5 ms·

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 a

by 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.
  - treeman79 6y ago
    At beginning of pandemic I kept saying this is going to end in civil war. Lots of people want to radically change the county. A disaster is how you get it done. Toss everything into chaos, take away rights, lock things down. Perfect time to start making major changes to county. History is full of examples of this. Strong belief among many that that democracy will end after this election. Perpetual rule by one party. Much like California.
    - jhayward 6y ago
      > Perpetual rule by one party. Much like California. California has free, open, and fair elections every cycle. Since they've gone to non-gerrymandered voting districts it has been obvious that the current era Republican party is woefully out of touch with most Californians. But there's nothing putting a finger on the scale for the Democrats. Republicans are free to field competetive candidates any time. So please stop insinuating that CA is some kind of dictatorship or totalitarian enforcing 1-party rule. That's blatantly wrong, and you know it.
      - exclusiv 6y ago
        Many of CA's problems stem from the propositions that voters buy (are sold) into.
        eyelidlessness 6y ago
        Correction: many of CA’s problems arise from being able to simultaneously approve/preserve propositions and cut their funding. Edit: my great state of WA has this problem as well, it’s just not as much of a circus in practice because there’s a lot more investment in CA politics.
  - CarelessExpert 6y ago
    Yesterday the pipe bombs that were found didn't have a chance to explode. It might not work out so well next time. And given there are over 100 GOP representatives still pushing the false narrative that the election was stolen, there will be a next time.
    - divbzero 6y ago
      138 out of 435 US representatives objected to Pennsylvania’s election results. That’s over 30% of the country’s representatives lending credence to that false narrative even after yesterday’s events.
  - lkxijlewlf 6y ago
    >... but I think it's more likely than not that we hit bottom yesterday... At the very least, he set the new bar. The next "Trump" will be worse.
- jmull 6y ago
  Good point. I probably should have written something like “... only after so much damage to our society has already been done.” I am worried about about what he and his supporters will still do.
ncann 6y ago
No matter what they do, half the population will scream. Imagine if they strongly censor things from the start, that undoubtedly won't fly well with the HN crowd either. Just look at the HN discussion thread when Youtube decided to remove election fraud videos.
- ergocoder 6y ago
  Yeah, it wouldn't fly well because FB shouldn't play a judge. I don't understand why we don't have a due process for stuff like this. Trump haters keep justifying that FB is private they can ban whoever they want. Then, when a theme park bans a gay couple, they are screaming violently. I understand how it would be hard for normal people to push something through legal routes. But even Warren doesn't want to use a legal route to ban fake news (and such), and she was a lawyer now senate. She instead bought an ads with fake news on Zuck.
  - zanellato19 6y ago
    People have been wanting Trump and other alt-rights banned for years _because_ of things they _did_ not who they are. Thats a major difference. And those users have repeatedly crossed the TOS of the services they are using but the pages stay up because it generates engagement. Twitter even admits that Trump was too big to ban because he generates far too much money for them and other social networks. Thats the crux of the argument people have been saying for years. Banning a gay couple is a complete false equivalence and I don't believe you can argue that in good faith.
    - ergocoder 6y ago
      Why not? A private business banning people who believes in X, which happens to be gay's right. Just to be clear: I'm on the side of, if we are gonna ban someone, let's use a proper legal route to do it. Not "an exec thinks it's wrong. Let's ban them"
      - perl4ever 6y ago
kolbe 6y ago
I don't think it's cowardly for them to do exactly the most logical thing for a corporation to do. If you're looking to LLCs to provide inspiration for good/moral/brave actions, I hate to break this to you, but they only provide inspiration for how to make money.

by jmull 6y ago

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.
- treeman79 6y ago
  At beginning of pandemic I kept saying this is going to end in civil war. Lots of people want to radically change the county. A disaster is how you get it done. Toss everything into chaos, take away rights, lock things down. Perfect time to start making major changes to county. History is full of examples of this. Strong belief among many that that democracy will end after this election. Perpetual rule by one party. Much like California.
  - jhayward 6y ago
    > Perpetual rule by one party. Much like California. California has free, open, and fair elections every cycle. Since they've gone to non-gerrymandered voting districts it has been obvious that the current era Republican party is woefully out of touch with most Californians. But there's nothing putting a finger on the scale for the Democrats. Republicans are free to field competetive candidates any time. So please stop insinuating that CA is some kind of dictatorship or totalitarian enforcing 1-party rule. That's blatantly wrong, and you know it.
    - exclusiv 6y ago
      Many of CA's problems stem from the propositions that voters buy (are sold) into.
      - eyelidlessness 6y ago
        Correction: many of CA’s problems arise from being able to simultaneously approve/preserve propositions and cut their funding. Edit: my great state of WA has this problem as well, it’s just not as much of a circus in practice because there’s a lot more investment in CA politics.
- CarelessExpert 6y ago
  Yesterday the pipe bombs that were found didn't have a chance to explode. It might not work out so well next time. And given there are over 100 GOP representatives still pushing the false narrative that the election was stolen, there will be a next time.
  - divbzero 6y ago
    138 out of 435 US representatives objected to Pennsylvania’s election results. That’s over 30% of the country’s representatives lending credence to that false narrative even after yesterday’s events.
- lkxijlewlf 6y ago
  >... but I think it's more likely than not that we hit bottom yesterday... At the very least, he set the new bar. The next "Trump" will be worse.
jmull 6y ago
Good point. I probably should have written something like “... only after so much damage to our society has already been done.” I am worried about about what he and his supporters will still do.

ncann 6y ago

No matter what they do, half the population will scream. Imagine if they strongly censor things from the start, that undoubtedly won't fly well with the HN crowd either. Just look at the HN discussion thread when Youtube decided to remove election fraud videos.

ergocoder 6y ago
Yeah, it wouldn't fly well because FB shouldn't play a judge. I don't understand why we don't have a due process for stuff like this. Trump haters keep justifying that FB is private they can ban whoever they want. Then, when a theme park bans a gay couple, they are screaming violently. I understand how it would be hard for normal people to push something through legal routes. But even Warren doesn't want to use a legal route to ban fake news (and such), and she was a lawyer now senate. She instead bought an ads with fake news on Zuck.
- zanellato19 6y ago
  People have been wanting Trump and other alt-rights banned for years _because_ of things they _did_ not who they are. Thats a major difference. And those users have repeatedly crossed the TOS of the services they are using but the pages stay up because it generates engagement. Twitter even admits that Trump was too big to ban because he generates far too much money for them and other social networks. Thats the crux of the argument people have been saying for years. Banning a gay couple is a complete false equivalence and I don't believe you can argue that in good faith.
  - ergocoder 6y ago
    Why not? A private business banning people who believes in X, which happens to be gay's right. Just to be clear: I'm on the side of, if we are gonna ban someone, let's use a proper legal route to do it. Not "an exec thinks it's wrong. Let's ban them"
    - perl4ever 6y ago

kolbe 6y ago

I don't think it's cowardly for them to do exactly the most logical thing for a corporation to do. If you're looking to LLCs to provide inspiration for good/moral/brave actions, I hate to break this to you, but they only provide inspiration for how to make money.