43 ms·

Facebook Indefinitely Suspends Trump

• uncoder0 6y ago
  https://www.instagram.com/khamenei.en/ https://www.instagram.com/khamenei.en/
  • razius 6y ago
    Ironic, right?
  • jtdev 6y ago
    Understanding why Khamenei is a bad guy requires more thought and effort than the blind outrage that the traditional media, social media, and celebrity personalities have instilled in millions of intellectually lazy Americans...
    • w0de 6y ago
      No, actually, "understanding" that Khameni is a "bad guy" requires accepting that received wisdom from nearly anyone in American politics or media. It is not a hard position to have; most Americans already have it without any examination.
• sparker72678 6y ago
  Mark Zuckerberg: The shocking events of the last 24 hours clearly demonstrate that President Donald Trump intends to use his remaining time in office to undermine the peaceful and lawful transition of power to his elected successor, Joe Biden. His decision to use his platform to condone rather than condemn the actions of his supporters at the Capitol building has rightly disturbed people in the US and around the world. We removed these statements yesterday because we judged that their effect -- and likely their intent -- would be to provoke further violence. Following the certification of the election results by Congress, the priority for the whole country must now be to ensure that the remaining 13 days and the days after inauguration pass peacefully and in accordance with established democratic norms. Over the last several years, we have allowed President Trump to use our platform consistent with our own rules, at times removing content or labeling his posts when they violate our policies. We did this because we believe that the public has a right to the broadest possible access to political speech, even controversial speech. But the current context is now fundamentally different, involving use of our platform to incite violent insurrection against a democratically elected government. We believe the risks of allowing the President to continue to use our service during this period are simply too great. Therefore, we are extending the block we have placed on his Facebook and Instagram accounts indefinitely and for at least the next two weeks until the peaceful transition of power is complete.
  • zoobab 6y ago
    Fuck off Mark.
  • adamsea 6y ago
    Crazy part is that one unelected guy (Zuckerberg)has this kind of power. To make this decision at his discretion. I mean it reads like something a head of state might say. Nonetheless, at least they are doing it.
    • willis936 6y ago
      To make the decision on who is allowed to post on their website?
      • adamsea 6y ago
        No, not that. Basically monopoly power, like with J.P. Morgan. Facebook has become immensely powerful. It is controlled by Zuckerberg. It's a new domain so it's still unregulated but I'm sure that will eventually change as social media is becoming more and more of a public good or utility.
    • fumar 6y ago
      The power to create Facebook? You have the power to create a social platform as a private company. Then you can as its owner make decisions regarding the platform you created.
      • adamsea 6y ago
        No, not that. Basically monopoly power, like with J.P. Morgan. Facebook has become immensely powerful. It is controlled by Zuckerberg. It's a new domain so it's still unregulated but I'm sure that will eventually change as social media is becoming more and more of a public good or utility.
        • deleted 6y ago
          [deleted]
• q3k 6y ago
  > You must log in to continue.
  • adewinter 6y ago
    Click "not now" and you don't have to.
    • q3k 6y ago
      No such button available here.
      • adewinter 6y ago
        It's not a button it's a text link (probably grey/hard to see) at the bottom of the dialogue
        • q3k 6y ago
          Yeah, if there was one I would've noticed it. Nothing to click like that, just a login page. Now it loads fine though, I guess I fell into some anti-fraud/DoS system.
  • benburleson 6y ago
    I don't have an account and could read the post, no problem.
  • JosephRedfern 6y ago
    I was able to read it once, but subsequent re-visits try and force me to log in (I don't have an account).
• faitswulff 6y ago
  Anyone with a modicum of sense has been saying this should happen for years now.
  • signal11 6y ago
    Well, do democratic values (and facts, really) matter more than the sweet, sweet engagement metrics and ad revenue Mr Zuckerburg gets from the MAGA crowd? Sorry if this comes across as bitter. I’m very disappointed at how the large social networks’ have conducted themselves at this point to the point that for a large swathe of the US and the UK, the facts don’t matter any more.
  • tolbish 6y ago
    This ban rings hollow. You're 100% correct that Trump has been provoking violence for years now (e.g. "If she [Hillary] gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks...although the Second Amendment people ... maybe there is" / "When the looting starts, the shooting starts"). Zuckerberg just knows now that Democrats will be in power so this is a safe move to appear like he hasn't been perfectly fine helping Trump increase the spread of his violent platform ("Facebook cannot be the arbiter of truth"). It was all about allowing "engagement" that helped Facebook's revenue. Zuckerberg does not get to change the narrative now.
    • drak0n1c 6y ago
      Those statements you gave as examples weren’t so clear cut. The first was in the context of talking about court cases that the judges will see. It was probably referencing 2A legal defense and litigator orgs like the NRA and GOA. The second example capped off a paragraph about curfew measures to prevent daytime protests from being overtaken by nighttime looting. Therefore it could be an empirical statement about tragedies that tend to and have followed looting and is using that to justify his preventive measures. If he meant it normatively and wanted to shoot people he probably wouldn’t have pushed preventative measures.
      • nobody9999 6y ago
• onion2k 6y ago
  Now I have even fewer reasons to log in to Facebook.
  • cecja 6y ago
    Your reason for facebook was trump... good riddance
• ccvannorman 6y ago
  [edited] For some reason I can't delete my own comment that's one minute old. I guess because it already got downvoted and commented. Learn something new every day!
  • gonzo41 6y ago
    Cough Fox / Murdoch Cough
  • willis936 6y ago
    Unilateral power moves... on moderating their own platform?
  • deelowe 6y ago
    I don't think we want facebook making these decisions for themselves, but without adequate regulatory guidelines, they are in a no win situation.
• novaRom 6y ago
  The power of corporations!
  • inglor_cz 6y ago
    And depending on who is on the losing end, people either love it or hate it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who,_whom%3F https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who,_whom%3F
  • libx 6y ago
    The power of the corporations is only a facade. The real power is of the owners of the money, FED, pharmaceuticals, food, etc, that are a few families.
• lucasyvas 6y ago
  Holy hell those comments though. Talk about a swamp.
  • oedoedxef 6y ago
    "I think the only people who should be able to post their comments are the ones whose opinions I agree with!"
    • moate 6y ago
      I don't think that's a good faith take at all. "You're an idiot for saying that" is not the same as "You should have your rights taken away". But go off.
    • danShumway 6y ago
      Acknowledging that some of the comments there are pretty messed up is not the same thing as advocating for censorship. Criticism isn't censorship, criticism is free speech.
      • oedoedxef 6y ago
        So I'm being downvoted which leads to censorship on this site, but all I did was criticize the comment, and I didn't downvote.
        • deleted 6y ago
          [deleted]
        • zamalek 6y ago
          Freedom of speech is the right to speak, it is not the right to be heard. Your audience is effectively walking away from your soapbox. Censorship is when there is interference between a speaker and an audience that would otherwise be captivated. Nobody here is interested in Trump's lies. Nobody here is interested in hearing his lies being perpetuated. We are not interested and we are not a captivated audience.
• speeder 6y ago
  What exactly Trump said to spark this? All information I found is rumors, that he posted a video asking people to respect the police, stop the violence and go home. Anyone has seen the video and texts in question and can tell me? EDIT: mass downvoting people, seriously? I didn't even defend Trump (or Biden), I asked a question, I am from Brazil and wanted to know what happened.
  • philk10 6y ago
    Claims he won in a landslide and that the people invading the Capitol in Camp Auschwitz t-shirts were special and he loves them
    • fsdfgsfsdfsdfsd 6y ago
      Bullshit
      • jeromegv 6y ago
        Nope, he did say exactly that. He felt very special about them and loves them. Transcript and video is not hard to find.
        • fsdfgsfsdfsdfsd 6y ago
          I'm sure he didn't mention "Camp Auschwitz". What is known about that guy anyway? Maybe he is a leftist who wants to warn about fascism. I think Biden and so on showed sympathy to BLM rioters as well. What is wrong with trying to understand people's needs and pains? It's ridiculous how you people twist everything Trump says. It also shows what your "opponents" can expect under your rule. I bet you would put "Camp Auschwitz" guy into your own version of Camp Auschwitz in no time, and you wouldn't even feel bad about it. You don't realize that Socialism is just as murderous, and that is what you people stand for.
      • sidlls 6y ago
        He literally called them special and said that he loved them. As in, he used the words "you're special" and "[I] love you". It's not ambiguous or subject to debate.
• genghizkhan 6y ago
  "Therefore, we are extending the block we have placed on his Facebook and Instagram accounts indefinitely and for at least the next two weeks until the peaceful transition of power is complete." At some point Facebook is going to have to take a stand on which one it is. Indefinitely or for the next two weeks.
  • ttul 6y ago
    Imagine the advertising revenue they earn from all the Trump loyalists using their platform. Blocking Trump is always done with an eye to maintaining that revenue in the long term. FB does not want to lose Trump supporters to a rival.
  • pjc50 6y ago
    Two weeks, but it'll feel like forever. (More seriously, they'll wait until the dust has settled; they're hedging against the possibility of the peaceful transition of power not happening)
  • aqme28 6y ago
    That's exactly what indefinitely means-- they haven't publicly decided when.
  • picks_at_nits 6y ago
    Consider this a specification for a date range defining when his account will be restored. Now we can parse the statement as follows: 1. Indefinitely: The date range has no end. 2. And for at least two weeks: The beginning of the date range is at least two weeks away. From this, I conclude that Mr. Trump's account will be muted for at least two weeks, and thereafter it could be un-muted at any time, but possibly the heat death of the universe may make the whole thing moot at some point.
  • nightcracker 6y ago
    What? They're just saying the ban is for 2+x weeks where x is an as of yet (publicly) unknown positive number. You're posing a false dichotomy.
  • vidarh 6y ago
• enraged_camel 6y ago
  I cannot believe it took them this long to realize the immense amount of harm Trump has been causing via social media. But I guess "better late than never" applies here.
  • nomy99 6y ago
    Facebook has done this now because he isn't a threat anymore. Before there was a fear of imminent executive orders against Tech Giants
• clydethefrog 6y ago
  I guess allowing protestors to put their feet on Pelosi's desk is a worse crime than an ethic genocide [1]. [1] https://time.com/5880118/myanmar-rohingya-genocide-facebook-gambia/ https://time.com/5880118/myanmar-rohingya-genocide-facebook-...
• ProAm 6y ago
  Now that Trump doesn't serve any value to Twitter or Facebook the bans come. Before they justified his behavior because he brought them viewers. It may be cynical but too convenient to play the morality card now.
  • ttul 6y ago
    Anyone who was confused as to the purpose of Facebook and Twitter should hopefully now understand: they exist to make money.
    • earthscienceman 6y ago
      I don't care. That's a fair argument for a slave-wage worker making a moral decision that walks the line between them having a job or not having a job. That's not a fair argument for a company like twitter who is trying to improve their 3+ billion dollar revenue. If you're a multi-millionare choosing dollars over ethics, you are in the wrong. Plain, clear, and simple. And I hope every tech-leader who has profited from this dumpster fire is labeled in history as such.
  • tw04 6y ago
    I'm not sure that's entirely fair - and I'm someone who has no time for facebook OR twitter. I think Twitter has destroyed western journalism and facebook has been at best complicit in the growth of hate groups around the world. All that being said: Until November of this year, he wasn't "just Donald Trump" - he was the PUSA. There's a very big difference between banning PUSA and banning DJT. Now if you want to argue they should've done this the day that the results were in back in late November - sure. But the previous 4 years? I'm not sure that was a path either company was willing to test and I can't entirely blame them. Also: Trump serves them no value? Are you crazy? The viewers haven't gone down, and won't go down in any significant manner. For all the bluster from right-wingers of "we're making our own social network" - they all still somehow seem to be participating on both platforms.
    • underdown 6y ago
      He is still the president today, making your argument dubious.
• tiahura 6y ago
  Maybe they should F start banning conspiracy theorists!!!
  • boringg 6y ago
    They did start shutting down Q
• geewee 6y ago
  I hope twitter does the same.
• maxfurman 6y ago
  If pointing an armed and angry mob at the Capitol itself isn't over the line, nothing is. I don't like Facebook and haven't used it in years but this is the right move. Four people are dead today because they listened to Donald Trump, and FB and Twitter bear some responsibility for handing him that megaphone. Stopping him from calling for further violence is the bare minimum they can do here.
  • uncoder0 6y ago
    I keep seeing 'armed mob' posted everywhere without any evidence. What were they armed with? I watched the whole thing live from many angles and I saw plenty of people doing dumb shit like breaking windows and such. The majority just waltzed in took a tour and walked out. They even obeyed the velvet ropes in the entryway. edit: looks like at least one person was inside the capitol with a firearm and four others were arrested in DC for open carrying firearms.
    • Natsu 6y ago
      I've heard a lot of people mentioning the pipe bomb, but that was at the RNC, so I don't know either, I have yet to see anyone substantiate it.
      • DFHippie 6y ago
        Also the DNC.
    • inscionent 6y ago
      Don't drown in that kool-aid
      • uncoder0 6y ago
        I'm just talking about what I saw if there is other evidence I'd love to see it.
        • 6y ago
• rasengan 6y ago
  Facebook is not a platform to have a voice. It’s a platform that harvests thoughts and publicizes the ones FB most agrees with while censoring those it does not. This is a slippery slope and, quite frankly, it’s the people that lose.
  • inscionent 6y ago
    Facebook was never for the 'People' they never had a chance at 'winning'
  • glial 6y ago
    > publicizes the ones FB most agrees with Change this to > publicizes the ones expected to make FB the most money and I agree with you. Either way, they should not be an arbiter of public discourse.
    • ajsnigrutin 6y ago
      > Either way, they should not be an arbiter of public discourse. They can be, but they should lose their platform status and be treated as a publisher, ie. take full responsibility for content on their pages. You can't have both.
      • nobody9999 6y ago
        >They can be, but they should lose their platform status and be treated as a publisher, ie. take full responsibility for content on their pages. You can't have both. I'm sorry. Would you expand on that? I don't understand what you're advocating. Perhaps this[0] might help you to formulate your response? [0] https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200531/23325444617/hello-youve-been-referred-here-because-youre-wrong-about-section-230-communications-decency-act.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200531/23325444617/hello...
        • ajsnigrutin 6y ago
          Yes, i'm saying that this law/rule (or whatever it's called, I'm not from USA) should be changed. You should be able to choose a status, either "platform" or "published", and in the case of the first, you'd have to leave everything not directly illegal (with rules in place, how to contest the legality in court if the post was removed and the author think it's legal speech - sort of like with DMCA claims), or you're a publisher, where you can decide what content you want and which you don't want, and then take responsibility for the content you've let stay on your site. Currently we have social networks like facebook deciding that one type of -ism is worse than the other tipe of -ism, and letting one stay while removing the other [0]. If you expand this to politics, you can get greater consequences than just a few people being recist (but since it's against whites and men, it's "ok" in the eyes of facebook). So yes, sites like facebook and twitter (which generally have a monopoly) should be regulated more, and having to choose their status. [0] https://eu.usatoday.com/story/tech/2020/12/03/facebook-ranks-hate-speech-black-over-attacks-white-people-men/3813931001/ https://eu.usatoday.com/story/tech/2020/12/03/facebook-ranks...
• nla 6y ago
  The clown prince of social media.
• kbrwn 6y ago
  Zuck > Jack
• ndjdjxjsjdjdhd 6y ago
  > involving use of our platform to incite violent insurrection against a democratically elected government. From my understanding the video that got banned asked everyone to go home peacefully but then continued to claim election fraud?
  • uncoder0 6y ago
    You are correct the video all the platforms are using to justify the bans explicitly asked people to go home. Previously he had urged them to be peaceful which they mostly were as evidenced by the fact that no capitol staff or police were in any way injured during the incident. edit: Leaving my comment intact as there are people who have replied. VBProgrammer pointed out that a portion of my statement is not true. This morning the DC police revealed two officers were hospitalized with injuries and one was described as having serious injuries while 12 others suffered other injuries.
    • ndjdjxjsjdjdhd 6y ago
      I’m sorry and I’m being serious. Why is he banned then?
      • uncoder0 6y ago
        He's no longer useful to them for generating traffic and user data.
      • moate 6y ago
        Because the above post is a misrepresentation of what was said.
      • gambiting 6y ago
        Because the entire attack on Capitol yesterday can be tied directly to the speech he has made just before it. Just because no police/staff were harmed doesn't make it ok - after all, destruction of federal property and buildings carries a potential 10 year imprisonment penalty. So not only he's encouraging criminal actions, but after these actions occurs he tells these criminals that he loves them. And yes, tells them to go home - great, but that's not a redeeming factor here. So......is it still not clear why he's banned?
• claydavisss 6y ago
  If you think Trump and/or his army treats this as a defeat, think again. Once Biden is in office, social media companies will become rubber stamps for the establishment or be faced with breakup. You wanted one-party rule...you're going to get it.
  • InitialLastName 6y ago
    At risk of feeding the troll, want to bet? You win if, as of January 21, 2029, the Democratic party has retained continuous control of the Presidency, Senate, and House of Representatives and controls the legislatures of at least 2/3 of the states. I win if not. Loser has to admit they were being histrionic and has to preface every public political comment they make for 5 years after that with "I have a tendency to exaggerate, so feel free not to take me seriously"
    • djsumdog 6y ago
      It depends on which direction we goes. If the elections really weren't stolen, then we will see things even out. If they were ... well you're wrong about Democrats retaining control. It's not Democrats vs Republicans. It's establishment vs everyone else. Let me ask you something: Do you ever think we'll see another person not blessed by either the Bush or Clinton family on the Iron Throne of the Whitehouse? Trump was the only on in my lifetime. From the 1980s until 2008 we always had a Bush or a Clinton in the Whitehouse and until 2012 Clinton was still Secretary of State. Two royal families have ruled America for my entire life until 2016. Obama and Biden are clearly part of House Clinton. America is just a monarchy with term limits.
      • InitialLastName 6y ago
        I think you're forgetting how bitter the 2008 Democratic primary was. The Clintons did everything they could to keep Obama from being the nominee (well, as we saw in 2016, not quite everything they could do). Clinton was made secretary of state as an olive branch to keep her end of the party secure. I think you can comfortably replace "establishment" with "idealogically representative of the inner standard deviation of the american people", with some skewing for party politics, which is pretty much what a representative republic is supposed to do. People also miss that the parties frequently shift to accommodate their candidates, such that any candidate of a major party de facto becomes the establishment for that party (within reason). Also, Bill Clinton was in no way an establishment candidate in 1992. Nor was Reagan in 1980, nor particularly was Carter in 1976. Skipping their associated unelected presidents (who by nature of being VP were part of the establishment), Kennedy probably also was not particularly establishmenty (but he cheated). Nixon was a solid component of the Republican establishment, Eisenhower had literally run the country's military, and FDR was president for so long it's hard not to think of him as defining the establishment. Before that, my picture of electoral history gets fuzzy. All that to say, saying things are run by "the establishment" is too ephemeral to be useful. > America is just a monarchy with term limits. Yes, that's literally the intent of the executive branch as conceived by the founders. Even the term limits were feature creep.
• aprdm 6y ago
  Regardless of being the right thing to do or not, it is very interesting to see a software platform banning a president of a country. Interesting times.
  • systemvoltage 6y ago
    You must have something to say besides it’s interesting?
    • BrawnLongHaul 6y ago
      Because, to me, it seems that any thought that differs from SV, left-leaning orthodoxy, is instantly flagged, downvoted, or deleted.
      • systemvoltage 6y ago
        Saying something is interesting is not adding any value. It’s obvious that all this is very interesting, indeed.
        • Epokhe 6y ago
          It’s also interesting that you’re so worried by this comment. I found some value in the original comment because it highlighted a software company is doing it. Just relax.
          • systemvoltage 6y ago
            I’m not worried, I’m expressing how ridiculously afraid people are to take a side because hey, it’s kind of a polarizing and controversial topic. Tell us what you think! In some ways, it’s self-censorship so one doesn’t get downvotes. I think I find anyone telling someone to relax a bit condescending, but I’m gonna assume good faith that you’re not meaning it.
            • 6y ago
• king_magic 6y ago
  Good. This was absolutely the right move from Facebook. Finally.
  • toomuchtodo 6y ago
    This is a textbook example of reining someone in for yelling “fire!” in a crowded theater when no fire exists, and inciting imminent harm against others.
    • SV_BubbleTime 6y ago
      Why do so many people that use the fire in a crowded theater example not know what it means? Do you know that’s not really making the point you think it is? Do you know that it is legal to yell fire in a crowded theater? The case so often referenced, was overturned.
      • toomuchtodo 6y ago
        Are you familiar with the Brandenburg v. Ohio's "imminent lawless action" test? If not, I suggest a quick review of that case law.
        • dragonwriter 6y ago
          > Are you familiar with the Brandenburg v. Ohio’s “imminent lawless action” test? Yes, and saying this is a perfect example of speech inciting imminent lawless action is better than making the comparison you actually made upthread.
          • toomuchtodo 6y ago
            ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ more folks are familiar with my first analogy as it relates to the topic of free speech and imminent lawless acts. Call it laziness, it gets the point across instead of folks giving you blank stares about case law (and I’m happy to cite as I did above when necessary).
• gashad 6y ago
  Anyone else not logged in to Facebook find the "See more of Mark Zuckerberg on Facebook" pop-up a bit disconcerting?
• deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
• richardARPANET 6y ago
  Zuck the PHP dev thinks he's Emperor.
  • nova22033 6y ago
    He is the CEO of the company and gets to decide. You understand that facebook is a private company, right? Trump's 1A rights aren't being denied any more than Fox news is denying AOC her 1A rights by not giving her her own show.
    • richardARPANET 6y ago
      ItS a PrIVAtE CoMPaNY! BuILD YOur 0wN InTERnet!
  • ggrelet 6y ago
    Isn’t he, though?
    • djsumdog 6y ago
      Sadly yes, because people kept giving is platform power. Funny how they keep calling Trump the god emperor, when it's really Big Tech and Big Media. Just look at the comments on this post. No one is complaining about censorship; they're all claiming it should have been done sooner! I bet no one one here has looked at one alternative news source for the past four year and eats everything CNN/MSNBC/FOX/NPR feeds them. This is how the freedom to speak fails. I hope the big take away is that people start moving further and further away from these big platforms, and take their friends with them.
  • mrkramer 6y ago
    He is into Ancient Greece and Ancient Rome let him have fun. Also he thought that Google Plus was Carthage and Facebook was Roman Empire well it turned out it was kind of like that but only in Social Networking industry, Google is still Roman Empire of the internet.
• duxup 6y ago
  Facebook and their ilk aside I wonder how I would deal with this: If I'm running a service (let's pretend I'm a bit better than facebook please) I would find it hard to keep the Trump account going for the time being: There's a balance between allowing a form of free speech on the site... and dealing with folks who using their speech incite acts that are inherently undemocratic and if allowed to continue would incite violence, and acts that clearly have no regard for democracy or anyone's rights but their own... I don't think there's any magic way of deciding this fairly, but I also think it is hard to ignore the implications of allowing for such things.
• lalos 6y ago
  Interesting how they sing a different tune once the other party finally gets certification of the election results, time to get 'cozy' with the new people in power and set up those dinners [1] and ad deals with them. [1] https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/trump-hosted-zuckerberg-undisclosed-dinner-white-house-october-n1087986 https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/trump-hosted-zuckerbe...
  • taylus 6y ago
    Yep. Fuck zuck, finally deleted my Facebook account because of this.
    • thisisnico 6y ago
      Keep your enemies close.
      • inglor_cz 6y ago
        Wish granted. Facebook and its tracking cookies are close to pretty much everybody who surfs the Web, regardless of having an account or not.
        • strongbond 6y ago
          Can you point to any resources that explain how to eradicate your surfing behavior from Facebook's tracking? I'm sure it's not as simple as clearing cookies and never visiting a Facebook property again.
          • ffpip 6y ago
            You can block facebook domains with uBlock Origin. Or just install https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/facebook-container/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/facebook-cont...
          • caeril 6y ago
            PiHole or a service like NextDNS works very well for this use-case.
• kbrwn 6y ago
  Rightwing posters on FB/Twitter/HN: "It is our right to organize an coup on your platform!!!1" Start your own goddamn website! Zuck and Jack don't owe you anything.
• mrtksn 6y ago
  What are the chances of Trump enabling an obscure social service? His existence alone should be able to draw a lot of app installs.
  • thakoppno 6y ago
    or maybe by executive order launch a twitter clone 1st.gov?
• hermitcrab 6y ago
  "indefinitely and for at least the next two weeks" What the hell does that mean?
  • jmu1234567890 6y ago
    At least 2 weeks, then reevaluate at the point.
  • jstanley 6y ago
    They don't know how long, but it will be at least two weeks.
    • hermitcrab 6y ago
      So why didn't they say that?
      • jstanley 6y ago
        That is what they said.
  • kgwxd 6y ago
    Two weeks, maybe more.
  • deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
• 0xmohit 6y ago
  Zuck chooses to do it when it is certain that Trump is going and won't be of much use going forward. This is just a sham unless Facebook ensures that the platform doesn't provide space to those indulging in malicious propaganda.
• hhkb 6y ago
  I love how all these social media companies are dumping Trump AFTER they made money off of him. This is capitalism.
• known 6y ago
  Trump’s legacy—the shame and the opportunity https://archive.is/0KxLJ https://archive.is/0KxLJ
• edko 6y ago
  This reminds me of when Perón's Argentina declared war on Germany just a few days before the war was over.
• Nelkins 6y ago
  Can anybody recommend a good WhatsApp alternative?
  • kieranmaine 6y ago
    https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25669864 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25669864
  • ashleshbiradar 6y ago
    https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25669864 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25669864
  • mittermayr 6y ago
    Signal (over Telegram). Signal is open-source, on GitHub, and run by a non-profit organisation. You can even use your own server if you're so inclined.
  • deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
• jccalhoun 6y ago
  When people say anonymity online is bad and that having people use their real names would make people more polite, I point them to facebook comments.
  • disease 6y ago
    Google tried using real names on youtube briefly and it had no affect in reducing white supremacy or conspiracy theories in its comments.
    • jeffbee 6y ago
      That was just a side-effect of organizational stupidity. The guy they put in charge of "social" was 100% committed to the real names thing and also dedicated to the internal turf war of either taking over or shutting down any product that seemed to have "social features". So youtube comments temporarily became just a foreign feature of Google+, rendered out of context. After they showed that bozo the door, youtube went back to their old comments system.
  • oramit 6y ago
    Yeah, though I didn't agree with the "real names only" policy at Facebook I did think it would lead to better behavior. That backfired spectacularly.
    • rconti 6y ago
      I think it helped a lot. I still think it's a lot better than Twitter, but it's difficult to compare, because the default-public behavior of Twitter content makes it far more toxic; to find the same stuff on FB you either have to be in a private group, or read public comments on a public article. It doesn't come to you in the same way it does on Twitter. Most of the horribly content on Facebook is fake accounts, which you can usually identify because their entire profile is around a theme. Facebook tried to make fake accounts impossible for awhile, but apparently they've given up. Twitter doesn't try.
  • dralley 6y ago
• RobRivera 6y ago
  I'm simply going to state a very plain truth. A publicly traded company has silenced the current Lame Duck President. Guild wars when?
• deeviant 6y ago
  Facebook, and it's tendency to create fake reality bubbles around its users in the name of the all important "engagement", is perhaps more responsible for the sorry state of US politics and democracy then Trump himself.
• tibbydudeza 6y ago
  Zuck had his Lindsey Graham moment like so many others will over the coming days ... The King is dead ... Long Live the King.
• mateus1 6y ago
  I don't like Zuckerberg but I agree with this action. Trump is inciting violence and Facebook is not obliged to be an accomplice.
• systemvoltage 6y ago
  Comments here are awful. “It’s interesting” - this is just useless. Tell us why it’s interesting. Engage and tell us your position on this matter.
• andrepd 6y ago
  I don't like the thought of trillion-dollar advertising companies being the custodians of the platforms where (sadly) a majority of speech in the world happens. That being said, if direct calls to violence and to insurrection against a democracy aren't grounds to take away your megaphone, then what is? If you're a free speech maximalist you'll be opposed to any sort of "censorship" (then again, people with those views also tend to believe that "private companies" hold absolute authority over what goes on in their "property"). But if you believe inciting violence and other kinds of things should be punished by law, then you can hardly disagree with this.
  • makeworld 6y ago
    I feel the same way. It's a bad world we live in where tech companies have to moderate the speech of everyone, but until we're out of that situation (thanks to decentralization), then reducing hate and speech that causes harm is the right move.
    • nemothekid 6y ago
      I don’t think this is a problem caused by centralization. As I think about the past 4 years I think the blame lies with Congress, whom have effectively gridlocked themselves into inaction for the last decade. The powers that they have have already been spilling into other branches (such as using the courts to audaciously overturn laws) so it makes sense that those powers are spilling into the private sector as well. In other words, the less Congress does, the more easily corporations turn into an authoritarian arm of the government
  • dionian 6y ago
    If there had been direct calls to violence, I would agree with you 100%
  • finder83 6y ago
    Do you have examples of the direct calls to violence and insurrection? Supposedly there were three tweets that Twitter required trump to delete, but I don't see the actual text of them anywhere.
• iphorde 6y ago
  It doesn't matter who is in power. The entire system is corrupt. Trump supporters, and many progressives have the same issue. The wealth gap. We have a system where CEO's are rewarded with stock, not a salary. That stock is then taxed at capital gains rates. If we raise taxes, they can just give the CEO more stock. Democrats want to raise taxes, which doesn't do anything. Why? Because they can just give more stock. Republicans believe the problem doesn't exist. The Zuckerbergs are the problem. Democrats know they raise taxes, which makes the dumb happy, they can just give themselves more options. Such a racket.
• socrates1998 6y ago
  Zuck continues to prove what a scumbag he is. Trump has been fear mongering and spreading lies and disinformation for years. Zuck crashed the car and killed a few people, but now acts like he is doing the right thing by selling it for scrap metal. He has been scumbag from day one.
• bedhead 6y ago
  No fan of Trump and I try to be militantly centrist, but how is Trump's baseless rhetoric about election fraud any different than almost every Democrat politician's endless claims that Trump was [eye roll] a "Russian agent"?? Both claims are absurd, but how exactly is one "incitement" while the other is just normal course mainstream news?? Facebook of course provides no specific explanation about their decision. But how would calling the president LITERALLY a Russian spy not qualify as incitement under the same basic logic? I'm just getting tired of all the brazen double standards. It's entirely possible to hate Trump and (a) not go completely overboard about what he does and (b) not pretend the left doesn't also have some disturbing pathologies. I'm sure this will get about a thousand downvotes...
  • jimbob45 6y ago
    Solid point. I never saw Twitter tripping over themselves to ban mention of the pee tape, which was clearly a blatant fabrication.
• ggrelet 6y ago
  Why is it announced from Zuckerberg's profile page and not from the official Facebook page?
  • kd0amg 6y ago
    It is: https://about.fb.com/news/2021/01/responding-to-the-violence-in-washington-dc/ https://about.fb.com/news/2021/01/responding-to-the-violence...
• dcolkitt 6y ago
  IMO, this potentially opens up Facebook Inc. to securities fraud lawsuits. Corporate executives by default have a fiduciary duty to maximize shareholder returns. They don't have to abide by this, but if they take material action towards other goals, then they must clearly disclose it in public communications. (E.g. a non-profit company can't pretend that it's not to potential investors.) It's pretty hard to justify how banning Trump benefits shareholders. Without a doubt, his precense drives user engagement and therefore ad revenue. There's no credible threat of boycott. It's pretty clear executives made this decision in the interest of democracy rather than maximizing shareholder returns. Facebook has never disclosed this consideration on its SEC filings. Therefore under American corporate law, that opens up management to liability. I'm not taking a stance whether this is good or bad. But I do think that politically motivated security fraud lawsuits against Twitter and Facebook are eventually inevitable. Not least because political opponents will heavily subsidize the plaintiffs, even if the case doesn't look likely to win.
  • mden 6y ago
    "Corporate executives have a fiduciary duty to maximize shareholder returns" My understanding is that that's an oft repeated myth - https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/04/16/what-are-corporations-obligations-to-shareholders/corporations-dont-have-to-maximize-profits https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/04/16/what-are-co...
  • vel0city 6y ago
    Corporate executives do not have a fiduciary due to maximize shareholder returns. If the shareholders and board of a public corporation want to quit making money and just throw massive parties all the time until the corporation runs out of money, there's nothing stopping them from doing so. https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/04/16/what-are-corporations-obligations-to-shareholders/corporations-dont-have-to-maximize-profits https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/04/16/what-are-co...
    • dcolkitt 6y ago
      They don't have an absolute duty to maximize returns. But if they're taking deliberate and material actions that go against shareholder interests, they are required to publicly disclose that. For example there are non-profit corporations, and of course that's perfectly legal, but they're not allowed to masquerade as if they aren't. The key test for securities fraud is advance and public disclosure. It's funny you bring up the party example, because that's exactly what Tyco did. And it resulted in a $3 billion securities fraud payout. https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna18677004 https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna18677004
• estebarb 6y ago
  I find interesting that at least in spanish facebook does NOTHING to prevent fake news, calls to assassinate local leaders, fake elections fraud and other content to spread. Even those comments are always promoted as "the most relevant". FB is an amplifier of all this mess and is ruining democracies everywhere.
  • wincy 6y ago
    The people running Facebook don’t live in Spain, that’s 100% why.
    • estebarb 6y ago
      Spanish is the second language with more native speakers in the world (and FB is banned in China). It is the main language in Latin America, Spain, Guinea Ecuatorial and other places.
      • fckthisguy 6y ago
        Maybe I misunderstood you message, but I was quite surprised to see Spanish as the second most spoken language in the world. I just looked it up and the rankings are a little less black and white than I expected too. A lot of the numbers seems to be from older rankings and the explosive growth of some languages in recent years makes them vary wildly. All in all, it seems Chinese is first, with Spanish coming in just after Hindi+urdu, English, and Arabic. Interesting stuff.
        • im3w1l 6y ago
          Which language is the top one depends on your criteria. Do you only consider first language or also non-first that people are native speakers of, what about non-native but fluent? But either way you count Spanish is not #1, but one of the top few.
        • bazooka_penguin 6y ago
          Spanish isn't the second most spoken language overall. It's the second most common native(a person's first) language. English is taught and used by huge swathes of Asia and is almost as common as Chinese. I can't even remember the last time I met an asian immigrant who didn't speak english.
• throw7 6y ago
  Gotta move with the political winds ehhh zuck?
  • djsumdog 6y ago
    The entire reason the Cambridge Analytica thing happened was because Zuck made moves for politics. At least that was my theory. I spell it out here: https://battlepenguin.com/politics/facebook-politics-and-orwells-24-7-hate/ https://battlepenguin.com/politics/facebook-politics-and-orw...
    • throw7 6y ago
      Thanks for the link. I appreciate it.
• boringg 6y ago
  About time. Lies travel faster than truth, that guy is a volcano of lies and facebook is the kerosene covering the rest of the country (and planet at this point frankly).
• emptyparadise 6y ago
  A single social network shouldn't wield this much power - and I mean not the act of suspending a political figure but the fact that doing that has such a big impact. I'm not saying Trump should be unblocked from Facebook here. It's the fact that him getting blocked to begin with is a big enough deal to at this point probably have hundreds of news articles written about it that deeply bothers me. We handed the keys to the public square to two advertising companies - maybe it's time to get them back.
  • johnofthesea 6y ago
    > We handed the keys to the public square Not only in virtual spaces. 'In 2010, during a London Assembly planning and housing committee meeting, Jenny Jones, from the Green party, said: “It has taken us eight years to negotiate with More London so that we politicians can do a TV interview outside our own building.”'[1] [1] https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/aug/04/pops-privately-owned-public-space-cities-direct-action https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/aug/04/pops-privatel...
  • djsumdog 6y ago
    Every government official should have hired staff to setup official Government ActiviyPub instances. They don't because they don't see past the absolute control of big tech.
• karl11 6y ago
  The censorship you don't like always starts out as the censorship you like. Whatever you think about Trump, it is not a good thing that 3 companies (Twitter, Facebook, Google) have the ability to effectively silence the democratically elected US President.
  • djsumdog 6y ago
    It's the "first they came for the.." poem.
• throwawaysea 6y ago
  I'm confused by why Facebook would suspend Trump, and worried about the precedent it sets - namely that tech companies' leaders and employees, who operate the digital public town square but are not subject to first amendment free speech law, will now censor anyone whom they politically disagree with. The first reason I feel this is a bad decision is that it is selective enforcement. As an example, in Seattle, we have had BLM and antifa groups encouraging, inciting, and participating in all kinds of criminal acts - illegal assemblies, failure to follow police orders, property damage, physical violence, blockading of highways, arson, and of course the infamous CHAZ/CHOP autonomous zone incident. Why aren't all those accounts also banned when the damage they have caused is much more consistent and much more clearly an act of violence? Why weren't "journalists" streaming coverage of CHAZ banned from Twitch, Twitter, and Facebook for amplifying the message of those criminals? To this day, the 'Everyday March' group in Seattle (who blocks roads/highways) has used Instagram and Twitter to promote and coordinate dangerous, illegal acts daily. Every single day. And yet no action has been taken by big tech to censor them. The second reason this doesn't make sense to me, is that I don't see clear evidence of Trump "inciting" people to break the law and storm the capitol. I may just be ignorant and unaware, so if someone could share the evidence I'd appreciate it. But as far as I can tell, there is no tweet or Facebook post where Trump explicitly tells people or encourages them to storm the capitol. Even claiming that Trump "condones" this act is a step too far, putting words in his mouth. I agree he hasn't condemned it explicitly, and that is despicable. But I am not seeing how Trump's posts incite violence, condone the storming of the capitol, or would materially encourage further violence. I get that he doesn't have to be explicit to have that effect, but that is not enough for me to feel that big tech is justified in censoring his posts.
• 12xo 6y ago
  Profiles in courage... Not. Facebook created this mess. Not on purpose, but it has maximized the underlying cause of civil unrest by profiting and promoting the very thing that makes this all possible. The unfettered distribution of propaganda. As long as sensationalism is rewarded with more attention, as long as ads payments are based on a fake metric, as long as oversight is eliminated and standards ignored, the media will continue its slide to the bottom. We are witnessing this happen in real time. Attention is the currency of media. Ad tech enables and rewards this and is the root cause of the degradation and distribution of misinformation. When the click became the goal, everything else fell by the wayside.
• deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
• th0ma5 6y ago
  All of these HN comments are defending shouting "Fire!" falsely in a theater under the guise of it being a slippery slope before all speech is lost. I have lost a lot of respect for these slippery slope arguments because they are easy to make and ignore the obvious problem which is that some speech shouldn't be tolerated... Especially intolerant or harmful speech.
  • matz1 6y ago
    > which is that some speech shouldn't be tolerated who get to decide what should/shouln't be tolerated ? harmful/harmful ? facebook ?
    • minimaxir 6y ago
      "Inciting a coup" is a pretty unambiguous bar for harmful speech.
      • stevenhubertron 6y ago
        and even if you didn't think that was enough. The fact that if they would have been successful it would have meant a certain civil war which would have been bad for Facebook's business. So even from a completely revenue based view it is good business for Facebook to do this at this time.
      • matz1 6y ago
        Apparently not, in this thread alone, there is plenty of people who disagree let alone harmful.
      • throwawaysea 6y ago
        Can you share a specific piece of evidence where Trump is inciting a coup?
        • danhak 6y ago
          The video where he says "You're special! We love you!" to his followers as they actively besiege the U.S. Capitol and ransack congressional offices. That good enough?
• liotier 6y ago
  Eleventh-hour posturing - Zuckerberg knows which way the wind has turned.
• m000 6y ago
  Therefore, we are extending the block we have placed on his Facebook and Instagram accounts indefinitely and for at least the next two weeks until the peaceful transition of power is complete. With no options left, I wouldn't be surprised to see Trump creating a TikTok account and reversing his executive order ban.
• cabaalis 6y ago
  I don't support how Trump has handled the election. Before, after, during. We would all be better off if he would stop this and uphold our tradition of peaceful transition of power. What I'm not seeing the media talk about is what difference does or does not exist between a group of people breaking into the capital (a political event at a political location) vs. cordoning off parts of a city, burning businesses, etc. If you don't recall, in June of last year, parts of Washington were quite literally on fire. Without that discussion it greatly appears that they just support one group and their ideas but not the other, all the while calling others divisive.
  • jnwatson 6y ago
    The difference is massive. Destruction of property is an inconvenience. Literally interrupting the Congress' Constitutional duties is a whole new ball game. It is essentially the difference between vandalism and sedition.
    • exo762 6y ago
      > Destruction of property is an inconvenience. You never have been poor, have you?
    • makomk 6y ago
      Historically, part of the reason arson is considered such a serious crime is because it's basically attempted murder: you're doing something that's likely to result in someone dying and recklessly disregarding that fact, and at least one person was in fact killed by the fires started in cities throughout the US (possibly more). Not that this got much attention from the mainstream media... think I heard about it due to checking the local press there. In just a few weeks, a president will take office who ran in part on his support for those rioters.
• technofiend 6y ago
  I know Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, Reddit and all the rest don't count as broadcast media but I feel like we got here in part because the 1987 elimination of FCC's fairness doctrine slowly allowed a shift in how we communicate with each other. We went from specious claims and conspiracy theories being the subject matter of newsletters to their public broadcast to millions via talk radio ~and Fox News~, thus allowing people to descend into their own bubbles without ever having their views challenged. Now people seem to rely on social media to give them the same experience. When challenged too much people just pull up stakes to insulate themselves: voat, parler, and private facebook groups are only three recent examples. It'll be interesting to see if whoever replaces Ajit Pai holds a different view on public intercourse over the airwaves. Edit: Well as some people have pointed out, Fox News would have been exempt from the Fairness Doctrine as a cable network, i.e. it doesn't use the public spectrum. As Wikipedia says "The channel was created by Australian-American media mogul Rupert Murdoch to appeal to a conservative audience, hiring former Republican media consultant and CNBC executive Roger Ailes as its founding CEO." So my personal view that Fox (among others) is responsible for a) exposing millions to fact-free content without opposing views and b) people got used to that and don't like it when it's challenged created the bubble we have today. I'm wrong that the Fairness Doctrine would have prevented Fox, although it might have prevented talk radio.
  • xxpor 6y ago
    Even if the fairness doctrine hadn't been eliminated administratively, it's very plausible it'd have been overturned by SCOTUS anyway. Not that'd I agree with that, but given the way the court has gone on corporate "free speech"...
    • ls612 6y ago
      The only reason the fairness doctrine could even plausibly exist constitutionally was because radio and tv were broadcast media using a public good (spectrum). Cable TV, newspapers were not affected and the internet likely wouldn’t have been affected either.
      • 6y ago
• 0x_rs 6y ago
  Many were waiting for this moment, and being on the way out I guess it's the most appropriate to take such decision instead of the past 4 years where they may have been hit back. I wonder, though, were will they (as in social platforms, hosting services, any site providing people "speech") draw the line in the future? There's been a lot of foul words online in the past few days. I don't like the ever so increasing extremization of Internet circles, slowly turning into the so called "echo chambers" most fit and aligned for one's beliefs no matter their actual truth, falling down spirals of disinformation. It'll be disastrous if all of us don't realize things displayed on a screen are not a reflection of reality.
• reccanti 6y ago
  Good. Now they should start deplatforming the other world leaders who are encouraging genocide in countries the US media doesn't pay as much attention to.
• beefee 6y ago
  For anyone that hasn't heard it, ten states have alleged Facebook entered into an unlawful agreement with a competitor to manipulate advertising auctions. [1] [1] https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/images/admin/2020/Press/20201216%20COMPLAINT_REDACTED.pdf https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/ima...
  • boojing 6y ago
    By "a competitor" you mean Google?
• bmmayer1 6y ago
  > Therefore, we are extending the block we have placed on his Facebook and Instagram accounts indefinitely and for at least the next two weeks until the peaceful transition of power is complete. Which one is it? Indefinitely or for the next two weeks?
• alessivs 6y ago
  Detractors will be glad a president doesn't have an expansive voice, but the flip side of the coin is that one day it may be you, or a loved one, who is affected by similar actions for engaging in the wrongthink du jour. From the look of the allegiance of the newly certified admin, it's not hard to entertain the possibility that in some distant future it may not be possible to criticize say, China, or Bill Gates, without facing repercussions comparable to denying the Holocaust–the difference being that this time, your social graph, preferences, biometric data, and metrics of online behavior are held against you, as a warrant. Private companies and private interests can conveniently play the role of the data collection and profiling arm of the coercive capability of governments, or they simply use governments as proxies to exert coercion directly (as is the case with 'mandates'), if allowed to do so.
• JeffCyr 6y ago
  This is a dangerous short term move. In the end it may create a division and popularize other social medias where this content and worse will still be available in an unmoderated space.
  • AnimalMuppet 6y ago
    I don't think it's going to play out that way. The problem with Facebook and Twitter is that everybody is on Facebook and Twitter. Some alternative comes up (let's call it Foo) that lets Trump speak freely. How many Facebook people are going to move to Foo to hear Trump? (Remember that the value of a social network is proportional to the square of the number of people there, and nobody's on Foo yet.) Sure, some will go, and Foo becomes a nest of die-hard Trump supporters. And over there, they get worse, more hardened in their position. They also don't get many new converts, because if you're not already a hard-core Trump supporter, why on earth would you go to Foo? Is that better or worse than the current situation? I think it's better, because it shuts down the recruitment pipeline.
    • ThrowawayR2 6y ago
      The popular vote for the presidential election was 51% to 47%. There are more than enough disaffected conservatives to allow Foo to not just survive but even become a roaring success, particularly if boosted with endorsements from leaders in that party. To believe that deplatforming people "shuts down the recruitment pipeline" for a political movement with such broad popularity is wishful thinking.
  • efdee 6y ago
    Like gab.ai and Parler? LOL.
• ookblah 6y ago
  This kind of stuff always saddens me because it's a lose lose. It's like "you know it when you see it", and maybe in a certain instance this kind of block is used for good. But often times it just eventually becomes the basis for a bad actor to use against everyone. So what do you do, allow a shitstorm to proliferate due to "free speech"? Or instigate these rules and basically write your own doom eventually...
• Kapura 6y ago
  This is pathetic, and I would be embarrassed to be a Facebook employee after what has transpired over the past 5 years. Extremely too little too late. The damage has already been done, and done, and done. Over and over again. Journalism is a husk of what it was before Facebook's algorithms became the primary way many consume news. Engagement as the key performance metric has damaged the human project. This company cannot be brought to heel quickly enough. I have zero faith in american regulators, hopefully the EU can do something, anything, to lessen the penetrative rot of this company.
  • tetrometal 6y ago
    "This company cannot be brought to heel quickly enough." That you can say that and not think of yourself as authoritarian is the reason the US is so divided right now.
    • Kapura 6y ago
      A man with a gun walks down a street. He shoots a woman in the leg. He keeps walking. He shoots at another man across the street. Somebody runs up from behind and tackles the man with the gun. tetrometal logs in to say "woah, stop being so authoritarian! can't you see you're tearing us apart?"
  • pixxel 6y ago
    I personally know of two companies that actively refuse to interview recent Facebook employees. Of course most companies see Facebook employment as a positive.
    • Merman_Mike 6y ago
      +1 My team actively screens out FB applicants.
• pbreit 6y ago
  Censorship is pretty much never the right solution. And this is indeed censorship.
• altdatathrow 6y ago
  All it took was one failed coup
• ashtonkem 6y ago
  The fact that Facebook and Twitter have taken more corrective action than congress scares me. Unfit to tweet, but he can keep the nukes? How can we expect to keep our republic if congress is so useless?
• 02020202 6y ago
  trump had plenty of time to fix censorship(platform vs publisher). so why care now?
• dboreham 6y ago
  Zuckerberg redefines the word "indefinitely".
• tetrometal 6y ago
  What is unbelievable about that? It's completely reasonable. People were pissed about lack of election transparency. All they wanted were real audits of the election, but all they got was "Shut up, go home, there's no evidence, stop looking into things."
  • efdee 6y ago
    Every single case got struck down by judges. People were pissed about a lack of election transparency that wasn't actually there. If the opinion of judges wasn't enough to convince them, what makes you think that of an auditor would make a difference?
    • tetrometal 6y ago
      I think the truth will eventually come out. I HOPE that those claiming sufficient fraud to effect the election are dead wrong. The alternative would be a nightmare. That's why the media and big tech shouldn't have buried their head in the sand. "Every single case got struck down by judges" is not a new argument to my ears. Do you think most of those judges heard actual evidence, or were throwing cases out on procedural grounds? Have you considered that question? Has Matt Braynard's work been heard and responded to? What are the responses to these? https://spectator.us/reasons-why-the-2020-presidential-election-is-deeply-puzzling/ https://spectator.us/reasons-why-the-2020-presidential-elect... https://thefederalist.com/2020/11/23/5-more-ways-joe-biden-magically-outperformed-election-norms/ https://thefederalist.com/2020/11/23/5-more-ways-joe-biden-m... Look at this "fact check", does it seem reasonable to you? https://leadstories.com/hoax-alert/2020/12/fact-check-video-from-ga-does-not-show-suitcases-filled-with-ballots-pulled-from-under-a-table-after-poll-workers-dismissed.html https://leadstories.com/hoax-alert/2020/12/fact-check-video-... Here's a response to it: https://gellerreport.com/2020/12/no-the-georgia-vote-counting-video-was-not-debunked-not-even-close.html/ https://gellerreport.com/2020/12/no-the-georgia-vote-countin... I think 90% of all these concerns are likely to be dismisable. But they haven't even been examined, and I have a deep and abiding fear of the remaining 10% actually having merit.
      • efdee 6y ago
• cbradford 6y ago
  The jackboots of the totalitarian left are coming down. There will be no free thought under their reign.
  • djsumdog 6y ago
    "So this is how liberty dies. With thunderous applause." -Star Wars II
  • techer 6y ago
    How you reached this conclusion is flabbergasting. Research totalitarianism - at least it’s definition.
  • w0de 6y ago
    Ah, Joe Biden, the jackboot of the totalitarian left. A career of middling corporate-friendly politics was brilliant cover.
• SV_BubbleTime 6y ago
  The transcript of the video: ”I know your pain. I know you’re hurt. We had an election that was stolen from us. It was a landslide election, and everyone knows it, especially the other side. But you have to go home now. We have to have peace. We have to have law and order. We have to respect our great people in law and order. We don’t want anybody hurt. It’s a very tough period of time. There’s never been a time like this where such a thing happened where they could take it away from all of us — from me, from you, from our country. This was a fraudulent election. But we can’t play into the hands of these people. We have to have peace. So go home. We love you. You’re very special. You’ve seen what happens. You see the way others are treated — that are so bad and so evil. I know how you feel, but go home and go home in peace." This is a Rorschach test for what you want it to be.
  • pfdietz 6y ago
    > We had an election that was stolen from us. That's a lie, regardless of what you want it to be.
    • djsumdog 6y ago
      That's literally what's been disputed. Your opinion doesn't make it fact. The courts have literally said they will not hear any testimony at all, both the 7th circuit who decided they had standing but the case had no merit, and the Supreme Court which decided Texas had no standing in the only venue available for States to resolve conflicts with other States (a state cannot sue in another state court). The Supreme Court could have taken the case and simply ruled. America is upset because no one is listening. Every means of relief is full of cowards.
      • pfdietz 6y ago
        It's a lie in the same sense unicorns exist is a lie. No evidence justifying the claim has been presented in court, despite ample opportunity. This tells us the persons making the claims had no valid evidence. All that exists is self-justifying propaganda.
• paganel 6y ago
  What a travesty, this is f*ing rich coming from a guy who wanted to have Xi Jinping as a godfather.
• tasty_freeze 6y ago
  I know there have been constant cries that Facebook/Twitter are being unfair to Trump and they shouldn't be allowed to block his messages. The fact is, they have bent over backwards to allow Trump to post things that other people would not. The proof of that: there have been people who tweet the things Trump has tweeted (but not via retweet, just typing it in verbatim) and they get blocked for the content of their messages.
• tonetheman 6y ago
  Boy that is going to cut into their ad money for a bit...
• throwaway4good 6y ago
  America censors its own president. Absurd. So what platform is Donald Trump go to? I bet his presence is worth even more dollars than Joe Rogan ...
  • djsumdog 6y ago
    I see a distinct MAGA party arising. The republicans shot themselves in the foot. Every single republican who turned their back on Trump should not get reelected.
• xbar 6y ago
  Brain-breaking social media platforms have polarized and radicalized us. Zuckerberg's attempts to play both sides and pre-empt a legislative response ring hollow, but that does not make this a bad business nor political decision, in the moment.
• deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
• dralley 6y ago
  "It has not escaped my attention that the day social media companies decided there actually IS more they could do to police Trump’s destructive behavior was the same day they learned Democrats would chair all the congressional committees that oversee them." https://twitter.com/jmpalmieri/status/1347064818944118784?s=21 https://twitter.com/jmpalmieri/status/1347064818944118784?s=...
• swordfish69 6y ago
  It's easy to start this with Trump because he's outrageous, makes a lot of people uncomfortable and makes spurious claims. But soon it will be every conservative politician (except of course the ones who want regime change in the right places), and then all "leftist extremists" who defy the whims of megacorporations. Those cheering this on are simply demanding a world run by technocratic oligarchs and homicidal communist dictatorships.
• molbioguy 6y ago
  The statements by Facebook and others pushing moral justifications around Facebook's censorship fail to entertain the possibility that even morality is subjective and relative. Facebook makes its decisions based on its own goals and preferences and morals. Facebook has established itself unfairly as a moral arbiter on a platform that is so widely used that is treated like a public utility. The people who currently agree with Facebook may someday be on the opposite side of Facebook's moral righteousness and be censored. What then?
  • elgfare 6y ago
    Yes, but in a lot of ways, the laws of society are a sufficiently objective moral basis, since those are the rules we chose for ourselves. Undermining those is just bad in so many ways.
    • molbioguy 6y ago
      In some cases, yes. But in other cases they just represent the view of the vocal majority or those in power. Laws are official and objective, morals are relative. It's fine to base decisions on agreed upon laws. Appealing to morality is just using your own opinions
      • elgfare 6y ago
        I'm aware that all morals are opinions and are dependent on an underlying subjective stance, and therefore the platforms should remain neutral in order to accommodate different stances. I'm arguing that in this case, since this is about stopping the dismantling of the structure of the laws themselves, it's a stance that it's ok for a platform to take since it's in some way the most fundamental common ground that we all need to share to function together.
        • molbioguy 6y ago
          So, at worst, delete the post, not ban the user (though I don't support that). In my view, the posts are inferred by some to incite destruction, but there are equal grounds to say that no explicit order was made in any post. Again, it's personal opinion.
• docmars 6y ago
  That's fine. We've got Gab :)
  • djsumdog 6y ago
    Pff, Gab's got nothing on freespeechextremist.com
  • deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
• minusSeven 6y ago
  It's 2 weeks not indefinitely, not the same thing at all.
• textech 6y ago
  Facebook, Twitter and the rest shouldn't act like arbiters of truth. I think this is just plain wrong and a slippery slope for the entire industry.
  • cycrutchfield 6y ago
    They don’t have to allow their platforms to be used to incite violence or insurrection. That’s their choice. You’re welcome to go to the cesspool that is Parler if you want to make violent threats.
    • tortasaur 6y ago
      The parent comment didn't say they couldn't, it said they shouldn't.
    • textech 6y ago
      not just "don't have to" but I'd say that they have a responsibility to make sure that their platforms aren't used to incite violence against anyone but there are better ways to handle an outgoing but still an elected President and it's not clear if that's what really happened. I thought people had the right to protest in this country? If an elected President of the country is acting deranged then that's the responsibility of congress to do something about and not of glorified CRUD app creators.
    • Thuggery 6y ago
      >They don’t have to allow their platforms to be used This is a major flaw in modern legal tradition and social morality. Society will continue to suffer from it. People need to stop pretending Internet media is an optional luxury. It's now integral to the public's extended mind and method of social/political discourse. No one is writing letters to the editor anymore, or going to salons, or likely talking heavy politics with their neighbors.
  • iNic 6y ago
    I'm actually curious: where would this be a slippery slope to, in your opinion? I understand that these platforms have a lot of influence, and I wouldn't like it if they censored whatever I believe. However, I think that new social media platforms are created fast enough that one can always find a place to discuss whatever they would want to discuss. (Both for better or for worse)
• jmull 6y ago
  This is so Facebook. * Enables and encourages (and makes money off of) spreading hate messages on their platform for years * Hamhandedly does a full reverse and bans of one of the leading spreaders only after it's too late to make a difference. * But just in time to curry favor with the groups newly in power. A twist to the old cliche: too much, too late. How cowardly.
  • zionic 6y ago
    This comment really encapsulates the modern left. Even when they do what you want, it’s never enough. You’ll fight and scream to get what you want, and when you get it you’ll continue to attack upset that you what you wanted wasn’t done sooner. This behavior, which I see commonly echoed on Twitter, demotivates anyone from working with you.
  • jayrot 6y ago
    Cowardly no matter how you slice it. But I think there are two perspectives here: * Doing it only now to curry favor with the groups newly in power * Not doing it earlier because of pretty certain retribution from the group (man) who was in power.
  • bryan_w 6y ago
    > only after it's too late to make a difference. I think you underestimate how much damage he can still do
    • tunesmith 6y ago
      Yesterday was the first time in four years I was tempted to call bottom. I hesitate to be sure, but I think it's more likely than not that we hit bottom yesterday and that the next two weeks and inauguration won't be worse.
      • slim 6y ago
        you still can have political assassinations. sorry to say that so bluntly. but a crazy guy and a crowd pushing each other over the limits ends with political assassinations.
• 0xmohit 6y ago
  > Facebook "indefinitely" blocking Trump's account is meaningless theater. > The Stop The Steal hashtag is still active. Stop The Steal events are "currently happening" ras we speak. And there are Stop The Steal groups with thousands of members you can join right now. https://mobile.twitter.com/broderick/status/1347228893124702208 https://mobile.twitter.com/broderick/status/1347228893124702...
  • djsumdog 6y ago
    Not really competition. People will just use different platforms and not speak or hear each other anymore. We're just going to see a further fragment in our society.
• EchoReflection 6y ago
  Both twitter and Facebook are doing a great job of betraying their proclaimed purposes and becoming arbiters of what people can and can't see on the internet. That seems pretty orwellian/dystopian and is very similar to what goes on in communist China, where the government shuts down websites all the time for showing things that the CCP doesn't want people to see. :(
• stevespang 6y ago
  CENSORSHIP !
• otterley 6y ago
  And nothing of value was lost.
• colorboy 6y ago
  Isn't it what China does Censoring those who create violent atmosphere
• colorboy 6y ago
  Isn't it what China does Ban speech in fear of violent atmosphere
• deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
• throwawaybchr 6y ago
  This was going to happen regardless of yesterday's events. Anyone working in close proximity to the activist groups on campus knows this already. Yesterday has provided perfect cover for folks to do what they want to by using their positions in these companies for political reasons. Unfortunately many folks think the ends justify the means. Patriot act, WMD in Iraq, FISA courts, now arbitrary banning of politicians by morally dubious companies. What could possibly go wrong? If you made a list of Trump's top 10 most outrageous posts they would all hinge on some opinionated postmodernist take on his statements.
  • esoterica 6y ago
    It's funny how so many conservatives do not seem to grasp the concept of "private property" ostensibly the being the party of private property rights. They only care about property rights when it comes to complaining about the government taking their tax money. On the flip side, when other entities choose to exert their private property rights in a manner unfavorable to them (e.g. by banning certain users from their servers) they are completely blindsided and insist they are being "oppressed".
    • deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
• munificent 6y ago
  I 100% do not believe Facebook would have done this if Ossoff and Warnock had not won the GA special elections. This is about acknowledging which Party is about to be in power more than anything else.
• bitcurious 6y ago
  Imagine for a moment that Trump's putsch succeeded, that lawmakers, under duress, voted to annul the election results and gave Trump a second term. What would you do? Would you protest? Would you organize? Would you revolt? Now imagine that organizing ~potentially~ violent protest is illegal, and censored on Facebook and Twitter and whatsapp and etc. You would be alone, in a dictatorship. The failure to imagine "attempted coup succeeding" when hearing "attempted coup" is astounding to me.
  • w0de 6y ago
    The folks at thedonald.win - who openly planned this insurrection on that website - give the the lie to your implication that twitter, facebook, or reddit have the power to prevent protest.
• diveanon 6y ago
  Could have done this years ago, but instead wait until it's confirmed he's going out. What a bunch of spineless opportunists. I honestly don't know how people can work at facebook in good conscience these days. Nothing wrong with working for a paycheck, but it would definitely keep me up at night.
• Red_Tarsius 6y ago
  Say what you will about current events but when big tech can prevent the sitting President from addressing the people, they have too much power.
  • mattalbie 6y ago
    Newspapers feel they have an obligation to report what our representatives say, good or bad, but they also have editorials that comment on that reporting. In some cases (like The Economist) reporting and commentary are mixed together. Most newspapers believe their editorials, and how they report the news are critical to holding government accountable, and one of their missions. I see flagging messages and banning as Twitter (and really all online platforms) version of an editorial.
  • maxlamb 6y ago
    As far as I know he can still address the people. Presidents were able to before Facebook was invented.
• pluc 6y ago
  Mark Zuckerberg, Jack Dorsey, etc all have the capability to silence the leader of the free world. What a time to be alive!
  • TT3351 6y ago
    By what definition is this silencing
    • pluc 6y ago
      He can't talk on those platforms anymore? The opposite of talking is silence
      • pluc 6y ago
        I have no love for Trump but does that not scare anyone else?
• CivBase 6y ago
  I don't know how to feel about this one. Yes, what Trump said was highly inappropriate, was pretty obviously intended to agitate a bunch of angry protesters, and resulted in a violent and destructive riot. And when things finally boiled over, instead of condemning the rioters he only tried to walk them back to just before the breaking point. That is obviously unacceptable conduct for a president and I think Facebook has correctly assessed the situation when they say his posts' "effect -- and likely their intent -- would be to provoke further violence". However... it's also important to note that assessment was made in hindsight. Facebook did not block his account or remove his posts until the riots had already run their course. I suspect that is because Trumps posts (at least the ones I've seen) never directly called for violence - even if that was his intent. What Trump said yesterday was not inconsistent with what he has been saying ever since he lost the election. In context yesterday was different, but that context was never considered until well after events had already unfolded. So what's the precedent here? Would Trump's posts still be a block-able offense if the riots never happened? What if the context were different and he made the same posts on just another normal Wednesday? Does intent play into it? I believe Trump had bad intent here, but how do you prove that? Ultimately, I have to ask all these questions because I don't trust Facebook. Their business model is based on establishing and re-enforcing echo chambers to maximize engagement and ad revenue. Those echo chambers have become factories for misinformation and social unrest. Facebook's response is to establish vague and inconsistent policies regarding appropriate content as they scramble to de-platform the echo chambers they consider to be problematic. Praising Facebook here feels to me like praising BP for their efforts to clean up the 2010 oil spill. Except BP's oil spill and subsequent cleanup efforts didn't threaten to underpin democracy and plunge the nation into a prolonged period of violence.
• throwaway541403 6y ago
  Been in tech a long time. Been on HN a long time. Over the past few years reading comments here it seems that the people are already communist and the government is just now catching up. Trump helped avoid it for a short while. Tech used to be creative, respectful, and open. I simply cannot believe the commenters here are my peers. The double speak, double standards, and vitriol toward anything Trump/conservative related is unbelievable. Now that the real fascists have power, there is big trouble ahead. Conform or lose everything. Just like the CCP. Thanks for the good times.
  • w0de 6y ago
    This is delusional. I recommend you set a reminder to re-evaluate this statement in 5 years.
    • djsumdog 6y ago
      I recommend you address the arguments and concerns without insulting the person making it and calling them delusional. That's not only against HN policies, it kinda emphases OPs point.
      • w0de 6y ago
        Ok - his 'argument' reflects, I believe, a delusion about the state of American politics. Specifically, he appears to believe that Joe Biden winning the previous election is a harbinger for a leftist totalitarian state in America. This is patently ridiculous - he doesn't deploy rhetoric of the radical left, his policies and record are far to the right of democratic leftist parties in Europe and elsewhere, etc. On its face it is a ridiculous thing to assert. I don't believe, however, that I can convince the poster of their delusion. Therefore I wanted to present the best evidence for it: reality, as I expect it to be, in five years.
  • ceilingcorner 6y ago
    Just wanted to say I second your comment. I have absolutely zero love for Trump and his clownish supporters, but the partisanship on display here is truly absurd. I really worry for the future if these are the individuals at the heads of major tech corps.
• 13daug 6y ago
  So what's the truth or the isn't
• ceilingcorner 6y ago
  I’d say this is really the kickoff moment of alternative social media becoming a big deal. Banning Trump and his supporters doesn’t make them disappear, they’ll simply go to another platform. HN readers should be happy: Facebook is about to get some real competition.
• magsnus 6y ago
  Normally I would be against this kind of "arbitrarily corporate censorship" and think people should be able to have a voice as long as they aren't convicted for breaking any laws. But in this case it seems pretty warranted.
  • therein 6y ago
    Basically you have no true principles and will bend your values according to what you deem right and wrong. Which is a slippery slope because if you knew you were wrong, you wouldn't be in a certain opinion and if you are so sure you are right, to the point you don't think the other side has anything valid to stand on, you probably shouldn't be trusted with decisions of this kind that impact people that may not be exactly like you.
• soupson 6y ago
  Note that "indefinitely" here doesn't mean they haven't considered when to bring him back: "Therefore, we are extending the block we have placed on his Facebook and Instagram accounts indefinitely and for at least the next two weeks until the peaceful transition of power is complete."
• cblconfederate 6y ago
  Pretty certain he 'll start using one of the uncensorable platforms
• etwigg 6y ago
  Worst possible option. Unmute Trump, or mute all election conspiracists including Fox. Force the vandals to organize on Parler amongst the people they scammed, and don't let people get sucked in on accident while they were just trying to look at baby pictures. This half-measure is the most dangerous of all paths. Depending on your interpretation of the 1st Amendment, you have to do either A or B. This is short-term survival at great long-term cost.
• justapassenger 6y ago
  It's sad that private corporations have to be one who take actions against the president (although way too late), while rest of government continues to hides heads in the sand and keeps on enabling him. Checks and balances?
• alea_iacta_est 6y ago
  They can suspend whoever they want, that won't make the 70 millions people who voted for him, and the reasons why they voted for him disappear. Hiding the thermometer doesn't make the fever go away.
  • ChrisLomont 6y ago
    >Hiding the thermometer doesn't make the fever go away. Removing a constant toxic input helps cure the patient.
    • alea_iacta_est 6y ago
      The patient was sick before Trump, it will continue to be sick after he's gone (maybe even sicker). So yeah, good luck believing the problem is behind.
    • trynumber9 6y ago
      I somewhat doubt that medical analogy. Many of Trump's supporters are galvanized by the the conflict between Trump and the media, extending to the social media companies too. In my discussions I have not found many Trump supporters who think he is portrayed fairly in the media or treated fairly by Twitter and Facebook. Most also think important information is being suppressed.
• AlgorithmicTime 6y ago
  Hey, you know what will convince the right wing of this country that they're not being hounded off of all media platforms and their political rights are not being trampled? Banning their loudest exponent from the largest social media network there is!
• DubiousPusher 6y ago
  The conflation of privately owned social media platforms with democracy is an incredible Jedi mind trick these companies have executed. It's extremely discomforting that they have become so entangled with intellectual activity that something like this could have an impact on the future of democracy.
• fossuser 6y ago
  What’s interesting to me about this is that it’s not so much a Facebook policy change as it is a USG change. FB policy is to allow comments (including lies) from democratically elected politicians in a western government with rule of law. The latter is at risk so trump is going under the policy of other dictator type leaders where FB is stricter and more willing to remove access. https://zalberico.com/essay/2020/06/16/mark-zuckerberg-and-free-speech.html https://zalberico.com/essay/2020/06/16/mark-zuckerberg-and-f...
• throwaway888abc 6y ago
  If it's good enough to have access to nuclear buttons, why not Facebook ? Confused by what is happening in US.
• divbzero 6y ago
  We are still not deploying effective measures to counter the mass spread of dangerous lies. President Trump may have joined Parler yesterday.
• 2OEH8eoCRo0 6y ago
  Every post on this topic goes like this: You can't cry fire in a theater! But we don't want Facebook being arbiters of truth! But we must do something! But you can't cry fire...
  • fIagged 6y ago
    Facebook suppresses crying fire in a burning theater. Downvoted and flagged, but no replies.
• cassalian 6y ago
  Facebook is not a public space at this time. As such, they have the right to kick anyone off their platform without reason - just as you may choose who to invite inside your home. To those who are arguing on free speech: your argument has no merit. And until facebook is considered a public space, your argument will continue to have no merit. If you would like to give your argument a leg to stand on, then I would suggest you focus your efforts on making facebook and similar platforms public spaces under the law. I think you'll find instances like this will serve you in making this argument.
  • 6sup6 6y ago
    Until section 230 is reformed, Facebook can't keep banning whoever they want by making certain concepts more broad.
• mancerayder 6y ago
  Trump is a genius in one area: using the media to go viral. Fame or infamy, it goes both ways as far as he's concerned. I know we knee-jerkedly want to jump and blame Fox News (mentioned here in the toppest of the top comment), but the culprits are not just Fox News. Fox is terrible. But so is the rest of the 24/7 coverage: Did You See What Trump Said This Time was a refrain that began BEFORE 2016, as a candidate. I remember, anecdotally, pleading with someone, please stop talking about him, you're just making it worse. It doesn't matter how "horrified" you are, you're giving him free coverage. The numbers show that suffering news organizations like the NYT were resuscitated with massive subscriptions since 2016. MSNBC and the Washington Post might as well be "The Trump Post" and "MS Trump NBC" because it's all they talked about. Why wouldn't they, if it poured eyeballs into their bottom lines. The media dumbed us down LONG before Silicon Valley, Trump and the rest of the nightmare of the past years. Yes, algorithms made it worse. No, the popular (as in, seemingly upvoted) analyses here read like the world began four (or was it twelve) years ago and takes place in the Bay Area and Seattle. Some recommended reading material: Manufacturing Consent by Noam Chomsky, which covers these issues back in the 90's, Matt Taibbi, a media critic, on YouTube "Rising" from The Hill, Useful Idiots podcast, and if you don't mind salivation and rants, Glenn Greenwald.
• chunsj 6y ago
  Because he will leave the office. How brave!
• whateveracct 6y ago
  it's amazing how the american right has managed to get sympathy from HNers thanks to their contrarianism. i guess it goes to show - being STEM-competent doesn't mean you have intelligence.
  • vzcx 6y ago
    Consider the possibility that people have values very different from your own, perhaps ones that seem utterly foreign and disgusting to you (the feeling is certainly mutual) and that this is completely orthogonal to intelligence.
    • whateveracct 6y ago
      i mean i think i understand the values at play here
• OnlyRepliesToBS 6y ago
  the current context is now fundamentally different
• UnitingFolks 6y ago
  Though not from USA, I think people are preferring echo chambers because "reasonable disagreement" are labeled as extremism by the group. I will agree that follow the rule of the law and if "law" is not adequate change it. No need for violence. However if there is report of "some" discrepancy in voting. Now the discrepancy could be small enough to not change the result and most people will on the other side too will agree to it and not support the violence. However people who claim that "discrepancy" was wide enough to change result should be listened to with respect. There is no objective way to know how big the discrepancy was. Indeed people should listen to them and think of ways of reducing the discrepancy in future, while agreeing to disagree. Also agree that the degree of discrepancy is a subjective belief. Instead people who feel that "discrepancy" was wide are being looked down upon and that does not give people space to talk to. I am not aware of a good example but I am pretty sure there will be another example where the "others" are looked down upon with disdain. Such behaviour only creates more division and makes the echo chamber stronger. You will find very smart people in each of these echo chambers so cannot say that these people cannot think properly. Blaming social media for it is like print media was blamed when it first came out and opposed churches. Edit: Changed the word biased to "cannot think properly" in the last but one sentence.