12 ms·
Facebook is blocking searches for “Kyle Rittenhouse”
- hunterb123 5y agoBecause the prosecutors have no case. The photographer witness was damning against them. Kyle will walk, we all knew he would. It was a clear case of self defense. When the narrative isn't supported, the powers at be pretend it doesn't exist.
- kyrra 5y agoI think everybody knew he would walk on the murder charges before the trial even started. One of the charges against him is a weapons charge that he is most certainly going to be found guilty of.
- hunterb123 5y agoYou can have a rifle at 17 in his state I believe I doubt he'll get a weapon charge either. The curfew charge was already dropped too. @ceejayoz, @croes, and others conveniently leave out that the two other people Kyle shot were the aggressors as well.
- dreamsicle 5y agoYou can read the law yourself and make your own conclusion, but even that's pretty unlikely: https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/948/60 https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/948/60 Section (3)(c): 948.60(3)(c) (c) This section applies only to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a rifle or a shotgun if the person is in violation of s. 941.28 or is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593. This section applies only to an adult who transfers a firearm to a person under 18 years of age if the person under 18 years of age is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593 or to an adult who is in violation of s. 941.28. 941.28 relates to NFA controlled SBRs. 29.304 and 29.593 are specific to those involved in hunting.
- throwawaylinux 5y agoOh no, I have seen a lot of people on social media who have completely fallen for the misinformation around this case who are completely convinced he is guilty of murder and being found not guilty would be due entirely to white supremacists on the jury or the bench or some other conspiracy theory about the police or prosecutors involved in the case. They have become completely divorced from reality and not even linking and quoting statutes and case law or footage and transcripts from this trial or photo and video evidence from this case changes their mind. They've been literally brainwashed into not believing their lying eyes, it's like flat earthers and anti vaxers. It's really scary how effective this branwashing is and how so many gullible people fall for it :(
- MaxLeiter 5y agoHe’ll walk for the self defense, but he still showed up to a protest with an illegally-acquired weapon. This was also following him shooting two other people at the protest. It’s not like Rittenhouse is innocent.
- hunterb123 5y agoThose people attacked him prior. His weapon was not illegally acquired. @jachee: You don't have to "transfer" a gun to carry it across state lines, only when you first buy it through the FFL. @croes: being armed by itself is not a threat, if you point a gun at someone you are the aggressor and that person can defend themselves. just because you "see" someone with a gun doesn't mean you can shoot them, if they aim it at you that's another story. the first aggressor matters. @happytoexplain: no you would be wrong to try to restrain the man who is simply armed. if that state had a open carry law you would be in the wrong trying to confront him if he was not pointing it at you or others. there are plenty examples of both sides openly carrying at protests.
- happytoexplain 5y ago[flagged]
- MaxLeiter 5y agoThe man who sold him the gun was charged for selling it. https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/kyle-rittenhouse-reveals-how-gun-was-paid-for-in-first-interview-since-arrest/2366751/ https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/kyle-rittenhouse-revea...
- Grieving 5y agoFirst, Black didn't sell the gun to Rittenhouse. He bought it with Rittenhouse's money and allowed Rittenhouse to use it. Second, Black has been charged but not convicted, and I don't think the charge will stick: the argument is that while this was technically legal according to the letter of the law, the law in question was written with only underage hunters in mind, and should not apply in this case. Since the law itself makes no such distinctions, I don't see this as anything more than an empty gesture. Maybe I'm wrong.
- b9be520d93286 5y agolol you are already being downvoted. lets watch this get flagged and/or disappear from the front page in real time...
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- elmomle 5y agoDo you believe Grosskreutz would have been in his right to kill Rittenhouse after Rittenhouse shot him? If not, why not?
- csee 5y agoNo, because Grosskreutz pointed his gun at Rittenhouse first. If I point my gun at someone in a context that is easily interpreted as threatening, and then they shoot me in response to me doing that, I don't get to shoot them. It was my fault for pointing the gun at them in the first place.
- ceejayoz 5y ago> No, because Grosskreutz pointed his gun at Rittenhouse first. After Rittenhouse had already shot two people, right?
- hunterb123 5y agoAfter those two people chased and attacked him, right? You conveniently left that part out. Lucky for us, we got to see the videos and witnesses testify about those instances.
- ceejayoz 5y agoAssuming everyone on the scene possesses full situational awareness of the nature you can slowly and meticulously tease out in a courtroom is insanely silly. A concrete and sad example: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/no-charges-colorado-officer-who-killed-hero-who-stopped-mass-n1283532 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/no-charges-colorado-off...
- hunterb123 5y agoYeah that's why you can't chase after someone and self defense is the only reason you can kill/harm someone. You have to be in immediate danger, you can't guess that a man shot someone else unjustly and use that to chase someone down. What you linked is irrelevant and tragic, the cop should have been charged, nothing to do with this case though. The good samaritan who ended the mass shooting was in immediate danger himself when he killed the shooter with his pistol.
- endisneigh 5y agoidk why people had such strong feelings with so little evidence. it's difficult because when people make up their minds too fast people don't want to be wrong and it becomes difficult, I guess.
- b9be520d93286 5y agoThe Covington Catholic incident is calling....
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- happytoexplain 5y agoPeople pretty reasonably have strong feelings about the situation, and those feelings continue to be reasonable regardless of legal consequences. Legality, as always, does not imply morality - that's a critical concept that's frequently ignored in favor of scoring political points. For an example from another context: The fact that it is legal for private companies to censor users arbitrarily does not excuse them from criticism.
- Grieving 5y agoOf all cases to lament the lack of evidence for, why this one? We have video from multiple angles covering the entire event, dozens of witnesses, forensic evidence. Lack of evidence isn't the reason this case is polarizing.
- endisneigh 5y agoI’m talking about when the story first broke out, not now.
- hunterb123 5y agoWe had all these videos when it first broke. Pretty much the week of we had 3 different angles of every altercation. Also, Rittenhouse's lawyer released a breakdown of the different angles more than a year ago. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E4dhPM99i4I https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E4dhPM99i4I All of this was suppressed until now for emotional outrage.
- exdsq 5y agoCan confirm it's not returning anything for me in the US
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- h2odragon 5y agoAll information has been deemed misinformation; therefore all we'll be allowing from this point forward is paid advertising. Enjoy your new reality, Citizen.
- nyxaiur 5y agoWould be a good start if you would stop spreading FUD. Not a singe better painting the worst dystopian future all with bad citations so you don't have to think for yourself. Disgusting and a cheap way to manipulate people.
- gjsman-1000 5y agoMore likely, anything not published by the media is misinformation; all other quotes and statistics be damned. Enjoy your return to the 80s, citizen.
- paul7986 5y agoThe media is manipulated misinformation itself
- gjsman-1000 5y agoRemember the Steele dossier that was all the rage 4 years ago? The foundation of Russian collusion? Now the FBI is arresting the authors for lying. The media must maintain their monopoly on information and misinformation.
- leereeves 5y agoThat URL says "This page isn't available" for me with any query, perhaps only because I'm not logged in. For example: https://www.facebook.com/search/top/?q=News https://www.facebook.com/search/top/?q=News Does that search (for "News") work for anyone?
- finite_jest 5y agoI also get the same "This page isn't available" page for all queries. I think it could be because we are not logged in. The Verge also reported this: https://archive.ph/rBSUH https://archive.ph/rBSUH
- b9be520d93286 5y agoI hope this will make more people wake up.
- smsm42 5y agoThat has been happening since the event I think. At least I noticed it back then. Funny thing is if you look up "Kyle Rittenhose" instead (or any other typo), FB would helpfully auto-correct to the right thing and show the results. They clearly didn't spend much time thinking about it.
- jamesmishra 5y agoI assume Facebook is blocking searches for the name to prevent people from sending angry messages to random men with the same name as Kyle Rittenhouse. At this point, I think everybody here knows someone who shares the same name with a criminal and has been mistreated for it. What Facebook is doing isn't ideal, but I don't think they are acting in malice.
- LurkingPenguin 5y ago> At this point, I think everybody here knows someone who shares the same name with a criminal and has been mistreated for it. If I'm not mistaken, the Kyle Rittenhouse trial is ongoing and he hasn't been convicted of any crime at this time. Also, if Facebook really wants to be the best dystopian force it can be, perhaps instead of censoring searches for "Kyle Rittenhouse", it should just ban users who are so stupid that they send angry messages to any user with the name "Kyle Rittenhouse".
- bmarquez 5y agoIf that's the case, why did they wait until now to block searching for him? What other controversial people have been blocked from search in the past?
- fareesh 5y agoIs it true that this is a recent change?
- seoulmetro 5y agoThey block trends that they don't like. Curiosity and/or vulgarity is outlawed on most big tech sites.
- throwawaylinux 5y agoNeither of those things are outlawed, based on my (obviously anecdotal) experience of highly prominent people and posts on twitter and facebook over the past few years. What is outlawed is anything that damages the narrative that the company (and by extension, generally, the ruling class) wants to push. Very interesting curiosity, questions, facts are allowed and extremely common. So is horrible vulgarity, including bullying, lies, misinformation. When they are disallowed it is because they share the common property that they go against the narrative.
- codetrotter 5y agoNot being in the US I hadn’t heard of him. Some context: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-59216106 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-59216106 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-53934109 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-53934109
- Handytinge 5y agoThank you! As a non American, the most wild part of that article to me is that a protestor who was volunteering as a medic was carrying a gun. Does that not strike anyone else as insane?
- friedman23 5y agoTaking a step back from this specific extremely charged topic. I really hate the control that these companies have on public discourse. Not even a week ago there were articles about how facebook was used as a propaganda tool for the Vietnamese government? We really need to come up with a framework for how these communications platforms should be expected to moderate content and hold them to it.
- dane-pgp 5y agoSo governments should fine them if they don't block enough of the wrong opinions, and maybe also fine them if they block too many of the right opinions? But what happens if the staffing level needed to implement this is so high, and the costs so great, that only the biggest platforms (with the most eyeballs) can afford it? Or what if even they can't afford it? Either the government needs to ban online communications platforms altogether, or it needs to pay for its own moderators to implement its own censorship system, paid for out of general taxation. The government would find out at the next election how popular such policies are.
- friedman23 5y ago>So governments should fine them if they don't block enough of the wrong opinions, and maybe also fine them if they block too many of the right opinions? I never suggested that, I'm just pointing out that the status quo is terrible.
- raxxorrax 5y agoI think the status quo was far better when everything was left up, yes even propaganda (you are still subject to that too anyway). The new approach to ban anything controversial is ridiculously bad. Not a facebook user, but I would like that for the platforms I visit. Tiktok hides ugly people, Facebook hides ugly opinions. There is an argument that the former is less worse.
- b9be520d93286 5y agoWow i saw this thread drop from the top 2 on page one to the bottom of the page. In less then a minute. Wonder why???
- dan-robertson 5y agoWhen the votes/comments ratio is low, the default ranking assumes a flame war and downranks. I think moderators can override it.
- version_five 5y agoI don't mean this in a snarky way, but my read is that this isn't exactly an interesting discussion. These kind of angry but shallow topics seem to get downweighted fast. On one hand, it does sort of sensor important information. On the other, it keeps the site more civil overall, and probably contributes to the overall better level of discourse, even if it means its sometimes hard to discuss some of the things you want to
- klyrs 5y agoIf folks were having curious conversation, and not just kneejerk partisan drivel, the story would stay up. When a large proportion of comments are flagged and downvoted, the story tanks, and gets rightfully flagged as flamebait. For example, this article is about corporate censorship, one might like to discuss that here. Instead, most comments appear to be about the case itself. The internet has plenty of room for armchair juries to bicker over how they'd rule on the case without seeing all of the evidence. HN isn't losing much here.
- dang 5y agoUsers flagged it. It set off the flamewar detector. A moderator downweighted it. I don't know in which order. All of that is not just standard on HN, it's routine enough to be in the FAQ: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html. p.s. Since your account has been primarily posting unsubstantive comments and flamebait, I've banned it. If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. They're here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
- jimbob45 5y agoThere are a lot of conspiracy theorists here already (for good reason). Claiming that there is a pattern of censorship isn’t going to fly unless there’s somewhere that these blocked strings are recorded, however. Is there some page that tracks these censored strings? Just the strings and nothing else. A far-right blog that spritzes in articles about Obama being a Muslim isn’t accessible enough to raise awareness of this censorship to the general public.
- jdavis703 5y agoI don't have a Facebook account, but it might be possible adult-oriented searches are prohibited. Certainly at one time Instagram was blacklisting hash tags that had large amounts of adult-oriented content.
- nyxaiur 5y agoburn this topic dang or you will need to make new coffee.
- throwawaysea 5y agoIs that to block awareness around what came out in the news recently, where the prosecution's key witness basically made the case for Kyle acting in self-defense? I did see that news headlines were whitewashing what was said (https://thefederalist.com/2021/11/09/media-desperately-whitewash-key-witness-who-blew-up-prosecutors-case-against-kyle-rittenhouse/ https://thefederalist.com/2021/11/09/media-desperately-white...) but if this is some kind of information curation/narrative shaping from Facebook, then that's pretty dark. On the other hand, maybe this is to address abuse pointed at Kyle Rittenhouse or other people sharing that name?
- klyrs 5y agoI don't trust The Federalist any more than Huffington Post to give unbiased coverage of this trial. Don't judge a case on the headlines you read, and especially don't cherrypick from overtly biased sources.
- throwawaysea 5y agoI'm not a regular reader of The Federalist but some of their articles can be good. This particular one lists out the different headlines other newspapers ran about the testimony from Gaige Grosskreutz, highlighting their bias. To me it seems like The Federalist made a good case for how those headlines misled readers, because they played up Gaige's fear for his life over the bombshell admittance that he pointed a gun at Kyle before being shot.
- pseudo0 5y agoI have been watching the trial live, and The Federalist's perspective seems quite accurate. Just like with the Zimmerman case, people watching live are seeing the prosecution's case fall apart in real time, while most media outlets are presenting it as a fait accompli. I guess they'll get lots of clicks when the jury returns a "shock" not guilty verdict?
- missinfo 5y agoHere's that part of the testimony: https://twitter.com/thevivafrei/status/1457774701673996298 https://twitter.com/thevivafrei/status/1457774701673996298 It's an open and shut case of self defense between that testimony and a timestamped walkthrough of the event. Yet the media is still trying to spin it. Though there is at least one journalist who admitted they made a mistake, which was great to see. Ana Kasparian of the Young Turks: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DRPsXhErQA8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DRPsXhErQA8
- fareesh 5y agoIt would be nice if all social media companies made your profile unlisted by default, with the option of turning it on if you really want to be found.
- jdavis703 5y agoThat would be nice indeed. But such a social network would have weaker network effects, and would probably be overtaken by a larger network that had growth-oriented defaults. This is the kind of tragedy of the commons that could probably be fixed through legislation or regulation -- I don't think a privacy focused social network could take on Facebook or Twitter in this day and age.
- mastazi 5y agohttps://www.facebook.com/search/top/?q=bacon https://www.facebook.com/search/top/?q=bacon the above link returns a 404 but I don't think Facebook is censoring bacon. I am afraid that this is not what it looks like. Edit: It's 404 only if you are not signed in, otherwise it does return results. I don't have an account so I couldn't check.
- nverno 5y agoAre you signed in? That link returns bacon results for me.
- mastazi 5y agoI'm not, I don't have a Facebook account, Thanks for clearing that up
- smsm42 5y agoI get tons of bacon. Including people named Bacon Bacon (I am sure it's a totally real name) and groups named BACON BACON BACON. For people form whom mere "Bacon Lovers" is just not enough, I presume.
- mastazi 5y agoApparently it only does that if you have a FB account and you're signed in, I don't have an account so I can't verify.
- exogeny 5y agoBased on the brigading and bad faith arguing in this thread alone, I don't blame FB for doing whatever they can to make it a less toxic place, however ham-handedly they do it.
- marcodiego 5y agoThe year is 1957. Hinton Johnson was beaten by two New York City police officers. Malcolm X and a small group went to the police station and demanded to see Johnson. Police initially denied that he was being held, but when the crowd grew to about five hundred, they allowed Malcolm X to speak with Johnson. One police officer told the New York Amsterdam News: "No one man should have that much power." The year is 2021. For much less noble reasons, the world must conclude about centralized social networks and software companies: "No one company should have that much power."
- joshsyn 5y agooh stop being so dramatic.
- bewaretheirs 5y agoA comment by an ex-facebooker with a few suggested workarounds for this sort of block: "... the the situation presents an educational opportunity to explore simple means to bypass to such mechanisms; ... reverse search terms, add extra search terms, mis-spell names so that the system “helpfully” fixes your typo for you after the block would have been applied in the pipeline." https://alecmuffett.com/article/15333 https://alecmuffett.com/article/15333
- DamnYuppie 5y agoWhat is this post being flagged? Can some please look at this possibly unflag it?
- lalaland1125 5y agoI think you need to reach out to dang for that.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]