebook changes Facebook's behaviour because we've observed people are doing bad things linked to Facebook's current practices that is just the marketplace of ideas in action, isn't it?" I don't understand what you're trying to say; perhaps you could clarify what you mean by adding some punctuation to your second paragraph.
- JamisonM 6y ago"Excessive blaming" is just another kind of speech. If people observe bad things happening because of stuff going on on the Facebook platform and engage is excessive blaming that's just speech. If Facebook becomes averse to risks with respect to what is on their platform, that is just Facebook being responsive to customer concerns. You're just not going to have a platform where this relationship doesn't exist, there's always mods.. we need 'em.
- gavman 6y ago> “At what point do we take responsibility for enabling hate filled bile to spread across our services?” As long as there's so much money to be made, Facebook has no incentive to. As long as they know they can give you and other developers the generous salary/options/perks and you will complain at an all hands but not actually leave, they have even less incentive to. Talk is cheap, even from employees, and the executives at Facebook know that.
- bilbo0s 6y agoThis. I don't like it anymore than anyone else, but hate filled bile is profitable. Hate filled bile can earn you money. It can earn you votes. It can earn you power. While FB may not care about votes or power, they are in business to earn money. They have expenses, as HN User gavman alluded to. Until better ways to make money present themselves, we can expect most social media firms to flirt with controversy. Because things haven't changed much from the newspaper era with respect to the bleeding doing the majority of the lede-ing.
- baggy_trough 6y agoFacebook employees seem to be very confused about what people want from Facebook. When I go to Facebook, I want to see what the people I follow have to say or share. I don't want any editorial interference from Facebook in that whatsoever.
- Areibman 6y agoWhat is "slam" even supposed to mean? Sounds like a handful of employees just left some disapproving remarks on a company live stream, but that's it. There's only two quotes in the entire article.
- z9e 6y agoYeah, typically when I see "slam" or "destroy" in the title like this I know it's not going to meet the expectations of that word. These words are so overused these days in headlines.
- xlm1717 6y agoThey only differ in magnitude from "criticize", but they're all the same thing. They seem overused because everyone is deconstructing everything these days.
- chiefalchemist 6y agoIn the context of expectations, journalism uses critique. It's plain, simple, and neutral, if not objective. On the other hand, slam and destroy are judgemental. They're inflammatory hyperbole that shamelessly intended to bias the reader. That is, these are not words journalists use as BF does. I'm not suggesting BF is wrong. We all know what their biz model is, as well as the tactics they use to achieve those end. What it is, it is. It's simply not jouralism.
- ryanSrich 6y agoIt’s a buzzfeed article - which HN should seriously consider banning. For whatever reason it’s a source that seems to come up here often, but they lack even the most basic journalistic integrity.
- liability 6y ago> "Sunday Sunday Sunday, Come on down to the Slam-a-torium and watch Zuckerberg cage-fight his own employees!" Sorry, these sort of headlines remind me of WWE wrestling ads.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- waihtis 6y agoI’ve argued about flagging policy a couple times over at HN, but the comments in this thread during the first 5 minutes should provide a stellar example why to flag any political content.
- tedivm 6y agoYeah, this happens every time Facebook is involved in a murder or genocide (which is shockingly often), and so far it has resulted in basically no change at all. If they employees really cared about it they'd do more than complain.
- mshanowitz 6y agoBanning militia groups or similar groups or speech has upfront benefits but hidden costs. Facebook taking responsibility for such activity will inevitably to other very difficult decisions down the road. One mans terrorist is another's freedom fighter. There are many such conflicts all over the world, and at a certain point no objective criteria can be used to censure.
- hpoe 6y agoSo what happened in Kenosha was tragic, and I don't think the issue is as cut and dry as either side would have you believe. But my concern is I felt like this was inevitable, and will continue. I know the BLM protests are politically charged, but the problem is that there are many people's whose livelihoods and business are being permanently put out of commission and communities that are being devastated by the the looting, rioting, and protesting. Sure people use the "they have insurance" but imagine for a minute that your entire house burnt down, does your life just magically resume because you have homeowners insurance. Ultimately I feel like this will become more and more common because individuals are feeling as though the government is failing to portect them and as a result are willing to take matters into their own hands. Again I'm not trying to say I disagree with the movement or the concept of police reform but I am concerned about the fact we have been letting the rioting and looting continue unchecked for months now. The fundamental reason for the government to exist is to protect the life, liberty and property of an individual, if a government fails to do that then citizens will look to doing it themselves.
- tedivm 6y agoThere's a simple solution here- stop the police from murdering black people. If a house burns down it can be rebuilt, but you can't rebuild the lives ended by white supremacy in our police departments.
- hpoe 6y agoI agree police reform is needed, but the rioting doesn't seem like a good way to deliver this message and will instead make enemies of those who could otherwise be allies. I mean what does some guy who owns a furniture shop in Seattle have to do with a police officer shooting someone in Chicago? At this point I fear that the good that could come from this is being drowned out by the violence and the destruction and if it continues it will be counter-productive to the movement.
- ptd 6y agoSo maybe do something less violent, like kneel during a football game. People will definitely unilaterally support that, right?
- hourislate 6y agoI am curious what facebook would look like or represent if it were up to the employees?
- GaryNumanVevo 6y agoTypical IANAL: W.r.t the Kenosha shooter. 1. He was 17. It was illegal for him to possess that rifle. In his home state you have to be 21, in Wisconsin you have to be 18. This was crime 1 2. Crossing the State line with an illegally possessed weapon is a pretty big deal and a big fat #2 on crime list 3. Wisconsin totally allows for the use of deadly force in self defense, but the caveat is that you can't be committing a crime by possessing that rifle. 4. Wisconsin has a Castle Doctrine, but you can only deadly force if the perpetrators are in your dwelling or place of business. For a place of business, you have to owner be in charge of operations of said business. You can't just post up to protect a random business, also you can't chase people if they decide to retreat like this 17yo did. Wisconsin V. Charles L Chew is the case law if you want to have a look. 5. It is not self defense when you get in a car with a rifle and drive 15 miles to another town and walk the streets with a rifle. He had every option to stay home, but he chose to get involved in this situation with the plan to be involved with the confrontation (hence the rifle). Also in Wisconsin self defense law, you can't be the instigator and claim self defense. He became the instigator once he pursued. 6. Wearing gloves but no mask is also gonna be hard to explain. He is not concerned about covid-19 infection because his respiratory system is exposed. The blue gloves were on to hide fingerprints and any gun powder residue often used to convict shooters. He had intent to murder. No lawyer can defend these blatantly dumb mistakes. This wanna be future cop probably can't pass a psychological test to become one. Wisconsin 948.60 Possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18. (1) In this section, “dangerous weapon" means any firearm, loaded or unloaded; any electric weapon, as defined in s. 941.295 (1c) (a); metallic knuckles or knuckles of any substance which could be put to the same use with the same or similar effect as metallic knuckles; a nunchaku or any similar weapon consisting of 2 sticks of wood, plastic or metal connected at one end by a length of rope, chain, wire or leather; a cestus or similar material weighted with metal or other substance and worn on the hand; a shuriken or any similar pointed star-like object intended to injure a person when thrown; or a manrikigusari or similar length of chain having weighted ends. (2)(a) Any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor. (b) Except as provided in par. (c), any person who intentionally sells, loans or gives a dangerous weapon to a person under 18 years of age is guilty of a Class I felony. (c) Whoever violates par. (b) is guilty of a Class H felony if the person under 18 years of age under par. (b) discharges the firearm and the discharge causes death to himself, herself or another. (d) A person under 17 years of age who has violated this subsection is subject to the provisions of ch. 938 unless jurisdiction is waived under s. 938.18 or the person is subject to the jurisdiction of a court of criminal jurisdiction under s. 938.183