[HN Gopher] Facebook Indefinitely Suspends Trump
___________________________________________________________________
Facebook Indefinitely Suspends Trump
Author : jaredwiener
Score : 878 points
Date : 2021-01-07 15:58 UTC (7 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.facebook.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.facebook.com)
| [deleted]
| systemvoltage wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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
| qeternity wrote:
| Any real free speech maximalist would first and foremost
| recognize Facebook's right to free speech. Suspending Trump is
| merely that right. The 1st amendment is between citizens and
| the government, not between other citizens.
| zoobab wrote:
| Next version of "social networks" will be technically
| uncensorable. Law makers, courts, or Mr Suckerberg will be
| powerless.
| dionian wrote:
| If there had been direct calls to violence, I would agree with
| you 100%
| duxup wrote:
| I feel similarly. I'm traditional pretty nervous about these
| platforms taking action.
|
| Yet at the same time its' hard to balance the idea that I want
| people to have as much free speech on these platforms... and at
| the same time support the use of these platforms to push anti
| democratic / misinformation / and actions that would seem to
| lead to ... other people's rights being infringed and
| curtailed.
| finder83 wrote:
| 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.
| brentjanderson wrote:
| Trump's statement this morning included the statement, "it's
| only the beginning of our fight to Make America Great Again".
| Some Trump followers read deeply into every word he says, and
| these words encourage them to mobilize and literally fight.
| Many had Civil War Jan 6, 2021 shirts, others had explicitly
| neo-nazi and anti-semitic symbols on clothing or tattoos.
| They consider Trump their leader, and they are committed to
| "making America great" at all costs. Clearly there are many
| opinions at play in a crowd like that, but by doing
| effectively nothing to stop what happened and by making
| statements that he knows will promote chaos, he is
| effectively supporting violence and insurrection.
|
| By not conceding the election or accepting a peaceful
| transition after exhausting all legal remedies (accepting an
| "orderly" transition falls short of peaceful), using words
| like "fight", calling the opposing party "evil" while
| sympathizing with those breaching the Capitol by saying "I
| love you" and "I know how you feel", pressuring his VP to
| unilaterally reject certifying the election, not condemning
| extreme violence and tragic deaths because of a rally he
| promoted...the list goes on.
| simias wrote:
| I had one screenshot before it was taken down because I
| couldn't believe what I was reading:
| https://svkt.org/~simias/up/20210107-164543_trump.png
| tetrometal wrote:
| 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."
| jcranmer wrote:
| > All they wanted were real audits of the election
|
| So the _actual_ audits done in response to the proper
| challenges under proper statutory authority that did not
| find that there was anything sufficiently wrong to
| overturn the results of the election (and, in many cases,
| concluded that there wasn 't even _anything_ wrong in the
| first place) are not real audits?
|
| Having _actually_ read several of the lawsuits filed
| (mostly those after the Texas v Pennsylvania suit), I can
| tell you that almost none of those lawsuits actually
| called for a real audit of the election. They actually
| called for annulling the results of the election in
| various ways. Many of them didn 't even allege voter
| fraud, and a few specifically denied allegations of voter
| fraud. If the people filing these lawsuits said they only
| wanted real audits of the election in media statements,
| they are fucking liars.
| djsumdog wrote:
| There was no paper ballot recount in Georgia. They
| recounted the images of the ballots, so if the videos of
| them getting run through 7 times are true, we wouldn't
| know. If they released the images, which GA said they
| would do, we could see the same serial numbers repeated.
| They've refused to.
| horsawlarway wrote:
| They only counted the images, so they can't know - but if
| they just release the images you can know?
|
| Did you reflect on this statement at all?
|
| Fuck, you're on a programming forum, so I'm assuming you
| can do simple boolean logic.
|
| ----
|
| I have a large family in GA. They predominately vote
| republican. Most of them _DO NOT LIKE_ Trump. He 's
| fucked several members of my family over financially
| (China imports a boatload of pecans, if you weren't
| aware. We grow pecans).
|
| I have two diehard republican uncles - Neither voted for
| Trump in this election. One because he watched his mother
| (my grandmother) die of covid while trump was still
| spouting off how small a deal it was. The other because
| he doesn't think his company will survive another 4 years
| of the China trade war.
|
| The ground truth, and I'm on the fucking ground here, is
| that GA was already not inclined to favor Trump in this
| election.
|
| Add record Black/Minority turnout and it's pretty clear
| why the state went the way it did.
|
| Hell, I normally vote split ticket on local elections,
| but not this year.
|
| Yet you come in here and spout off bullshit to try to
| tell me how my local state should continue to audit and
| audit and audit until magically the results change to
| what you want? Get the fuck out of here.
| djsumdog wrote:
| > They only counted the images, so they can't know - but
| if they just release the images you can know?
|
| Yes, because the images have serial numbers. It's not
| difficult to understand.
| horsawlarway wrote:
| Serial numbers easily checked in any sort of, oh...
| umm... audit or fucking recount?
|
| You argue from a position of bad faith, with doctored
| evidence and a clear intent to muddy the waters instead
| of seek truth.
| efdee wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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-
| elect...
|
| 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-...
|
| Here's a response to it:
| 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.
| lovecg wrote:
| Can you point to a single lawsuit that alleged actual
| fraud?
| AnimalMuppet wrote:
| Courts have very specific rules about what constitutes
| _legally admissible_ evidence. The plaintiff may cry "We
| have evidence!", but that doesn't mean they have legally
| admissible evidence. Before the judge will bother to hear
| the evidence, it has to clear that bar.
|
| IIRC, there was an election case in Pennsylvania that
| made it up to the Federal appeals court. There it was
| dismissed for _lack of evidence_. (The opinion was
| written by a judge appointed by Trump.) You can think of
| that as "procedural grounds" and "not hearing the
| evidence", I suppose, but to me it looks like examining
| the evidence and finding it lacking at the most basic
| level.
| efdee wrote:
| Sure, let's throw out rule of law, it's not like we can
| trust those judges, right?
| horsawlarway wrote:
| Shut the fuck up. Seriously.
|
| I live in Fulton county. My wife worked the polls. We're
| engaged in the democratic process here.
|
| This was audited to hell and back. It was checked, and
| checked again. It was checked by both parties. It was
| checked by the courts. It was checked by the governor, by
| the secretary of state, by the media, it was even checked
| by the fucking companies who made the ballot machines.
|
| So when you say > All they wanted were real audits of the
| election.
|
| I hear - "I won't accept an answer that isn't what I
| want".
|
| So again, shut the fuck up.
| djsumdog wrote:
| Just because you worked there doesn't mean you know
| everything that went on. How do you even explain the pipe
| burst that never happened and the counting that
| continued. Everything in your area might have been on the
| up and up, but things happened you may have not seen:
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=keANzinHWUA
|
| Also keep in mind Georgia never did re-canvasing and when
| they did a re-count, they recounted the IMAGES of the
| ballots, not the paper ballots. Georgia has also refused
| to release the images of the ballots. Give me a data dump
| of images so we can go through and make sure they all
| have different serial numbers. If they really didn't run
| the same ballots through over and over, it would be easy
| to prove. Why are they not releasing them?
|
| Finally, that "leaked" call between Trump and the GA
| sectary of state everyone went ape shit over, did you
| know that was literally illegal. It was a Settlement
| Call, lawyers on both side were present (and named) and
| all of that was privileged. The GA Sec of State should be
| in jail right now. He won't be.
|
| There are no consequences for breaking the law if you're
| on the right side.
| lovecg wrote:
| Ah yes, the "pulled out box" controversy. That's been
| addressed to hell and back:
|
| https://www.wsbtv.com/news/politics/georgia-election-
| officia...
|
| https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/dec/04/faceboo
| k-p...
|
| https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-
| electio...
|
| https://www.11alive.com/article/news/politics/elections/f
| act...
|
| https://www.newsweek.com/fox-news-reporter-debunks-
| georgia-e...
|
| Is this really your strongest piece of evidence?
| djsumdog wrote:
| None of these sources seem to address the fact that this
| counting happened late at night/in the morning,
| timestamped on the video, after all the observers had
| been sent home. In fact, one of the sources said this:
|
| > Media and observers left as employees packed up. But
| Fulton's election director called a supervisor at State
| Farm a few minutes later, telling them to keep counting
| after the Secretary of State's office called and said
| they shouldn't stop counting for the night so early.
|
| So the sources you listed literally confirm that they
| kept counting after they sent observers home. You
| seriously don't see that as a problem? I do. There are
| tons of volunteers who would gladly stay up all night to
| help observe. Over and over and over again, observers
| were sent home and counting continued.
|
| All these articles that start with "debunked" go on to
| say this exact same thing happened, and then dismiss it
| as normal counting behavior. Do you understand why
| myself, and millions of Americans, have trouble with
| these stories? The headline frames the article, and then
| the article contracts the headline.
|
| Did you ... did you actually read the stories, or just
| past random links based on the headlines?
| lovecg wrote:
| Yes I have, thanks for your concern. I have a cache of
| these links from earlier when I cared enough to argue.
|
| So you agree that the framing of "they pulled out a
| mysterious box from under the table" is completely false?
| That was the part being debunked. The story is "people
| started packing up for the day, then got asked to resume
| the work". I fail to see what's illegal about it. Where's
| the fraud? Sure, if you're already inclined to be
| suspicious you'll find hints of problems in any little
| hiccup. That's a little bit thin as far as proving a
| coordinated multi-state conspiracy goes.
| djsumdog wrote:
| How is continuing to count without observers present even
| remotely a good thing in one of the most controversial
| elections of our time? Why didn't they call the observers
| back in?
|
| Why dismiss everyone and then tell some people to go back
| to work with the process half broken? It's bad optics and
| it's a blatant ethical problem.
|
| We're at an impasse because we're literally seeing the
| same thing and also seeing two totally different things.
| It's kinda amazing, and tragic. I'm sure you feel the
| same.
| lovecg wrote:
| Yes I understand where you're coming from. To me, if
| these are the facts it just seems like your garden
| variety bureaucratic screw up. I agree it's bad optics,
| and I'd like all of my government agencies to be
| supremely competent but we have what we have. It's a
| pretty big leap for me to go full conspiracy mode based
| on this.
|
| My hope is that years down the road when the dust settles
| we all should be able to see more clearly what happened.
| jcranmer wrote:
| > Why are they not releasing them?
|
| I believe that releasing that data would be in
| contravention of GA state law.
|
| > It was a Settlement Call,
|
| That is a lie. If it were a settlement call, there should
| have been lawyers from all parties involved. All of the
| live cases in Georgia regarding the election have Marc
| Elias present as co-intervenor, and that he was not on
| the call means that it cannot legally be a settlement
| call:
| https://twitter.com/marceelias/status/1345887358101688320
| djsumdog wrote:
| It absolutely was a settlement call (starting at 54:49):
|
| https://youtu.be/bnevIjvohvQ?t=3276
| jcranmer wrote:
| In my ranking of authorities to trust, I will trust a
| lawyer involved with the actual underlying litigation
| over a random internet person, even if the latter is also
| a lawyer.
|
| Marc Elias says it can't be a settlement call because he
| would have to be on it, and as someone who is actually
| _involved_ in the case, that is pretty strong evidence
| that requires more than a random youtube video by someone
| who I know absolutely nothing about.
|
| Also, by the way, from the actual call, it appears that
| Trump is committing a crime on the call, by attempting to
| get a government official to break the law. (There is an
| active investigation in Georgia on this matter, I
| believe). I believe that doing so violates any claims to
| attorney-client privilege, which would remove any
| illegality from leaking this call even were it a
| settlement call (which I do not concede that it is).
| djsumdog wrote:
| This is Robert Barnes, a distinguished civil rights
| lawyer, who has taken on several Federal Cases, and is
| currently on the Trump legal team and in a Federal
| building with other Republican lawyers yesterday and has
| met with Trump personally. He's not some random lawyer.
| He's got a distinguished career and has earned my
| respect.
|
| > Also, by the way, from the actual call, it appears that
| Trump is committing a crime on the call, by attempting to
| get a government official to break the law
|
| I don't think you've listened to the full call. It's an
| hour long and I have. If you had, you would have noted
| Georgia officials said there was no issue with ballots of
| dead people cast (they said this was legal) and the
| context of the 4 minute clip is totally wrong.
| horsawlarway wrote:
| You lie again...
|
| Directly from the transcript of the call -
|
| Brad Raffensperger: Well, Mr. President, the challenge
| that you have is the data you have is wrong. We talked to
| the congressmen and they were surprised. But they -- I
| guess, there's a person named Mr. Brainard that came to
| these meetings and presented data and he said that there
| was dead people. I believe it was upward of 5,000. The
| actual numbers were two. Two. Two people that were dead
| that voted. And so that's wrong. That was two.
| tetrometal wrote:
| If he's discussing Matt Braynard's data, that data
| doesn't have strong indications of dead people voting
| being an issue.
|
| It does present a compelling argument that really needs
| to be addressed sooner than later, however. The margins
| of the questionable statistics presented are well beyond
| the margin of victory.
| djsumdog wrote:
| Fine, but regardless of that ... it was still a
| confidential settlement call protected by attorney client
| privilege.
| horsawlarway wrote:
| When one person you meet in a day is an asshole - you met
| an asshole.
|
| When every person you meet in a day is an asshole -
| you're the asshole.
|
| Right now - you're the asshole. Every party involved,
| from the courts, to the (republican) GA government, to
| the media, to the pollworkers, to me, is telling you this
| was audited to hell and back, but you don't give a shit.
|
| Instead you post a video that was actually discussed in
| the call you're so concerned about, where the Secretary
| of state clearly says the edited version you posted was
| designed to make it look fishy, and after review of the
| full footage by auditors and the media, there wasn't
| anything there.
|
| You're not arguing in good faith. You're either ignorant
| or intentionally deceitful, and I want no more part of
| it.
| djsumdog wrote:
| You are assuming my faith. That's honestly shitty. I'm
| not an asshole, I'm tied of misinformation.
|
| The courts are cowards. The 7th Circuit decided the case
| without testimony on merits, but claimed they had
| standing. The SCOTUS claimed there was no standing in the
| Texas case, and didn't hear the merits. They dismisses
| concerns from millions of people with three sentences.
|
| I wrote an entire post on this the day before the madness
| broke out. If you want a different perspective I suggest
| you read it:
|
| https://battlepenguin.com/philosophy/the-fracturing-of-
| the-h...
|
| I've lived in three countries, I've lived in left cities
| (Seattle and Chicago) for over six years, yet I grew up
| in the deep Red South. I'm an independent. The last time
| I voted was in 2008 and I wrote in "Mike Gravel"
| (D-Alaska) for president.
|
| I didn't vote in this election. I know I have biases, but
| I also really try hard to see all sides. I grew up next
| to republicans and I know many who are amazing people.
|
| I am sick of the fractures and selective memory I'm
| seeing right now. I also wrote about this in 2017. I
| think I called everything I've seen over the past four
| years:
|
| https://battlepenguin.com/politics/the-fallout-of-
| american-a...
| jcranmer wrote:
| > The SCOTUS claimed there was no standing in the Texas
| case, and didn't hear the merits.
|
| Texas had no standing. They couldn't have standing. They
| alleged that Pennsylvania law violated Pennsylvania
| constitution. The people who decide whether or not that
| statement is true is the Pennsylvania Supreme Court,
| which did decide that the alleged violation was not in
| fact a violation of the state constitution. Even federal
| courts, when they do hear allegations about state law,
| are required to give _extreme_ deference to state supreme
| courts in their interpretation of the matter.
|
| Texas has no more right to question Pennsylvania's
| conduct under Pennsylvania legal rules than Iran has to
| question US conduct under US legal rules. To _not_
| dismiss the case would be to say that the rule of the law
| is _literally_ less important than people 's feelings. Do
| you really want to live in a country that does not care
| about the rule of the law?
| djsumdog wrote:
| Standing: If A violated the rights of B, person C
| watching it cannot sue on A's behalf.
|
| The Texas standing was always going to be an issue, yes.
| What right does Texas have to make PA enforce their own
| laws? PA can choose not to enforce their laws if they
| want. But Texas, and six other states, claimed this would
| have diluted their own votes for the Federal Government.
|
| I do not believe the standing issue here, because there
| is literally no other court for Texas to sue in. This
| wasn't really an issue of standing. It was an issue of
| cowardice.
| jcranmer wrote:
| > claimed this would have diluted their own votes for the
| Federal Government.
|
| Texas gets x votes of the 538 electoral votes. It gets
| that no matter how Pennsylvania chooses its electors; the
| number of electoral votes is fixed as a matter of
| reckoning by the census. So how can Texas's electoral
| votes _possibly_ be diluted?
|
| It should also be noted that the legal theory of "vote
| dilution" is applied to a very narrow set of cases where
| one can bring suit, essentially only gerrymandering
| cases. It has never, to my knowledge, been applied to a
| case where it was claimed that an invalid or fraudulent
| vote causes vote dilution for everyone who casts their
| votes properly. I actually believe a few courts have
| considered that claim and expressly denied that claim,
| although that has not made it to the Supreme Court
| before.
|
| > there is literally no other court for Texas to sue in.
| This wasn't really an issue of standing.
|
| You've not-so-cleverly dodged the issue I brought up: the
| law does not give Texas any possible legal standing to
| sue Pennsylvania. Period. Full-stop. End-of-question. To
| demand that the court hear Texas's plea is to demand that
| the court _violate the rule of the law_. The Supreme
| Court has _repeatedly_ stated that to have standing, you
| have to demonstrate a _particular injury_ , which cannot
| be a _generalized grievance_. Texas did not, and cannot,
| demonstrate any injury. Hell, Texas compounds its error
| by complaining about other states undertaking the _same_
| actions it took itself (as the DC-et-al brief so kindly
| points out [1]), which is compounding the bad faith with
| which it filed its brief.
|
| Texas had no injury. It tried to BS its way to one, and
| its BS was called out as such in all the respondent
| brief, and Texas's reply brief basically amounted to
| "nuh-uh" without really attacking the gravamen of any
| reply. I agree with Tom Goldstein here that SCOTUS should
| have abandoned its practice of dismissing this kind of
| case with a one-sentence per curiam order and actually
| release the kind of dismissal opinion that is routine in
| all other courts laying out just _why_ the case was never
| going to be heard.
|
| Texas doesn't have a right to sue PA for not following
| its own laws. That right is granted only to PA residents
| --and some residents _did_ sue the PA government in this
| regard on the law in question, and that lawsuit _already_
| failed by the time Texas filed its suit, a fact you again
| choose to ignore.
|
| [1] Yes, I read every single brief in that case. So I
| know what the actual gravamen of Texas's claims were, and
| it was very clear from the first brief that Texas filed
| that the case was going to be dismissed with no dissent,
| as it was [2]. I may not be a lawyer, but what's going on
| here isn't exactly delving very deep into the weeds of
| specialized law: this is basic, Law 101 standing stuff.
|
| [2] Thomas and Alito noted that they dissented only
| insofar as they think the pseudo-cert motion for intra-
| state disputes must be heard. They would have still
| dismissed the case for the same reason as the other 7
| justices, and they commented as much. This dissenting on
| grounds of pseudo-cert process not being constitutional
| was also 100% predicted, with the only question being if
| Barrett would agree with them here (she did not).
| horsawlarway wrote:
| Funny how every time someone answers you with any sort of
| evidence, you don't bother responding to it in a later
| comment. Instead you move on to another "issue".
|
| Can we at least agree the video you posted above was
| doctored, and demonstrably false?
|
| Because otherwise I'm not assuming your faith at all. You
| put your deceit on clear display.
| tetrometal wrote:
| No.
|
| First, you've got me confused with someone you imagine me
| to be. I don't WANT there to have been fraud. I want
| there to have NOT been fraud, for two reasons:
|
| 1. Who the hell would hope for fraud? 2. The election
| ship has sailed. If extensive fraud is discovered now,
| that would be a nightmare that could easily destroy the
| nation.
|
| It's easy for the winning side to trot out a bunch of
| people that support their position (and if you try
| suggesting R's are on the same side as Trump supporters,
| then you're more divorced from reality than I feared).
| Trump supporters don't care. They want specific concerns
| addressed.
|
| And frankly, they should be. Every election in a bona
| fide democracy should be characterized by the winning
| side steel manning the losing side's objections and
| addressing them one-by-one until the fraction of the
| population continuing to object is minuscule enough to
| ignore.
|
| That didn't happen. Instead objectors got people they
| didn't trust (I literally can't believe you thought "the
| media" is a class of people they would trust) trotted out
| before them declaring "There's NO evidence of election
| fraud" (demonstrably false, there's evidence of election
| fraud in every election), stonewalling, and running out
| the clock.
|
| They should have steel-manned and addressed in a very
| public and forthcoming, unspun manner the more compelling
| arguments presented. Matt Braynard's [1] work, for
| example, should have been litigated to hell and back.
|
| Undergoing these challenges is critical to maintaining
| democracy, but the left was hell-bent on painting a
| narrative that pursuing election transparency in 2020
| (not 2016, mind you; they had quite a different take then
| when they were mucking with the electoral college
| themselves [2]) was somehow antidemocratic because all
| questions had been settled by the people only they were
| permitted to declare trustworthy.
|
| So what we have now is a huge fraction of the population
| that feel the election has been stolen:
|
| "Sixty-one percent (61%) of Republicans say it's Very
| Likely the Democrats stole the election, but just as many
| Democrats (61%) say it's Not At All Likely. Among
| unaffiliateds, 29% feel it's a stolen election; 45% do
| not." [3]
|
| I don't have much of a dog in this fight. I'm about as
| pure a libertarian/ancap as you can find. I leaned
| slightly Trump because I despise war, but I would have
| been just as happy with Biden and a republican senate.
| I'm telling you with open eyes (the same eyes I use to
| attempt to discredit the Q and Lin Wood madness on the
| right) that you have bought into a false narrative sold
| to you by the leftist media. You are nowhere in the
| vicinity of "woke". You are stuck in a bubble that
| decries other bubbles and you don't even realize it.
| Worse, it's the most powerful bubble that is causing the
| most damage to society. It is YOUR bubble that is causing
| the most damage to democracy in this country.
|
| So, no, I will not "shut the fuck up". I will keep
| speaking for as long as necessary for all sides of this
| shit show to wake up.
|
| Good DAY.
|
| [1] https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2020/11/matt_bra
| ynards_... [2]
| https://www.dailysignal.com/2020/12/17/how-democrats-
| attempt... [3] https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_co
| ntent/politics/ele...
| b-etran wrote:
| Here's the transcript of the deleted video statemenet: "I
| know your pain. Your 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 and 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've seen 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."
|
| Deleted tweets: "Mike Pence didn't have the courage to do
| what should have been done to protect our Country and our
| Constitution, giving States a chance to certify a corrected
| set of facts, not the fraudulent or inaccurate ones which
| they were asked to previously certify. USA demands the
| truth!"
|
| "These are the things and events that happen when a sacred
| landslide election victory is so unceremoniously & viciously
| stripped away from great patriots who have been badly &
| unfairly treated for so long. Go home with love & in peace.
| Remember this day forever!"
| q3 wrote:
| So the deleted video contained the usual claim of the
| election being "fraudulent", and these imperatives:
|
| "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. ... We
| have to have peace. So, go home, we love you, you're very
| special. You've seen what happens. You've seen 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."
|
| Why exactly was it deleted?
| [deleted]
| finder83 wrote:
| Thanks, I was able to actually find that, but that doesn't
| sound like calls to violence or insurrection to me. Quite
| the opposite.
| Damorian wrote:
| I think it's easy to say Trump's comments condoned
| violence when you censor the comments themselves and
| everyone will just believe you because it's in line with
| their biases, like nearly every comment in this thread
| approving his bans.
|
| As far as I'm concerned free speach is dead. You can only
| say what the corporate overlords allow.
| cbradford wrote:
| Private companies have no more right to discriminate based on
| thoughts and ideas than a hotel or restaurant can based on
| race. These businesses are places of public accommodation and
| cannot discriminate.
|
| And we can dispense with the "calls to violence" argument,
| which has been the democrat party platform since 2016.
| captainmuon wrote:
| I'm neither a free-speach maximalist, not a Trump supporter -
| on the contrary, I would say I'm pretty far left-wing. And that
| is exactly why I feel pretty ambivalent about this. Because
| what if next time there is a BLM demonstration in front of the
| Capitol, or for any other progessive issue? What if things get
| worse here, and we need a democracy movement / "peaceful
| revolution" like in east Europe? Then I might find myself on
| the other side of the ban.
|
| I have the theory that we never really defeated fascism in
| western society. But mass media limited what you could say in
| public and so we kept a lid on it. Imagine someone disputing an
| election or calling for violence in the New York Times or on
| prime time TV. But with the internet and social media, this
| control function fell away. As a society we are realizing how
| problematic this can be and slowly reinstating the limitations
| that we had before the internet.
|
| This silences the violent, the racist, and the extreme right-
| wing-nuts, but it can also silence progressive ideas and
| marginalized voices if we are not careful.
|
| Right now we are moving to a situation where people like Trump
| cannot speak on the common public forum (putting the lid on
| them), but they can cause a lot of damage. I'd rather have the
| opposite situation, where they can rant as much as they want,
| but the society is so strong and principled that they cannot
| cause damage. But we are far from that, so I guess the
| pragmatic solution is to put the lid back on for now...
| inglor_cz wrote:
| "I guess the pragmatic solution is to put the lid back on for
| now... "
|
| I am not sure whether this solution is viable. People have
| drifted apart, there is a lot of general distrust in
| societies, I cannot see how this level of distrust can be
| mitigated.
|
| Whoever is on the receiving end of the "lid", will try to
| find another way of communication. There is a strong desire
| in humans not to be silenced.
|
| Without a desire to compare, my anecdote: I grew up in
| Communist Czechoslovakia; even though the state did its best
| to control communications among people, using outright force,
| they failed and everyone knew the latest gossip about the
| apparatchiks. Americans are probably not as competent in
| muzzling their opponents, plus openly disavowing the idea of
| free speech will make them internally unhappy. You yourself
| say that you'd rather have the opposite situation.
| q3 wrote:
| >direct calls to violence and to insurrection against a
| democracy
|
| Did Trump really call for violence? Are those tweets still
| accessible somewhere? (Serious question, I did not follow his
| account.)
| mechnesium wrote:
| No, all he said was: "Big Protest in D.C. on January 6th. Be
| there, will be wild!"
|
| Protest is protected by the first amendment.
| hundchenkatze wrote:
| What happened was NOT a protest.
| cbradford wrote:
| As CNN would say.. Fiery but mostly peaceful protest
| irateswami wrote:
| They should've just declared an autonomous zone and
| solidarity w/BLM, the media would've loved them.
| mechnesium wrote:
| Regardless of what the media is labeling the events on
| January 6th, the people involved were acting of their own
| free will. Trump has no culpability for the actions of
| his supporters.
| lovecg wrote:
| Honest question, by that logic, do you think Charles
| Manson was wrongly imprisoned?
| efdee wrote:
| In what world is a call for a "wild protest" not a call for
| violence?
| chasd00 wrote:
| are you serious? "wild protest" is about as ambiguous as
| you can get. There's no call for violence with the word
| "wild" any more than a "wild party" is a call for
| violence.
| efdee wrote:
| The source is the POTUS, not some frat bro.
| Bantros wrote:
| Saying a big protest will be wild is a call for violence
| now.
|
| Psuedo-reality
| tpoacher wrote:
| Does it really matter anymore?
| djsumdog wrote:
| > direct calls to violence and to insurrection against a
| democracy
|
| Why do you believe this? The very last message Trump put out
| was telling people to go home. I've covered both BLM and Trump
| reallies and I've always felt safer at every Trump protest than
| at BLM. Even in the case of yesterday, we're seeing clear media
| manipulation. No one is covering how Trump supporters were let
| in; how Capitol Police lowered barricades.
|
| Either Capitol Police were terribly incompetent at protecting
| one of the most secure buildings in the US, or they let this
| happen. There are videos of people taking selfies with capital
| police and patting them on the shoulder, thanking them for
| their service inside the building!
|
| > But if you believe inciting violence and other kinds of
| things should be punished by law, then you can hardly disagree
| with this.
|
| YES! Lets' arrest every single person who burned and looted a
| building during the BLM protests and put them all in jail!
| Every last one.
|
| Same with the people who went in to the Cap building and stole
| things. Those are federal crimes; that will get you 3 ~ 8
| years! I'm for that too.
|
| Oh and that Federal Guard that shot the Air Force woman, he
| certainly needs to go to jail.
|
| Only some of those things will happen. Pay attention to which
| ones.
| pqhwan wrote:
| > Either Capitol Police were terribly incompetent at
| protecting one of the most secure buildings in the US, or
| they let this happen.
|
| So that must be what all the pictures of wall-climbing and
| drawn glocks are all about. </s>
| djsumdog wrote:
| The total and complete incompetence of the strongest and
| best equipped security force in the nation to defend one
| building?
|
| Why yes. Yes it is.
|
| They also shot an unarmed woman shooting wildly into a
| crowd for no god damn reason. That moron could have
| actually hit that other police officer too!
| pqhwan wrote:
| No, it's a comment on your suggestion that the police let
| the insurrectionists in deliberately; I'm saying it's
| wrong.
| gpm wrote:
| I don't quite disagree with this, but I'm willing to defend
| those who do because a slightly different weighting in my
| priorities would make my disagree.
|
| Inciting violence should be punished _by the law_ , not by
| Facebook. For regular people it makes sense to outsource some
| of this to Facebook, to minimize the load on the legal system.
| POTUS however is one very high profile person. His statements
| are not being missed by those who have the authority to enforce
| the law. There is public debate ongoing over what should be
| done. Facebook should not need to help out here.
|
| Of course, as a result of an ubstroctionist attorney general
| (the baseless memo protecting the president from prosecution)
| and Senate (refusing to convict for political reasons) Facebook
| might actually be the best practical route, but them having to
| take that roll is actively damaging to society.
| anonunivgrad wrote:
| Trump did not incite violence. If anything, the media this
| summer was much more involved in inciting and fueling the BLM
| riots.
| jedberg wrote:
| He literally stood outside near the Capitol and said, "If
| you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a
| country anymore" and then encouraged the crowd to go to the
| Capitol.
| djsumdog wrote:
| You can fight via protesting. That's not inciting
| violence. The BLM supporter in Chicago literally told
| people to loot and that looting was reparations:
|
| https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/aug/11/ariel-
| atkin...
|
| Should she be arrested? Probably not, even though she was
| wrong and a terrible person for saying that.
|
| The law is very specific when it comes to free speech.
| You need specific calls to violence and Trump did not
| come anywhere near close to that here.
|
| He's asking people to fight because the courts have
| refused to even hear testimony. Texas brought a lawsuit
| and was dismissed in three sentences for not having
| standing, in the only court legally allowed to decide
| cases between states.
|
| If you still deny any and all election irregularity after
| all the videos and all the dead people voting and all the
| questionable information, that is part of the problem. An
| entire nation watched their court systems refuse to even
| listen to any evidence. People have lost faith in the
| system.
|
| And this very minor breaking into a building, causing
| less than 1/10 of the damage of any BLM riot, is blown up
| into some crazy "this is the end of democracy" bullshit.
| People have taken over American federal buildings several
| times in American history.
|
| The regular peasants walked around the the sacred place
| of the rich and they're afraid. Also a woman got shot.
| She's not black so her life doesn't matter.
| jacobriis wrote:
| What he literally said while he "literally stood outside
| near the Capitol" (he was almost two miles away from the
| Capitol):
|
| "Now it is up to Congress to confront this egregious
| assault on our democracy. After this, we're going to walk
| down and I'll be there with you. We're going to walk
| down. We're going to walk down any one you want, but I
| think right here. We're going walk down to the Capitol,
| and we're going to cheer on our brave senators, and
| congressmen and women. We're probably not going to be
| cheering so much for some of them because you'll never
| take back our country with weakness. You have to show
| strength, and you have to be strong."
|
| ...
|
| "So we're going to, we're going to walk down Pennsylvania
| Avenue, I love Pennsylvania Avenue, and we're going to
| the Capitol and we're going to try and give... The
| Democrats are hopeless. They're never voting for
| anything, not even one vote. But we're going to try and
| give our Republicans, the weak ones, because the strong
| ones don't need any of our help, we're going to try and
| give them the kind of pride and boldness that they need
| to take back our country.
|
| So let's walk down Pennsylvania Avenue. I want to thank
| you all. God bless you and God bless America. Thank you
| all for being here, this is incredible. Thank you very
| much. Thank you."
| dukeofdoom wrote:
| Trump is a leader of a populist movement. The call was to
| march and protest outside.
|
| He gave no direction for them to go inside. And soon
| after they went in, he made a video statements on Twitter
| for them to go home.
|
| I also thought its the "Peoples House" after all. Not
| really sure what laws were broken other than maybe
| trespassing. BTW, democrats have occupied legislators too
| during protests.
| lovecg wrote:
| If I make a dog angry, then take its muzzle off and make
| it go near you, am I liable when you get bitten? I didn't
| give it direction to bite you after all.
| dukeofdoom wrote:
| I think you are missing the point. He has the support of
| 70 million people. This is a widely supported populist
| movement, backed by 20+ years of grievance with the
| current "uniparty"
|
| Generally it only takes 1% of the people to start a
| revolution. If Trump intent was to overthrow these legacy
| fossils it would have happened yesterday. Instead he
| called his people back.
|
| With every news article condemnation, supreme court
| rejection, and double standard like facebook banning or
| twitter trying to disrupt their communications, it only
| strengthens his backers sense of being aggrieved.
|
| Trump will use these betrayals by republicans to start
| his own party. The goal has been democratic reform.
| lovecg wrote:
| > If Trump intent was to overthrow these legacy fossils
| it would have happened yesterday.
|
| And Putin said that if his security forces wanted to kill
| the opposition politician, they would have succeeded. If
| it didn't work, it's not a big deal right?
| anonunivgrad wrote:
| Human beings are not dogs. The law treats them as
| autonomous. Getting people riled up and angry and
| encouraging them to protest is not incitement just
| because a few of them take it too far.
| anonunivgrad wrote:
| "Fight like hell" does not mean violence. Political
| groups "fight" for this or that all the time. And yeah,
| go to the capitol to protest, like the vast majority of
| people did. Only a tiny percent had anything to do with
| breaching the building.
| ttesttom wrote:
| Even Bill Barr, Trumps former AG, said Trump incited a mob.
|
| >"Orchestrating a mob to pressure Congress is inexcusable.
| The president's conduct yesterday was a betrayal of his
| office and supporters."
|
| https://twitter.com/GingerGibson/status/1347213610406313986
| ?...
| Thaxll wrote:
| Yes he did, just watch
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBH7ql34Ex0 it's just lies
| and pushing people to do terrible things.
|
| Trump is currently the most dangerous American alive, he's
| the most powerful person on the planet spreading lies over
| lies to his millions of followers.
| goostavos wrote:
| Was it the
|
| "I know everyone is getting ready to march over to the
| capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make
| your voices heard"
|
| part...?
|
| Or was it the tweets? "Go home with love & in peace."(now
| deleted) https://www.thetrumparchive.com/
|
| Maybe this one? "am asking for everyone at the U.S.
| Capitol to remain peaceful. No violence!"
|
| Or this video telling everyone to they they lost, and to
| pick up their toys and head home peacefully.
|
| https://mobile.twitter.com/tom2badcat/status/134701535339
| 052...
|
| Am I in a media bubble? Where's the smoking gun of him
| inciting violence and trying to prevent a peaceful
| transition of power?
|
| As far as I can tell, the only real source calling for
| violence has been the users on thedonald.win, which has
| caused the mods to step in and say that they will follow
| the Presidents call for peace and thus not allow the
| platform to contain calls for violence
| (https://thedonald.win/p/11RhAqC6sa/mods-are-
| compromised/)
| ttesttom wrote:
| Maybe check what the Republicans are saying, for example
| Bill Barr said:
|
| >"Orchestrating a mob to pressure Congress is
| inexcusable. The president's conduct yesterday was a
| betrayal of his office and supporters."
|
| https://twitter.com/GingerGibson/status/13472136104063139
| 86?...
| anonunivgrad wrote:
| That's a logical fallacy if I've ever seen one. Bill Barr
| has his reasons, I'm sure, for saying what he said. That
| doesn't mean he's right.
| ttesttom wrote:
| How is it a logical fallacy to check the opinions of both
| political parties? The parent asked:
|
| > "Am I in a media bubble?"
|
| Usually helps to check what both sides of the partisan
| isle are saying to avoid a bubble.
| lovecg wrote:
| Or maybe the one where he said that he "loves" the
| violent mob without a single word of condemnation? How is
| this even a conversation at this point?
| soneil wrote:
| (opinion) Allowing incitement as free speech only makes sense
| if you can/will hold them accountable for the results of their
| speech instead. It's either/or, but not neither/nor.
|
| If I say to you, "please shoot john smith", and you do - I
| should either be held responsible for saying thus, or
| accomplice in the result. I can't imagine anyone would claim I
| was without fault or responsibility. To my mind, free-speech
| maximalism should hold me innocent of saying it, but has no
| bearing on my being accomplice to the result.
| mechnesium wrote:
| > if direct calls to violence and to insurrection against a
| democracy aren't grounds to take away your megaphone, then what
| is?
|
| Are you suggesting that Trump made direct calls to violence and
| to insurrection? If so, that is patently false.
|
| From Trump's actual Tweet on December 19th: "... Big Protest in
| D.C. on January 6th. Be there, will be wild!"
|
| All he did was call upon his base of supporters to exert their
| first amendment right to assemble. To suggest this was anything
| more than that is pure confabulation.
| mrlala wrote:
| Whatever you need to tell yourself to sleep at night.
|
| Even Bill Barr just came out
|
| >Former Attorney General William Barr said Thursday that
| President Donald Trump inciting a violent insurrection on
| Capitol Hill the previous day was a "betrayal of his office
| and supporters."
|
| https://www.businessinsider.com/former-ag-barr-trump-
| betraye...
|
| But go ahead and hide behind "well he never ACTUALLY said
| it!!"
| tetrometal wrote:
| Quote the wording you think Trump used to organize an
| insurrection.
|
| Juxtapose that with the wording you would be okay with him
| using to organize a protest.
|
| Then try to tell me that the difference between them is
| "insurrection".
| jcranmer wrote:
| As of 2:00 PM yesterday, the underlying context that
| several of his supporters are ready, willing, and able to
| commit sedition in his name is painfully obvious and to
| deny it would be willful ignorance. After all, they were
| in the act of committing it [1]. The statements that
| Trump made would almost unquestionably meet the
| Brandenburg v Ohio bar of incitement to "imminent lawless
| action" given that context, urging his supporters (some
| of whom, given the context, would be willing to _commit a
| felony_ ) to march to Congress to--I don't recall the
| exact wording--tell them what they think.
|
| If Trump gave that speech this morning, with full
| knowledge of what transpired, you would have a strong
| case that he incited to "imminent lawless action."
| However, that key context isn't necessarily present
| yesterday morning when Trump actually gave his speech.
| You can make a case that a reasonable person _should_
| have known that a portion of the crowd would react in
| "imminent lawless action" (which would meet the bar).
| Likely, the courts would have judged that it's just
| "politicians saying things they don't mean" and dismissed
| it on the side of caution. However, the knowledge that
| imminent lawless action _did_ occur as a result may
| persuade some people that a reasonable person really
| _should_ have been able to predict this outcome, and thus
| that the speech actually meets the bar for incitement. It
| definitely is not a slam-dunk violation, but the fact
| that it isn 't slam-dunk clear _really_ should give you
| pause.
|
| [1] 18 USC SS2384 is the statutory definition of
| sedition. The mob yesterday meets all elements: "two or
| more persons" who "conspire[d]" to "by force" "delay the
| execution of any law of the United States." It isn't
| hyperbole to say that their act was sedition, it was
| literally sedition yesterday.
| mechnesium wrote:
| It's intellectually dishonest to say that he incited
| violence, especially when there's a heavily censored video
| of him explicitly instructing people to go home and to be
| peaceful [1].
|
| [1] https://tv.gab.com/channel/realdonaldtrump/view/we-
| have-to-h...
| otterley wrote:
| And nothing of value was lost.
| fossuser wrote:
| 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-f...
| soupson wrote:
| 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."
| richardARPANET wrote:
| Zuck the PHP dev thinks he's Emperor.
| mrkramer wrote:
| 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.
| nova22033 wrote:
| 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.
| ggrelet wrote:
| Isn't he, though?
| djsumdog wrote:
| 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.
| iphorde wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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.
| munificent wrote:
| 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.
| duxup wrote:
| 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.
| bedhead wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| Solid point. I never saw Twitter tripping over themselves to
| ban mention of the pee tape, which was clearly a blatant
| fabrication.
| molbioguy wrote:
| 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?
| sagichmal wrote:
| It's fine that morality is subjective. Objectivity isn't a
| requirement for ethical action -- I don't need to write a
| formal proof to ban a white ethnostate nationalist from my web
| forum.
| AndrewUnmuted wrote:
| That's because there have been hundreds of years of efforts
| within the legal sphere to solidify your private property
| rights. Much of that effort involved individuals parsing,
| understanding, and improving the objective realities in which
| they lived, and resulted in your ability to not give web
| banning much thought.
| elgfare wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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.
| [deleted]
| esoterica wrote:
| It's not a public utility and being widely used does not make
| it one. Lots of people eat at McDonald's and get coffee from
| Starbucks, that does not make McDonald's or Starbucks a public
| utility.
| molbioguy wrote:
| It's _treated_ as such by a lot of it 's users. They do not
| have expectations of being censored. The items you mention
| are paid services. Facebook isn't for most of its users.
| CryptoBanker wrote:
| That's hardly Facebook's fault. It's not their
| responsibility to educate their users on what a public
| utility is
| molbioguy wrote:
| Agreed. It's not their responsibility to educate users.
| Maybe it's their responsibility to educate themselves on
| what their users assume.
| JakeTheAndroid wrote:
| So, does that actually matter? At what point are consumer
| expectations unreasonable?
|
| Also, how did people get the idea that a private service is
| a public utility? When was the tipping point in which
| Facebook stopped just being a private social network and
| started being a public utility? And was this disclosed
| anywhere? How does a shift from a protected private service
| transition formally to a public one? Is it purely based on
| consumer perception?
|
| It seems odd to me that the entire internet is a public
| square, yet Facebook should be democratized. You can leave
| that walled garden at any time and setup a blog. What part
| of a town square requires your voice is effectively heard?
|
| It seems like when people were saying that calling Tesla's
| autopilot was confusing consumers because they don't know
| what actual autopilot for aircraft is.
| AndrewUnmuted wrote:
| A public utility is really just a private company which has
| been granted the special privilege of legal monopoly, by
| some combination of state intervention and regulatory
| capture.
|
| Censorship may be a bad thing on a moral level, but when it
| comes to the law of the United States - the country in
| which Facebook operates - it is pretty clear that free
| speech protections are an imposition upon what the
| government may legislate upon - NOT a citizen's "right" to
| avoid censorship. This leaves open the possibility that
| private firms can legally "censor" people, while also
| restricting Congress's ability to write legislation that
| restricts speech.
|
| I am not sure how relevant it is that a service is "paid,"
| or "unpaid." What really matters is whether all parties are
| dealing with each other voluntarily and not under any form
| of coercion. As far as I know, by making your Facebook
| account, you agree to have your speech moderated under
| their discretion. You do not _have_ to make a Facebook
| account, after all, and since Facebook is not the only game
| in town, I do not really see how it can be called a
| utility. This also disqualifies it from being an example of
| a public square.
| molbioguy wrote:
| > You do not have to make a Facebook account, after all,
| and since Facebook is not the only game in town ...
|
| Isn't that part of the problem? Facebook (and Twitter)
| are so common and widely used that alternatives are not
| remotely equivalent. Communication via those alternatives
| is extremely limiting.
| unethical_ban wrote:
| Network effects don't apply to a restaurant. Your analogy is
| broken.
| cbradford wrote:
| The jackboots of the totalitarian left are coming down. There
| will be no free thought under their reign.
| djsumdog wrote:
| "So this is how liberty dies. With thunderous applause." -Star
| Wars II
| techer wrote:
| How you reached this conclusion is flabbergasting. Research
| totalitarianism - at least it's definition.
| w0de wrote:
| Ah, Joe Biden, the jackboot of the totalitarian left. A career
| of middling corporate-friendly politics was brilliant cover.
| ggrelet wrote:
| Why is it announced from Zuckerberg's profile page and not from
| the official Facebook page?
| kd0amg wrote:
| It is: https://about.fb.com/news/2021/01/responding-to-the-
| violence...
| dcolkitt wrote:
| 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.
| vel0city wrote:
| 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-co...
| dcolkitt wrote:
| 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
| mden wrote:
| "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-co...
| lalos wrote:
| 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-
| zuckerbe...
| dspillett wrote:
| Exactly. If they wanted any respect for this they should have
| had the courage to do it a few years ago. As it is it shows
| moral weakness, not strength.
|
| This is _at best_ closing the gate after the horse has bolted,
| made it to the next county, been hit over on the motorway
| causing a massive multi-vehicle pile-up which left a fireworks
| transporting lorry in flames such that its rockets went off
| setting light to nearby chemical processing facilities.[1]
|
| And that is being charitable. This is simply sucking up to the
| new regime the same way they've effectively sucked up to the
| old one, on the very day the transition was finally confirmed
| by all parties. It can't hurt that it will distract some
| attention away from the bad PR relating to WhatsApp.
|
| [1] I look forward to the final stages of the story though: the
| horse in question declared lame after the accident and
| processed into glue.
| sandworm101 wrote:
| >> time to get 'cozy' with the new people in power and set up
| those dinners
|
| That is the system. Companies that want to make money need to
| keep on the good side of people in power. But isn't that how
| democracy works? Better that they adapt to every incoming
| elected administration than have them hold loyalties to old
| regimes. Seeing them so regularly bend to the will of voters
| isn't a horrible thing.
| deadbeefisahex wrote:
| that's hardly the case though, big corps are effectively
| lobbying the government for big profits. they do have their
| lobbyists already set up for both parties it's not not the
| time to spend the time or the energy on the losing side for
| the next 4 years.
| sandworm101 wrote:
| My point was that at least they are lobbying those who have
| been elected. That is democracy ticking along as planned.
| If they were instead lobbying non-elected people such as
| former presidents or family patriarchs, _that_ would be
| undemocratic.
|
| Seeing companies cozy up to elected officials reassures me
| that those elected officials still wield power. When
| companies abandon elected officials, ignore them as
| irrelevant, then we know that our elected representatives
| are not in charge and democracy no longer matters.
| coldtea wrote:
| > _Companies that want to make money need to keep on the good
| side of people in power. But isn 't that how democracy
| works?_
|
| No, that's how a republic might work. In democracy companies
| are not allowed to yield such power, and people elected can
| be revoked at any time....
| tempodox wrote:
| What's your definition of "republic" here? You seem to see
| it as an opposite to democracy. I'd posit that democracy
| and republic (in the true sense of _res publica_ , "public
| affair") cannot be separated.
| danhak wrote:
| Yes, this must be it. Must have nothing to do with the fact
| that he said "You're special, we love you!" to the people
| laying siege at the U.S. Capitol.
| lalos wrote:
| Facebook would happily receive foreign money to cause havoc
| in this country as long as they make a profit on it, oh wait
| that actually happened
| https://thehill.com/policy/technology/358102-franken-
| blasts-...
| levosmetalo wrote:
| This must have been the first time in history that President
| of the United States openly supports people violently
| "fighting for democracy" against "elected president" of the
| sovereign country.
|
| Wait what? But this time it's different, this time it's us /
| US.
| SpaceRaccoon wrote:
| The US vehemently supported protestors seizing the
| Ukrainian parliament and overthrowing the democratically
| elected president.
|
| American politicians were even present handing out cookies:
| https://images.csmonitor.com/csm/2013/12/1213-world-
| Nuland2....
| sleepysysadmin wrote:
| Only reason was because he was POTUS. Otherwise he would have
| been removed long ago. The moment he wasn't potus anymore he
| was to be removed from these platforms.
|
| The consequence of this however will be political division. If
| you thought the political division was bad now because of 'echo
| chambers'. Wait until the camps are no longer talking because
| they arent on the same platforms.
| jonathanstrange wrote:
| No, the effect is the opposite. First of all, they haven't
| been talking to each other in a constructive way on these
| platforms anyway, they merely exchange hateful messages.
| There is no dialogue between those sides on social media,
| because social media are generally not conducive to
| reasonable and rational discussion (with exceptions like HN,
| of course, where there is appropriate moderation).
|
| Second, pushing radicals out of mainstream platforms is a
| good thing because they will go to many different places,
| break up into smaller fractions, and therefore not be able to
| reach as many people at once. The division and reality-denial
| we see today is the result of small minorities reaching to
| large audiences and looking much larger than they are,
| thereby allowing radical and violent positions to become
| seemingly more socially acceptable.
|
| It's perfectly fine if people who want to storm the Capitol
| (or behead Fauci, etc.) get to talk in their own, small
| little echo chambers. They do that already. Law enforcement
| is used to infiltrating closed circles and should know how to
| deal with those who become terrorists.
| sleepysysadmin wrote:
| >No, the effect is the opposite. First of all, they haven't
| been talking to each other in a constructive way on these
| platforms anyway, they merely exchange hateful messages.
|
| So nothing lost?
|
| >Second, pushing radicals out of mainstream platforms is a
| good thing because they will go to many different places,
| break up into smaller fractions, and therefore not be able
| to reach as many people at once.
|
| The thing about banning people on facebook, twitter,
| reddit, etc. You just create a new account. Nobody has gone
| anywhere. When there is a push for different platform like
| parler, then the migration occurs and there won't be cells.
| thedonald.win for example just as popular as thedonald was.
| There's no splintering. Though I can bet you within the
| next 2 weeks those sites will be taken down.
|
| >The division and reality-denial we see today is the result
| of small minorities reaching to large audiences and looking
| much larger than they are, thereby allowing radical and
| violent positions to become seemingly more socially
| acceptable.
|
| To be clear, the political division is not on the
| republican side. https://www.visualcapitalist.com/charts-
| americas-political-d...
|
| The political divide is on the democrat side. More
| specifically... it was just the democrats. That's not the
| case anymore. The republicans just moved to the right
| increasing the divide.
|
| >It's perfectly fine if people who want to storm the
| Capitol (or behead Fauci, etc.) get to talk in their own,
| small little echo chambers. They do that already. Law
| enforcement is used to infiltrating closed circles and
| should know how to deal with those who become terrorists.
|
| That's the thing with reality. Those who arent involved in
| certain subjects can see it objectively. I'm not american
| nor am I there.
|
| I have never seen the politics so divided in the usa. It
| WAS the democrats, It's now both. The political divide has
| never been so bad.
|
| What are the consequences?
| jonathanstrange wrote:
| I'm also not in the US and the examples I gave were just
| examples. I also don't think that "the blame game" makes
| any sense. The effects of modern media are world-wide and
| don't have much to do with particular party divides or
| "left" and "right." Notice I spoke of radicals,
| regardless of political affiliation.
|
| As I've said, in my opinion the increasing division is
| partly a result of the fact that radical minorities
| nowadays have platforms through which they can easily
| reach millions.[1] This leads to an amplification of
| radical opinions and makes them appear to be more
| acceptable, hence also more accepted by people who would
| otherwise not even consider them. This in turn has to do
| with in- and out-group behaviour and corresponding
| cognitive biases.
|
| One way to counter-act the trend while still allowing
| free speech is to ensure that radical fringe groups do
| not have large amplifying platforms. They can still have
| free speech, just like they had in the 80s, but it should
| be made hard for them to reach out to millions. I agree
| that this is technically non-trivial, but many
| experiences have been made already and there are many
| methods like moderation, karma systems, IP banning,
| shadow-banning, banning by degrading service, limiting
| amplification/re-distribution of messages, identifying
| sockpuppet and bot accounts, and so on.
|
| [1] There are other reasons, of course, that have nothing
| to do with social media.
| TheAdamAndChe wrote:
| This is what scares me. We're already seeing this start with
| Parler being conservative Twitter. Youtube clones are already
| popping up. The only saving grace is that such platforms will
| have difficulties finding advertisers and thus surviving, but
| if their movement gains traction then corporations will
| follow the flow of power/money and jump on board.
|
| The issue is not platforms. The issue is the lack of trust in
| the political system. Deplatforming is just a band-aid.
| tobilocker wrote:
| First thing that came to mind as well. 100% opportunism 0%
| conscience.
| artiszt wrote:
| quite right
|
| Zuckerboi the greedy one. w/out him and his FB Inc. lot, and
| that vastly overrated egotist Assange [who never ever has been
| even close to ethical grounds of, for instance, E. Snowden] the
| sick-orange cretin HeWas45 never would have made it in the
| first place
|
| just fits to what's been posted here earlier
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25662215
| taylus wrote:
| Yep. Fuck zuck, finally deleted my Facebook account because of
| this.
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| bmarquez wrote:
| Whatever the reason, I view this as a good thing. Hopefully
| the news regarding WhatsApp privacy will convince others as
| well.
| viro wrote:
| You deleted your Facebook account, because they banned
| someone for inciting treason and sedition?
| one2know wrote:
| You're really off base. You, and CNN, and others are
| throwing around words like treason, sedition, insurrection,
| terrorist. You are not talking about a few thousand people.
| You are talking about tens of millions of people. You are
| instigating hate. I know you don't understand the scale of
| what you're dealing with. But if you keep up the words
| things are only going to get worse over the next six
| months. And you are going to wake up after six months of
| uni-party rule and they are going to do some things you
| don't like. Conveniently you are going to forget your
| instigation and words you spoke but no one will be there
| for you.
| tetrometal wrote:
| This spin leaves me incredulous. How does Trump inviting a
| protest equate to "inciting treason and sedition"? Y'all
| are bonkers.
| tomc1985 wrote:
| He specifically ordered Pence to throw out the Electoral
| College result. Pence refused on constitutional grounds.
| How is that not an attempt at sedition?
|
| Never thought I'd have anything nice to say about Pence
| but pushing back was the right thing to do here. H/T to
| him
|
| To say nothing to his tacit approval of a mob storming
| the capitol on EC certification day...
| cryptica wrote:
| The reality is that we just don't know what happened. We
| cannot know what happened. Perhaps some nations and
| companies are just too big and too powerful to exist and
| people are now starting to realize that.
| tomc1985 wrote:
| We know that Trump asked Pence to disregard EC results. I
| don't understand how that could possibly be under dispute
| in good faith
|
| Further, peoples' social media accounts show that a mob
| stormed the capitol with minimal police resistance.
|
| It is very clear what happened here.
| scotu wrote:
| "stand back and stand by" wink wink
| ffpip wrote:
| He deleted his account for the reason stated in the top
| comment (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25672752)
| about Facebook is changing their policies, now that Biden
| has been confirmed as president to suck up for the ad
| deals.
| modriano wrote:
| Probably not because of the ban. Probably for Facebook's
| relentless facilitation of the person who incited treason
| and sedition, as well as the cultivation of conspiracy
| theory groups that produced the insurrectionists.
| thisisnico wrote:
| Keep your enemies close.
| inglor_cz wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| You can block facebook domains with uBlock Origin.
|
| Or just install https://addons.mozilla.org/en-
| US/firefox/addon/facebook-cont...
| caeril wrote:
| PiHole or a service like NextDNS works very well for this
| use-case.
| ausjke wrote:
| a young Soros in the making, we're indeed ruled by them.
| themihai wrote:
| It may sound weird but I believe you have to thank Trump for
| this. Finally some good things come out of his mandate.
| sergiotapia wrote:
| This just seems like both parties are working together
| including Trump to have these events be a pressure release
| valve for all the shit of 2020.
|
| A target where people can vent their frustrations and anger,
| and once Trump leaves get that dopamine hit and simmer down --
| until next cycle.
|
| If none of the events of the past month happened people would
| have to face the reality of their situation. Now they can just
| scream at Trump. Who knows maybe he's being paid handsomely
| under the table.
| frockington1 wrote:
| I don't buy in to the conspiracy theories because all of the
| big players comes out looking terrible. DNC now has to spend
| most of the first half of Bidens term trying to rebuild the
| nations confidence. RNC looks like crap because Trump. The
| only beneficiaries from a political perspective look to be
| state governments
| netsharc wrote:
| > DNC now has to spend most of the first half of Bidens
| term trying to rebuild the nations confidence.
|
| One hopes, but I'd imagine the people living in the
| alternate reality will just ask "What have the Romans ever
| done for us?!"[0]
|
| [0] Reference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uvPbj9NX0zc
| rat87 wrote:
| yeah
|
| I'm sure this had nothing to do with the attempted coup
| esja wrote:
| Genuine request as I've seem this framing a lot and cannot
| understand it:
|
| Can you point to the specific things that occurred which you
| believe were part of an attempted coup, and why you believe
| they were?
| macintux wrote:
| Trump wanted Pence to violate them constitution and
| overturn the election. When Pence refused he then went to
| an angry protest and told them to match the Capitol and
| fight like hell.
|
| The _then_ refused to deploy the National Guard to protect
| the Capitol and reportedly was thrilled at the fact that
| the certification was interrupted by the rioters.
|
| After much pressure he finally put out a weak statement
| telling the rioters he loved them and they should go home,
| but the election was still a fraud.
|
| What part of that fails to fall under encouraging an
| insurrection?
| esja wrote:
| A coup requires that power is taken illegally (usually
| violently), and held. Are you saying this rabble of
| idiots were intending to take power somehow (what
| power?), just by occupying a building? How could this
| have ended with them (or even Trump) in power?
| zmmmmm wrote:
| > Are you saying this rabble of idiots were intending to
| take power somehow (what power?)
|
| Trump told them he won the election. He told them it was
| fraudulently stolen from them. He told them that this
| could be rectified by interfering in the proceedings. His
| intent was to take and retain power by remaining
| president through intimidating congress into refusing to
| count the electoral college votes. So yes - they were
| intending to take power. The fact it was based on a made
| up fantasy with no basis in reality does not alter the
| intent of either the rabble or Trump who incited them and
| painted that reality for them.
| cycrutchfield wrote:
| Did you conveniently ignore that some of the folks who
| broke into the capitol were armed with spears, clubs and
| firearms, carrying ziptie handcuffs? If the capitol
| police were not able to secure the escape of the senators
| and representatives, what do you imagine might have
| happened when the mob descended upon them?
| esja wrote:
| Are you saying their plan was to attack those senators
| and representatives, in order to gain and keep power?
| What evidence do you have for this?
| cycrutchfield wrote:
| Don't spend much time on parler do you?
| joshuamorton wrote:
| Well yes: the point was to delay or prevent certification
| oof Biden as president, with the aim of keeping Trump in
| power.
|
| What other reason for the attack do you imagine there
| was?
| djsumdog wrote:
| Did you conveniently ignore the part that the Capitol
| Police, one of the most well armed and well funded police
| forces in the US, are either terrible incompetent and
| couldn't protect one of the most important buildings in
| the US.
|
| Or did you ignore the videos of them removing barriers,
| or Trump supporters yelling at people breaking glass to
| stop, or protestors getting selfies with the guards in
| the building and tapping them on the shoulder and
| thanking them for their service?
| cycrutchfield wrote:
| None of that is relevant to my point above.
| lovecg wrote:
| I don't know where you're getting your information from,
| but there's at least one video of protesters violently
| removing the barriers https://mobile.twitter.com/elijahsc
| haffer/status/13469665149...
|
| This is a good list as well https://www.reddit.com/r/Keep
| _Track/comments/ks56rh/trump_ri...
| Bantros wrote:
| All of it
| cycrutchfield wrote:
| Read a transcript of Trump's verbal diarrhea from his
| speech yesterday. This was clearly a putsch
| frob wrote:
| Exhibit A: Trump's attempted coercion of the GA secretary
| of state to overturn a certified and triple-counted
| election.
|
| Exhibit B: Rudy going around and encouraging Republican
| state legislatures to throw out the vote of the people and
| instead appoint Donald Trump.
|
| Exhibit C: Trump continuing to tell his supporters that
| they're right to be angry and this whole election was an
| undemocratic coup against him even when ostensibly telling
| them to go home hours after they've breached the Capitol
| building.
|
| Exhibit D: Literally everything else Trump and his cronies
| have said over the past 2 months and the past 5.5 years.
| chasd00 wrote:
| coup is a bit much. this happens from time to time at the
| state level, protesters push their way into chambers. they
| should have just been arrested, the police dropped the ball.
| jacquesm wrote:
| This went a bit further than a protest I would think.
| djsumdog wrote:
| No it absolutely did not. Stop buying the bullshit the
| media is feeding you.
| kube-system wrote:
| If busting the windows out of a Walgreens goes beyond a
| protest, so does busting the windows out of the US
| capitol.
| [deleted]
| jacquesm wrote:
| It's not the 'bulsshit the media is feeding me', it is
| the eyewitness testimony from the rioters.
|
| Instead, I'd suggest you try to re-calibrate what you
| think is normal.
| cycrutchfield wrote:
| It's a putsch because the intent was to disrupt or prevent
| the certification of the next president, literally the
| formal approval of the transfer of power. This is not a
| bunch of yahoos upset with a governor about coronavirus
| restrictions.
| esja wrote:
| Do you have evidence that was their intent? And how
| exactly could they have succeeded, and kept Trump in
| power?
| cycrutchfield wrote:
| By their own admission, their intent was "revolution".
| It's really bizarre to me that you are continuously
| trying to whitewash these seditious traitors' actions in
| this thread. Is it a willful act of naivete, or something
| more disingenuous?
| chasd00 wrote:
| No, this happens at the state level from time to time.
| There were protesters who broke in to state chambers to
| disrupt a vote on abortion rights iirc. There's also been
| the same on gun rights votes too. I can't find a link
| because any search for "protest" turns up yesterday's
| events.
|
| Everyone wants to use words like coup or insurrection as
| outrage bait and more clicks and views. It denigrates the
| plight of people who have actually lived through the real
| version of those events. As a US citizen, it's
| embarrassing actually.
| cycrutchfield wrote:
| I'm not sure why you are not able to understand this.
| Disrupting legislation is not the same as disrupting the
| machinery by which we hand power from one executive to
| the next. Google "self-coup" or "autogolpe" to see how
| this is not exactly an uncommon action by would-be
| tyrants.
| [deleted]
| dstola wrote:
| I don't think there is any reason to exaggerate. People have
| a will and a right to protest against their perceived
| injustice at a state or federal level. A coup also usually
| involves the military and a taking of government by force,
| neither of which happened yesterday. If this were a coup then
| the BLM "protests" over the summer were also a coup, and they
| were causing significantly more damage to small business with
| destruction and looting.
|
| You are being disingenuous if you label this as a "coup"
| regurgitating biased media talking points.
| apocalypstyx wrote:
| When did BLM protestors force their way into a capital
| building with the express goal of overturning the results
| of an election?
| hnburnsy wrote:
| How would protestors overturn the results? Do they get a
| vote just because they are standing on the senate floor?
| djsumdog wrote:
| Do you really think Trump protesters wanted to overthrow
| an election result by breaking into a building? Have you
| seen the videos of Capitol Police removing barriers and
| leading them into the buildings, or some of them taking
| selfies with the protestors?
|
| Either the Capitol Police are fucking terrible
| incompetent or they wanted this to happen.
|
| BLM rioters burned down a police station in
| Minneapolis/St Paul. They took over 6 square blocks in
| Seattle and their "community police" shot up a Jeep
| killing a 14 year old boy and removed all the evidence (h
| ttps://battlepenguin.video/videos/watch/9f81cd38-3ee9-4f2
| 6-...).
|
| These people walked into a public building and everyone
| is upset because they walked around the sacred halls of
| the rich and powerful; the house of the people. It was
| peasants in the castle and we can't have that.
|
| Was it wrong? absolutely. That's why the vast majority of
| people stayed outside.
|
| Oh and a woman was shot by that incompetent Capitol
| Security force. It's okay though because her life didn't
| matter since she's white. I'm pretty sure it was her
| fault because victim blaming is alright if the victim is
| a privileged air force veteran and isn't an oppressed
| minority.
| dstola wrote:
| The Capitol was the focal point of the protest due to the
| location and in this case the perceived injustice of the
| election. When almost half the voting population thinks
| there is something wrong with the election, maybe its
| time to listen to those people. If anything I think the
| hivemind and unemployed young people showing frustration
| was the spark that ignited what happened yesterday.
|
| I am not trying to justify it as good or bad, but it was
| not a coup by a long shot and you cant haphazardly label
| it as such.
| dwaltrip wrote:
| The perceived injustice of the election only exists
| thanks to a massive, baseless propaganda campaign led by
| President Trump himself.
|
| The courts have "listened" to the "claims of injustice".
| They found nothing of merit. It's over. Trump lost, fair
| and square. His inability to handle the loss and his
| disregard for our democracy has wreaked havoc across the
| nation.
| apocalypstyx wrote:
| There are times when I try my upmost be very careful with
| my language. And this is one of them: What was undertaken
| on Jan. 6th was an attempted coup. It was insurrection.
| It was sedition. I refuse to allow that fact to be
| downplayed or obfuscated.
|
| https://www.politifact.com/article/2021/jan/06/coup-
| heres-so...
| dstola wrote:
| You are entitled to your opinion and your echo chamber of
| choice, but you are doing a disservice to your fellow
| citizens if you think in black and white
| unethical_ban wrote:
| This is such a god-awful take.
|
| They rushed through barricades of the legislative building
| during a session. This session wasn't merely "some bill"
| for gun control, or abolishing taxes, or amending the
| Constitution, or what have you.
|
| It was the procedure of finally and officially certifying
| the results of an election that has been improperly
| questioned by the incumbent. This election has been
| concluded to be free of systemic fraud, or any level of
| fraud sufficient to flip any state. And yet these seditious
| citizens broke in with the intent to stop such a vote from
| occurring, to the extent that representatives had to flee
| to safety and several people died.
|
| I personally did not support the level of property damage
| from the summer protests, but the differences are large.
| Protesting for political change through collective action,
| and being attacked in many instances by the very force they
| claim is oppressive.
|
| The protesters in DC were attacking the will of the people,
| based on lies and the encouragement of the sitting
| President - and pretty much welcomed in by local law
| enforcement.
| mrtksn wrote:
| I doubt that these things are ever personal. People in position
| of power meet all the time and not necessarily with good
| intentions.
|
| Trump got power, Zuckerberg got power and they meet to discuss
| how to proceed. Trump loses power, Zuckerberg locks down his
| account because the arrangement is no longer viable.
|
| The deal itself could have been anything, maybe Trump
| threatening to regulate the hell of FB if they don't play ball,
| maybe Zuckerberg had a good idea on how to get rid of TikTok
| with the help of Trump in exchange of letting him do his thing.
| Who knows?
| rohan1024 wrote:
| Also, now this will overshadow the WhatsApp blunder. Great
| timing.
| duxup wrote:
| I think that was going to be hidden by the recent news
| regardless ;)
|
| Most WhatsApp users probably don't know / care much anyway.
| Sadly.
| adamnemecek wrote:
| What's the WhatsApp blunder?
| wccrawford wrote:
| It's still on the front page of HN. Forcing people to allow
| data to go to Facebook if you use Whatsapp.
| xxpor wrote:
| Whatsapp doesn't have enough penetration in the US for that
| to have ever mattered. I'd watch the EU for news on that
| front.
| qznc wrote:
| Everybody looking at Johannes Casper who fought it in 2016:
| https://www.dw.com/en/germany-bans-whatsapp-data-transfer-
| to...
| rohan1024 wrote:
| Elon Musk was publicly bashing Facebook a few hours ago. We
| already have 3 threads on front page here. The more this
| bad press happens the more people become aware of
| Facebook's malpractices and better it is for everyone in
| long run.
|
| This stunt will put WhatsApp blunder on back burner and it
| is exactly the kind of thing that Facebook does to spin the
| narrative.
| efdee wrote:
| Seems like the Whatsapp change doesn't really affect EU
| users.
| silexia wrote:
| Most people on Hacker News are entrepreneurs that run their
| own private businesses. Social media platforms are not some
| sort of public utility. Social media platforms are private
| businesses owned by private individuals who can choose who
| they want to let in and who they want to kick out just like
| any restaurant or bar or concert hall. If you dislike who a
| social media platform allows or does not allow, just use a
| different one. For example, many Trump supporters use
| parler... A platform which is known to kick off liberal
| voices. Or better yet, just set up your own blog on your
| own host and do whatever you want.
| alsetmusic wrote:
| I believe you're recycling your material:
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25673152
| ezekg wrote:
| > Parler... A platform which is known to kick off liberal
| voices.
|
| What? Parler doesn't seem to censor political content at
| all. A lack of liberal voice does not mean Parler "kicks
| them off."
| danhor wrote:
| At least their CEO seems to ban "Antifa" supporters: http
| s://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200630/23525844821/parle.
| ..
| randlet wrote:
| > Most people on Hacker News are entrepreneurs that run
| their own private businesses.
|
| I don't think that is true at all. There's definitely
| lots of business owners here (myself included!) but I
| don't think it's anywhere close to a majority.
| jedberg wrote:
| > Social media platforms are private businesses owned by
| private individuals who can choose who they want to let
| in and who they want to kick out just like any restaurant
| or bar or concert hall.
|
| I hate to break it to you, but bars and restaurants and
| concert halls can't kick out anyone they want to. There
| are rules around access to semi-public places. For
| example they can't kick someone out just for wearing a
| MAGA hat, or for being black, or lots of other protected
| classes.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| I'm aware of race, religion, sex, age, and some other
| federally protected statuses in the US that a business
| can't discriminate against, but what protected class
| would political affiliation fall under?
| jedberg wrote:
| I never said political affiliation was protected. I was
| just pointing out that the blanket statement "they can
| kick out anyone they want" is not correct.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| I was referring to your example of being forced to do
| business with a person wearing a MAGA hat. I am unsure if
| that falls into a protected class, that is federally
| protected at least.
| silexia wrote:
| Outside of race, gender, religion you can ban people for
| anything you like from your private place of business.
| ThrowawayR2 wrote:
| California does consider political affiliation as a
| protected class for employment purposes:
| https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/california-
| employmen...
|
| That's what real liberalism looks like and it's something
| we need to extend to the federal level.
| joshuamorton wrote:
| Note that this is only for employment. A california
| business must not discriminate in hiring based on
| political affiliation, but can refuse to serve customers
| based on political affiliation.
| [deleted]
| triceratops wrote:
| > they can't kick someone out just for wearing a MAGA
| hat,
|
| Actually they can. In most jurisdictions that's not a
| protected class. Nightclubs are well-known for having
| dress codes with vague guidelines such as "no gang
| colors". Some fancy restaurants require men to wear
| jackets or women to wear dresses (this seems politically
| fraught to me). Some bars don't let you in if you're
| wearing shorts. And so on.
|
| Generally a protected class is an unchangeable attribute.
| jedberg wrote:
| If they have a "no hats" dress code, sure. But if hats
| are generally allowed, and then they disallow you for
| _your_ hat, that is illegal.
| joshuamorton wrote:
| Yeah this is just completely untrue. A business owner can
| refuse to serve you for _any_ reason, as long as it isn
| 't a specifically protected reason. Much as a company can
| fire you for any reason except for the legally protected
| ones.
| triceratops wrote:
| > But if hats are generally allowed, and then they
| disallow you for your hat, that is illegal.
|
| Can you cite a relevant case?
|
| You do understand what a protected class is, and why it
| exists, right?
| silexia wrote:
| Actually, a restaurant can ban you for anything outside
| of specific protected classes like race, gender,
| religion. A restaurant can ban you for your political
| beliefs, who your friends are as long as they are not a
| protected class, they don't like the breed of dog you
| have, or anything else. Welcome to a free country.
| MacsHeadroom wrote:
| They CAN kick anyone out- just not for any reason. "I
| don't want you in my business" is the only reason needed.
| jedberg wrote:
| Except that isn't true. Sure they can do it, but the
| person can sue, and if the business can't come up with a
| reasonable argument to single out that person, they will
| lose.
| silexia wrote:
| This is false. The only lawful grounds for a lawsuit is
| discrimination against a protected class such as race,
| gender, religion. Political affiliation is not protected
| in any way.
| bidirectional wrote:
| > Most people on Hacker News are entrepreneurs that run
| their own private businesses.
|
| Has there been a survey done on this? Because that's not
| the impression I have at all. Entrepeneurs are obviously
| over-represented in contrast to the general population,
| but I doubt they're the majority.
| failrate wrote:
| Lol, people still use WhatsApp?
| recursive wrote:
| Lol, yes.
| oconnor663 wrote:
| There's no meaningful difference between Joe Biden's status
| yesterday and his status today. I get that pretending otherwise
| is a good way to frame FB in a negative light, fine, but it's
| also weirdly close to the deluded thinking of the people who
| attacked the Capitol building.
| afavour wrote:
| No difference for Biden, but a significant difference for the
| Senate, who staff panels with the power to investigate
| Facebook.
| oconnor663 wrote:
| That's a fair point. I don't think it's likely that FB
| execs were waiting for the results of the Georgia runoffs
| to decide how to moderate Trump, but it's at least possible
| that they were. I don't think the same can be said for the
| certification of electoral votes.
| jadeddrag wrote:
| I think there is a meaningful difference as of yesterday. It
| now looks like Biden will have a cooperative Democratic
| controlled senate, because of the Georgia results.
| 13daug wrote:
| So what's the truth or the isn't
| kbrwn wrote:
| 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.
| colorboy wrote:
| Isn't it what China does Censoring those who create violent
| atmosphere
| estebarb wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| The people running Facebook don't live in Spain, that's 100%
| why.
| Darmody wrote:
| I don't think he's talking about Spain here.
| thotsBgone wrote:
| Spanish/latin culture also doesn't have the whole politically
| correct thing that we do.
| estebarb wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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.
| astronautjones wrote:
| it speaks to the greater problem with all of these
| companies - they dodge responsibility by automating 99% of
| the work they should be doing to moderate content. i bet
| youtube, insta/fb, and twitter's actual human employees
| doing this work are >90% solely english speakers. their
| insane profitability and aversion to responsibility comes
| at an obvious cost
| cblconfederate wrote:
| i believe though that people (that matter) don't take facebook
| seriously , if anything it's considered low quality medium ,
| and they expect it to be full of garbage. (and doesn't
| disappoint)
| ookblah wrote:
| 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...
| CivBase wrote:
| 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.
| docmars wrote:
| That's fine. We've got Gab :)
| [deleted]
| djsumdog wrote:
| Pff, Gab's got nothing on freespeechextremist.com
| throwaway541403 wrote:
| 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.
| djsumdog wrote:
| I agree entirely. I've often gone to the bottoms of comment
| threads on controversial topics. It should no longer be a +vote
| or -vote. Most + is orthodox and most - is heterodoxy.
|
| We are seeing the fracture of the human mind. Part of it is
| simply the lockdowns which prevent us from being able to see
| and talk to each other openly. I just wrote about this before
| all the insanity happened:
|
| https://battlepenguin.com/philosophy/the-fracturing-of-the-h...
|
| I get - votes and people yelling at me for bad faith all the
| time in this thread, but I cannot simply ignore it anymore.
| Someone has to call people out on their intolerance and media
| fueled 24/7 hate. We are not in Orwell's world, because there
| is no way Orwell could even make this shit up. This world would
| frighten Orwell, and when you bring up 1984, some people will
| even tell you that Orwell supported fascism.
|
| > "Don't you see the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the
| range of thought? In the end we shall make thoughtcrime
| literally impossible, because there will be no words in which
| to express it. Every concept that can ever be needed will be
| expresses in exactly ONE word, with its meaning rigidly defined
| and all its subsidiary meanings rubbed out and forgotten"
| -George Orwell, 1984
|
| The hard left is controlling language. Major dictionaries
| changed the definition of a phrase because of what a D-Hawaii
| said on the floor during a Supreme Court confirmation hearing.
| This is insanity.
|
| "So this is how liberty dies. With thunderous applause." -Star
| Wars II
| w0de wrote:
| This is delusional. I recommend you set a reminder to re-
| evaluate this statement in 5 years.
| djsumdog wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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.
| mrtksn wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| or maybe by executive order launch a twitter clone 1st.gov?
| throw7 wrote:
| Gotta move with the political winds ehhh zuck?
| djsumdog wrote:
| 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-orw...
| boringg wrote:
| 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).
| divbzero wrote:
| We are still not deploying effective measures to counter the mass
| spread of dangerous lies. President Trump may have joined Parler
| yesterday.
| emptyparadise wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| > 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-
| privatel...
| djsumdog wrote:
| 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.
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| Facebook suppresses crying fire in a burning theater.
|
| Downvoted and flagged, but no replies.
| hermitcrab wrote:
| "indefinitely and for at least the next two weeks" What the hell
| does that mean?
| [deleted]
| jmu1234567890 wrote:
| At least 2 weeks, then reevaluate at the point.
| jstanley wrote:
| They don't know how long, but it will be at least two weeks.
| hermitcrab wrote:
| So why didn't they say that?
| kgwxd wrote:
| Two weeks, maybe more.
| 0xmohit wrote:
| 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.
| Kapura wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| "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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| +1
|
| My team actively screens out FB applicants.
| SV_BubbleTime wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| > We had an election that was stolen from us.
|
| That's a lie, regardless of what you want it to be.
| djsumdog wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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.
| SV_BubbleTime wrote:
| >No evidence justifying the claim has been presented in
| court, despite ample opportunity.
|
| Can you please point me to a court case that allowed
| evidence to be heard before being dismissed?
| pfdietz wrote:
| All the cases had to present enough evidence to allow
| there to be a chance of a favorable verdict. If the cases
| are dismissed it's because even if favorably interpreted
| the claims did not meet that standard. One cannot just
| say "we'll show our evidence later, just believe me for
| now".
| SV_BubbleTime wrote:
| SCOTUS rejected Texas for standing. Wisconson and PA
| SCOTUS both rejected for standing and laches, multiple
| states had courts immediately dismiss because they said
| they were not the correct court for this and in the cases
| I saw immediately offered the paperwork for the appellate
| process.
|
| Which fraud cases were actually lost vs dismissed for
| technical or procedural reasons?
|
| If your claim is "the courts proved no fraud" you need to
| show me where the courts actually investigated and heard
| evidence. Otherwise, I can't agree with your claim.
| pfdietz wrote:
| Right, that was a case that didn't even state a claim
| that could be addressed. If your case lacks standing then
| there is literally no evidence for it that could work.
|
| What they were doing there, of course, was trying to use
| SCOTUS to relitigate claims that had already been shot
| down in state courts.
|
| That all of the fraud stuff is bullshit should have been
| obvious from soon after the beginning. The claim of fraud
| was made, but the evidence to justify the claims was a
| constantly revolving circus of nonsense. It shows they
| reached the position that fraud must have occurred not
| because they had evidence of fraud, but because they
| didn't like the result.
|
| I like how the courts have treated Trump so brutally. His
| thing is complete disregard of facts or reason. The
| courts are the polar opposite of that, so of course he
| failed utterly there. His normal modus operandi of
| dishonesty is something judges are there to destroy.
| colorboy wrote:
| Isn't it what China does Ban speech in fear of violent atmosphere
| minusSeven wrote:
| It's 2 weeks not indefinitely, not the same thing at all.
| karl11 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| It's the "first they came for the.." poem.
| hhkb wrote:
| I love how all these social media companies are dumping Trump
| AFTER they made money off of him. This is capitalism.
| diveanon wrote:
| 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.
| paganel wrote:
| What a travesty, this is f*ing rich coming from a guy who wanted
| to have Xi Jinping as a godfather.
| alea_iacta_est wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| >Hiding the thermometer doesn't make the fever go away.
|
| Removing a constant toxic input helps cure the patient.
| alea_iacta_est wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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.
| tasty_freeze wrote:
| 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.
| throwawaysea wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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.
| tonetheman wrote:
| Boy that is going to cut into their ad money for a bit...
| etwigg wrote:
| 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.
| pbreit wrote:
| Censorship is pretty much never the right solution. And this is
| indeed censorship.
| [deleted]
| textech wrote:
| 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.
| iNic wrote:
| 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)
| textech wrote:
| Network effect is pretty strong and although these platforms
| can easily be replicated, it's just not easy to get masses to
| adopt a new platform. I'm afraid that just like the
| traditional news media this could lead to a society where
| these companies could decide what people get to see and read.
| zmmmmm wrote:
| It doesn't appear to me that their rationale for this is based
| on a judgement about truthfulness of anything. It is purely
| based on (in their words):
|
| > we judged that their effect -- and likely their intent --
| would be to provoke further violence
| esoterica wrote:
| They own the servers and have the right to act like arbiters of
| truth on their own private property.
| cycrutchfield wrote:
| 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.
| textech wrote:
| 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.
| tortasaur wrote:
| The parent comment didn't say they couldn't, it said they
| shouldn't.
| Thuggery wrote:
| >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.
| th0ma5 wrote:
| 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.
| collyw wrote:
| You clearly don't get the point of free speech.
| [deleted]
| stouset wrote:
| Not only is Trump shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater, but
| he's been inviting crowds of people to theaters virtually for
| the sole purpose of doing so.
| protonimitate wrote:
| The "slippery slope" / "free speech" arguments are boring, and
| come into play almost anytime Facebook gets mentioned on HN.
|
| "Slippery slope" is also most commonly a _fallacy_ , which a
| lot of people seem to ignore.
|
| > the fallacy of arguing that a certain course of action is
| undesirable or that a certain proposition is implausible
| because it leads to an undesirable or implausible conclusion
| via a series of tenuously connected premises [1]
|
| Anyone arguing these points, especially related to Facebook,
| are arguing just for the sake of it. Playing devil's advocate
| is not a noble cause, and doesn't really add anything to the
| discussion at large.
|
| [1] https://www.britannica.com/topic/slippery-slope-argument
| [1]
| ineedasername wrote:
| Slippery slope arguments only retain validity of each link in
| the chain is demonstrably probably.
|
| Even then, for something like resisting dangerous speech,
| what does the slope matter? If the original thing is good to
| do, don't worry about the slippery slope, just make the right
| decision. _Then_ of it goes to far and you 're on the edge of
| a slope, _that 's_ where you fight.
|
| If guidelines about violent speech are abused, then fight to
| fix it. Don't avoid the correct decision just because doing
| it right will be hard work.
| jennyyang wrote:
| "We need to stop any speech that we think is wrong!"
|
| Well, what if the definition of "we" changes? What if you
| become the minority and the majority wants your speech
| limited?
|
| The only reason why we have things like gay rights, women's
| rights, civil rights, etc, is exactly because of free
| speech. The speech at that time were the minority but were
| protected by the Constitution.
|
| If we don't respect the rights of those that we disagree
| with, when (not if) they come into power, they will use
| those same rights to quash our free speech. And remember
| that almost half of the US voted for Trump who is
| demonstrably the worst president in US history. If there is
| a smarter, more palatable right-wing candidate (ex. Tom
| Cotton, etc), we really could see a Republican president in
| office by 2024. And they would use that hammer that the
| left have been trying to use to quash that free speech.
|
| We have the Constitution and Free Speech for a reason. And
| it has worked for centuries now.
| ineedasername wrote:
| Again, you're talking about what might happen. If
| something goes wrong you address the problem. Your
| argument could be applied to any law: "We can't let towns
| and counties and states to set speeding limits! If they
| do, the next thing you know they'll limit things to 40
| mph, and after a while 30 mph. And poof! One day you'll
| wake up and over 5 mph would get you a speeding ticket!"
| merpnderp wrote:
| Because it is so easy to stop the government from doing
| absurd things once it gets the power to do them? Like
| kicking in a door guns ablazing because someone might have
| smelled weed? Yeah, we stopped that the first time it
| happened, didn't we...
| ineedasername wrote:
| Literally any thing the government might have authority
| over or acknowledge as a freedom could have things get
| absurd. So the argument that it might get absurd doesn't
| mean the thing is wrong. It just means that, likely any
| action, there's potential for consequences, and you deal
| with them.
|
| You don't back down from a good thing just because it
| might be hard to implement. So then it just comes down to
| whether you think removing speech that incites violence
| is a good think or not. If you think it's good in itself
| but could be abused so maybe not do it? No, you do it and
| deal with the hard questions that come along every time
| you make those decisions.
| nostromo wrote:
| This internet cliche whereby someone in a debate circle
| declares something a formal fallacy, and then a million
| internet commenters turn it into a meme, should stop.
|
| Slippery slopes can be shown throughout history. Trump
| himself has put us on a slippery slope it seems. No, it
| doesn't matter that some college debate class student
| included it on a list of debate fallacies on Reddit. It's an
| idiom to succinctly describe a chain of causality.
| jeremyjh wrote:
| The point is not that one thing never leads to another in
| this way, but that the possibility of a _future_ slippery
| slope doesn 't support an argument by itself.
| hndudette2 wrote:
| It is absolutely not a fallacy, as Naval Ravikant points
| out, given the large numbers of slippery slopes that have
| played out in the historical record. I have no idea why the
| belief that it is a logical fallacy is so widespread.
| protonimitate wrote:
| > It's an idiom to succinctly describe a chain of
| causality.
|
| Right, and the fallacy is that it's being pre-attributed to
| a sequence of events that hasn't happened yet.
|
| Again, it's a boring argument and adds nothing to the
| discussion.
| forrestthewoods wrote:
| Your logical fallacy is the "fallacy fallacy".
|
| You presumed that because a claim has been poorly argued, or
| a fallacy has been made, that the claim itself must be wrong.
|
| https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/the-fallacy-fallacy
| dionidium wrote:
| > _" Slippery slope" is also most commonly a fallacy, which a
| lot of people seem to ignore._
|
| I don't ignore it. I reject it outright. Politics especially
| (and human behavior, more generally) operates on slopes.
| Allowing _x_ quite literally can and does often lead to _x +
| 1_. If _x + 1_ is unacceptable, then it 's perfectly
| legitimate to oppose _x_ on the grounds that it will produce
| _x + 1_ (even if we all could agree that _x_ is itself
| acceptable).
|
| The fallacy, such that it exists, is that the truth value of
| _x_ exists independent of whether it will lead to _x + 1_.
| You can 't disprove something about _x_ by arguing that it
| will produce _x + 1_. That 's all well and good, but it's not
| what anybody's talking about when they invoke a slippery
| slope argument in the context of human systems.
| suyash wrote:
| Yes, people are not seeing the big precedent being set here, If
| US President's voice is being shut down, one can only imagine
| how powerful the biased censorship on social media platforms
| is. We either need to find/create alternate platforms or set
| strict rules for everyone and not at the whims/moods of these
| CEO's.
| danaliv wrote:
| This is no longer just the "President's voice" being shut
| down. This is the shutdown of a man who incited a mob to
| attack the US Capitol.
| charia wrote:
| So uh, who's going to be the arbiter of what exactly
| constitutes intolerant or harmful speech? You? Me? Facebook?
| The government? Twitter?
|
| Whoever gets the power to define what's acceptable and not
| acceptable speech is given too much power. You might trust that
| arbiter now, tomorrow, but do you honestly believe their
| incentives will always remain pure?
| tynpeddler wrote:
| That's why actions must be evaluated on a case by case basis.
| This time, I support Facebook, but for other actions I make
| no judgement until I see the facts of the case. That is
| always the challenge of free, democratic societies. Every
| actor, public and private, must always be scrutinized. In the
| 90's, Bill Gates was an unscrupulous monopolist. In 2020,
| he's at the head of several groundbreaking global health
| initiatives that he's personally funding. I can support him
| in one thing while criticizing him for another.
|
| Trump has incited terrorism, he has incited insurrection. The
| importance of his position in the government makes this
| situation even more extreme. This is not a routine situation,
| and if you want to argue there's going to be a slippery
| slope, then you'll need actual pattern of behavior, not just
| this extreme situation. Because if not now, then when? When
| are private parties allowed to say that they're not going to
| support Trump's treasonous behavior?
| jayd16 wrote:
| As was said, this is just a slippery slope argument. Which is
| especially odd considering the platforms already have all the
| power they need. There is no more power to give.
| captain_price7 wrote:
| > There is no more power to give
|
| Ability to censor top level politicians, deciding what
| constitutes acceptable and what needs to be censored is not
| the kind of power they used to have.
|
| Edit: bit clarification
| jayd16 wrote:
| They just did it so I think it certainly was.
| dwaltrip wrote:
| This isn't true. Private entities have never been
| required to distribute messages from US officials or
| politicians. I believe the only exceptions are certain
| emergency broadcasts.
| captain_price7 wrote:
| I wasn't talking strictly about legal ability.
| [deleted]
| dwaltrip wrote:
| I'm not sure what you mean then. What power or abilities
| have changed?
| three_seagrass wrote:
| Yep. The comment presumes that there is a need to delegate
| power to a single arbiter (there isn't).
| danaris wrote:
| The government makes rules laying out the worst extremes: for
| instance, no direct incitement to violence.
|
| Facebook makes rules for what, _above and beyond that_ , is
| not allowed on Facebook.
|
| Twitter makes rules for what, above and beyond the
| government's rules, is not allowed on Twitter.
|
| This... _really_ isn 't hard.
| newacct583 wrote:
| > for instance, no direct incitement to violence
|
| It's worth pointing out that Trump's videos yesterday --
| praising the people who had just attacked and sacked the
| Capitol Building during a joint session of congress and
| conspicuously refusing to demand they leave -- were
| probably legally an incitement to violence regardless.
| Certainly normal prosecutors could get convictions on that
| sort of thing[1] in normal courts. The only reason it seems
| gray is because the speaker is the President.
|
| [1] Remember that in context they were at the capitol
| because Trump himself, in person, had directed they march
| there just an hour before. I mean, really, that's pretty
| open-and-shut as far as mens rea.
| Spivak wrote:
| I'm always confused by this opinion because this applies to
| literally every single instance where collective decision
| making is required or desired.
|
| Who gets to decide how much we pay in taxes? You? Me? The
| Government? Bloomberg?
|
| Like if you think deciding what constitutes hate speech is
| too much power then the people who decide the conditions
| someone is locked up must be gods.
| theanzelm wrote:
| Thank you, this is the cleanest deconstruction of this
| argument I've ever seen.
|
| I think the fundamental misconception is that speech
| "cannot infringe other's freedoms" like physical actions
| can, so no tradeoffs of individual's freedoms have to be
| collectively decided for speech.
|
| The idea of words propagating beliefs, drowning out others
| and inciting actions is just subtle enough to weasel out of
| whenever convenient in this world view.
| wussboy wrote:
| I think part of the problem as well is that "free speech"
| has been elevated from "desirable" to "the greatest good".
| It is good. It is not the greatest good. It does not
| surprise me to see people involved in Internet
| communications/social networking trumpeting free speech as
| the greatest good since these communication channels depend
| on us not restricting free speech to a more reasonable
| place in our society.
| dionian wrote:
| Bingo. It may be tempting to take control of speech and think
| it wont backfire against you one day, but it will
| ericraio wrote:
| I don't think any of this is a good idea but I propose that
| they create a blockchain voting system for policies on their
| platform like this.
| dionian wrote:
| Yeah right. Stakeholders and investors wouldn't approve of
| such democracy on their platform.
| newacct583 wrote:
| > who's going to be the arbiter of what exactly constitutes
| intolerant or harmful speech?
|
| Someone needs to do it, though. You don't get free license to
| incite violence anywhere, and no one thinks that's a good
| idea. You can't do it here on HN. You can't do it on Reddit.
| Why should you be able to do it on Facebook?
|
| Now, sure, there's a question as to whether Trump's posts
| yesterday went quite as far as you think they'd need to be
| considered "inciting violence". But that's a judgement call.
| You don't want Facebook carrying a call to attack congress,
| you just think that's not what Trump did.
|
| But _if_ there is a call for a mob to sack the seat of
| government and attack a joint session of congress, I think we
| all agree that Facebook should be allowed to censor the fuck
| out of that.
| whichquestion wrote:
| Facebook, the government, twitter, they all already arbitrate
| what speech is/isn't protected. In the case of
| twitter/facebook, it's the digital public square and the
| government is in the physical public square, for now.
|
| One problem with this is that people do not have as much
| potential recourse through Facebook and Twitter as they might
| through the courts.
|
| The penalties are different too. You might be facing a ban
| from Fb/twitter instead of prison time/fines from the courts.
|
| Having skepticism in the arbiters of what is/isn't protected
| speech is critical. We should be skeptical of them and
| challenge them if we think they are wrong. Organizations,
| like the ACLU, exist for this reason, to protect our rights.
| klank wrote:
| The problem I see with that line of argument is that it
| basically means you're arguing we can't do anything about it
| and just have to accept whatever actions people take
| regardless of the impacts of those actions.
|
| It reads to me like "it's hard, so let us just do nothing".
| djsumdog wrote:
| Why not just stop pretending human beings are too stupid to
| decide for themselves?
|
| "Oh but this speech is dangerous!" fucking. Bull. Shit.
|
| The moment you start to curtail speech and ideas, you are
| making a decision on what is and is not true. Fuck that
| noise.
|
| We are literally getting into the world if 1984 style
| though crime. The America I grew up in was not afraid of
| ideas.
| mikkergp wrote:
| I mean, Facebook just suspended Trump, so it seems like we
| are doing something, we're just arguing about where the
| lines should be. I don't think it's wrong to note that
| revolutionary ideas both good and bad come from the fringes
| and that some consequential positive influences might be
| deplatformed in the future. This is one of the few times in
| history the "good guys" have had the power to control the
| narrative. We should acknowledge that.
| BoorishBears wrote:
| Many comments are arguing saying this already crossed the
| line and that FB are not the good guys here.
|
| There are (or were) comments on this page with people
| saying they deleted their Facebook accounts over this.
|
| Of course I disagree and find it hilariously ironic that
| _this_ would be the straw that broke the camel 's back,
| but that's just me.
| TheOtherHobbes wrote:
| Incitement to violent insurrection seems like a pretty
| clear example of "too far." So is peddling provable lies to
| extremists which are easily linked to terrorist acts.
|
| Ultimately you either think domestic terrorism is fine or
| you don't. I don't see a case for the media wilfully and
| knowingly misleading people and inciting violence.
| linuxftw wrote:
| If this was true, then prosecute for incitement to
| violent insurrection which is already a crime. We already
| have the means to police unlawful speech, censorship need
| not be one of them.
| ModernMech wrote:
| But the person inciting the insurrection is the President
| of the United States. He can't be prosecuted.
| linuxftw wrote:
| That's untrue. He can easily be impeached, removed, and
| then prosecuted.
| artificialLimbs wrote:
| Words != actions. Equating actions individuals take to the
| words they say is dangerous.
|
| We already have laws regarding inciting violence, and as
| far as I can tell, they work fairly well.
|
| Do you have a better proposal?
| hairytrog wrote:
| That's right. You have to have a society with enough moral
| fiber that it self-polices and restrains itself almost down
| to the individual level.
| jayd16 wrote:
| When even downvotes are considered censorship what form
| of self policing society can exist?
| jschwartzi wrote:
| Sure, but you seem to be implying that government has no
| place in how we self-police and restrain ourselves.
| Nothing could be further from the truth.
|
| Government is not an external entity which subjugates us,
| it is the tool by which we settle our grievances with
| each other without beating each other to death with
| rocks. To facilitate that, we give government the
| exclusive right to police us. And I would argue part of
| that duty extends to ensuring that the populace is
| informed and aware of the facts of the situation.
|
| In our rush to condemn the reprehensible aspects of
| government we have lost sight of the goal, which is to
| promote civil society and respect for our fellow man.
| kube-system wrote:
| These aren't difficult questions, nor are they new questions
| that our country hasn't answered before.
|
| The government is the ultimate arbiter of speech in the US,
| and their actions are limited by the 1st amendment as
| interpreted and implemented by our judiciary and legislatures
| respectively.
|
| When groups gather on private property, we respect the
| property rights of those who own it.
| mrlala wrote:
| Why does Facebook owe anyone a voice?
|
| If you want a 'voice' then the GOVERNMENT should make a social
| media platform in which NO ONE at all can be censured. Because
| your silly free speech argument doesn't have anything to do
| with private companies, although you already knew that, but
| conveniently ignore it.
|
| If Trump decides to start posting on HN, does HN owe him a
| voice?
|
| You are the one making slippery slope arguments, not the other
| way around.
| throwawaysea wrote:
| The problem is that companies like Facebook and Twitter are
| already operating like the public town square. They are so
| big that they have greater influence and reach than virtually
| all countries, in a product space that is highly dependent on
| network effects. They are, for all intents and purposes, a
| public utility. And they should be held accordingly to the
| standards - namely that they cannot censor content, in
| support of free speech principles.
| josephagoss wrote:
| I think you and the op are in agreement...
| dionian wrote:
| For example, saying we should march on congress and 'cheer on'
| congress?
|
| The problem is you will brand anything you dont like as
| intolerant or hate, and might makes right!
| T-hawk wrote:
| The problem with prohibiting hate speech is that you can
| prohibit _any_ speech by calling it hate.
| wussboy wrote:
| Sure. But this is not the only issue in human experience
| where nuance or subtlety may be required, and we seem to have
| navigated many of those other issues okay.
|
| I do not believe this sort of dichotomous thinking is useful.
| notahacker wrote:
| You can prohibit any speech by calling it obscenity, adult
| content or spam, but for some reason people are much more
| willing to argue for special privileges for hate...
| dwaltrip wrote:
| People can handle nuance. The world isn't black and white.
| SV_BubbleTime wrote:
| > ignore the obvious problem which is that some speech
| shouldn't be tolerated
|
| We must embrace intolerance to snuff out intolerance?
| htsh wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
| TheJazi13 wrote:
| Yes, it's really not complicated.
| jturpin wrote:
| Freedom of speech is important enough to where the logic of
| disallowing shouting fire in a theater should not be taken for
| granted. There are few if any black and white cases to be had
| here - it might seem like that since we are living in times
| where "reasonable" speech has always been well tolerated and
| supported, so it seems like a non-issue for us.
| linuxftw wrote:
| The fire analogy is flawed. Nobody is preventing you from
| shouting fire. If you shout fire and there is not one, you
| may be prosecuted. This is important because it requires a
| demonstration of actual harm (not 'my feelings').
| rndgermandude wrote:
| >some speech shouldn't be tolerated
|
| I agree that some speech shouldn't be tolerated. But it cannot
| be Zuckerberg, or Trump, or Biden, or you, or me, who
| unilaterally decides what speech is fine, and what speech is
| banned.
| austincheney wrote:
| > Especially intolerant or harmful speech.
|
| That is far too vague.
| esoterica wrote:
| The argument about whether it's legal to yell fire in. a
| theater isn't even relevant because it's the theater who's
| kicking you out and banning you, not the government. Of course
| they have the right to do that, regardless of your
| interpretation of the first amendment.
| null0ranje wrote:
| The argument is not whether or not the theater owner can kick
| you out. The argument is whether the government can also
| criminalize the behavior.
| matz1 wrote:
| > which is that some speech shouldn't be tolerated
|
| who get to decide what should/shouln't be tolerated ?
| harmful/harmful ? facebook ?
| Fnoord wrote:
| Yup, Facebook decides about that.. on Facebook. Its only
| censorship if/when the government restricts freedom of
| speech, and it wass never absolute to begin with.
| [deleted]
| ianai wrote:
| If it matters what "speech" exists on a platform then that
| platform probably has gotten too big for societal good. Ie it
| doesn't matter what balls or strikes they call. Just leave
| the platform if you disagree with it and go with a
| competitor. If you can't do that then we're in monopoly power
| situation. Break em up.
|
| The only speech assured by the constitution is from your
| literal mouth. Anything else is not free speech.
| bzbarsky wrote:
| > The only speech assured by the constitution is from your
| literal mouth
|
| Even if you are going to narrowly interpret freedom of
| speech as "constitutionally protected rights only", the US
| Constitution explicitly says: Congress
| shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of
| speech, or of the press; or the right of the people
| peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for
| a redress of grievances.
|
| "of the press" is not "from your literal mouth", pretty
| much by definition. So please, let's not misrepresent what
| the constitutional right is about, even if we debate what
| "of the press" means in today's technology and media
| environment.
| lambda_obrien wrote:
| The newspaper doesn't have to publish your letters and
| neither does facebook or twitter. Feel free, as in free
| speech, to setup your own website.
| bzbarsky wrote:
| I did not imply that a newspaper or facebook or twitter
| have to do anything.
|
| That said, if you want to read things into what I said
| and actually have this conversation, does my hosting
| provider have to host my website? Does their ISP have to
| not cut them off if they do? Under a narrow reading of
| "free speech" as "stuff protected by the First
| Amendment", obviously not (unless the ISP is run by a
| government entity, of course). Under a reading of "free
| speech" as "the ability of society to not have entities
| with overwhelming power (governments, but not only them)
| suppress speech they don't like", the situation becomes
| more complicated.
|
| And I would argue that a narrow legalistic focus on the
| First Amendment is not the right way to approach the
| problem. The First Amendment is a means to an end, not an
| end to itself. For an 18th century analogy, if a private
| company has the power to go around destroying all
| printing presses that don't belong to them and refuses to
| print views it disagrees with, that is just as much a
| problem for free speech as if the government were doing
| it. This was just not a realistic scenario in 18th
| century North America (unlike, say, contemporaneous
| India), so wasn't a big concern for the framers of the
| First Amendment.
|
| Is this a scenario we have to worry about now? It's not
| clear to me that it's an imminent problem right now, but
| I can easily see it becoming one in the next 10-15 years.
| Might be worth thinking about norms (and laws, as needed)
| now so we're not playing catch-up when it does.
|
| None of that has anything to do with the factually
| inaccurate claim about the narrow constitutional right
| that was made in
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25673573
| lambda_obrien wrote:
| I believe in free speech, I spent 10 years in the
| military trying to defend it, but I also believe that the
| President caused this invasion of Congress with his
| constant disinformation and lies, so this is fine with
| me. Next time, I may think it's overreach.
|
| I don't think we'll agree there, so I won't argue
| further.
|
| Edit: It's going to be a big job to reconcile this
| country and get people working together again, I hope you
| don't take this as an assault, I just don't feel like
| arguing today, but I appreciate your thoughts.
| bzbarsky wrote:
| First of all, thank you for your service!
|
| I am absolutely not taking your comments as an assault,
| and I suspect we largely agree on specific cases.
|
| And specifically, taking down explicit incitement to
| violent illegal actions by someone already in a position
| of power does not seem at all unreasonable to me; I can
| see very little redeeming value in such. Also reasonable
| is a basic "cooling off" period of "we're not letting you
| post anymore for a bit, until people calm down".
|
| And I fully agree that there is a long job of getting
| people to talk to each other, much less be on the same
| page ahead of us. I hope we succeed at it. Facebook and
| the like are not going to be helping much with it,
| unfortunately, because outrage is just so monetizable..
| Taurenking wrote:
| Sure, only to have each and every company disavow
| services from said "own website" when _they_ feel like
| it.
|
| The "build your own x" argument doesn't take into account
| that as technology evolves not everyone has the
| means/skills to "build" their digital public town square,
| hence why the existing once ought to be regulated by
| governments once they get too big.
| lambda_obrien wrote:
| A hundred years ago, no one could own their own press,
| today I can print a thousand flyers in a few minutes.
| Technology evolves.
| ianai wrote:
| I feel like the "right to a personal webpage" comes
| sometime after the point where people agree basic
| shelter, food, and water are a basic human right.
| [deleted]
| Spivak wrote:
| _We do_. You act like collective decision making is
| impossible while living in a democracy based on it.
|
| Who gets to decide our taxes, criminal code, safety
| regulations, or election rules?
| matz1 wrote:
| > Who gets to decide our taxes, criminal code, safety
| regulations, or election rules?
|
| Whoever have the stronger power/influence.
| svara wrote:
| And that's where you've checked out of the political
| philosophy that built the modern world. You should feel
| right at home living under the Chinese communist party?
|
| Cynicism can really lead you astray as your comment
| proves.
| matz1 wrote:
| >political philosophy that built the modern world
|
| Can you explain this and how that contradict my statement
|
| >You should feel right at home living under the Chinese
| communist party?
|
| I don't feel right at home about it but it doesn't
| contradict my statement
|
| Chinese communist party get to decide the rule because
| they are currently the one who have stronger
| power/influence, this is has nothing to do with how I
| feel.
| minimaxir wrote:
| "Inciting a coup" is a pretty unambiguous bar for harmful
| speech.
| throwawaysea wrote:
| Can you share a specific piece of evidence where Trump is
| inciting a coup?
| danhak wrote:
| 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?
| PaulDavisThe1st wrote:
| Here's the thing.
|
| If you have an expectation that every event in history is
| accompanied by the instigators writing/saying "Let's all
| go do an X" (where X might be "coup" or "revolution" or
| whatever), you're going to be disappointed.
|
| Most often, it's only historical hindsight that forms the
| narrative in which "X said Y which led to Z".
|
| If you're somewhat sympathetic towards Trump, then likely
| only utterly unambiguous language - "So listen up
| everyone, I want you, in fact I order you, to go to the
| Capitol, get inside, prevent the certification from
| taking place, by any means necessary, including violence"
| - would convince you that he had incited a coup (and
| perhaps not even that).
|
| Out in the real world, few people speak in such
| unambiguous ways even if their goals are clear. That's
| why we often need trials to establish whether or not
| certain language had intent A or intent B, because the
| language used was not unambiguous (often deliberately
| so).
| stevenhubertron wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| Apparently not, in this thread alone, there is plenty of
| people who disagree let alone harmful.
| actusual wrote:
| well...yes, facebook gets to decide. It's their platform
| after all. They have a responsibility to their shareholders,
| not some nebulous definition of "freedom of speech", or the
| American people, or anything else. They are a business
| designed to make money. If they lose advertisers because they
| have given Trump a platform, it is their responsibility (to
| their shareholders) to remove him from the platform.
|
| Build a public option if you want an alternative.
| zzleeper wrote:
| A lot of people over here are very pro-trump, and just use this
| as a way to defend him.
|
| It's the same reason why anything non-tech gets flagged
| nowadays until dang removes protects the threads: they don't
| want to see news attacking their "Dear Leader", so they flag it
| as non-relevant. If it was a story about a democrat doing
| something wrong, I'm pretty sure they won't get flagged as
| quickly.
|
| Dang: would be REALLY interesting to compare who is flagging
| with their comments in these and other threads.
| noctua wrote:
| > the obvious problem which is that some speech shouldn't be
| tolerated... Especially intolerant or harmful speech.
|
| Many people, both anarchists and non-anarchists, would strongly
| disagree with that statement. And not all of those people are
| uneducated edgelords whose main argument is that it's a
| slippery slope.
| guerrilla wrote:
| This isn't really true. You won't be allowed on most
| anarchist servers unless you agree not to be racist, sexist,
| homophobic, etc.
| stouset wrote:
| So you're telling me that these platforms, operated by
| private entities, _do_ have the power to moderate what
| content they allowed to be published?
|
| I find it ironic that the same people who question whether
| or not Facebook should be allowed to do this seemingly have
| no problem with the moderation on Hacker News. Trump's
| account would have been restricted within days here after
| repeated warnings. And yet few seem to question that
| @dang's moderation is precisely how we continue to (mostly)
| have high-level, thoughtful discussion around these topics.
| Fewer still question HN's _right_ to perform moderation in
| general.
|
| And yet when it comes to Donald Trump's calls--from a seat
| of power--to overthrow the results of free, fair, and
| democratic elections so that he can stay in office, we're
| supposed to simply throw our hands up in the air and accept
| it? When he uses thinly-veiled (and sometimes completely
| open) language encouraging his supporters to use violence
| to achieve his goals, we're supposed to accept that there's
| just nothing to be done?
|
| Anyone making this argument should be deeply, deeply
| ashamed.
| noctua wrote:
| I'm not active on any online anarchist servers so I can't
| comment on that. But the anarchists I know in real life, at
| least based on the conversations we've had, support
| absolute free speech.
| slutd wrote:
| as an anarchist, i can explain that none of us support
| government restrictions on speech, and i would like my
| enemies to be as loud as possible so i know who to
| target.
| guerrilla wrote:
| You probably mean so-called libertarians or something. No
| anarchist I know online or in real life accepts hate
| speech in their community.
| noctua wrote:
| No, I've only heard of libertarianism in the context of
| America. The people I know call themselves anarchists. I
| don't have much knowledge about anarchism so I don't know
| if there's different flavors of it. Like I've heard of
| anarcho-communism which must be fundamentally quite
| different. Based on the conversations I've had with them,
| my own understanding was that the idea would be almost
| like Laissez-faire, but even more extreme since there's
| no government at all.
| guerrilla wrote:
| Almost all anarchists around the world would not consider
| those people anarchists. Anarchism is anti-capitalist.
| Please see the history
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism
| glitcher wrote:
| For those who may strongly disagree with that statement, I
| would be curious to hear their counter argument to the
| paradox of tolerance.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
| AnHonestComment wrote:
| How does being intolerant in response help?
|
| This is just a false dichotomy (intolerance or nothing!) to
| justify intolerance as a valid political tactic. But if
| intolerance is valid as a response to intolerance, why
| isn't intolerance acceptable as a general political tool?
|
| You've abandoned principle for the logic equivalent of
| Three Card Monty.
|
| tl;dr: The "paradox" isn't, it's just a false dichotomy.
| noctua wrote:
| I don't support free speech myself, but I guess it would be
| that the whole premise is wrong. To think he's right you
| need to believe that certain speech leads to violence or
| hatred and that trying to suppress that speech prevents
| violence and hatred. And even if speech can lead to
| violence and hatred, some could argue that it's not enough
| to justify taking away someone's individual freedoms. Like
| how someone not being able to responsibly drink alcohol
| isn't a good justification to take away my right to drink
| it. If you commit violence because of intoxication, you'll
| get punished for the violence. But it's not a good reason
| to take away my right to drink alcohol.
| spanktheuser wrote:
| I don't think you should be speaking for anarchists unless
| you are one yourself & embedded in that community. As a non-
| anarchist who is sometimes in coalition with them on certain
| issues I have a very different impression of their view on
| this matter. I don't think you can claim their support for
| your slippery slope / free speech absolutist position.
| noctua wrote:
| As I replied to another comment, I'm not active on any
| anarchist servers, but I know many anarchists in real life.
| The notion I've gotten from them is that they support
| absolute free speech. Maybe they're an exception. Maybe
| it's an Eastern European thing. I don't know. I don't
| support absolute free speech myself. I just took issue with
| the statement that it's obvious that some speech needs to
| be censored, because I know some very educated intelligent
| people who disagree with it.
| ceilingcorner wrote:
| 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.
| liotier wrote:
| Eleventh-hour posturing - Zuckerberg knows which way the wind has
| turned.
| m000 wrote:
| 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.
| throwaway4good wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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.
| cabaalis wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| > Destruction of property is an inconvenience.
|
| You never have been poor, have you?
| makomk wrote:
| 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.
| uncoder0 wrote:
| https://www.instagram.com/khamenei.en/
| razius wrote:
| Ironic, right?
| jtdev wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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.
| known wrote:
| Trump's legacy--the shame and the opportunity
| https://archive.is/0KxLJ
| sparker72678 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| Fuck off Mark.
| adamsea wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| To make the decision on who is allowed to post on their
| website?
| adamsea wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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.
| nova22033 wrote:
| He was elected to be the CEO by the FB board of directors.
| Want a say? Buy enough FB shares.
| adamsea wrote:
| 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.
| cultus wrote:
| I thought right-wingers respected private property rights?
| Surely you don't hold contradictory and illogical opinions,
| because the right also prides itself on "facts" and "logic?"
| Is this not true?
| jmull wrote:
| 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.
| kolbe wrote:
| 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.
| zionic wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| > only after it's too late to make a difference.
|
| I think you underestimate how much damage he can still do
| tunesmith wrote:
| 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.
| lkxijlewlf wrote:
| >... 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.
| slim wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| > _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.
| CarelessExpert wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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.
| jmull wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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.
| q3k wrote:
| > You must log in to continue.
| adewinter wrote:
| Click "not now" and you don't have to.
| q3k wrote:
| No such button available here.
| adewinter wrote:
| It's not a button it's a text link (probably grey/hard to
| see) at the bottom of the dialogue
| q3k wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| I don't have an account and could read the post, no problem.
| JosephRedfern wrote:
| I was able to read it once, but subsequent re-visits try and
| force me to log in (I don't have an account).
| xbar wrote:
| 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.
| faitswulff wrote:
| Anyone with a modicum of sense has been saying this should happen
| for years now.
| signal11 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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.
| technofiend wrote:
| 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.
| starik36 wrote:
| You can't be fair when you only blame Fox for fact-free content
| when the same fact-free content(just inverted) is peddled by
| all the other mass media outlets. They just cater to a
| different bubble.
| TheOtherHobbes wrote:
| It's very fair. Fox - and its equivalents - are run in a
| knowing and cynical way.
|
| "No reasonable viewer would think Tucker Carlson is news."
| The media barons believe their consumers are idiots, and
| treat them accordingly.
|
| https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/fox-news-lawyer-
| suggest...
|
| You're going to have a hard time finding an equivalent
| statement from the progressive media.
|
| This is about clash of fundamentally incompatible moral
| systems - one in which one group would like to operate
| entirely above the law on the superficial basis of skin
| colour and inherited wealth by appealing to lies and fantasy
| and the basest and most distorted human instincts, and
| another which wants humans, politics, society, business,
| science, and art to be better than that.
| matthewrobertso wrote:
| Rachel Maddow is a direct equivalent.
|
| https://deadline.com/2020/05/rachel-maddow-one-america-
| news-...
| nojito wrote:
| MSNBC doesn't promote their opinion block as News.
|
| How many people know that Fox News's news division only
| has 2 hours of programming a day?
| matthewrobertso wrote:
| I don't watch Maddow regularly nor do I see MSNBC's
| promotion of her show. The only episode I've watched in
| the past few years was the one where she claimed she had
| Trump's tax returns and would be showing them on the
| show. To me, this seemed like opinion media masquerading
| as news media.
| sadgrip wrote:
| I believe the response from a Fox news viewer would be
| "It's not news." It's an opinion segment and all major
| media networks have them as far as I'm aware.
| throwmehaweh wrote:
| CNN is so far away from actual journalism the past four
| years that I'm not sure it could be considered anything
| other than partisan theater, and it is the flagship
| progressive media.
| rrrrrrrrrrrryan wrote:
| > all the other mass media outlets
|
| All? C'mon.
|
| You can make the argument that MSNBC is a mirror of Fox News
| in terms of coddling its viewers, but if you're calling NPR
| or the New York Times "fact-free," you're only betraying your
| own ignorance of journalism standards.
|
| Investigating facts and reporting them clearly is a solved
| problem. There are people who go to universities to study how
| to do this well, then go to work for institutions committed
| to doing this well. Their words should be treated differently
| than the words of some idiot with a Twitter account or a
| personality on an infotainment TV show.
| adolph wrote:
| _Investigating facts and reporting them clearly is a solved
| problem._
|
| Do tell. What is a fact? Is it an assertion that is
| truthful? If something is not asserted is it still a fact?
| Is gravity a fact or an assertion without evidence? Was
| Ptolemy wrong or just complicated?
|
| Who are these people who go to universities and study how
| to investigate facts and report them clearly? Are they the
| in journalism or normal schools? Are they philosophers? Are
| they physics majors?
|
| How much of a fact is bound in the frame of reference or
| context in which it is asserted? Can two nominally opposed
| assertions both be true? Does that make them both facts?
| Can all facts be recorded someplace?
| rrrrrrrrrrrryan wrote:
| We can go down philosophical rabbit holes and end up in
| absurd places where we argue over the definition of
| "truth," but I was obviously making a statement within
| the context of our discussion about reporting the news
| and events of the day.
|
| If it's something you're interested in, nothing's
| stopping you from taking a journalism class or two, and
| after doing so you'd probably look at certain media
| outlets differently.
| adolph wrote:
| You stated "Investigating facts and reporting them
| clearly is a solved problem." Is that a factual
| assertion? What's the evidence?
| evgeniysharapov wrote:
| Mr. Pilate once asked "What is truth?". Even though there
| are various definitions and approaches, I credit Pierce
| and pragmatists with the best one - truth is what we know
| at the end of inquiry/investigation. So, the "end of
| inquiry" being flexible, the truth can change as well,
| and I think, last decade and especially last year can
| attest to that. Something reported as a fact today - may
| not be a fact once we get more information in.
| rayiner wrote:
| > There are people who go to universities to study how to
| do this well, then go to work for institutions committed to
| doing this well.
|
| And a lot of these people have lost their minds. I'm trying
| to explain to my college educated friends right now why
| using "whiteness" as a pejorative is a bad thing. As an
| engineer I've always been skeptical of liberal arts
| education. But I didn't think it would destroy America.
| mpfundstein wrote:
| phew. they really got your brain washed, haven't they?
| mensetmanusman wrote:
| Internal polls of NYT employees show less than 10%
| conservatives.
| bra-ket wrote:
| that 'high standard' apparently allows them to present
| rumors from anonymous sources as facts as long as it fits a
| certain political agenda.
|
| The burden of evidence no longer applies neither with NYT
| not any other heavily biased liberal outlets like WaPo or
| CNN.
| zmmmmm wrote:
| As far as I know, NYT will not report information from
| sources where they cannot establish some kind of
| authenticity. If you don't believe it, try reporting a
| completely anonymous tip to them and see how far you get.
| I will bet you they come back asking you provide some
| kind of further evidence to establish your identity or at
| least that your knowledge is authoritative.
| bra-ket wrote:
| a good example would be Trump' alleged 'suckers and
| losers' comment regarding fallen soldiers.
|
| This was a rumor started by The Atlantic article citing
| 'anonymous sources' which spread and re-broadcasted by
| all news networks and NYT, some of these third-hand
| versions of the rumor claimed additional verification by,
| guess what, another group of 'high-ranked anonymous
| sources', completely ignoring rejection of this
| allegations by everyone who actually attended that
| particular event with the President.
|
| This is the definition of slander which is somehow
| acceptable if you (and your reader base) hate a
| particular person or ideology.
| matthewrobertso wrote:
| If the NYT was fabricating their anonymous tips, like
| parent suggested, why would they publish outside
| anonymous tips? The fact that they don't publish every
| anonymous source doesn't mean that all of their anonymous
| sources have to be real.
| zmmmmm wrote:
| I didn't read their comment as claiming they fabricate
| the sources altogether. However, if you really reduce it
| to that level you have essentially established an
| unverifiable theory that is no different to a conspiracy
| theory. On that basis, the allegation that NYT routinely
| fabricates sources should not be believed either (since
| its from an anonymous source with no way to verify it).
| matthewrobertso wrote:
| I agree, neither the allegation that the nyt fabricates
| its anonymous sources nor the allegations made through
| those anonymous sources should be believed (nor should
| they be believed to be absolutely false). Alternatively,
| anonymous sources are not evidence and cannot be the
| basis of stories that must be trusted, and since the
| times relies often on anonymous sources we can consider
| them to possibly publish rumors without evidence.
| mrguyorama wrote:
| You don't seem to understand what an "anonymous source"
| is
| matthewrobertso wrote:
| Was the new york times factful in its reporting on iraq in
| 2003?
|
| And if they later investigated themselves and found that
| they published information that was not true, would that
| cancel the war pushed on us by the military industrial
| complex across all of our media and bring 500,000 dead
| Iraqis back to life?
| prof-dr-ir wrote:
| Yes, this is a well-rehashed example where the NYT seems
| to have erred. But, poignant as it is, it is also
| increasingly further in the past - people born after some
| of those stories were written are adults now!
|
| I think that giving more recent examples would strengthen
| your argument.
| matthewrobertso wrote:
| Given 18 years and 500,000 dead, the NYT has killed
| roughly 28,000 people per year for the past 18 years.
| Next year this number will drop to around 26,000 people
| per year, and the following year 25,000 people per year.
| In 2043, assuming no more flubs like the one that lead to
| the war in iraq, they will have killed 12,500 people per
| year.
|
| There has been no incident as bad as the reporting that
| lead to the war in Iraq because the US had recognized
| that entering the war was a huge mistake and became
| somewhat resistant to the type of propaganda that lead to
| it.
| prof-dr-ir wrote:
| Yes I was afraid you were going to re-emphasize the
| horrors of the Iraq war. But the thread is about whether
| the NYT can reasonably be called 'fact-free' or not. And
| if all you can come up with are inaccuracies from 17-18
| years ago then I am (sorry to say that I am) simply not
| convinced - horrific as the consequences of those
| inaccuracies may have been.
| matthewrobertso wrote:
| So if the new york times comes out tomorrow and says it
| has found evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iran
| and the country goes to war, will you believe them?
|
| It does not matter if the nyt is usually factful. If they
| can be subverted by powerful interests to push an agenda,
| they are not trustworthy.
|
| OP also contains: "Investigating facts and reporting them
| clearly is a solved problem."
| prof-dr-ir wrote:
| I rest my case.
| munk-a wrote:
| You are absolutely correct, and no news organization is
| correct all the time - you should strive to consume a
| diversity of sources.
|
| NYT remains one of the more reliably correct news sources
| in the US but they all make mistakes - sometimes
| accidentally sometimes maliciously. Since there are
| humans involved you need to understand the biases the
| news sources have and compensate for that yourself.
| matthewrobertso wrote:
| This is very a reasonable stance, consuming many sources
| is necessary to understand what sides of an issue may
| exist. And news organizations may accidentally report
| incorrect information (hopefully they swiftly retract it
| when they learn differently).
|
| But shouldn't we not continue to consume sources that
| have made malicious mistakes? Even if the maliciousness
| was a bad outside actor feeding incorrect information to
| ethical reporters, isn't it likely that such a source
| will make a malicious mistake again? When the
| consequences are on the scale of directing the country
| into a fraudulent war, how can we ever trust their
| reporting on anything of consequence again?
| munk-a wrote:
| What we're striving for is to consume media sources that
| produce the least number of mistakes when we're reading
| them - the number of past mistakes may be an indicator on
| the likelihood of future mistakes or it may not. I think
| trying to make any strong statements leaning on
| historical data should be carefully weighed.
|
| I can't really answer what the best tactic for weighing
| news sources is since I think that the true measure would
| need to involve observing the reporters and editors
| behind each specific article which isn't really feasible.
| I don't think it's wrong for you to be hesitant about
| trusting NYT, and feel free to never trust an article
| written by Miller - I personally think she's shown a lack
| of care for discovering the truth - but... Eh, balance in
| all things.
| lern_too_spel wrote:
| The New York Times regularly issues corrections and
| itself reported on which sources turned out to be
| untruthful.
| nomel wrote:
| I've been surprised by the frequency of corrections, and
| how difficult it is to find them.
|
| I think a browser extension that alerted you when an
| article you read was corrected would be interesting.
| yawaemworht wrote:
| In the other thread, somebody brought up the fact that
| the problem with fake news is that even if somebody fact
| check them, they have already spread and the fact check
| won't get the same attention and coverage.
|
| The thing is, i think the same unfortunately applies to
| journals as of lately. Too many times I've seen articles
| which claims that something "allegedly" or "supposedly"
| happened, or that "anonymous source informed on the
| matter" claims. Then the article gets either a silent
| edit, or get a retraction hidden somewhere in another
| news.
|
| After I've been burned by that a few times, sending
| something to a friend who read my message after several
| hours, opened the article i linked, and wondered what the
| hell I was talking about, I started sending them archived
| versions.
|
| What I'm trying to say is that even thought some journals
| issue corrections, sometimes that's not enought to cover
| the damage done.
| starik36 wrote:
| There are degrees of "coddling", as you put it. Granted NYT
| isn't as egregious as CNN or MSNBC, but they definitely
| have a strong bias, as exemplified by their "revolt":
| https://www.vox.com/2020/6/5/21280425/new-york-times-tom-
| cot...
|
| This is just one example.
| lokar wrote:
| FWIW, there is bias in NPR/PBS/NYT/etc, but it is not in
| the content of the reports, but rather in what is reported.
|
| Any news org can only cover so much, there is an
| (editorial) call on what to cover and what not to cover.
| And in that (I've seen studies years go, so not handy)
| there is a detectable bias.
|
| IMO this is fine. I understand that story selection has
| editorial bias, even in news reporting. I compensate by
| reading several different sources that have different
| editorial slants, but still fact based reporting.
| rrrrrrrrrrrryan wrote:
| Yes, absolutely. I subscribe to both the Wall Street
| Journal and the New York Times precisely because they
| report different stories.
| JKCalhoun wrote:
| So there is no truth at all?
| misanthropic wrote:
| there never was
| leadingthenet wrote:
| not in the absolute sense of the word, no.
| oivey wrote:
| That's a pretty false equivalence. To cite the most recently
| example, Fox repeatedly propagating Trump's lies about the
| election has no analog on the left.
| throwaways885 wrote:
| What about Trump/Russia collusion?
| oivey wrote:
| One of Trump's children perjured themselves to lie about
| the purposes of a meeting with a Russian lawyer (later
| proven to be for Clinton dirt), his campaign manager was
| convicted for laundering money with Russia connected
| people, an advisor was convicted for coordinating with
| WikiLeaks, and some lower level campaign staffers were
| convicted for more improper connections with Russians.
| There wasn't enough proof to say whether Trump personally
| knew about these things, but the alternative where he is
| clueless isn't exactly a good look, either.
|
| All of those things were proven in court. Not one of
| Trump's barrage of election lawsuits has gained any
| traction at all. They are very much not the same.
| lokar wrote:
| The fact/news reporting from the NYT and others on that
| story was in fact all correct. It was really just
| "process reporting", telling us what was going on (who
| the FBI was talking to, who said what, what got leaked,
| etc). They did not draw conclusions.
|
| Over in the editorial section there were people trying to
| stitch that all into a vast conspiracy that was in the
| end not proven out. But that's what editorial is about.
| rayiner wrote:
| Do you not understand how what's going on in the
| editorial section colors peoples' views of whether they
| can trust the paper?
| waldoh wrote:
| For people who cream themselves over good documentation,
| why are there so ma y people who refuse to read the
| mueller report? It's not that long.
|
| Who am I kidding, we all know the answer is that you
| think by ignoring the facts insulates you from realizing
| the republican party and their leader colluded with a
| foreign adversary to influence the election
| disgruntledphd2 wrote:
| I dunno if there was actual collusion, but it was
| definitely shady as all hell. I do think this was a case
| where the cover-up was worse than the crime.
| ModernMech wrote:
| Trump claimed his campaign had zero contacts with Russia
| and no business deals in Russia. Turns out his campaign
| had hundreds of contacts with Russia and Trump was
| planning to build a tower in Moscow with a penthouse gift
| for Vladimir Putin. Source: Volume 1 of the Mueller
| Report
|
| Trump's son, son in law, and campaign manager met with a
| convicted Russian spy at Trump's house to discuss a trade
| of damaging information on Hillary Clinton in return to
| relaxed relations between the two nations in the form of
| repeal of the Magnitsky Act. Trump lied that this ever
| happened and tried to create a cover story which was
| blown apart. Source: Volume 1 of the Mueller Report
|
| Trump's campaign manager met with a Russian intelligence
| officer and exchanged internal Trump campaign data which
| is presumed to have been transferred to the FSB. Source:
| Senate Committee on Intelligence of Russian Active
| Measures Campaigns and Interference
|
| Russian interference in the 2016 election was "sweeping
| and systemic." Major attack avenues included a social
| media "information warfare" campaign that "favored"
| candidate Trump and the hacking of Clinton campaign-
| related databases and release of stolen materials through
| Russian-created entities and Wikileaks. Russia also
| targeted databases in many states related to
| administering elections gaining access to information for
| millions of registered voters Source: Volume 1 of the
| Mueller Report
|
| The Mueller team was unable to establish a before-the-
| fact criminal conspiracy between the Trump campaign and
| Russia. The Mueller report includes a whole second
| chapter dealing with obstruction from the President and
| his allies, which included lying (by the President
| himself), witness tampering, interfering with principle
| investigators, and destroying evidence.
|
| And what did Democrats do with all of this? Did they
| storm the capital? Did they even impeach the President
| for any of this? There was literally no response what.
| so. ever.
|
| Oh, and during all of this the President promised pardons
| for those who would obstruct the investigation, such as
| Paul Manafort, who was literally meeting with a Russian
| Intel Officer and handing him Trump campaign data. If
| that is not collusion, what is? And then Trump pardoned
| him. So more obstruction on top of it all.
| jdkee wrote:
| Donald J. Trump was impeached.
|
| https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/18/us/politics/trump-
| impeach...
| adolph wrote:
| For obstructing Congress' investigation into an
| whistleblower complaint that he pressured the president
| of Ukraine to "initiate or continue an investigation into
| the activities of former Vice President Joseph Biden and
| his son, Hunter Biden"
|
| https://www.npr.org/2019/09/26/764071379/read-house-
| intel-re...
| treeman79 wrote:
| Of course it turns out hunter biden has been under
| criminal investigation for awhile.
|
| But democratic controlled media and companies "fact
| checked it" so it was censored everywhere until election
| was over.
| [deleted]
| sagichmal wrote:
| > What about Trump/Russia collusion?
|
| You mean the thing that several people were tried and
| found guilty of?
| Dirlewanger wrote:
| Matt Taibbi talks about all this in his book Hate Inc. The 24/7
| news networks needed new stuff to sell since the USSR was out.
| Turns out just general outrage at every little thing works
| good.
| rconti wrote:
| I noticed this last night. I mostly watch local news, but I
| put on CNN during the voting last night, and while the BBC
| was sorta talking over the voting going on in the background,
| CNN gave up on it entirely and it was just 5 people spouting
| outrage.
|
| Even when it's outrage I agree with, it angers me.
| jschwartzi wrote:
| And indeed who voted and who spoke and how they spoke was
| far more consequential to our country than hot air from 5
| random commentators. I was watching PBS NewsHour and saw
| people like Representative Cawthorn give very calculated
| speeches that were very disturbing if you read between the
| lines.
| InitialLastName wrote:
| This is why I spent the night watching the C-SPAN
| streams, where they prioritized (and seem to always do)
| live footage, both of the debates and the chaos. They
| also spent most of the rest of the time taking phone
| calls from randos on a public line, and the views
| expressed in those calls really illuminated the breadth
| of public opinion at the moment (obviously with selection
| bias of who felt inclined to call in).
|
| Down the line, I can read other people's thoughtful
| analysis of what people said and how people voted and
| evaluate it in the context of having seen it live, rather
| than from having heard Michael Barbaro's quick-cut
| package in the morning.
| technofiend wrote:
| Oh, thanks. I'll put that book on the to-read pile.
| olivermarks wrote:
| I rate everything Taibbi writes and says very highly, his
| substack is very of the moment, informed and perceptive.
|
| Regarding Facebook indefinitely suspending Trump, #bigTech
| can modulate exposure of politicians and aspects of their
| personalities and platform positions highly effectively -
| suppressing and amplifying for unknown 'fairness doctrines'
| of their own making.
|
| An example is Gabbard's response to Clinton on Twitter, whose
| 'likes' are modulated down to circa 250k regularly. You can
| 'like' it dozens of times but each time you return your
| 'like' has usually been removed.
|
| https://twitter.com/TulsiGabbard/status/1185289626409406464
|
| The bigger point regardless of whether you approve of Gabbard
| or Clinton - #bigTech is able to amplify or sideline anyone
| as the Trump blackballing illustrates. This is alarmingly
| like the anti communist witch hunts and blackballing in the
| 1950's
| dionian wrote:
| Fox (however detestable you may find it) was created as an
| alternative to the corporate media hegemony on thought, I fear
| you have it backwards.
| DapperZoom wrote:
| Yeah, I definitely agree with this. The corporate media is a
| hive mind of sorts, and look at the unhinged hysteria
| presented on CNN. I'm definitely not a fan of FOX, but during
| the Presidential debate, their panel contained two Biden
| supporters, two Trump supporters, and two never-Trumpers.
| That diversity of opinion was lacking on all of the other
| major networks.
|
| I think we're seeing a sort of religious phenomenon here in
| regards to the corporate media. They're pushing narratives
| everyone know are untrue, but no-one can come out and say it
| publicly due to the religiosity of the mob.
| munificent wrote:
| Fox News was created to have enough control over media to
| prevent a Nixon-like event ever happening to the GOP again.
|
| https://www.businessinsider.com/roger-ailes-blueprint-fox-
| ne...
| munk-a wrote:
| That line summarizing the article you linked isn't
| inaccurate but left out some big chunks of logic. Just to
| clarify the article outlines that Fox News was created to
| prevent something like what Nixon did ever having a
| disastrous effect on the party - rather than preventing
| what Nixon did.
| munificent wrote:
| Sorry, yes, I wrote my comment quickly and poorly. It was
| created to enable GOP politicians to behave like Nixon
| while avoiding the accountability to the truth that Nixon
| was forced to face.
| [deleted]
| AlexandrB wrote:
| As I understand it, Fox News was created as a "junk food"
| alternative to traditional media. By cutting back on
| investigative journalism and focusing on commentary and shows
| like "The O'reilly Factor" Fox could create "news" content
| for less than their competitors. I'm not sure if the apparent
| "right" lean was due to the ownership or to market realities
| that made that kind of content more appealing to right-of-
| center media consumers.
|
| This model has been pretty successful financially and the
| other major media outlets in the US have followed suit
| (though often leaning left instead). I _think_ MSNBC was one
| of the first with the obnoxious melodrama of Keith Olbermann.
| bra-ket wrote:
| Fox is gone though, drown in liberal propaganda just like
| other corporate media. The only alternative now is
| DailyWire with its uncompromising conservative stance.
| olyjohn wrote:
| Is this really what people want in the news? A biased
| political stance?
| nomel wrote:
| Assuming actual investigative journalism here...
|
| Someone once told me that you _need_ bias in the news to
| create an adversarial system. Those that are biased
| towards some other viewpoint will be the only ones that
| dig deep to expose the problems of that other viewpoint.
| If everyone was neutral, there would be more motivation
| to present what happened rather than call foul.
|
| I'm not sure I completely agree with this, but it did
| nudge my perspective.
| CodeWriter23 wrote:
| > Is this really what people want in the news? A biased
| political stance?
|
| When we have a great number of people who say things like
| "but that's from xyz source so it's bunk", without
| examining the underlying facts or lack of facts, I'd have
| to say the answer to your question is Yes.
|
| PS I'm willing to examine news from any source and employ
| discernment.
| DubiousPusher wrote:
| All news is biased. Left, Right, Center is a false
| trichotomy. There is no such thing as objective
| journalism because the news is a filter. Even if one
| reports "just the facts", the facts one decides to report
| impart a bias.
|
| I might report that "a woman is suing McDonalds for
| spilling hot coffee on herself". That is an unbiased
| fact. And it implants a story of runaway litigiousness.
| If I also report that "McDonalds was warned many times
| about the temperature of its coffee and even sure once
| already and the woman sustained 3rd degree burns" the
| story becomes one of corporate malfeasance.
|
| Compound this further. I now state that the woman won
| millions of dollars, you may be tilting back toward over
| litigiousness. But if I report that she only sought
| damages and the jury awarded her punitive damages of its
| own accord the we're back to corporate malfeasance.
| matwood wrote:
| IMO, the largest bias, which you left out, is what story
| is told at all.
| DubiousPusher wrote:
| Absolutely. I can think of no better example than the
| recent moral panic over free speech. Because a few
| college kids on the wokest campuses in the country booted
| a few right-wingers we spent months covering every campus
| invitation as if it was the ratification of the first
| amendment itself. (I'm not saying there are no first
| amendment issues in America but who decided the events of
| a few college campuses were the evidentiary standard for
| a new social phenomena).
| bra-ket wrote:
| when all mainstream news are heavily biased in favor of
| one political party and spread blatant misinformation,
| you need an alternative as a counterbalance and source of
| truth.
|
| the fact people don't even notice, or choose to ignore
| the bias in mainstream media is beyond me.
| hobs wrote:
| Fox News is already amazingly biased and censured world
| wide - claiming you need even worse liars to help you
| feel better about "balance" makes no sense.
| bra-ket wrote:
| Fox is drown in liberal propaganda just like other
| corporate media. The only alternative now is DailyWire
| with its uncompromising conservative stance.
| tomrod wrote:
| This is incorrect. Fox continues to maintain a
| conservative view. DailyWire and similar are radical
| right, which maps fairly cleanly to Nationalism, Fascism,
| and similar.
|
| That's if you are using the commonly received connotation
| of conservative, rather than trying to rewrite reality.
|
| My $0.02.
| bra-ket wrote:
| 'fascism' these days is something you accuse your
| opponent of when you've lost the argument, the word lost
| any meaning due to overuse.
| klyrs wrote:
| What a weird thing to say, only a day after nationalists
| stormed the nation's capitol with the intent to disrupt
| the democratic process in favor of an autocratic
| dictator.
| throwawehh wrote:
| > only a day after nationalists stormed the nation's
| capitol with the intent to disrupt the democratic process
| in favor of an autocratic dictator.
|
| I'm more curious to ask "why" people no longer trust the
| Government?
|
| The real failure is that we've locked down society,
| destroyed the economy, and hastily thrown together an
| election so rife with problems that it's led to an
| environment where millions of people do not trust the
| outcome. The same leaders implementing the lockdowns are
| meanwhile dictating orders from tropical resorts or
| caught breaking their own rules in blatant shows of
| hypocrisy.
|
| The States have not done an adequate job quelling
| election fraud suspicions and as a result the President
| and his supporters no longer believe the result. Can you
| blame them? Is blaming them productive? It fails to
| address the problem and it won't go away. Calling them
| white supremascists, nationalists, fasicsts, racists, and
| the other explicatives that have been used for the past
| four years is only going to further divide this nation
| and have the opposite intended outcome.
|
| Did the media single out and target the people
| supporting, promoting, and engaging in the 3+ months of
| left-wing riots this past summer? Most of the media
| pundits now calling this latest event an insurrection,
| were previously condoning and explaining away "mostly
| peaceful" protests as multiple cities burned, as violent
| agitators stormed the Federal Courthouse in Portland for
| over 100 days, threw bombs, lit fires, burned cars,
| killed people (chop/chaz/portland), and more. And let's
| not pretend that had Trump won the election, Antifa and
| other left-wing groups wouldn't be over a month in of the
| same thing.
|
| The level of hypocrisy and disconnect is so startling
| it's scary. What I see is a total lack of understanding
| across the spectrum, a total failure to acknowledge both
| sides and apply standards consistently and unequivocally,
| a total failure of communication and decency. I'm not
| sure how the country moves in a positive direction.
| tomrod wrote:
| Or, it's a coherent philosophy of corporate ownership of
| the economy directed by government dictate, as it has
| been known since long before your identified method of
| deflection.
| paradox242 wrote:
| > corporate ownership of the economy directed by
| government dictate
|
| Your "explanation" contains a contradiction, so you're
| not off to a great start here. If the economy or
| corporations are directed by government dictate, they
| don't really own anything in a meaningful sense. In this
| arrangement they are more like managers than owners. If
| you disagree, ask yourself if any corporation really has
| another option other to comply if one of their decisions
| is countermanded by the state.
|
| There is a reason it is named after the Fasces, a symbol
| of authority borne by a Lictor through the streets of
| Rome ahead of Tribunes and other officials with authority
| (okay, granted that this term and symbolism is decidedly
| Italian, fascism will always feature symbols distinct to
| each nation). The essence of fascism is power. A fascist
| believes this power comes from unity (another reason the
| Fasces is a chosen symbol, as it contains a bundle of
| sticks that when bound together cannot be easily broken)
| and so the subordination of the individual and every
| institution to state power is the cornerstone of their
| policy.
|
| You seem to misrepresent the primacy of economics in
| fascist ideology, perhaps confusing this with
| Syndicalism, which Mussolini was involved with early in
| his political career. Fascism is something else. While it
| incorporates the subordination of the economy to the
| state, above this it values ethics of action, a
| willingness to commit violence against its enemies,
| courage, and obedience to authority. It is inherently
| anti-democratic, authoritarian and totalitarian. It will
| not tolerate internal rivals or dissent. It always
| features a leader who rules as dictator and to my
| knowledge has never succeeded in a stable transfer of
| power once that leader dies.
|
| It has often been linked to the Romantic period as so
| much of fascist ideology is based on emotion, feeling,
| symbolic mysticism, and the irrational. It's politics can
| be seen as a reaction to the ultra-rational basis from
| which Communism claims to descend.
| bra-ket wrote:
| woah, that's a mouthful. My grandpa fought fascists and I
| never heard any of these fancy words from him.
| tomrod wrote:
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority#F
| als...
|
| Your lack of understanding or stubbornness aside, if your
| grandfather fought actual fascists it is doubtful he
| defined the term.
|
| All that is immaterial, of course, to your current
| incorrect claim that Fox News somehow became liberal
| recently, which I can only assume is established in your
| view by the idea that Trump presently dislikes them.
| AnimalMuppet wrote:
| You posted the same thing (almost word for word) five
| posts upthread. Just repeating yourself is _not_ a
| convincing argument. It might be a decent propaganda
| technique, but it 's a lousy argument.
| bra-ket wrote:
| i'll repeat myself as many times as my words are flagged
| and hidden.
| AnimalMuppet wrote:
| That's OK. I get a new "flag" button on every post you
| make...
|
| (Also, those of us who have "showdead" turned on can see
| your posts, even after they're flagged. That's how I knew
| you were repeating yourself.)
| bra-ket wrote:
| never noticed that option, it's not a default though,
| thanks for the tip.
| AnimalMuppet wrote:
| OK, to those who downvoted the parent: I understand the
| temptation to downvote everything someone says when you
| disagree strongly with them on some point, but there is
| nothing in the parent post that deserves your downvotes.
| Downvote the post; not the person.
| shrimp_emoji wrote:
| It's attractive to ignore it because "reality has a well-
| known liberal bias". Politics are not created equal.
| Conservatives are observably less educated than liberals:
| look at the demographics.
|
| That said, any bias (including corporate influence) is
| worse than an agnostic information reporting machine
| (which C-SPAN or the BBC approach best).
| cltby wrote:
| Education is indeed becoming the dividing line between
| left and right all over the world. Sadly, it is because
| the scope of "education" has been expanded to include
| subjects with no intellectual content.
| namlem wrote:
| Such as?
| bra-ket wrote:
| safe spaces, gender studies, wokeness certificates,
| virtue signaling workshops, degrees in conformity &
| groupthink.
|
| read William Dereshevitz' "Excellent Sheep", it's the
| best book on the subject.
| gurkendoktor wrote:
| Mhm, there have always been soft sciences (sorry MBAs).
|
| I agree that education is becoming a major dividing line,
| but in my opinion that's because the "left" is moving
| towards elitism, whereas the "right" is slowly embracing
| populism. "Only dummies vote for the others" is just a
| snobby way of saying "we lost the working class".
| [deleted]
| myko wrote:
| No, it was created to make a fantasy land bubble for insane
| conspiracy theorists and extremist right wingers. It did its
| job and normalized those things for the entire GOP.
|
| edit: downvotes with no response is really weak, especially
| given what we see going on in the world today which
| completely backs up my point.
| munk-a wrote:
| It has certainly morphed into this - but it wasn't
| _precisely_ created for this reason. It was created as a
| place where GOP party lines could be broadcast clearly when
| other news outlets were focusing on negative facets of GOP
| actions. This does align pretty closely with your
| description of a fantasy land bubble, that 's pretty apt -
| but the conspiracy theory stuff is a more recent
| development.
|
| I do think it's fair to describe fox as openly embracing
| conspiracy theories - the first really big example for me
| was how they popularized "the caravan" for months.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > Fox (however detestable you may find it) was created as an
| alternative to the corporate media hegemony on thought
|
| No, it wasn't. First, because it's part of the corporate
| media created by what was already a media megacorp, so at
| best it might _participate_ in the corporate media hegemony
| on thought, not provide an alternative.
| not2b wrote:
| Fox was created by a Republican operative (Roger Ailes) for
| the purpose of getting Republicans elected to office,
| financed by Rupert Murdoch, one of the most powerful news
| executives in the English-speaking world.
| marcosdumay wrote:
| The death of the press1 has been an worldwide phenomenon, so
| attributing it to a single US legislative bill is a bit too
| reductionist.
|
| It's quite possible that there was US protagonism on that
| process, and it's quite possible that the bill was a relevant
| factor, but the bill doesn't have an worldwide impact, and the
| US influence does certainly not come from it.
|
| 1 - It looks quite dead by now, nearly everything we call by
| that name is free of any usable information. Of course there's
| some activity here or there, but it's dead like a dead forest,
| something spurs here or there, but nothing is able to grow.
| Florin_Andrei wrote:
| Regardless - giving every single person, no matter what their
| accomplishments or talents, the same voice online, without
| anything out there filtering the garbage, was a really,
| REALLY bad move.
|
| Unfiltered social media is an amplifier for bullshit. Truth,
| reason, a good analysis - they're all hard. Spewing out
| nonsensical mythology is easy.
|
| Something needs to change.
| yeetman21 wrote:
| Regardless - giving every single person, no matter what
| their accomplishments or talents, the same ability to vote,
| without anything out there filtering the garbage, was a
| really, REALLY bad move. Unfiltered universal suffrage is
| an amplifier for bullshit. Truth, reason, a good analysis -
| they're all hard. Spewing out nonsensical mythology is
| easy. Something needs to change.
| nojito wrote:
| >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.
|
| 230 renders the Fairness Doctrine moot. Even if it still
| existed today.
| stx wrote:
| >It'll be interesting to see if whoever replaces Ajit Pai holds
| a different view on public intercourse over the airwaves.
|
| I think the word you mean is discourse not intercourse.
| clankyclanker wrote:
| > Fox News would have been exempt from the Fairness Doctrine as
| a cable network, i.e. it doesn't use the public spectrum.
|
| Yes, but city-wide local Fox-affiliate news channels broadcast
| over the public airwaves would not have been exempt. Those are
| often watched in their local environments more than their cable
| alternatives. See also Sinclair Broadcast Group: broadcasting
| over public airwaves is in the name!
| rayiner wrote:
| Blaming Fox is really disingenuous. Fox became popular as an
| alternative because of the mainstream media's reaction to
| George W. Bush, in particular mocking him for his religiousity.
|
| If you look at surveys, people understand Fox has a bias. But
| it's very hard to listen to news from people who don't appear
| to share your basic values.
|
| Consider this summer. We can debate the merits of whether
| violent rioting, setting police stations on fire, etc., is a
| justified response in certain circumstances. But the public has
| divergent opinions on this, and journalists have a pretty
| uniform opinion on this issue. This is a divergence that didn't
| exist during the 20 years between when CNN was started and when
| Fox got popular. But it does now. And it's very hard to watch
| coverage of this issue when the person behind the news desk
| obviously sees the world very differently than you.
|
| Fox didn't create this divergence. It responded to a divergence
| that grew. And it's a divergence that's become more extreme as
| media consolidation has resulted in most media being beamed
| from the coasts into the rest of the country.
| antihero wrote:
| The larger a company gets, especially in influence, the more
| regulation is needed to enforce accountability. With great
| social power, comes great social responsibility.
| lallysingh wrote:
| Video is a terrible format for anything requiring the
| reflection and nuance of politics. People need to read at their
| own pace, stop and make their own judgements, and re-read parts
| to make it all make sense. Video is a firehose that keeps
| attention instead of letting you _think_.
|
| Leave it for entertainment and deep documentaries. If we had no
| more news channels and nightly programs, I think we'd both be
| happier and better informed.
| dredmorbius wrote:
| Straight up Marshall McLuhan, hot (immersive) & cool
| (passive) media.
| d0mdo0ss wrote:
| Variety has an in depth look into Roger Ailes,
|
| Film Review: 'Divide and Conquer: The Story of Roger Ailes'
|
| https://variety.com/2018/film/reviews/divide-and-conquer-the...
| xxpor wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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.
| mehrdadn wrote:
| What's the reasoning for the distinction? How is spectrum
| over the air a public good but spectrum over wires not?
| PaulDavisThe1st wrote:
| The broadcast spectrum is considered a limited-supply
| public property, so the FCC (or other national
| equivalents) issues licenses allowing organizations (or
| standards) to use parts of it.
|
| Wires are not limited supply in any meaningful sense
| (just install more), and in many parts of the world, not
| even public property.
| Retric wrote:
| You must cross public property ie roads to install a
| large scale wired network. That said, it's a difference
| in scale creating a difference in kind.
| PaulDavisThe1st wrote:
| The involves being granted easements, which are also not
| a limited public good in the general case.
| mehrdadn wrote:
| > just install more
|
| It's so hard to take that seriously (e.g., exactly how
| many sets of cables per home is reasonable? and how often
| can people be expected to change them?), but even if I
| somehow do:
|
| How is that different from, say, electric power, as far
| as constitutionality goes? We have the Federal (Water)
| Powers Act, FERC, etc. that regulate power distribution
| (among other things). I would've thought these are all
| easy to constitutionally justify the regulation of based
| on other clauses (like the Commerce Clause).
| PaulDavisThe1st wrote:
| "more" in this context can mean "reach more locations" or
| "increase the bandwidth to existing locations". I'm not
| aware of bandwidth issues requiring much more than an
| update maybe once in 50-100 years. For example, where I
| live in rural NM, the houses around here presumably got
| paired telephone wires on the order of 50-100 years ago,
| and then within the last 10-15 years they got rewired
| with multi-twisted-pair cables that easily get to 50Mbps.
| While in 80 years that might not be considered
| sufficient, I doubt anyone will seriously suggest another
| round of recabling within that time frame.
|
| But anyway, you really seem to be missing the fundamental
| point here: there is no limited "spectrum" for wiring in
| the sense of multiple possible parties who want to use
| "parts of it" for various purposes. If you assign the
| XMHz to YMHz band of the electromagnetic spectrum to some
| purpose, it's gone, it cannot be used for anything else,
| by anyone else, across a potentially vast geographic
| area. There's no equivalent for this in the context of
| digital (or analog) data moving down wires.
| xxpor wrote:
| Yeah exactly. We might not have had Rush Limbaugh in the
| mid-90s, but we still would have had Fox News or whatever.
| SilasX wrote:
| That always felt like a dubious standard. Parkland is a
| public good, but the Supreme Court would insta-smackdown
| any FD-style restriction on political speech in parks.
| ineedasername wrote:
| The nature of each "public good" could be evaluated to
| determine what was appropriate to ensure all citizens
| equal access to a public good.
|
| FD just required a media outlet to make sure the media
| basically gave another candidate the opportunity to
| access, it didn't actually require equal time, not unless
| that candidate wanted to, or in the case of
| advertisements was willing to buy them.
|
| Certainly parkland should be equally available to members
| of different political parties, but it's not like you
| have to use the same standard either: the nature of a
| "public good" would determine the nature of what fair
| equal access meant. For airwaves it's one thing. For a
| limited physical resource it's another.
| SilasX wrote:
| Parkland is a limited physical resource.
| ineedasername wrote:
| So is radio spectrum. Regardless, as I said, you
| determine for each "public good" what appropriate
| fairness means. You don't back down from it just because
| doing the right thing isn't as easy as doing the easy
| thing.
| SilasX wrote:
| Right, so you haven't identified what's different about
| one that makes the FD the right answer in one case.
| pythonaut_16 wrote:
| But limited in a different way than radio spectrum.
| Lendal wrote:
| We gave up on the fairness doctrine because it didn't work.
| It forced news media to give equal time to the 1% of
| crackpots who disagreed with the 99% of scientists on a
| number of topics, including climate science. It was always
| going to go this way, regardless of the fairness doctrine
| existing or not.
| treeman79 wrote:
| The whole point was so government officials could decide
| what was fair, and what wasn't.
|
| So full blown censorship by controlling who gets access.
| zeroxfe wrote:
| > It'll be interesting to see if whoever replaces Ajit Pai
| holds a different view on public intercourse over the airwaves.
|
| Really hoping you mean "public discourse" :-)
| giantrobot wrote:
| I hope they _didn 't_. ;)
| technofiend wrote:
| Uh, well...
|
| Intercourse: noun: communication or dealings between
| individuals or groups.
|
| I mean how _you_ choose to communicate or deal with people
| is clearly different than me. :-)
| paulnechifor wrote:
| Humor aside, intercourse and discourse are synonyms.
|
| Although, intercourse is often used as short for "sexual
| intercourse".
|
| But you are pretty much asking for that joke (like when you
| still use "ejaculate" with the "blurt out" meaning).
| technofiend wrote:
| I literally meant intercourse in the dictionary meaning:
| "communication or dealings between individuals or groups."
| Even so words change and usage does too; some people
| literally don't mean literally when they use that word, but
| I do. I suppose it's a matter of when you learned the
| definition.
| wyldfire wrote:
| I suspect that the fairness doctrine change is more of a
| symptom than a cause.
|
| The FCC will have close to zero impact on twenty first century
| media.
|
| I don't know how or even if we can fix this.
| technofiend wrote:
| I'm sure it's a symptom of something but my point was Fox
| News (which was established in 1996 according to Wikipedia)
| could never have been born prior to 1987.
|
| What happened yesterday in Washington, DC may prove a
| counterpoint to 1st amendment claims that _all_ speech should
| be allowed, regardless of consequences.
|
| Edit: I see I was wrong about Fox as it is a cable network
| and not broadcast over public airwaves. I still think their
| viewers are insulated from opposing viewpoints and that's
| part of the problem.
| roywiggins wrote:
| The fairness doctrine never applied to cable channels. The
| only reason it was plausibly Constitutional was the use of
| the airways, which are considered a public resource.
| Private cables strung by private companies into private
| homes were never regulated by the fairness doctrine.
| technofiend wrote:
| I stand corrected about cable networks. But my thesis
| that allowing one-sided broadcasting of views still
| stands: it insulates people from contrasting views and
| makes them uncomfortable with having those views
| challenged. I'm not suggesting we go the route of state
| run media, but state _regulation_ of media may come about
| thanks to what happened yesterday.
| roywiggins wrote:
| Seems to me, at least on cable, people are only as
| insulated as they want to be. They can always change the
| channel to one of any of several hundred others. There
| are more views being expressed on cable than were ever
| allowed on the airwaves during the fairness doctrine era.
|
| Some of those channels are spewing hateful horseshit, but
| with dozens of channels to choose from, you can't blame
| the medium for people being insulated. They keep the dial
| tuned to Fox News because they like it.
| cle wrote:
| Unfortunately I don't think it's that black-and-white.
| Fox News is a small part of the information bubble, which
| includes other sources like YouTube, Facebook, Twitter,
| etc. And there's evidence that social media addiction is
| real. So the content is feeding into a positive feedback
| loop that prevents people from regulating their ability
| to tune into something else.
|
| This doesn't absolve the viewers from responsibility, but
| it also doesn't place it entirely on their shoulders.
| klondike_ wrote:
| Fox is broadcast over the air in many areas
| roywiggins wrote:
| Yes, but the stuff that people find most objectionable-
| the Fox opinion shows, Hannity etc- have their home on
| Fox-the-cable-channel. They _might_ get picked up on some
| Fox affiliates (though I doubt it, they 're the special
| sauce that gets people to pay for cable), but the engine
| of the thing is the cable channel.
| kube-system wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_Broadcasting_Company
|
| is different than
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_News
|
| which is not available on any terrestrial OTA channels
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| The programming on Fox broadcast channels is different
| than Fox News, which is specifically transmitted via
| cable or satellite and, legally, not via public airwaves.
| Fox broadcast channels are subject to the same laws as
| other broadcast channels.
| Shivetya wrote:
| Nor should it.
|
| It would require the FCC to apply to content produced outside
| of the US and consumed within. That will never fly. The age
| of where the fairness doctrine was needed is long gone.
|
| With the democratization of the media which was completed
| with the ascent of the internet both governments and
| established media players; some of which were merely mouth
| pieces for various political factions; lost their ability to
| control the message but most importantly lost the ability to
| control the truth.
|
| The issue faced now is insuring that people have the
| opportunity to identify information authenticity without
| having to go back to the situation where we were just
| expected to trust what we were told.
|
| News, information, whatnot, is now world wide and governments
| all over will do their best to control what you can see and
| say and it is up to everyone to make their job harder if not
| impossible. the only way to a free society is by not allowing
| governments to control the truth
| pentae wrote:
| Have you actually watched Fox News lately? Right wingers are
| leaving it in droves because except for a few pundits (Tucker
| Carlson etc) They are too moderate. Most of the craziness is on
| social media these days and right wing news sites on the web
| Natanael_L wrote:
| There's nothing moderate about them. They're just not
| sufficiently extreme for the taste of those audiences. They
| fell under scrutiny that some of their smaller competitors
| aren't facing, so they're trying to maintain plausible
| deniability, which means the crowd of extremists has to go
| elsewhere to get their rage fix.
| matthewrobertso wrote:
| Moderation and extreme-ness exist on a continuum. Being not
| sufficiently extreme is being too moderate by definition.
| Natanael_L wrote:
| You're assuming a relative scale, I'm assuming an
| absolute scale.
| bra-ket wrote:
| it's not that Fox News became "moderate" , they became just
| another left-wing propaganda hub like CNN and WaPo , except
| for very few commentators like Tucker and Ingraham.
|
| Their elections coverage was a disaster as well. I think they
| are in identity crisis of sorts.
| paradox242 wrote:
| How do I know you're delusional? You think Fox News is a
| "left-wing propaganda hub".
| InitialLastName wrote:
| There appear to be a substantial group of people who are
| soc convinced that certain leaders can do no wrong, so
| any outlet that calls those leaders on anything is
| inherently exposed as socialist propaganda.
| youeseh wrote:
| Traditional TV and Print News Media gets the most eyeballs when
| they are controversial. Fox, CNN, MSNBC all do everything they
| can to coddle their specific segment. They phrase and comment
| on the news in a way that'll either excite their segment when
| they think it'll benefit and soften the blow whenever they
| think it'll hurt.
|
| And no, none of them appeal to a general audience. The ads that
| each network displays will tell you exactly who their specific
| audience is.
|
| Twitter's audience is narrow: Most of the people I know (across
| countries, religions, genders, professions) do not have a
| Twitter account. So, they make decisions that suit their
| userbase, which is significantly narrower than Facebook's.
|
| Facebook user base is closer to the general public.
| Unfortunately, their platform also enables an echo chamber. So,
| they have a tough job to do and in this regard. They have to be
| careful about whom to censor. Whatever they choose will be
| closer the law. I think they're trying their best.
| wrsh07 wrote:
| I tend to think that the business model of a cable news room
| is pretty fundamentally broken.
|
| Insofar as you value investigative journalism or pieces with
| some depth, you will be disappointed by organizations that
| host ESPN style shout fests, but they're produced for exactly
| the same reasons.
|
| It's cheap to make garbage filler content. When you see that
| all of the channels are deeply flawed, it's because they're
| incentivized to be flawed in exactly the way that they are.
|
| Curiously, John Oliver (say what you will about _his_ biases)
| has found a way to fund real investigative journalism. This
| marks an interesting counterpoint to the 24 hour news room
| which extends what comedy central (daily show etc) had begun
| strategyanalyst wrote:
| John Oliver is also focused on a sub-segment and is also at
| least misleading at times.
|
| There are no sources of information that are credible with
| more than 45-55% of US Gen pop. We really need a source
| that can at least be relied upon as accurate source by
| 70-80% to avoid total collapse of democratic order in US.
| marcus_holmes wrote:
| Find a business model that works for independent
| journalism, then.
|
| Advertising pays more with more controversy. Patronage
| (having a rich person pay the journalists) comes with
| strings. Consumers appear willing to pay for journalism
| only when it supports their political beliefs.
| jaredwiener wrote:
| We're trying! https://blog.nillium.com/why-were-building-
| forth/
| DubiousPusher wrote:
| Yeah, the solution isn't to find a single fount of truth
| we can all sup from. We are where we are because that
| mid-century model was fragile. Not to mention it allowed
| Americans to overlook any wrongs that didn't blip on the
| radar of the NorthEast intellectual hegemony.
|
| The real solution is a healthy ecosystem of independent
| news.
| nomel wrote:
| > upon as accurate source by 70-80% to avoid total
| collapse of democratic order in US.
|
| The current news stations are reporting from the same,
| truthful, reality. It's the spin, slant, and selective
| omission when they're presented that is different. Having
| some true source, that dryly presents this reality, will
| be devoid of these biases, but they'll still picked up
| and presented in an almost certainly more entertaining,
| vastly more popular, biased way as they are now.
|
| I think the problem is, and always has been, that people
| fundamentally prefer similar viewpoint rather than raw
| presentation of facts. I also assume this is why there
| are exactly 0, for profit, widely watched, media outlets
| that present information in this relatively boring way.
| wrsh07 wrote:
| > There are no sources of information that are credible
| with more than 45-55% of US Gen pop
|
| I completely agree
|
| I also agree that John Oliver has a liberal bias! What I
| don't think, however, is that his bias is required by his
| business model.
|
| (Curiously, as we discuss the daily show hosts, my very
| conservative parents both really like Trevor Noah.
| However, I don't think comedy central is to be our
| information salvation)
| autokad wrote:
| John Oliver? are you kidding me? he purposely takes things
| out of context, cartoonizes and dehumanizes the opposition,
| uses comedy as a shield to make substantial counter points,
| etc etc. His goal is less about engagement (like a news
| media) and more abut driving a deeper wedge between people.
|
| John Oliver is a curse upon humanity, he makes this world
| worse.
| rchaud wrote:
| I do not use Twitter, and yet I have been seeing screenshots
| of his half-formed sentences strewn across every news channel
| for the past 5 years.
|
| At least that will come to an end.
| saurik wrote:
| While I actually agree that they are "trying their best"
| (though I feel like "their best" isn't that great ;P), I feel
| like they have also--on purpose--built something that
| requires super human levels of "trying" to get right...
| content recommendation is something that, even at that scale,
| should have ramifications attached to it, _even if it means
| people don 't build them_ (as the world would probably be
| better off without them anyway, and it ain't like causing
| harm at a larger scale is somehow less harmful than doing it
| on a smaller scale). Until such point, I am at least glad
| they have discovered a new source of truth:
| https://www.theonion.com/mark-zuckerberg-announces-all-of-
| fa...
| hi5eyes wrote:
| >Twitter's audience is narrow: Most of the people I know
| (across countries, religions, genders, professions) do not
| have a Twitter account.
|
| most of the people in media are on twitter 247, talking heads
| take from twitter discourse and export that to other media
| nine_k wrote:
| Twitter is really a broadcast medium, more geared towards
| posting in real time and reposting, and less towards a
| discussion. It also limits the size of a tweet, making them
| perfectly quotable, and discouraging nuance and detail, so
| a juicy bon mot is basically the only winning genre on
| Twitter.
|
| No wonder any public person, any politician, any celebrity
| may find out that Twitter is a must, if they want to keep
| and grow their fame / celebrity / notoriety.
| marcus_holmes wrote:
| Twitter has a really high membership ratio in journalism
| and politics - pretty much every professional journalist
| and politician is very active.
|
| Whether this is a good thing for society is a different
| question.
|
| (I'd argue that it's not and that Twitter should be closed
| down. But I know that's an unpopular opinion)
| jeresuikkila wrote:
| Does your closing down suggestion only apply to Twitter
| or also other social media platforms? What would the
| effect be?
| rstupek wrote:
| I think the other social media platforms don't have as
| much of a mega phone effect that twitter does? Twitter
| posts by default can be seen by the world which differs
| from other social media sites?
| SAI_Peregrinus wrote:
| I think most other social media sites are public by
| default. Reddit, most forums, Youtube, TikTok, HN, etc.
| [deleted]
| marcus_holmes wrote:
| I don't know why Twitter is the one they all chose. It's
| unique in restricting the size of posts, maybe that's it?
|
| I don't know what the effect would be. I don't think we
| can roll the clock back to 1995. But equally given the
| current situation in the USA I don't think the status quo
| is sustainable.
|
| If you forced me to give an answer, then I think there
| should be a 1-hour delay on all tweets. It's the
| immediacy of the thing that gives it the power. If we
| just slowed it down then I think it would work better,
| because human nature.
| oooooooooooow wrote:
| I reckon it's not as unpopular as you might think.
| owl57 wrote:
| _Twitter should be closed down_
|
| It probably can't be closed down in a way that's not even
| worse than current situation. Even if there's no coercion
| and management just has the revelation and decides to
| close shop, some (probably Chinese-owned) clone will
| probably reach the same position soon, what's the win?
| onion2k wrote:
| Now I have even fewer reasons to log in to Facebook.
| cecja wrote:
| Your reason for facebook was trump... good riddance
| ccvannorman wrote:
| [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 wrote:
| Cough __Fox / Murdoch __Cough
| willis936 wrote:
| Unilateral power moves... on moderating their own platform?
| deelowe wrote:
| I don't think we want facebook making these decisions for
| themselves, but without adequate regulatory guidelines, they
| are in a no win situation.
| cblconfederate wrote:
| Pretty certain he 'll start using one of the uncensorable
| platforms
| 0x_rs wrote:
| 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.
| [deleted]
| novaRom wrote:
| The power of corporations!
| libx wrote:
| 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.
| inglor_cz wrote:
| And depending on who is on the losing end, people either love
| it or hate it.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who,_whom%3F
| 0xmohit wrote:
| > 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/1347228893124702...
| djsumdog wrote:
| 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.
| lucasyvas wrote:
| Holy hell those comments though. Talk about a swamp.
| oedoedxef wrote:
| "I think the only people who should be able to post their
| comments are the ones whose opinions I agree with!"
| andrepd wrote:
| Funny how "I should be able to say what I please" and "I
| should be able to say what I please AND have no-one challenge
| me or criticise me" are so conflated. Don't dish it if you
| can't take it.
| oedoedxef wrote:
| I'm fully able to take the parent's criticism. However,
| those who are downvoting me so that my post will be hidden,
| clearly are not able to accept criticism.
| sbarre wrote:
| For the record, I downvoted that comment because it was
| flippant and pointless, not because I disagreed with it.
| creddit wrote:
| I'm downvoting you because the person said the comments
| were a swamp, not that they shouldn't exist. You
| interpreted it as the letter which is clearly incorrect.
| edoceo wrote:
| I'm downvoting you because of the blatant snark. It's not
| cool here according to the site guidelines and my own
| opinion.
| kevinmgranger wrote:
| Downvoting is a form of criticism.
| philosopher1234 wrote:
| I downvoted you because you're wrong and harmful.
| dang wrote:
| Please don't break the site guidelines against calling
| names and personal attacks, regardless of how wrong
| someone is or you feel they are.
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
| wizzwizz4 wrote:
| I'm downvoting you because you're trying to shame the
| people who are doing so, and I'm Spartacus.
| moate wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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.
| dang wrote:
| There were lots of legitimate reasons to downvote your GP
| comment. It was unsubstantive and flamebait, and broke
| other guidelines as well. You spawned a low-quality mess.
| This is not the discussion we're looking for here.
|
| Also, using quotation marks to make it look like you're
| quoting someone when you're not is an internet flamewar
| trope that we try to avoid here.
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
| [deleted]
| zamalek wrote:
| 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.
| oedoedxef wrote:
| And yet your comment is also being downvoted. It seems I
| am the only person interested in hearing what you have to
| say.
|
| An audience is free to view an opinion and disregard it.
| I'm not sure if that opinion should be hidden from
| others.
| zamalek wrote:
| And I am not complaining about it being downvoted. If HN
| doesn't want to hear it, then I am fine with that.
| Regardless, please check the comments guidelines[1].
|
| > Please don't comment about the voting on comments. It
| never does any good, and it makes boring reading.
|
| [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
| [deleted]
| speeder wrote:
| 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.
| sleepydog wrote:
| By "this" do you mean the bans on facebook or twitter? I saw
| the video he posted on twitter, he said something like
|
| please be peaceful, please respect our police, we had a
| beautiful landslide victory that was taken from us, it was
| stolen i know, but you have to go home now, you're special and
| we love you but you have to go home.
|
| I'm specifically not using quotation marks because I'm
| recalling it from memory. I'm sure you can find a backup of it
| somewhere.
|
| If you're asking about what sparked the actual attack, Trump
| specifically told a crowd at a nearby rally to march on the
| capitol before the event. He's also been saying the election
| was stolen for the past two months every time he's gotten in
| front of a microphone.
| goldenManatee wrote:
| People branding his flags and hats stormed the Capitol walls
| and Senate floor, as he delayed an eventual reiteration that
| the elections were rigged, they should be furious, but now they
| should go home and that he loved them very much and were very
| special people. There were nooses propped up, people died, and
| elected officials were bunkered. His close sources also
| reported that he watched on TV with manic joy at what people
| were doing in his name. Hence, the ban and mass 11th-hour
| resignations.
| Supermancho wrote:
| That's not relevant to the question he asked.
|
| > What exactly Trump said to spark this?
| goldenManatee wrote:
| No? I did respond with the President's response, and his
| response is called fomenting - the reason for the ban in
| question.
|
| > an eventual reiteration that the elections were rigged,
| they should be furious, but now they should go home and
| that he loved them very much and were very special people
| Supermancho wrote:
| Maybe add an attribution <quote> -Trump, otherwise it
| looks like the random ramblings he goes on.
| [deleted]
| chemeng wrote:
| Everyone is replying about the videos online or after the fact.
| What I believe the large media outlets are referring to when
| they reference "inciting" is his words at protest rally he held
| earlier in the day at which suggested that supporters should
| march over to the capital. This is after weeks of previous
| remarks trying to delegitimize the election and suggesting
| someone should stop "them" from stealing the election.
| philk10 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| Bullshit
| jeromegv wrote:
| Nope, he did say exactly that. He felt very special about
| them and loves them. Transcript and video is not hard to
| find.
| sidlls wrote:
| 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.
| Supermancho wrote:
| > He literally called them special and said that he loved
| them.
|
| > he used the words "you're special" and "[I] love you".
| It's not ambiguous or subject to debate
|
| Trump did not select those specific people out for praise
| ("the people invading the Capitol in Camp Auschwitz
| t-shirts were special and he loves them" - philk10),
| which was the implication. philk10's comment is
| ambiguous, which then goes on a derail about what words
| were used.
| sidlls wrote:
| He didn't single out any specific group: it was all-
| inclusive. As in, including those individuals. This isn't
| debatable or ambiguous, and it's disingenuous bordering
| on willful misunderstanding of how words and language
| work to suggest otherwise.
| Supermancho wrote:
| > This isn't debatable or ambiguous
|
| "This" meaning the original point, was stated with an
| ambiguous point, as described.
|
| > it's disingenuous bordering on willful misunderstanding
|
| I laid out the progression, but you are ignoring it with
| misplaced hubris. That's fine. Good luck with whatever.
| boston_clone wrote:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tcfcTB9-S2s
|
| Here is the video, in all its slurred shame.
| jcranmer wrote:
| I don't have the exact words in front of me, but his speech
| prior to the mob occupying Congress exhorted them to march to
| Congress. Given the context of the sedition that happened
| afterwards, the speech _may_ have crossed the line set by
| Brandenburg v Ohio of incitement to "imminent lawless action"
| [1].
|
| I believe during the same speech, he also criticized the Vice
| President for following his Constitutional obligations instead
| of (as the President would prefer) taking unilateral decisions
| to throw the vote to Trump instead.
|
| [1] To be clear, the test in Brandenburg v Ohio is a test of
| whether or not the _government_ can make the speech outright
| _illegal_ to speak. This is necessarily a very high bar, and it
| is _much_ higher in the US than most countries in the world.
| The bar for whether or not private individuals and
| organizations should feel compelled to disassociate from an
| individual is clearly lower. That one can seriously entertain
| that the President 's speech is surpassing the high bar of
| outright illegal speech should indicate how reasonable it is
| for others to consider it beyond the pale.
| hasmolo wrote:
| i think the issue is how the video was worded.
|
| "please respect the police"
|
| and then
|
| "you are completely right to be angry, it was stolen. i love
| you and you're special"
|
| the first comment is def a calming attempt, followed by an
| immediate call to action.
| mdiesel wrote:
| """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."""
| clydethefrog wrote:
| Transcript and video here:
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25668841
| dukeofdoom wrote:
| Here's the video, he called them evil
| https://tv.gab.com/channel/realdonaldtrump/view/we-have-to-h...
| kace91 wrote:
| The video (if it's yesterday's video you're talking about)
| started by saying that the election has been stolen, it was a
| landslide on his favor, yadda yadda, only to _end_ with a
| variation of "stay peaceful and go home now". it was 20% call
| to peace and 80% reinforcement of the idea that democracy has
| been hijacked to get him out.
| maxfurman wrote:
| I've seen the video. It says to go home, but it also says that
| the election was stolen and that Trump won in a landslide. On
| balance it says more to encourage the mob than calm them down.
| willis936 wrote:
| Especially in the context that the mob walked from a Trump
| rally where he personally encouraged violence on legislators
| for taking their victory away.
|
| https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-01-07/how-donald-trump-
| rall...
| Mg6yDfjp5U wrote:
| I found this page that shows Trump's deleted tweets:
| https://factba.se/topic/deleted-tweets
|
| I don't know if the Facebook posts were the same though.
| magsnus wrote:
| 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.
| edko wrote:
| This reminds me of when Peron's Argentina declared war on Germany
| just a few days before the war was over.
| altdatathrow wrote:
| All it took was one failed coup
| genghizkhan wrote:
| "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.
| vidarh wrote:
| "indefinite" just means there's no certain/specific/decided
| end.
|
| It does not mean "permanently", though it's often used to imply
| that without saying it outright.
|
| So in this case they're saying "anything from two weeks and up,
| with no decided end".
| cosmie wrote:
| Those aren't conflicting positions; indefinitely can mean both
| "unspecified/undetermined" _or_ "unlimited/forever" amounts of
| time. So you can interpret that statement as
|
| "we are extending the block we have placed on his Facebook and
| Instagram accounts for at least the next two weeks, but
| potentially longer."
| joshspankit wrote:
| Agreeing that the connotation of "indefinitely" is
| "permanently";
|
| They _are_ in a real sense permanently banning "President
| Trump"
| [deleted]
| Footkerchief wrote:
| Definite lower bound, indefinite upper bound.
| mofeien wrote:
| "indefinitely" vs. "infinitely", but it took me a second to
| notice the difference as well.
| andrewclunn wrote:
| It's just 2 weeks. You know, like the lock down to help contain
| the spread of...
| ehnto wrote:
| The platform clearly wields significant soft power, and that
| should probably be acknowledged.
|
| They are laying some of their cards bare here, but what I find
| funny is that if the president doesn't use Twitter, Instagram
| or Facebook as the dominant way to promote their message,
| they're not under the thumb of those platforms either.
|
| Just like ordinary people aren't under the influence of social
| medias manipulation (intentional or not) if they just don't use
| the platform. We all willingly hand over that power to the
| platforms.
| ttul wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| That's exactly what indefinitely means-- they haven't publicly
| decided when.
| picks_at_nits wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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.
| bitcurious wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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.
| enraged_camel wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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-...
| reccanti wrote:
| 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.
| ProAm wrote:
| 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.
| tw04 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| He is still the president today, making your argument
| dubious.
| tw04 wrote:
| I guess if you don't see the distinction between someone
| who has 4 more years in the office with broad political
| support from his own party, and someone who has 2 weeks
| left and appears to be trying to incite a coup on his way
| out while being almost universally shunned by allies and
| foes alike, I'm not sure what I can say to change your
| mind.
| tobib wrote:
| Exactly my thinking. It's just too obvious to me. Now that it's
| too late they're playing the "moral" card.
| ttul wrote:
| Anyone who was confused as to the purpose of Facebook and
| Twitter should hopefully now understand: they exist to make
| money.
| earthscienceman wrote:
| 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.
| Nelkins wrote:
| Can anybody recommend a good WhatsApp alternative?
| kieranmaine wrote:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25669864
| ashleshbiradar wrote:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25669864
| mittermayr wrote:
| 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]
| EchoReflection wrote:
| 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.
| :(
| beefee wrote:
| 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/ima...
| boojing wrote:
| By "a competitor" you mean Google?
| tiahura wrote:
| Maybe they should F __ __ __start banning conspiracy theorists!!!
| boringg wrote:
| They did start shutting down Q
| geewee wrote:
| I hope twitter does the same.
| ashtonkem wrote:
| 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?
| jccalhoun wrote:
| 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.
| digihealthify wrote:
| you know which platform has little to no asshole-ness?
| LinkedIn. There's more on the line, their career. I envision
| the next social media wave encompassing this a bit. Closer tie
| to the person in order to have a more humanistic conversation
| for fear of backlash.
| josefresco wrote:
| I agree with your point, however I wanted to mention that
| Facebook posts are typically done "in private" either
| accessible only to Facebook friends, or members of the FB
| private groups.
| disease wrote:
| Google tried using real names on youtube briefly and it had no
| affect in reducing white supremacy or conspiracy theories in
| its comments.
| jeffbee wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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.
| NickGott wrote:
| People are incredibly mean and nasty to each other on nextdoor
| in my neighborhood, and they literally live down the street
| from one another.
|
| You're completely right, it's not anonymity that causes people
| to act like this, it's the fact that we as humans can't
| perceive text on a screen as another human being that activates
| the empathy center in our brains. Coronavirus has made this
| 100X worse as people are losing their humanity being locked
| away from everyone else.
|
| I've had some of my best social interaction recently on VRChat
| of all places as it gets the closest of anything I've found so
| far of making it feel like there's actually a human being in
| front of you.
| jeffbee wrote:
| People on Nextdoor think their neighbors are all like them
| and wrongly assume it's a safe space for airing out their
| worst thoughts. Mine is completely full of naked racism,
| calls for murdering specific people, etc. There doesn't seem
| to be a way to fix it because the "leader", basically the
| moderator, of my Nextdoor is the worst of them.
| mckeed wrote:
| It looks like you can report them if they violate
| Nextdoor's Community Guidelines and potentially get them
| demoted.
|
| https://help.nextdoor.com/s/article/How-to-remove-Lead-
| statu...
| dralley wrote:
| And I would, in turn, point you to Parler.
|
| Facebook being a cesspit doesn't prove that anonymity can't
| make things worse.
| dmix wrote:
| What are you trying to prove here? Anonymity was always a
| choice and we can't go back to pretending it was... unless we
| go all China on the internet?
|
| The response to crazy fringes minorities by authoritarian
| governments has almost always been many times worse than the
| small fringe groups doing stupid dangerous stuff. This lesson
| after 9/11 in Iraq and what we've seen in many other
| authoritarian governments has been downright
| counterproductive and equally worse.
|
| It was always naive and overrated thinking banning hate
| groups or extremists on Facebook and Reddit was sufficient to
| make them go away. That was already the default before Trump,
| lets not forget.
|
| And we've already gone way further than just banning
| legitimate hate groups to banning even more stuff so
| everything is moderated and politically appropriate by some
| unelected representatives, with no recourse, as many tech
| companies have tried. Mostly just flailing about. And has
| only fueled distrust in media companies and authority systems
| we used to look to.
|
| Hate Inc talks about _general outrage_ being the danger, not
| specific politically acceptable outrage. Which is something
| that is quite obvious to anyone non-partisan watching.
| RobRivera wrote:
| I'm simply going to state a very plain truth.
|
| A publicly traded company has silenced the current Lame Duck
| President.
|
| Guild wars when?
| maxfurman wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| Also the DNC.
| inscionent wrote:
| Don't drown in that kool-aid
| uncoder0 wrote:
| I'm just talking about what I saw if there is other
| evidence I'd love to see it.
| inscionent wrote:
| Bending over backwards to make excuses for a mob forcibly
| entering the Capitol, isn't 'just asking' about evidence.
|
| What I heard all summer was anything is a weapon, but
| this guy has a gun and ties.
|
| https://media.gettyimages.com/photos/protesters-enter-
| the-se...
| uncoder0 wrote:
| Good photo. I hadn't see that one yet. He's definitely
| armed.
|
| I was right there with you all summer claiming a group
| throwing water bottles at police wasn't armed and
| shouldn't be beaten and shot with rubber bullets.
| maxfurman wrote:
| "Armed" does not necessarily mean gun-carrying. I saw footage
| of an individual smashing AP camera gear with a baseball bat,
| for example. They didn't break those windows with their bare
| hands.
| mark_and_sweep wrote:
| There were 5 arrests for firearm offences, a cooler full of
| molotov cocktails and 2 pipebombs.
|
| https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jan/07/ashli-
| babbit...
| uncoder0 wrote:
| This is what I was looking for thanks. It does not specify
| that the firearm offenses were on the capitol and I know a
| few of them were from people marching while open carrying
| off the capitol grounds which is illegal under DC law.
|
| The molotovs is a tidbit I didn't know about thankfully no
| one actually used them.
| tyrust wrote:
| > I know a few of them were from people marching while
| open carrying off the capitol grounds which is illegal
| under DC law
|
| If you knew this then why did you ask about whether it
| was an "armed mob" in the first place?
| uncoder0 wrote:
| Because they weren't arrested attacking the capitol. I
| just saw confirmation in this thread that at least one
| person was arrested with a firearm who had entered the
| capitol so I corrected my original comment.
| lurker619 wrote:
| How do you feel about this video?
| https://twitter.com/PhilipinDC/status/1347028917685800961
| uncoder0 wrote:
| I see a cop get pushed over then helped up by someone in a
| MAGA hat. I also see some scrumming with the police which
| is assault. I still don't see any weapons or any use of
| weapons on police. This scene doesn't look all too
| different than scenes we've been witness to for the last 6
| months since June with protestors clashing with police.
| anoonmoose wrote:
| It really looks like this guy has a gun holstered on his
| right hip. But he definitely has a fist full of zip ties and
| looks prepared for more than a brief tour. Forgive the
| source, Seth sucks, but the picture is real as far as I know.
|
| https://twitter.com/SethAbramson/status/1346977323086729218
| deathanatos wrote:
| > _They even obeyed the velvet ropes in the entryway._
|
| They did not. There was video of protestors both moving the
| ropes, and there is video of protestors on the opposite sides
| of the ropes. Both at least in NBC's coverage.
| (Unfortunately, they've made their coverage private on
| YouTube, so I lack a link presently.)
|
| (Sibling comments cover the "armed" aspect well enough.)
| jbgreer wrote:
| Here's a list of items that are prohibited on the Capitol
| grounds, in the Capitol and visitor center, in the buildings
| and the galleries:
|
| https://www.uscp.gov/visiting-capitol-hill/regulations-
| prohi...
|
| The gallery list includes: Firearms to include replica guns
| and ammunition. Weapons, to include, but not limited to,
| Black jack, sling shot, sand club, sandbag, knuckles,
| electric stun guns, knives of any size including razors and
| box cutters, martial arts weapons or devices. Explosives and
| explosive devices to include, but not limited to, Molotov
| Cocktails, components of a destructive device, and fireworks.
| Mace and pepper spray. Aerosol containers. Non-Aerosol spray
| except for prescribed medical needs. Battery operated
| electronic devices to include cellular telephones, electronic
| keys, cameras, video recorders or any type of recording
| devices. Electronic medical devices are permitted. Cans,
| bottles, food, and food containers, including all liquids.
| Creams, lotions, and perfume. Strollers. Briefcases,
| backpacks, and suitcases of any size
| gnusty_gnurc wrote:
| Why aren't we blaming anyone that died at CHAZ/CHOP on BLM?
|
| It's hard not to see the bending-over-backwards academic
| justifications for why we shouldn't be suppressing riots last
| year as anything other than the pretext and lead up to what's
| happening now.
|
| I'm not calling legitimate protesting riots - rather the media
| was fully complicit with ignoring blatant rioting last year.
| Buildings were burning and _government_ buildings were being
| swarmed and destroyed.
|
| Riots needs to be suppressed with law and order - full stop.
| Unfortunately many seem 6 months late to this concept.
| dutchCourage wrote:
| I'm not following you, what's the link with BLM?
|
| BLM is a response to (repeated) racist murders from the state
| and general systemic discriminations. Yesterday's riots were
| a response to losing a democratic election.
|
| It's hard not to see why one is legitimate and the other
| isn't.
| gnusty_gnurc wrote:
| > It's hard not to see why one is legitimate and the other
| isn't.
|
| Do you think rioting occurred last year?
|
| What I'm saying is that insofar as government is concerned
| and law and order - rioting is _never_ justified and must
| be met with police force.
| dutchCourage wrote:
| > rioting is never justified and must be met with police
| force
|
| Actually, some governments are so oppressive that
| sometimes rioting is all the citizens have left. Isn't it
| what the second amendment is for anyway?
|
| I'd even support yesterday's "revolution" if it was
| justified and the election was actually stolen. But
| falsely calling an election stolen is dangerous. It's the
| equivalent of a false rape accusation at a country scale.
|
| And oppressive governments do meet riots with police
| force. Sometimes they straight up kill the people, yet
| they keep on rioting because it's the only way they can
| defend their rights.
| gnusty_gnurc wrote:
| I think if you look at any of the cities over the past
| year, there's example after example of spineless mayors,
| etc. unwilling to protect their citizens and society
| generally from chaos and petty thieves.
|
| People powerless while they watch everything they worked
| for literally go up in flames at the hands of
| _criminals_. There 's no justification for that, and it's
| a far cry from "justice."
|
| Disrupting law and order - by definition - turns you into
| a criminal.
|
| I'm not defending any side of the political spectrum, so
| it's interesting to see how people interpret this
| argument.
|
| Manifesting for social change never justifies the type of
| chaos we saw last year, and if you think otherwise, don't
| complain about what happened to Congress.
| dutchCourage wrote:
| > Disrupting law and order - by definition - turns you
| into a criminal.
|
| That's only accurate if both the law and the ones who
| enforce it are reasonable and fair.
|
| People feeling powerless is what fuels riots to begin
| with. I don't condone the looting and destruction,
| especially when it hits bystanders. But it didn't start
| that way. The movement against racism did go through
| peaceful actions to make itself heard. Their demands were
| pushed back and the discriminations continued so they had
| to escalate.
|
| They were cornered into that position.
|
| The protesters who invaded the Capitol were not
| discriminated against. They just lost an election. No one
| would've died if they protested peacefully.
|
| You can't equate these protests, just like you can't
| equate self-defense and murder. The context is important.
| uncoder0 wrote:
| Partisan Gamesmanship
| drno123 wrote:
| Exactly. BLM rioters created enormous damage yet I never saw
| any news that BLM/Antifa are indefinitely blocked from FB.
| inscionent wrote:
| Yeah! They should suspended the CEO of ANTIFA from FB,
| Twitter, Parler, WhatsApp, Telegram, and the Dominos app!
| cultus wrote:
| The ANTIFA CEO is sitting in his fortified command center
| underneath the Appalachian Mountains as we speak,
| cackling and torturing a Trump supporter to death for not
| calling xir by the proper pronouns. Our joke of a liberal
| government is doing nothing to eliminate this dangerous
| threat to our guns and precious, precious strip malls.
| caeril wrote:
| Because tribal affiliation is completely unassailable by
| logic.
|
| We are all still tribal, barely evolved monkeys, and our
| manifold cerebral cortex is merely a tool to invent
| rationalizations for the tribal emotions that well up from
| our limbic system.
|
| This is, of course, on both sides.
|
| On HN, the effect is even more pronounced, because "I am
| smart, therefore my opinions are more valid than average"
| coincides with "I have concocted this justification for my
| hypocrisy" to grant even greater surety in personal belief.
|
| The LessWrong folks worked pretty hard to inform people of
| these sort of biases, but the effort thus far has completely
| failed.
| gnusty_gnurc wrote:
| Thanks for this! _Someone_ gets it.
| djsumdog wrote:
| > the media was fully complicit with ignoring blatant rioting
| last year
|
| Ignoring? They practically endorsed it as a totally
| reasonable means of change! The fact that the Trump
| supporters didn't Riot and very few of them entered the
| Capitol goes to show the vast majority of those Republicans
| do believe in law in order!
|
| If the situation was reversed, had Trump won and Biden was
| challenging the election, you can be assured DC would be
| completely on fire like it was back in May. The Capital
| Building would be burning right now.
| gnusty_gnurc wrote:
| Yea you don't hear a peep from the "hate has no home here"
| side when Cathy Griffin holds a beheaded Trump in effigy.
|
| You could only imagine the pearl-clutching if someone made
| the same image with Biden.
| matchbok wrote:
| Please, get a grip. The other side goes up in arms when
| somebody KNEELS. The outrage at the protests earlier this
| year were obvious, perhaps you weren't reading the news.
| elicash wrote:
| When, exactly, did Joe Biden incite CHAZ/CHOP to take over
| the Capitol Building in order to overthrow lawful election
| results in a last-ditch attempt to cling to power?
|
| This was a coup attempt.
| maxfurman wrote:
| This is whataboutism. Trump organized the rally that became
| the riot, he told them himself to march to the Capitol. He is
| responsible for what happened after that.
| gnusty_gnurc wrote:
| > Trump organized the rally that became the riot
|
| By that logic, BLM led to the destruction of cities and
| neighborhoods across the country for months on end.
|
| This isn't whataboutism, it's a call to suppress riots and
| call the activists and their sympathizers from last year to
| account for their bias.
| cultus wrote:
| Yeah I live a few blocks away from where where ANTIFA was
| supposedly terrorizing and burning. The only danger to
| the public was the tear gas the police indiscriminately
| used and drifted into apartments and retirement homes.
| You are full of it.
| gnusty_gnurc wrote:
| Got it - all the buildings in Minneapolis burned to the
| ground was just "justice."
| bmmayer1 wrote:
| > 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?
| DubiousPusher wrote:
| 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.
| rasengan wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| Facebook was never for the 'People' they never had a chance at
| 'winning'
| glial wrote:
| > 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 wrote:
| > 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.
| mc32 wrote:
| So while the Capitol is very symbolic, there wasn't looting,
| rioting or major vandalism on the part of the protesters
| (compare to the "Autonomous Zone" and police precinct burning
| in Seattle.
|
| Does that mean in the future demonstrations and protests that
| could potentially end up in violence like that be suppressed by
| Facebook and Twitter? Or can we expect partisanship and see
| them bless other protests that turn to violence?
|
| Note: I do not condone occupying public buildings like this.
| That's unacceptable. But I think that should be applied evenly
| to all protests and wherever property is destroyed.
| wonderwonder wrote:
| They invaded the capitol with the sole intention of
| disrupting congress and preventing a constitutionally
| mandated handover of power to a democratically elected
| government. This was an attack on the democracy of the United
| States, not a building. To portray it as anything else is
| disingenuous.
| mc32 wrote:
| As someone else mentioned we also had a group attempting to
| derail the confirmation of a Supreme Court justice earlier
| in last year.
|
| Did Twitter et al get all twisted in a bunch about it?
| CodeMage wrote:
| Did the Kavanaugh protesters break windows, climb walls,
| steal stuff, and plant explosives? If they did, can you
| please point me to a source that shows that, because I
| haven't been able to find one?
| wonderwonder wrote:
| Were the people attempting to derail the confirmation
| armed and committing property damage? Did they have zip
| ties to confine government officials? Did they assault
| and overwhelm police officers on the way in? If not then
| I don't think the two are comparable.
| dleslie wrote:
| Occupying the washington monument is symbolic.
|
| Invading the capitol building to stop the electoral count and
| intimidate congress into overturning the election results is
| not symbolic.
| hammock wrote:
| What did you think of the Kavanaugh protestors who invaded
| the Capitol building to stop his confirmation?
|
| https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/408169-police-
| arrest-128...
| dleslie wrote:
| Not symbolic, and also nowhere near the same degree of
| severity.
|
| At worst, the Kavanaugh protestors committed trespass and
| pleaded to swing voters; whereas yesterday's mob broke
| property, assaulted police, looted, and had the intent to
| overturn the democratic process. While flying confederate
| and Trump flags and tearing down American flags.
| jimbob45 wrote:
| I've always felt that we all just parrot and recycle the
| same opinions until someone introduces something creative
| and new into the conversation for us all to contend with.
|
| This is genuinely new example of the hypocrisy of the
| left. I wonder how the apologists will contend with this.
| CodeMage wrote:
| I've been looking at several different sources, and I
| can't find a single mention of Kavanaugh protestors
| committing any vandalism at all. The result of Kavanaugh
| protests? 128 people arrested.
|
| You're comparing that with a mob of people who violently
| clashed with the police outside the Capitol, then stormed
| inside, broke windows, climbed the walls, sat inside
| offices with their feet up on desks, walked away with
| "souvenirs", and planted IEDs. The result of that? 13
| arrests.
|
| Can you please explain why your comparison is not
| disingenuous?
| jakelazaroff wrote:
| Um, excuse me? They shattered windows, climbed walls, forced
| open doors and intimidated people -- the very things
| conservatives told us for months were deserving of vicious
| police crackdowns.
|
| There are pictures of literal Nazis -- like, _literal_
| literal -- holding up nameplates broken off walls [1]. They
| broke into offices, left threatening messages [2], made it
| out safely and proudly showed off stolen items [3].
|
| [1]
| https://twitter.com/beschlossdc/status/1346971421134741505
|
| [2] https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-supporters-leave-
| threa...
|
| [3] https://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/ks29bj/the_man_sho
| wn_...
| kevinmgranger wrote:
| When you're more or less encouraging a coup, the "fire in a
| crowded theater" analogy couldn't be more applicable.
| manigandham wrote:
| "fire in a crowded theater" is nothing more than remnants of
| an old opinion quoted out-of-context and neither precedent
| nor basis for anything of the First Amendment.
| Dirlewanger wrote:
| Stop saying it was a coup. A bunch of mostly unarmed morons
| weren't overtaking anything.
| rat87 wrote:
| it was an attempted coup its stupidity and lack of success
| don't change that
| lovecg wrote:
| Did you miss the part where the mob violently overtook the
| Capitol Building?
| bitcharmer wrote:
| These are fascist methods successfully used in the past for
| power grabs. I was going to explain in more detail but then
| I saw your HN handle...
| [deleted]
| ArnoVW wrote:
| Personally I always feel that the "fire in a crowded theater"
| is too specific to convince people.
|
| Why not use more "every day" examples?
|
| * I can't say I earned $0 last year --> tax fraud
|
| * I can't say "fuck you" to a judge --> contempt of court
|
| * I can't say my software will make you pretty -->
| advertising fraud
|
| * I can't say you robbed me yesterday --> libel
|
| I know this is a very European attitude, and always gets
| Americans worked up, but to me as a Dutch / French person, it
| seems obvious that free speech is not absolute. Just like the
| right to bear arms does not mean that I can own any type of
| military weapon.
| kansface wrote:
| Free speech exists in the public square, not on a W2 (you
| could claim you earned $0 last year all you want, just not
| to the IRS). In the cases of fraud/libel, the specifics
| matter.
|
| > it seems obvious that free speech is not absolute
|
| We agree on this, but disagree on where to draw the line.
| Limiting free speech is an endorsement of the government
| limiting what I am legally permitted to see, read, and
| hear. I am unwilling to let the government make that
| determination on my behalf.
|
| > Just like the right to bear arms does not mean that I can
| own any type of military weapon.
|
| Private citizens (presumably including the founding
| fathers) actually used to own canons before the creation of
| a permanent, federal army!
| ThrowawayR2 wrote:
| Interestingly, muzzle loaded cannons of that era, whether
| genuine or replica, are still legal to own in the US
| without a license as they are considered antiques.
| chillacy wrote:
| American free speech is way more broad than European free
| speech, they're different legally. You could have a similar
| argument between American freedom of religion and French
| "freedom from religion". Not an apples to apples
| comparison.
| tdons wrote:
| Christopher Hitchens (a Brit, can we still call them
| European?) would disagree with you. If you have a few
| minutes, check the beginning of this talk [1] about free
| speech. He treats the exact "fire" example at the very
| start of the talk :-)
|
| [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z2uzEM0ugY
| foldr wrote:
| Hitchens isn't exactly covering himself with glory here.
| On multiple occasions he defended David Irving's
| historical work (and not merely his right to publish it).
| ezekg wrote:
| Yet there was no censorship occurring when the left \b\b\b\b
| opposing side was encouraging domestic terrorism.
| danhak wrote:
| The constant false equivalence here. That some random,
| unnamed people ought to be held to the same standard as the
| President of the United States.
| gameswithgo wrote:
| certainly regular people encouraging violence get censored
| on facebook and twitter all the time, I've seen it, we see
| it all the time. It doesn't make the headlines though.
| Trump makes the headline because he does it and is the
| president.
|
| AND he has gotten a pass, for years, that regular people
| don't get.
| wffurr wrote:
| Yeah because that's a thing that happened? What "left"
| anyway? There's no real left in this country.
| CerealFounder wrote:
| Who is "the left?" This conversation is about a specific
| person doing a specific act. Unless you have a specific
| example of something you disagree please try not to reduce
| the standard of discourse up in here.
| enraged_camel wrote:
| When did a leftist public official go on Facebook and
| encourage protesters to smash store windows and set cars on
| fire? Can you give some examples?
| jtdev wrote:
| https://twitter.com/jordylancaster/status/129861639956959
| 232...
| ezekg wrote:
| Not on FB, but Pelosi in particular fueled the flame of
| civil unrest, err... "peaceful protests", more than a few
| times. There were many others around that time who were
| fanning the flame, on both sides. But nobody was held
| accountable then, and certainly nobody was banned, so
| it's concerning that POTUS is banned across social media
| for this, and the damages were much less this time. I'm
| not a fan of censorship like this, regardless of the
| side. It controls the narrative and stifles free speech
| through discord.
| enraged_camel wrote:
| Peaceful protesting is a constitutional right. Storming
| the US Capitol isn't.
| ezekg wrote:
| I never said it was. And I'm not condoning what happened
| in the slightest (even if I do agree that the government
| no longer represents the people). But destroying and
| looting small businesses is not a constitutional right
| either, but that behavior wasn't denounced en mass like
| the behavior at the Capitol; rather, the former was
| encouraged by politicians, the media, celebrities, and
| even the public. It's a double standard. We should hold
| all people to the same standard regardless of their
| political affiliation. I personally think it's a bad
| precedent to ban POTUS, but alas.
| phkahler wrote:
| >> When did a leftist public official go on Facebook and
| encourage protesters to smash store windows and set cars
| on fire? Can you give some examples?
|
| When did Trump? Can you give examples?
| wavefunction wrote:
| So you're admitting President Trump was encouraging (which
| legally is committing) domestic terrorism?
| everdrive wrote:
| Tu quoque.
| andy_ppp wrote:
| This is a really weird statement, one not backed by facts.
| Name a mainstream left wing person who was encouraging
| violence?
| propogandist wrote:
| Remember many (although not all) of the BLM protests
| often evolved into violent riots, although the media has
| refused to cover them as such. They were all classified
| as peaceful protests and they were all immune from any
| negative covid coverage;
|
| Vice President-elect Kamala Harris:
| https://youtu.be/5XxLR2r5oPg
|
| Pelosi: https://www.youtube.com/embed/3fsG5tyxRjw?rel=0
| [1]
|
| Rep Maxine Waters;
| https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/rep-
| waters-dr...
|
| Rep Ayanna Pressly;
| https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/aug/17/ayanna-
| pres...
|
| [1] https://www.businessinsider.com/migrant-children-in-
| cages-20... //
| https://www.logically.ai/factchecks/library/aca6ab76
| andy_ppp wrote:
| I mean you're definitely misquoting and removing context
| from what people have said; Kamala Harris only says the
| BLM protests will keep happening and that they shouldn't
| stop. Pelosi in that clip you used was talking about
| protesting Trump locking up children in cages, not BLM.
| The reason why your claims are so weak is that you cannot
| actually provide evidence that isn't out of context
| quotes, whereas your side, Trump, has constantly tried to
| race bait and behave like an arsehole to people. Do I
| need to provide a list?
| andrewclunn wrote:
| Ah yes, either Trump is a cult leader who is threatening the
| very core of our democracy, or the election was rigged and
| we're about to get a Chinese style Manchurian candidate in
| the White House. I'm so glad that the media vigorously looked
| into these allegations of corruption and fraud, instead of
| dismissing them for partisan reasons, because then we might
| have a split, between people who get their information from
| mainstream outlets believing nearly half the nation are
| conspiracy nuts or violent bigots, and those who get their
| news from independent media online believing that half the
| nation are brain dead sheep or lying sycophants.
| jpsalm wrote:
| The allegations were thrown out by every court they got
| brought to and by conservative judges as well. It's a farce
| and you're the sheep getting fleeced.
| namdnay wrote:
| If it's a farce, the parent is the turkey getting stuffed
| :)
| dionian wrote:
| I'm tired of seeing this talking point echoed when pretty
| much every case was dismissed on process (standing or
| "Laches")
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > I'm tired of seeing this talking point echoed when
| pretty much every case was dismissed on process (standing
| or "Laches")
|
| The "laches" dismissals were not of fraud claims
| (frankly, neither were the rest, as the campaign either
| did not include or voluntarily withdrew fraud claims
| fairly consistently: fraud is something they liked
| talking about in forums that couldn't adjudicate claims,
| but avoided in ones that could; but this is more stark
| with the laches dismissals.) Every single laches
| dismissal was of a claim not of _fraud_ , but of _changes
| to election procedures by state executive or local
| officials that were alleged to be not properly authorized
| by the state legislature_ , and the laches dismissals
| were because the changes at issue were well-known with
| plenty of opportunity to file challenges before the
| election when the remedy, were the procedures improper,
| could have included reversion of procedures, but the
| claims were, without good cause, delayed until after the
| election, preventing any remedy which would not have
| unreasonably adversely impacted the rights of third
| parties, specifically, the voters who voted in the
| election held with the challenged procedures.
| throwaways885 wrote:
| They should've humoured them just to shut up the people
| saying those things then.
|
| I think the partisanship is what's really driving people
| like this. The Trump/Russia stuff was investigated, why
| not investigate election fraud too?
| jkelleyrtp wrote:
| They've done both.
|
| - The Trump/Russia situation resulted in the senate
| agreeing that Russia did collude with members of the
| Trump campaign in support of Trump. [1]
|
| - Investigations into the voter fraud and election
| tampering allegations in favor of Biden have resulted in
| 61 failed lawsuits in state courts on the basis of "no
| evidence." [2]
|
| - The supreme court has rejected every lawsuit brought to
| it on the basis of "no evidence." [3]
|
| While the Russia investigation lead to the arrest of
| nearly every 2016 Trump campaign manager, the allegations
| of voter fraud across 10 states has led to nothing that
| could overturn the election.
|
| [1] https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/fil
| es/docu...
|
| [2] https://www.usatoday.com/in-
| depth/news/politics/elections/20...
|
| [3] https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/12112
| 0zr_p86...
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > Investigations into the voter fraud and election
| tampering allegations in favor of Biden have resulted in
| 61 failed lawsuits in state courts on the basis of "no
| evidence."
|
| That's not actually true. While some may have been
| dismissed based on insufficiency of presented or
| proffered evidence to support the legal claim, most were
| either voluntarily dismissed or dismissed for legal
| threshold issues (failure to state a claim, lack of
| standing, unreasonable delay in filing [laches]) which
| come before considering evidence.
| jmcgough wrote:
| It was investigated, and it is not the federal
| government's job to police this; the law states that
| individual States are responsible for that.
| ogre_codes wrote:
| > The Trump/Russia stuff was investigated, why not
| investigate election fraud too?
|
| What do you think they've been doing in the courts for
| the past month?
|
| Trumps own Justice department wouldn't even pursue it.
| AlisdairO wrote:
| 1. The evidence provided for election fraud was
| investigated, and no widespread fraud was found. 2. The
| Trump/Russia stuff was investigated because there were
| credible reasons to be concerned. The election fraud
| issue is entirely (and transparently) manufactured, and
| everyone in power knows it.
| dukeofdoom wrote:
| Well thats the problem, the suits were dismissed out of
| hand. Very little evidence presented. Despite something
| like 1000 people swore affidavits of violations. They
| should have taken the cases and heard the evidence.
| Foremost, I blame the supreme court, it chickened out
| from hearing the Texas Lawsuit, which was about the state
| Governors changing the election rules on unilaterally.
|
| If you look at the spikes in vote counts on some of these
| graphs, its more than enough to warrant a hearing .
|
| Now the people have lost faith in the courts.
| hobs wrote:
| No, it wasn't the problem, and you are willfully or
| blindly misinterpreting what happened.
|
| The complete lack of evidence and lack of anything but
| witness testimony was the first stage - as soon as any
| witness was interviewed it became immediately clear that
| there was in fact, no evidence at all.
|
| Repeating this "things were dismissed out of hand" meme
| is true only in the sense that if a man came into court
| and said he was king of america he would also be given
| very little space to waste the courts time.
| dukeofdoom wrote:
| Pennsylvania had 200,000 more votes than voters. What do
| you mean no evidence? Still no good explanation.
|
| Since this is probably going to get flagged, like my
| previous post. This is what was entered into the record,
| during the objections yesterday in the joint session of
| congress. I stayed up watching it. So I'm not making this
| up.
| netsharc wrote:
| See sibling reply, your purported evidence just went up
| in a puff of smoke.
|
| Although I have a feeling you'd rather wave your hand and
| say "Aah, Snopes, what do they know, and it's not
| concrete enough!".
|
| The problem with the "1000's of people with sworn
| affidavits of violations" is, it seems their
| understanding what a violation is, are based on
| misinterpreting (deliberately or not) and wishful
| thinking. I've seen the videos of people commenting "Look
| at this security camera footage, they're taking boxes,
| and those boxes have fake ballots!", without even showing
| how he came to those conclusions. I could just as easily
| show a footage of a man walking into a building and claim
| it's a building where voting machines are stored and he's
| a hacker with a USB stick that will hack all the
| machines. I hope all the affidavits were looked at
| carefully before being dismissed, but it seems like the
| courts would have work until the sun burns out if it
| wants to look at every theory.
| jpsalm wrote:
| Maybe, just maybe, you are being lied to:
|
| https://www.snopes.com/fact-
| check/pennsylvania-205000-votes/
| dukeofdoom wrote:
| This is just trying to hand wave the discrepancy away
| with more votes are still the be counted. Its admitting
| its true, but
|
| "a few counties have not completed uploading their vote
| histories,"
|
| And the other explanation is a hypothetical explanation
| of over or under votes. No proof that this was actually
| the case here.
| jpsalm wrote:
| Do you hear yourself? I assume you are a rational person.
|
| Why wouldn't you expect the count of votes entered into a
| system to be off before everything is entered into the
| system? Of course it's off.
|
| Hell, why not just launch this claim on Nov 10 and say
| that the count is off by millions of votes? It's a
| braindead argument.
| aw1621107 wrote:
| > Its admitting its true
|
| How is the statement from the Pennsylvania Department of
| State admitting that Rep. Ryan's claim is correct?
|
| The problem is that there's an implicit assumption in
| Rep. Ryan's claim that the SURE numbers are complete and
| represent the actual number of voters who actually voted.
| If a few counties have not completed uploading their vote
| histories, then that implicit assumption is invalidated,
| thereby invalidating the rest of the claim.
|
| > And the other explanation is a hypothetical explanation
| of over or under votes. No proof that this was actually
| the case here.
|
| The burden of proof is on Rep. Ryan to show that the
| over- and under-voting in 2020 is
| nefarious/fraudulent/malicious. Merely saying that over-
| and under-voting exists is not sufficient to show
| something is wrong; one also needs to show that such a
| thing does not happen in "clean" elections. Pennsylvania
| is merely pointing out the gap in the analysis here.
|
| Edit: Added missing word
| [deleted]
| Goronmon wrote:
| _Despite something like 1000 people swore affidavits of
| violations._
|
| Not sure why the number of affidavits is so important,
| and how many of these affidavits were from that form
| people were filling out a form on a website?
|
| _If you look at the spikes in vote counts on some of
| these graphs, its more than enough to warrant a hearing._
|
| Assuming that "spikes" in a graph are proof of anything
| wrong at all, if the answer is "That's where a bunch of
| votes were added to the count." then what is the followup
| from there that necessitates a hearing of any kind?
| [deleted]
| danenania wrote:
| You could _easily_ get 1000 Americans to swear that Elvis
| is alive or they were abducted by aliens or just about
| anything really. Without corroborating evidence,
| affidavits are meaningless.
| dukeofdoom wrote:
| Not really, these were for the most part from election
| workers.
|
| If would be more like dismissing UFO evidence from 1000
| sworn affidavits from people that work at the Pentagon.
| danenania wrote:
| There are something like half a million election workers.
| They're just regular people. It wouldn't be hard to find
| 1000 of them who are willing to lie or can't distinguish
| fantasy from reality.
|
| I'd imagine more than 1000 of them believe the earth is
| flat and/or was created 10,000 years ago.
| selimthegrim wrote:
| Do they allege coordination or irregularities?
| qppo wrote:
| I'm getting quite tired of these false equivalencies.
|
| Trump directed a mob yesterday to storm our Capitol and it
| sounds like you're being sarcastic about him threatening
| our democracy. What does he need to do? Burn it down and
| hang the Vice President for not exceeding his ceremonial
| powers like his mob chanted?
|
| The claims of the election should be dismissed by rational
| people, which is exactly what happened in legislatures and
| courts across the country led by people of every political
| position except those that want to tear down our democracy
| for a demagogue and lie to their constituents about
| reality.
| vehemenz wrote:
| Rhetorically, you are suggesting that Trump is not a cult
| leader threatening the very core of our democracy.
|
| If that's the position you support, then you have quite a
| lot of work ahead of you.
| efdee wrote:
| Why would the media need to "vigorously look into them" if
| judges already threw out the cases?
| rodone wrote:
| Spoiler alert: it's the first one.
| dionian wrote:
| It's only applicable if someone did yell "Fire!" in a crowded
| theater (and there wasn't a fire).
|
| The worst Trump did here was say that people should march on
| Capitol Hill and "cheer on" congresspeople.
|
| I guess people are assuming this was coded language to incite
| violence, but I'm not buying it
| AnimalMuppet wrote:
| In the world we live in, with the Trump followers that we
| actually have, significant numbers of them took it as a
| call to violence. And that was predictable. Trump knew or
| should have known.
| BitwiseFool wrote:
| Did Facebook take action against the CHAZ/CHOP?
|
| Edit: Furthermore, would suspensions and bans ALSO apply to
| anarchists and revolutionaries? We know the answer is 'no'.
| It's clear to me Facebook wanted to drop Trump for a long
| time and did not do so for fear of repercussions. Now that
| there will be a new administration it is safe for them to do
| it.
| Pfhortune wrote:
| I think you may be confusing the US Capitol Building in DC
| with the Capitol Hill area of Seattle.
| wavefunction wrote:
| False equivalence fallacy.
| jtdev wrote:
| I'm sure you were advocating for the silencing of BLM leaders
| who were encouraging violence during recent months too...
| jmcgough wrote:
| This was a coup attempt that involved breaking into
| congress to stop presidential succession. Are you
| suggesting the two are comparable?
| chasd00 wrote:
| i want to add again, this wasn't a coup attempt. You
| dilute those words and they become meaningless. It hurts
| the people who have lived through and suffered from real
| coups.
| AnimalMuppet wrote:
| This was at least very, very close to what they term an
| "auto-coup" - a coup by a leader who lost an election,
| thrown in order to remain in power.
| one2know wrote:
| So presidential succession was stopped and congress was
| killed? No? I think you are making shit up.
| chasd00 wrote:
| this is a fair point, the acceptance of BLM calls for
| violence, rioting, and looting by the media and Democrats
| makes this a much smaller event than it would have been
| otherwise.
|
| What happened was a failure of adequate planning and
| execution by the police to control an unruly crowd.
| praestigiare wrote:
| Absolutely, where that occured, and unlike Trump, both
| Facebook and Twitter has no problem suspending and removing
| accounts of BLM advocates when they made calls for
| violence.
| jtdev wrote:
| Sean King... Still on Twitter, advocated for violence in
| the name of BLM for months to his > 1 million followers.
| nova22033 wrote:
| FYI: Fire in a crowded theater is NOT the analogy you want to
| use if you defend free speech(not that this action violates
| the 1A)
|
| https://www.popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-
| ha...
| thaumasiotes wrote:
| I didn't understand that post when it was written and I
| don't understand your comment now.
|
| How is this different from saying "I have a dream that my
| four little children will one day live in a nation where
| they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by
| the content of their character" is not a quote you should
| use if you are opposed to the government granting special
| benefits and privileges to blacks in preference to whites,
| because that was an idea that Martin Luther King supported?
|
| Can an idea have any value independently of the cause
| someone once used it to support?
| nova22033 wrote:
| People use "fire in a crowded theater" as a valid
| exception for the taking away your 1A rights. "Fire in a
| crowded theater" was used to as an argument to support
| government censorship of wartime dissent. Think of what
| that means. If Trump was planning a war on Iran, you
| would have no right to speak out against it because you'd
| be shouting "fire in a crowded theater"
| foldr wrote:
| I also can't make sense of the article. The 1A clearly
| doesn't protect you from prosecution if you deliberately
| cause a disturbance by shouting "fire" in a crowded
| theatre. It's an uncontroversial example illustrating
| that the 1A has limits. The fact that this
| uncontroversial example was used in support of some
| controversial arguments ~100 years ago is neither here
| nor there.
| ajsnigrutin wrote:
| Yep, but the problem with people commenting there is, that thay
| don't like Trump, and cheer for his removal.... when the
| turntables are turned, and someone else is cheering, it'll be
| too late, because the precedent has been set, and we've let
| them do it.
| SV_BubbleTime wrote:
| It is surprising how short sighted some people are. This
| pendulum will swing, and so will the reaction.
| vharuck wrote:
| This reasoning means nobody can ever be held responsible,
| because "What if it's me?" I like to assume the majority of
| people are good. So even when I support the right thing, I
| don't have to worry about turned tables.
| necrotic_comp wrote:
| That's a false equivalence, because the words of the
| president directly incited violence and resulted in an angry
| mob storming the capitol building.
|
| I would hope that if a left-leaning politician did the same
| that the same precedent would be applied.
| SV_BubbleTime wrote:
| > because the words of the president directly incited
| violence
|
| Do you have those words? I never saw them because they were
| censored apparently.
|
| Edit: lol HN, actually asking, chill out. Apparently asking
| for sources is just unacceptable. Here it is in text
| because I think they truth is important that n it's
| entirety:
|
| _" "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."""_
| CodeMage wrote:
| Have you tried looking for them yourself? It's not really
| _that_ hard. Here 's the video, judge for yourself:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TBa5b1Xri8w
| ntsplnkv2 wrote:
| The people also lose when others abuse free speech to incite
| violence.
| yters wrote:
| This happens on both sides, but only one side gets
| consistently punished. Punish them all!
| inglor_cz wrote:
| Not just in America. There is horrible shit being posted on
| social platforms in other languages as well. Antisemitism,
| extremism...
|
| FB et al. do not care, as long as they make money and gain
| important friends.
| yters wrote:
| I remember recently the Iran ayatollah promoted wiping
| out Israel on Twitter and nothing happened. Jack Dorsey
| dismissed it as "saber rattling" from a country that
| routinely helps terrorists attack and kill Israelis. I
| guess that is not as bad as Trump claiming election
| fraud...
|
| Another example, Spike Lee tried to dox Zimmerman on
| Twitter, but ended up posting the address of some
| entirely unrelated couple who received death threats.
| Again, nothing happened.
| selimthegrim wrote:
| Iran is already sanctioned, and is this the "remove the
| Zionist regime from the pages of time" quote?
| yters wrote:
| Yes, that's the one. Probably ignored because it doesn't
| have any harmful implications.
| duxup wrote:
| I wonder what the implications are as far as facilitating folks
| who wish to take undemocratic steps that would seem to bring us
| closer to far more serious restrictions, imposed by those same
| folks as far as how a democracy is or isn't allowed to operate.
|
| Is it someone's right to use a platform to push an agenda that
| leads to impacting other people's rights?
| hammock wrote:
| >Is it someone's right to use a platform to push an agenda
| that leads to impacting other people's rights?
|
| Seriously?
| duxup wrote:
| >Seriously?
|
| I don't know what you mean by that.
| hammock wrote:
| Are you asking whether it's a good idea to restrict a
| citizen's advocating for their preferred government
| policy? Shut down think tanks and community organizers?
| These all push an agenda that leads to impacting other
| people's rights.
| duxup wrote:
| I was asking exactly the question I posted. I think it is
| far more specific than the question you posed.
| rndgermandude wrote:
| As abhorrent as the actions of Trump are, I still think it's
| also a massive problem when a few private companies or even
| single unelected individuals like Zuckerberg who effectively
| control a defacto monopoly of public forums online between
| them can regulate speech as they please without any checks
| and balances whatsoever.
|
| Don't get me wrong, in my opinion Trump is a traitor to the
| USA and democratic societies as a whole, and did incite a
| portion of his followers to overthrow the elected government
| and parliament in an attempt to nullify the democratic
| election results and install himself as an tyrannic leader
| (and only backed down and told people to "go home" when he
| saw this would not succeed in an attempt to cover his ass"),
| and he should be impeached and convicted and removed from
| office and receive a jail sentence.
|
| But I shouldn't have the power to be judge, jury and
| executioner all by myself and put people in jail or even
| regulate their freedom of speech, and neither should facebook
| or Zuckerberg or twitter, or Trump for that matter. There is
| a rule of law and democratically legitimized institutions to
| enforce it, protected by a system of checks and balances, and
| it's the place of these institutions to make such decisions
| in accordance with the law.
|
| This time a lot of people will think the ban hit the right
| person in Trump. But next time it might be somebody less
| clearly (to us) deserving of such a ban (like a "traitor"
| Snowden or a "commie" Sanders). What, for example, if social
| media had been around in the Jim Crow era and the "rulers" of
| social media had decided that the civil rights movement was
| to be silenced? Or that "traditional marriage" is an
| institution that needs protection from "gay marriage"?
| duxup wrote:
| Personally I'm having it both ways.
|
| I don't like so few entities making such calls.
|
| At the same time I recognize the issue of how to handle
| people's freedoms on a platform... when those freedoms
| advocate for violence or actions that restrict other
| people's real world freedoms
| dkjaudyeqooe wrote:
| Why is Trump's 'voice' or anyone else's more important than
| FB's 'voice'? Is free speech only for some people?
|
| If I come to your house and rant about my favorite subject you
| shouldn't be able to silence me?
|
| Should Trump (or anyone else) have the right to sully FB in
| defiance of its management wishes?
|
| FB doesn't have a special responsibility, it's a for-profit
| business that has an obligation to it's shareholders.not
| society.
| makomk wrote:
| Right now, FB are getting to have their cake and eat it -
| Section 230 gives them almost complete immunity from how they
| use their "voice" on the supposed basis that it's supposedly
| their users' speech and not theirs, including getting to
| decide which political violence to support, but they also get
| full freedom to decide which not-their-speech gets heard and
| by whom based on their own whims. Ordinary humans who aren't
| multi-billion-dollar corporations controlling one of the main
| methods of communication do not have this level of free
| speech rights.
| dkjaudyeqooe wrote:
| Of course you can have this level of free speech rights,
| just start a website with a comments section and you can
| have the same awesome power.
| tomp wrote:
| Unapproved speech will be censored somehow, if necessary
| at the DNS / internet provider / Cloudflare level. Case
| in point: Daily Stormer.
| dkjaudyeqooe wrote:
| So? That's how the society works: its moral values are
| reflected by the actions of those who participate in it.
| Most people find the Daily Stormer abhorrent so they
| refuse to provide services to it. It's actually free
| speech in action since all those people are expressing
| their view of DS.
|
| See, free speech works!
| ThrowawayR2 wrote:
| > " _That 's how the society works: its moral values are
| reflected by the actions of those who participate in
| it._"
|
| The gaping flaw in the "social norms" argument is that
| slavery, women as second class citizens, religious
| intolerance, etc. used to be a social norms as well, so
| in those eras one has to suspect the parent poster would
| be arguing in favor of those as well. It is basically a
| conservative viewpoint saying that what society believes
| to be moral at the present time will always be moral, so
| hearing it parroted by people claiming to be aligned with
| the left is just mind-bending.
|
| For the record I am a (old-school) liberal.
| sandworm101 wrote:
| So, perhaps, by no longer having access to Facebook, Mr Trump's
| eccentricities may moderate? Facebook does people a service by
| cutting them off. I honestly see such disconnections as
| healthy. If only they would cut people off _before_ they are
| radicalized.
|
| Conversely, Mr Trump is now a free agent looking for a nest
| elsewhere. There is probably lots of closed door planning
| happening: "What do we do if he decides to use our platform for
| 2024?"
| wincy wrote:
| My guess is Trump is going to create his own media company to
| compete/destroy Fox News.
| chasd00 wrote:
| yep, i made the same prediction in another thread. To go
| further, i bet it will be and livestreaming commentary on
| inauguration day and probably outperform the actual
| inauguration in terms of viewership.
| sandworm101 wrote:
| I think the opposite will happen. He will be so sad angry
| that he will retreat into a world which he can completely
| control. I bet he will spend that time alone inside one
| of his gold-plated golf resorts.
| koolba wrote:
| It's not a slope at all. They pushed it off a cliff.
|
| Though the timing aligning with a new set of committee heads in
| the Senate is more than suspect. Zuck knows how easy it is for
| the government to break them up and he's trying to make amends
| for his original sin of not stopping Trump in 2016.
|
| The argument that " _this speech is too dangerous_ " can be
| made by anyone about just about anything. This isn't fire in a
| theater. It's political speech and disagreement. If you accept
| the outcome here, you or your children will one day regret it
| when their voices are the ones that are muffled.
| nla wrote:
| The clown prince of social media.
| throwawaybchr wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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]
| 02020202 wrote:
| trump had plenty of time to fix censorship(platform vs
| publisher). so why care now?
| [deleted]
| stevespang wrote:
| CENSORSHIP !
| dralley wrote:
| "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=...
| kbrwn wrote:
| Zuck > Jack
| ndjdjxjsjdjdhd wrote:
| > 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| I'm sorry and I'm being serious.
|
| Why is he banned then?
| uncoder0 wrote:
| He's no longer useful to them for generating traffic and
| user data.
| moate wrote:
| Because the above post is a misrepresentation of what was
| said.
| gambiting wrote:
| 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?
| moate wrote:
| Fact check: Several police officers were harmed/treated
| for injuries. The crowd used chemical weapons
| (pepper/bear spray) on officers at several different
| times during the riot. No less than 2 improvised
| explosives were recovered from the scene. Please don't
| give into the "peaceful" narrative.
|
| https://www.npr.org/sections/congress-electoral-college-
| tall...
| gambiting wrote:
| Ok, yeah, my mistake for just repeating a stupid comment
| then. Thanks for correcting it.
| jonathanstrange wrote:
| Some of them were also armed with assault rifles, others
| with blunt weapons like baseball bats. And they were
| stupid enough to get filmed on camera and partly even
| incriminated themselves afterwards by admitting the crime
| and providing their real names in front of the camera.
| It's pretty crazy, if you think about it.
| greenpolygon wrote:
| His commentary on election fraud is seen as fueling the
| riot. Paraphrasing, the video comes across as: "you should
| go home. You're special and I love you. This is a
| fraudulent, illegitimate election and america is being
| stolen from you"
|
| It's like people who start sentences with "no offense, but"
| yuters wrote:
| His speech condone their actions at first and then asks
| them to be calm and go home. You can't have it both ways.
| haswell wrote:
| People are reacting negatively to this comment (and rightly
| so) because your representation of what was said in the video
| does not match the tone, or underlying message delivered by
| said video.
|
| The video was the equivalent of watching a kid, who has been
| rightly verbally disciplined by a parent, and who has been
| told they must apologize to their sibling/friend/whatever, so
| that kid says "Ok ok I'm SORRY", but immediately starts to
| rationalize/explain away why they were still right.
|
| > _explicitly asked people to go home_
|
| The words were said, but the sentiment and subsequent message
| told the viewer the opposite. "Go home" ... "but you're
| loved/special and I understand you, wink wink". The
| equivalent of "SORRY" ... "(but I'm really not sorry...)".
|
| Others have already reacted to the comment about "peaceful"
| behavior and injuries, and those comments reflect my
| thoughts, so I won't expand on them here.
| RHSeeger wrote:
| Destroying and stealing is not "peaceful", it's just not
| "violent against people".
| UnFleshedOne wrote:
| It is, in the new 2020 definition.
| forgetfulness wrote:
| Then doubling down on the narrative that drives these people,
| one that is directly opposed to peaceful transfer of power:
| the illegitimacy of the election results. That's an
| incredibly dangerous message from the President of the United
| States, he's telling them to go home in one sentence and
| riling them up in the other, that encourages further
| insurrection around his persona.
|
| Facebook is in the right not to allow that spark when whole
| situation is a powder keg.
| lurker619 wrote:
| This really reminds me of Antony's "Friends, romans,
| countrymen..." speech that is ostensibly peaceful and
| respectful but is actually riling up the crowd.
| VBprogrammer wrote:
| That's false. At least 14 officers hurt. See for example:
|
| https://www.foxnews.com/us/d-c-mayor-issues-order-
| extending-...
| hajile wrote:
| That's disingenuous.
|
| Only 2 officers required hospitalization. For comparison,
| there were many hospitalizations every single night of the
| 90-ish day Antifa seige of the Oregon federal courthouse.
|
| In Oregon, Antifa were blasting officers with fireworks,
| going after them with hammers, polearms, shields, etc. We
| didn't see that in DC either. Instead we find the police
| generally getting along with the overwhelming majority of
| protesters.
|
| Even 9 guns is nothing worth mentioning statistically. If
| those people had been interested in causing serious harm,
| almost all of them could have shown up with AR-15s.
| Hundreds of thousands of people with AR-15s could easily
| overpower any troops that could have been sent into the
| area. The fact that we didn't see this once again plays
| against the media's claims of a coup attempt.
| mrguyorama wrote:
| They brought bombs and a cooler full of molotov
| cocktails. This was a planned violent activity
| stdgy wrote:
| He was intentionally continuing to fan the flames of
| insurrection using specific lies about the status of the
| election, while at the same time pretending to ask them to
| peacefully disperse.
|
| This seems pretty obvious?
| moate wrote:
| Yes, while also providing encouragement for those illegally
| entering the capital by calling them "loved" and "special".
| ndjdjxjsjdjdhd wrote:
| Wait, seriously why is he banned though?
| moate wrote:
| Because he did not actually provide a statement condemning
| the riot that took place and said several things that are
| being interpreted (by both his followers and his
| opposition) as supporting the behavior.
|
| (Please try not to read this in a condescending way): There
| is a difference between "You need to leave the capital
| building immediately. You are breaking the law and this
| will not be tolerated" (an approximation of the message
| many officials offered). and "Please go home. You are loved
| and you are special to this movement" (approximation of
| Trump's statement)
| ndjdjxjsjdjdhd wrote:
| Are there any other HN folks out there who are confused
| by this?
|
| If I recall watching it, he asked everyone to go home and
| peacefully.
|
| It seems the real issue is he won't accept fraud didn't
| happen and people are conflating that with calls to
| violence.
|
| Doesn't feel genuine or real.
|
| There has to be people reading this thinking WTF too.
| [deleted]
| neogodless wrote:
| Why were Trump's supporters protesting?
|
| Why did they shove police officers and tear down
| barricades, break windows and smash doors?
|
| Why did they illegally enter government buildings?
|
| The answer to all of these is a mistaken belief that the
| election was not legitimate, due to President Trump's
| claims without evidence that there was widespread fraud.
| Their actions were made believing that the election was
| being stolen. Their actions were justified by that
| belief. You cannot reinforce the reasons why they are
| there with any genuine belief that it will inspire peace
| and retreat!
| stefantalpalaru wrote:
| > a mistaken belief that the election was not legitimate,
| due to President Trump's claims without evidence that
| there was widespread fraud
|
| "This study applies Benford's law to detect anomalies in
| county-level vote data for the 2020 US presidential
| election. Most prominent distribution violations are
| observed with Republican vote counts in blue states, all
| vote counts in states won by the Democratic candidate,
| and Democratic vote counts in swing states. Distributions
| are anomalous in swing states won by the Democratic
| nominee and not anomalous in swing states won by the
| Republican nominee." - https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/paper
| s.cfm?abstract_id=3728626
| evilturnip wrote:
| I agree, I'm confused. He's urging against violence, but
| standing by his claims of fraud. But people are claiming
| that's not what he's "really" saying. OK.. so I can
| basically say the same thing about anyone saying
| anything. Who decides what he "really" means?
|
| Just so I won't be downvoted, I'm not a fan of Trump.
| ttesttom wrote:
| I think the point is that after his supporters broke the
| law and stormed the capitol, interrupting a
| constitutionally mandated process for the peaceful
| transfer of power, he told them:
|
| > "Remember this day forever!"
|
| Thus approving of the actions that already occurred and
| telling them that the crimes that they committed would be
| justified by history looking back at what they have done.
| It in no way deescalates the risk of future conflicts.
| evilturnip wrote:
| That's honestly just an interpretation of it. He could
| just mean "remember this day of protest against the
| establishment". Everyone just reads everything he says
| with their own biases.
|
| I don't think that's inherently wrong, just let's not ban
| people based on our own biases.
|
| All of the intepretations of the events that happened
| yesterday could be equally uncharitably interpreted of
| BLM with the riots, violence, and protests across the
| country. I mean, they forcefully took over an entire city
| zone at one point.
| ttesttom wrote:
| Well that is the cleverness of most trump statements, toe
| the line, give a nod to your side, but also retain
| deniability. If you don't start interpreting, you get
| into a trap in which you will be outfoxed by anyone who
| can toe lines enough to not blatantly incriminate
| themselves.
|
| As for BLM, personally I was never very sympathetic to
| the portions of protests/riots that caused violence.
| moate wrote:
| Dog whistles work because they proved the fig leaf of
| plausible deniability. Trump's presidency has been a
| series of dog whistles. Why would it have stopped just
| because he lost an election?
| mindslight wrote:
| We've had a full two months for election irregularities
| to be litigated in the courts, and scrutinized in the
| court of public opinion. The only results that bubbled to
| the top were the same oft-repeated grand claims, without
| much of anything backing them up. If there were
| substantive arguments to be made, Trump's legal team has
| failed to present them. At this point two months later,
| the "fraud" narrative is nothing more than a rallying
| cry. So yes, continuing to push the fake fraud claim is
| direct incitement of that mob.
| saurik wrote:
| FWIW, one "difference" between the two statements is that
| the former is the kind of thing that makes people more
| angry and the latter is the kind of thing that might
| actually make someone feel heard enough to go home; it
| just isn't somehow as obvious to me--a stark leftist,
| btw, who is downright socialist--that this is somehow
| finally the thing Trump said which should be blocked.
| donohoe wrote:
| Am guessing you created that throwaway account because you know
| well how this comment makes you look, but you won't own up to
| it.
| fullshark wrote:
| See for yourself:
|
| https://nypost.com/2021/01/06/trump-releases-statement-telli...
|
| Someone described this video as taking a log off the fire while
| simultaneously pouring gasoline which I think is a fair
| characterization.
| ndjdjxjsjdjdhd wrote:
| So basically you are saying:
|
| - Asking for peace isn't enough
|
| - And. He really needs to stop believing his claim of fraud?
|
| Wild. Am I crazy or is everyone else right now?
| dkjaudyeqooe wrote:
| No you're not crazy just disingenuous.
|
| Meaning is transmitted not just by the words you use. For
| example by being sarcastic you can make the words mean the
| opposite of what their plain meaning is.
|
| Trump made clear how he felt, and his words did not reflect
| that.
| lazide wrote:
| Watch the video. He spends JUST enough time saying 'go home
| peacefully' that someone can say he did that. However he
| spends all the actual time and energy saying the exact
| opposite - it was stolen, fight for me, etc.
|
| It is the height of disingenuousness to claim it was a call
| for peace or a thoughtful resolution. It was an emotional
| call to arms with a fig leaf on it.
| [deleted]
| hajile wrote:
| These people aren't there because they think it's
| unimportant. They are convinced the election was stolen
| and nothing you (or he) says would sway their minds.
| Insulting would only lead to anger.
|
| You have to acknowledge the feelings of the other
| individual before they'll listen. They see themselves as
| good, honorable people, so you address them as such. Once
| you have their attention in an agreeable manner (instead
| of an antagonistic manner), you can address the issue at
| hand.
|
| Trump did precisely this. He empathized with them and
| their cause. After he had an agreeable mood somewhat
| established, he then appealed to consequences.
|
| If he hadn't asked them to stop, congress' attempt to
| reconvene would have no doubt been interrupted as well.
| The fact that didn't happen goes a long way against the
| claim that it was a call to violence.
| lovecg wrote:
| > They are convinced the election was stolen and nothing
| you (or he) says would sway their minds.
|
| That's not how people work. Imagine for a second that he
| did come out and say that he was wrong about the fraud
| claims ("we looked into it and didn't find anything") and
| conceded the election. Do you honestly believe not a
| single one of his supporters would fall in line? There
| are a few people who are too far gone, but it's entirely
| disingenuous to suggest he has no power over this. Not
| holding rallies would help a lot too. No, this is all
| squarely at his feet.
| cycrutchfield wrote:
| They only reason why they believe the election was stolen
| in the first place is because Trump has been lying about
| it for the past two months. He is the root cause. He
| could end this easily, but he won't.
| hnaccy wrote:
| You're crazy.
| imwillofficial wrote:
| This is a personal insult and does not elevate the level
| of discourse here. Please remove this.
| jacquesm wrote:
| After asking: "Am I crazy or is everyone else right now?"
| the answer 'You're crazy' should be acceptable.
| willis936 wrote:
| They aren't being impartial here. They want the rules
| unevenly enforced to push their political agenda; not
| very HN-like.
| forgetfulness wrote:
| Indeed asking for peace isn't enough if you're going to fan
| the flames in the same speech. That wasn't the time to
| reassert the legitimacy of his supporters' motives, he's
| not any citizen, the President of the United States should
| have sought to de-escalate the situation created by his
| mass movement in the US capital first and only.
|
| The time to talk about their struggle was another. And that
| without going into the legitimacy of him disputing the
| election results or even the legitimacy of him leading a
| revolutionary movement at this point.
| willis936 wrote:
| The mob started at a "Stop the Steal" Trump Rally where DJT
| personally used mob boss speak about it "not being so nice
| for some senators" and quickly following up with calls to
| not be weak.
|
| "Go to the capital and be strong so the legislators can't
| steal our victory."
|
| *several hours later, after they've broken into the capital
| and terrorized the legislation
|
| "Go home, but they did steal the election and you're
| special and we love you."
|
| That was him approving of their actions. That was him
| saying what they did was what he wanted and he would
| happily see them go further. Not picking up on this pattern
| in the past 4 years doesn't make you crazy, but it does
| mean you aren't paying close attention.
| chrisan wrote:
| Would it be so bad to stop believing his claim of fraud
| after all such claims have been proven in court to be
| false?
|
| At what point should a person stop believing their own
| claims?
| fullshark wrote:
| I'm saying this video will further instill anger in his
| supporters and possibly if not probably lead to greater
| acts of political violence.
| imwillofficial wrote:
| So you're ok with disenfranchising people's genuine
| dissatisfaction with the way the elections were run?
| neogodless wrote:
| > genuine dissatisfaction with
|
| ... the way President Trump claimed _without evidence_
| the elections were run.
|
| Two bedrocks of democracy are that elections are fair so
| that every vote is counted, and that the people's freedom
| of speech outweighs the government's freedom of speech,
| so that governments cannot pull the kind of manipulation
| and deception that President Trump has been doing so
| successfully.
| fullshark wrote:
| I'm ok with removing users that violate the terms of
| service even if they are presidents.
| srj wrote:
| The truth matters. It isn't that their concerns were
| railroaded or not heard. There were dozens of court
| cases, the justice department and state authorities
| investigated. When that turns up nothing, you can't just
| keep entertaining debunked notions that our democratic
| system is rigged.
| jmull wrote:
| You're trying to change the context here. Trump's
| supporters weren't expressing their dissatisfaction with
| the way the elections were run. They were violently
| seizing the capitol building to prevent the
| constitutional process of the peaceful transfer of power.
| willis936 wrote:
| What's genuine about it? It was litigated in nearly a
| hundred court cases, _many of which had conservative
| political appointee judges_. No evidence. No actual
| claims of fraud because the lawyers want to keep their
| bar and know the claims are fraudulent.
|
| Trump's base is upset that they lost the election.
| Nothing more.
| jmull wrote:
| You're misunderstanding.
|
| What he should have done was strongly condemn the violence
| and call for the people to go home immediately and
| peacefully.
|
| And nothing else. With no softening weasel words.
|
| He would be able to keep believing his claims of election
| fraud uninterrupted. And continue to pursuing them, just
| after the violent insurrection was diffused, not during it.
|
| It's important to note that the insurrection was any least
| partially incited by his claims of election fraud, so
| repeating them in that context was extremely dangerous.
| throwawaysea wrote:
| Here are the definitions of the words 'incite' and
| 'violence'
|
| https://www.dictionary.com/browse/inciting to stir,
| encourage, or urge on; stimulate or prompt to action
|
| https://www.dictionary.com/browse/violence an unjust or
| unwarranted exertion of force or power, as against rights
| or laws
|
| I agree he should have strongly condemned those actions
| and asked them to leave immediately. But I also don't see
| any evidence that he incited violence. Alleging election
| fraud, or encouraging people to protest are not the same
| as inciting violence. I'm open to evidence of Trump
| inciting violence, but thus far no one has been able to
| provide it.
| jmull wrote:
| I think you should watch the speeches given at the event
| immediately prior to the rioters going to the capitol
| building and violently seizing it, including Trump's.
|
| It's the nature of the things that you can always argue
| about whether a particular speech rises to the level of
| incitement. E.g., the words like "stir", "encourage", and
| "stimulate" from the definition are not black-and-white
| terms.
|
| However, the actual sequence of events are a pretty
| strong argument for incitement. There's a simple and easy
| to follow implication of cause and effect here.
|
| Also, remember, we're talking about his video _after_ the
| violence broke out. If he didn 't understand that his
| claims of election fraud before the riot would lead the
| riot, he must certainly have understood it during the
| riot.
| throwawaysea wrote:
| Thanks for the response. For me, that's not strong enough
| a case to say that Trump's social media posts should be
| censored or blocked. I simply don't see it as incitement
| of _violence_. His claims of fraud are misleading for
| sure, but if the standard is around "violence"
| specifically, I feel that blame cannot be laid at his
| feet in a provable manner - because this is a highly
| political, highly emotional situation, I am looking for
| evidence that would almost meet a legal standard, like
| beyond a reasonable doubt (https://legal-
| dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Beyond+a+Reas...).
|
| I also think the actions taken by tech companies here
| reflects a double-standard. For example, why isn't AOC
| being blocked for supporting rioting? Why weren't
| Democrats called out for attacks on federal property in
| Portland, Seattle, and other cities? Look at
| https://thefederalist.com/2021/01/07/aocs-comms-director-
| ask... for an exploration of this.
|
| To me, it just looks like big tech companies picking
| winners and losers in an ongoing political and cultural
| war, and are reacting to societal or political pressures
| in taking action rather than acting in any principled
| manner.
| leepowers wrote:
| It's a false equivalence.
|
| Here's the AOC quote being referenced:
|
| > "The whole point of protesting is to make ppl
| uncomfortable. Activists take that discomfort w/ the
| status quo & advocate for concrete policy changes.
| Popular support often starts small & grows. To folks who
| complain protest demands make others uncomfortable...
| that's the point."
|
| Where in this statement is there any incitement for
| rioting or violence?
|
| Now let's take a look at Trump's actions on Wednesday[1]:
|
| > "You don't concede when there's theft involved. Our
| country has had enough and we will not take it any more"
|
| > "And we fight. We fight like hell and if you don't
| fight like hell, you're not going to have a country
| anymore."
|
| This is how Trump described the rioters:
|
| > "These are the things that happen when a sacred
| landslide election victory is so unceremoniously &
| viciously stripped away from great patriots who have been
| badly & unfairly treated for so long."
|
| Contrast this with Pence's response:
|
| > "This attack on our Capitol will not be tolerated and
| those involved will be prosecuted to the fullest extent
| of the law"
|
| [1] https://www.businessinsider.com/how-trump-in-final-
| weeks-inc...
| throwawaysea wrote:
| > The whole point of protesting is to make ppl
| uncomfortable.
|
| This is a thinly-veiled statement in support of
| protesters engaging in criminal activity to get their way
| politically. That is the dictionary definition of
| terrorism (which the capitol incident also qualifies
| for). I agree it isn't explicit in stating that. But
| Trump's statement doesn't explicitly call for criminal
| activity either.
|
| His statements are not asking for violence but asking to
| challenge the results and fight for what you want
| politically. That's what every side does in every
| political confrontation. You COULD also read it as a
| thinly-veiled statement pushing for violence. But it is
| entirely subjective to label one that way but not the
| other. And therefore, big tech companies should hold BOTH
| AOC and Trump to the same exact standard, or neither.
|
| All that aside, I agree Pence's statement is better and
| wish Trump was more forceful in condemning these acts and
| left the "explanations" out.
| imwillofficial wrote:
| You're not crazy, their bias really is that obvious.
| kolbe wrote:
| Can you explain? I don't think it's constructive to hide
| behind analogy and cliche when you could come out and tell us
| the causes and effects that you think are happening here.
| fullshark wrote:
| I think the video will further instill anger in his
| supporters and possibly if not probably lead to greater
| acts of political violence. Hence the claim it violates
| their terms of service.
| kolbe wrote:
| "Even though I totally disagree with the outcome of the
| election, and the facts bear me out, nevertheless there
| will be an orderly transition on January 20th."
|
| If that's an incision of violence, then I'm sure you will
| apply such interpretations equally to other statements?
| Any time there's a riot, block the leaders of whatever
| party they riot on behalf of?
|
| I get that you want to shoehorn in a TOS violation, but
| it's really not. But I also get that it's important for
| him to not have a platform right now. I'm just not into
| this Orwellian twist of rules/words/interpretations to
| try to justify the fact that we just aren't safe with him
| broadcasting his lies anymore.
| bluntfang wrote:
| Why do you think it's "hiding"? analogies have a way to
| explain things to people who don't have context, it's a
| tool to remove obfuscation, not add more layers.
| kolbe wrote:
| That only true when it serves to augment the plain
| English truth. When that's omitted, it's what I dare say
| is a "Trumpian" method of obscuring reality.
| [deleted]
| apocalypstyx wrote:
| It's like saying: your spouse is being assaulted, stay peaceful
| and go home.
| neogodless wrote:
| There's a phrase "Talking out of both sides of your mouth." He
| said what he believed the urging of politicans, media and
| oppositional citizens wanted by saying "go home" while
| continuing to say what his base wanted to hear - "we won in a
| landslide and it was stolen."
|
| Each side could choose to only hear what they want, or
| recognize it for the manipulation it is. We know what his
| followers will do - hear what they want to hear. We know what
| his opposition will do - hear it for the manipulation it is.
| Therefore we can conclude that it was not a genuine urging of
| his followers to actually give up and leave.
| imglorp wrote:
| The President's attorney also ran a rally 2 hours before the
| riot calling for "trial by combat". Some speech is way over
| the line. There's always a wink at the end.
|
| https://twitter.com/SamuelSokol/status/1347173729458122753
| NE2z2T9qi wrote:
| And when politicians call each other Nazis, or when Joe Biden
| claimed that Mitt Romney wanted to re-enslave black people?
|
| Seems like you're only going to apply your "inciting
| violence" claim to one side. I watched cities burn over the
| summer and intense levels of violence... And yet no one on
| the left trotted out speech bans and "incitement to violence"
| claims. It's obvious you're selectively targeting enforcement
| of intentionally vague standards. Federal buildings were
| being accosted in Portland and Seattle just a few months ago
| and the mayors supported them. Haven't seen their accounts
| banned.
| donohoe wrote:
| Not the same thing. Stop trying to make the two sound the
| same.
|
| It all started when Mr. Biden, addressing a predominantly
| African American crowd, quoted Mr. Romney as saying in his
| first 100 days as president that "he's going to let the big
| banks once again write their own rules -- unchain Wall
| Street." Then the vice president added with a grin:
| "They're going to put y'all back in chains!"
| Helloworldboy wrote:
| How can you be this fucking disingenuous and live with
| yourself?
| newacct583 wrote:
| > And when politicians call each other Nazis, or when Joe
| Biden claimed that Mitt Romney wanted to re-enslave black
| people?
|
| Name calling isn't incitement to violence. Can you point to
| the specific instances of violence you are talking about
| and the speech that inspired them?
|
| The issue here is that this isn't theoretical. Trump
| actually spoke to a real mob, in person, told them to march
| to the capitol, and then praised him once they had invaded
| and sacked it during a joint session of congress. Given
| that, yes, we look at his speech with much less tolerant
| criteria. He wasn't just spouting off, he is at least a
| proximate cause of a direct attack on our seat of
| government.
| NE2z2T9qi wrote:
| What a news-bubble you live in. Multiple cities burned
| over the summer while many politicians, activist, and
| newspapers encouraged protests. Numerous Trump supporters
| were assaulted. At least two Trump supporters were shot
| to death.
|
| The fact that you don't know and don't care about this
| shows in what politically-biased bad faith you're
| operating.
| [deleted]
| newacct583 wrote:
| I repeat: Can you point to the specific instances of
| violence you are talking about and the speech that
| inspired them?
| leepowers wrote:
| For months Trump has asserted that mail-in voting is
| intrinsically insecure and fraudulent. He's also been parroting
| baseless lies and conspiracy theories about the election.
| Telling his supporters their vote is being suppressed by all
| the parties that refuse to go along with his insane demands.
| These parties include: state and federal governments, private
| companies that build voting machines, poll workers, Republican
| secretaries of state, state and federal courts, a complicit
| press, and now even the vice president.
|
| If you believe what Trump says then you must believe that the
| entire system of democratic representation has broken down.
| Under this mindset it makes sense to resort to violent action
| and storm the capitol - what other recourse do you have? That's
| why rioters left a "WE WILL NOT BACK DOWN" note on Pelosi's
| desk. And when Trump says the loves and supports the rioters,
| that's the mindset he's reinforcing and encouraging.
|
| When Trump says everyone should go home - why should we treat
| that statement as normative? When virtually everything else
| this man has said agitates and encourages insurrection, why
| should we glom onto this one positive statement?
|
| > 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.
|
| The account bans are not just because of this one video
| considered in isolation. The bans are happening because of the
| systematic anti-democratic and seditious behavior of the
| president and his campaign.
| alessivs wrote:
| 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.
| cassalian wrote:
| 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.
| justapassenger wrote:
| 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?
| throwaway888abc wrote:
| If it's good enough to have access to nuclear buttons, why not
| Facebook ? Confused by what is happening in US.
| Red_Tarsius wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| As far as I know he can still address the people. Presidents
| were able to before Facebook was invented.
| deeviant wrote:
| 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.
| claydavisss wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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.
| djsumdog wrote:
| Yep, very true. I can't disagree with anything you've
| said. I do remember 2006 very well and the "I landed
| under sniper fire" from Hillary.
|
| I agree Bill Clinton was outside of it, but he got in and
| they started their entrenchment. Prescott Bush spent
| decades preparing for his son to become the president,
| but it was his long term intention.
|
| Trump started planning this in the 80s and his extended
| family are also much easier to listen to and less ...
| squawking. There's a good chance they'll rise despite all
| of this as another political family like the Kennedys.
|
| Kennedy wasn't corrupt enough, and got taken out by his
| own people, and somehow to this day over half of the
| world believe it was just one guy with an axe to grind.
|
| The actual undercarriage of what is going in is deep and
| complex, held by powerful people who will rip each other,
| and the peasants, in order to maintain their control and
| power.
|
| Just look at how people on here are ripping at each
| other, accusing every Trump supporter as being a Nazi or
| fascist. I think back to the quote from Wargames about
| thermonuclear war .. the only way to win, is not to play.
| tibbydudeza wrote:
| Zuck had his Lindsey Graham moment like so many others will over
| the coming days ... The King is dead ... Long Live the King.
| pluc wrote:
| Mark Zuckerberg, Jack Dorsey, etc all have the capability to
| silence the leader of the free world.
|
| What a time to be alive!
| TT3351 wrote:
| By what definition is this silencing
| pluc wrote:
| He can't talk on those platforms anymore? The opposite of
| talking is silence
| pluc wrote:
| I have no love for Trump but does that not scare anyone
| else?
| aprdm wrote:
| 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.
| yawaemworht wrote:
| While I don't agree with twitter policies as of the last few
| months, I don't think that somebody should get a different
| treatment based on the status/job/role they have in society.
| agnosticmantis wrote:
| The fact that very little of his term is left and that
| everyone, including his former allies, are abandoning him, make
| the story less surprising in retrospect.
|
| But yes, these are hard to predict times.
| mmmeff wrote:
| Can we call it what it is? A corporation is banning the
| president, not a software platform .
| suyash wrote:
| I can see it only going to get worse from here, if social media
| companies powers go unchecked.
| disown wrote:
| Even more interesting is the blatant support of zuckerburg and
| facebook here.
|
| Of all places, you'd think HN would support free speech, but
| yesterday, you got downvote brigaded for mentioning that
| facebook and tech companies shouldn't be our censors.
|
| The logic was "we must protect democracy by having zuckerburg
| censor an elected government official".
|
| One moment it's facebook is evil. The next moment, facebook and
| zuckerburg are the heroes we need to save democracy. Go figure.
| TheJazi13 wrote:
| You can do the right thing every now and then while still
| being evil. It's been obvious for a long time how stuffed
| with lies, hate and abuse the President's social media
| account have been.
| dionian wrote:
| For example? Was it his tweets yesterday saying to comply
| with the police and leave the Capitol? can we be a bit more
| substantive?
| MacsHeadroom wrote:
| "The logic" for me is that private censorship IS free speech
| whether I agree with it personally or not.
|
| The point of free speech protections are to protect the stuff
| you don't like. Don't like a private business censoring?
| That's free speech.
| Chris2048 wrote:
| > The point of free speech protections are to protect the
| stuff you don't like
|
| no, its to protect speech you don't like, not "stuff", or
| it could be abstracted to any number of maxims.
|
| a private business cannot censor its own expressions, only
| those of others. The issue of censorship only cones up wrt
| publishing platforms discrimination on who they serve.
| wizzwizz4 wrote:
| Has it not occurred to you that, maybe, we should judge
| people for their _actions_? Rather than deciding upon an
| immutable set of Good People and Bad People, we should judge
| good and bad deeds?
| dionian wrote:
| If only Facebook would act that way towards Trump. He
| called for the people to leave the Capitol.
| [deleted]
| w0de wrote:
| My friend, if you believe that tepid action redeems the
| inveterate liar and his despicable record of action, then
| there is little you won't look past.
| NN88 wrote:
| I have a social media platform that I created that Trump isn't
| on. Did I deplatform him?
| dgudkov wrote:
| It's a turning point. For the 1st time ever the tech giants
| asserted that their power in the internet is bigger then the
| government. It was kinda obvious the last few years, but
| remained implicit. Today the implicit became explicit. I'm sure
| it will have a profound impact on American democracy in the
| long run. Interesting times, indeed.
| awb wrote:
| Since the election results became apparent cable outlets have
| begun cutting away from the President's speeches and tech
| companies have begun censoring the President's speech.
|
| Absolutely nothing has changed in the President's speech or
| behavior since his 1st speech announcing his candidacy 5 years
| ago.
|
| We needed a John Hancock 5 years ago that was willing to draw a
| line on violent speech and disinformation regardless of the
| consequences. Instead we got media leadership with their thumbs
| to the wind ignoring their platform policies and hiding behind
| a "public interest" rationale.
|
| Too little too late.
| threeseed wrote:
| Context matters.
|
| What Trump did over the last 5 years pales in comparison to
| what he is doing now.
|
| The effortless transition of power is the most fundamental
| and sacrosanct process in a democracy. And everyone has an
| obligation to defend it.
| URSpider94 wrote:
| I'd argue that there's actually no difference in his
| behavior. Trump has been consistently divisive, untruthful
| and inflammatory since day one. What has happened is that
| his sustained behavior has radicalized a significant
| fraction of the population to the point that they are
| convinced that everyone else is lying to them and there's a
| massive conspiracy against their god-leader. I don't want
| to run afoul of Godwin's Law here, but if you ever wonder
| how people ended up following leaders like Stalin, Franco
| or Mussolini - it was a process of years. People who called
| this out as dangerous from day one were ridiculed as
| alarmists or partisans.
| jopsen wrote:
| So true,
|
| Even if the US election often seems like a coin flip, the
| fact that it only lasts 4 or 8 years means that a wrong
| flip doesn't matter so much.
|
| This is probably pretty important, as it's well known that
| Americans like to exhaust all other options before doing
| the right thing ;)
| 5555624 wrote:
| > Even if the US election often seems like a coin flip,
| the fact that it only lasts 4 or 8 years means that a
| wrong flip doesn't matter so much.
|
| Except on those occasions when the President, Senate
| Majority, and House majority are all the same party.
| (That gives them two years before the House might flip.)
| In today's we're right and they're wrong -- which is how
| each side sees it -- one-party rule could get
| interesting.
|
| What people seem to keep forgetting is that only one
| Presidential candidate has ever gotten more votes than
| Trump got in this last election and that was Joe Biden.
| Both the far right and far left wings need to be reigned
| in.
| jonhohle wrote:
| The argument being made, regardless of whether it's true
| or not, is that at best it's an unfair coin that favors
| one party over another. Using that coin, the party has
| taken two branches of government and allegedly will stack
| the third in its favor and has no check to prevent it
| from doing so. With all three branches there is little to
| no possibility of the unfair coin being investigated.
|
| I find it somewhat disappointing that the more compelling
| allegations were not tested in court. At least there
| would be public documentation of the argument and
| reasoned verdict.
| pythonaut_16 wrote:
| Do you have a list of the more compelling allegations?
| I'm genuinely curious to see them.
| prox wrote:
| It's literally what he has sworn to defend at the
| inauguration.
|
| Instead we got this tweet "Statistically impossible to have
| lost the 2020 Election," he tweeted. "Big protest in D.C.
| on January 6th. Be there, will be wild!"
|
| He has sworn duty to not incite the crowd, no matter how
| much he thinks he has lost. That's what the courts are for
| (which he tried and lost) and even many,many recounts
| (which didn't move the needle noticeably) and that is what
| the democratic process is for.
| runarberg wrote:
| Things escalated really gradually over the course of 4 years
| DubiousPusher wrote:
| I don't think that's true at all. It's been an up and down
| maelstrom of anti-democracy and mob bating since the man
| walked down that escalator.
| linuxftw wrote:
| > We needed a John Hancock 5 years ago that was willing to
| draw a line on violent speech
|
| You mean like 'no justice no peace' or just speech that
| doesn't align with your political ideology? (To be clear, I'm
| all in favor of defunding police and the government at large)
| systemvoltage wrote:
| You must have something to say besides it's interesting?
| laddng wrote:
| I often find myself responding with "interesting" when I
| haven't yet formulated an opinion - to me it's an indication
| that I'll have to get back to you on how I feel about it. I
| haven't found another synonym to use as a response, and I
| often catch myself constantly saying "interesting" over and
| over. It's interesting.
| BrawnLongHaul wrote:
| Because, to me, it seems that any thought that differs from
| SV, left-leaning orthodoxy, is instantly flagged, downvoted,
| or deleted.
| systemvoltage wrote:
| Saying something is interesting is not adding any value.
| It's obvious that all this is very interesting, indeed.
| Epokhe wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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.
| aprdm wrote:
| Thinking that you have to Take a Side is IMO a false
| dichotomy. There is a whole specter of opinions.
|
| Between "I support what facebook did" and "I do not
| support what facebook did", or "I support Trump" vs "I
| hate Trump". if I were to take a side right now I would
| not be able to. Regardless I find it interesting, much of
| the discussion I've heard in the last 24h is very
| interesting to me.
|
| FWIW I am not American nor do I live in the USA.
| Epokhe wrote:
| Sorry if that came across that way. I just found your
| first reply unnecessary.
|
| I think each take is useful, no matter how opinionated
| they are. I understand your point though, I also wouldn't
| want every comment in the thread being neutral. Knowing
| HN, I think we're doing fine :)
| midasz wrote:
| Quickly, to the victim-mobile...
| dkjaudyeqooe wrote:
| Like Trump is just a regular president of a country.
|
| It's not surprising at all given his behavior. Being president
| doesn't excuse it.
| hartator wrote:
| What policies he pushed you are not happy with? Less taxes,
| no new wars, and leaving each state making their own
| decisions for covid-19 seems pretty center right to me.
| ChrisLomont wrote:
| > Less taxes,
|
| Paid for by running up record deficits - which is the
| opposite of what the right claimed to stand for, and which
| Trump directly ran on. And those taxes expire for the
| people, showing who Trump really worked for in this case.
|
| >no new wars,
|
| Yet destabilizing many areas of the world, leaving it in
| the opinion of some countries in a much less peaceful
| place. Here's Germany putting Trump as "Greatest Threat to
| World Peace " [1]. He's destabilized NATO, he's attacked
| the US and other intelligence forces to where the US is no
| longer trusted, likely causing other agencies to share less
| intel with us. Here's how a lot of the first world thinks
| of Trump [2].
|
| >leaving each state making their own decisions for covid-19
|
| And his lack of leadership is a central reason the US has
| 350K_ dead, while other first world countries only have a
| fraction of the death and economic downturn Trump caused.
|
| Trump also fought states having the right to their own
| election rules, didn't want states to deal with immigration
| on their own terms, didn't want states to deal with
| protests on their own terms, has repeatedly claimed he has
| absolute authority over state decisions (including COVID
| related ones where he claimed he could dictate economic
| policy, which he didn't have), and on and on....
|
| Trump uses "states rights" to score political points only -
| pretend to respect them when he wants, and attack them when
| he wants.
|
| When your evaulation uses a fallacy (cherry-picking) you
| end up ignoring the majority of the eivdence, your
| assessment ends up incorrect.
|
| [1] https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-angela-merkel-
| germans-...
|
| [2] https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2020/09/15/us-image-
| plumm...
| at-fates-hands wrote:
| >> Trump also fought states having the right to their own
| election rules.
|
| Its clearly stated in the constitution that if states
| change their election laws, then they need to go through
| the legislature in order to do so. GA, WI. MI and PA ALL
| made changes WITHOUT going through the legislature. Why?
| Because in each of those states, the legislature was
| controlled by Republicans.
|
| The fact they changed their laws the way they did is a
| clear cut violation of the constitution, it's not even
| debatable.
| gamblor956 wrote:
| In all of those instances, the "changes" to election laws
| were made by the respective state legislatures earlier
| during the year...or... _spoiler alert_ in prior years.
| URSpider94 wrote:
| There's so much wrong in this statement. No state
| anywhere can change laws without going through the
| legislature. Only the legislature has the power to write
| law. The executive branch, which runs elections, always
| has leeway on how they implement and interpret laws. If
| someone had a problem with how the laws were interpreted,
| they could sue in state court - many people did, all the
| suits were dismissed by the state courts, meaning that
| the courts did not find any violations of the state
| constitution. So, "the fact they changed their laws the
| way they did" -> they did not change their laws. "is a
| clear-cut violation of the constitution" -> nope, courts
| determined over and over and over that this is not the
| case.
| at-fates-hands wrote:
| _In September 2020, the Court rewrote Pennsylvania
| election law to allow ballots received three days after
| Election Day, even without a postmark, to be counted.
| Further, it kicked off the ballot the Green Party
| candidate, who normally takes away votes from the
| Democratic candidate. The Court rewrote the clear
| language of the statute:_
|
| _Deadline.--Except as provided under 25 Pa.C.S. SS
| 3511[24] (relating to receipt of voted ballot), a
| completed mail-in ballot must be received in the office
| of the county board of elections no later than eight o
| 'clock P.M. on the day of the primary or election._
|
| _This case is on appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court on the
| argument that only the Legislature can set the rules for
| a federal election:_
|
| _The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for
| Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each
| State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at
| any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as
| to the Places of chusing_ Senators.*
|
| _On November 27, 2020, Judge McCullough of the PA
| Commonwealth Court issued a preliminary injunction to
| stop certification of the vote pending review because the
| Pennsylvania statute, Act 77, enacted on October 31,
| 2019, which provided for "no-excuse" mail- in voting,
| changed the Pennsylvania constitution. Amending the PA
| Constitution requires that the Legislature pass the law
| in two sessions, and then the amendment is voted upon by
| the voters. This was not followed in enacting Act 77. The
| case is Mike Kelly, Sean Parnell, et al. v. Commonwealth
| of Pa, Governor Thomas Wolf, et al._
|
| _On Saturday, November 28, 2020, the Pennsylvania
| Supreme Court overruled Judge McCullough. The vote was
| 7-0, with the two Republicans joining in the decision
| with the exception that the two Republicans wanted to
| keep the case open to decide the constitutionality of the
| statute._
|
| _The two Republicans should have dissented to state that
| the election was held under an unconstitutional and
| therefore an illegal statute. They should have stated
| that Gov. Wolf, his Democrat secretary of state, and
| Democrat attorney general Josh Shapiro allowed the
| election to proceed under a statute they knew was
| unconstitutional. All three are sworn to uphold the laws
| and constitutions of Pennsylvania and the United States._
|
| _Senator Kelly filed an emergency appeal to Judge Alito
| of the U.S. Supreme Court requesting an injunction to bar
| the certification._
|
| _The issues raised by Kelly are as follows:_
|
| _1. May a legislature violate its state constitution 's
| restrictions on the lawmaking power when enacting
| legislation for the conduct of federal elections pursuant
| to Article I, SS 4, and Article II, SS 1 of the U.S.
| Constitution?_
|
| _2. Did the Pennsylvania Supreme Court violate
| Petitioners ' rights under the First and Fourteenth
| Amendment of the U.S. Constitution by dismissing with
| prejudice the case below, on the basis of laches, thereby
| foreclosing any opportunity for Petitioners to seek
| retrospective and prospective relief for ongoing
| constitutional violations?_
|
| _The Court did not hold an evidentiary hearing to
| question why Wolf allowed the election to proceed
| pursuant to a statute he knew was unconstitutional._
|
| _Further, the Republicans have a majority in the Senate
| and House of the PA Legislature. Why did the Republicans
| in the Legislature vote for Act 77 to allow no-excuse
| mail-in voting?_
|
| _The votes of voters who voted in person were not
| treated equally because the no-excuse mail-in voters
| voted pursuant to an unconstitutional law. This is a
| denial of equal protection and due process._
|
| _As Judge McCullough stated:_
|
| _[A] mail-in voting process that would exceed the limits
| of absentee voting prescribed in PA Const. Article VII
| sec 14 could be construed as violating the "one person
| one vote." In that event, the sheer magnitude of the
| number of mail-in ballots would not be a basis to
| disregard not only this provision of the Pennsylvania
| Constitution but also the "one person, one vote" doctrine
| established by Reynolds, one of the bedrock decisions of
| the U.S. Supreme Court._
|
| _The PA Supreme Court also said the mail-in voters would
| be disenfranchised. But that is the fault of Wolf and his
| secretary of state, who created the problem, not the
| fault of those challenging an unconstitutional law._
|
| _Senator Ted Cruz urged the U.S. Supreme Court to review
| Kelly 's appeal._
|
| _The PA Supreme Court ruled to protect the "win" by
| Biden. This is consistent with its decision to rewrite
| the law to allow unlimited mail-in ballots received after
| the election date._
| dkjaudyeqooe wrote:
| I didn't mention his policies why do you think they're
| relevant?
|
| I said 'behaviour' and what I meant is that his incitement
| to violence is beyond the pale.
|
| FB, Twitter and many other people agree. It's obviously a
| value judgement but not a particularly difficult one.
| NE2z2T9qi wrote:
| Provide evidence please. Give me a example of where Trump
| called for violence
| GordonS wrote:
| Come on man, you can't be serious - the public burden of
| proof is so _massive_ that it 's on you if you want to
| argue, pointlessly otherwise.
|
| Go and read his Twitter feed from the past few weeks,
| where he has spewed lies about non-existent fraud in an
| almost hourly basis, told Mike Pence to overturn the
| result, and where he called on his supporters to come to
| DC on the 6th. He has been whipping up his supporters
| into a frenzy for some time.
|
| Watch the video clips of his speeches he has posted on
| Twitter, with yet more lies about how the election was
| "stolen from him", the other side are "evil", and how his
| supporters must "fight" for democracy by helping him
| overturn the will of the American people.
|
| Listen to the tapes of him telling state officials to
| "find more votes", with thinly veiled threats.
|
| Watch the video of his speech shortly before the riot,
| where Rudi Guliani said the way to win was "trial by
| combat", and Trump told them all to march on the capital.
|
| Listen even to his video statement where he asks them to
| stop the violence - where he _still_ refuses to denounce
| their actions, banging on about fraud and what "great
| patriots" they are!
|
| He has, to my knowledge, never _explicitly_ said "let's
| go and stage a violent coup!", because even Trump is just
| a tad more intelligent than that - but it is _abundantly_
| clear that this is what he was asking for and what he
| wanted, and it 's been clear for all to see for some
| time.
| FireBeyond wrote:
| Yeah, you're definitely not trying hard:
|
| - http://www.mediaite.com/online/trump-tells-crowd-to-
| knock-th... "Knock the crap out of them" complete with
| video and offers to pay legal fees
|
| - https://thinkprogress.org/donald-trump-my-fans-were-
| right-to... - "Maybe he should have been roughed up." on
| Fox and Friends
|
| - https://www.yahoo.com/news/donald-trump-punch-him-in-
| the-fac... - "He's smiling [a protestor]. I'd like to
| punch him. Punch him right in the face."
|
| I find it ... 'odd' ... that you can be so well-informed
| about DNC issues but have "no recollection" (I love that
| phrase, works so well when people are being hauled in
| front of Congress) of any specific issue of violence from
| Trump or the RNC.
|
| In fact, here you go, someone's collated them all, with
| evidence:
|
| http://mashable.com/2016/03/12/trump-rally-incite-
| violence/#...
|
| At least nine video captured incidents:
|
| - "I'll beat the crap out of you"
|
| - "Part of the problem... is no-one wants to hurt each
| other any more."
|
| - "The audience hit back. We need more of that."
|
| and so on. and so on.
|
| The "hilarious" part is I posted this four years ago, and
| it was a synopsis of less than a year of Trump's public
| calls for violence.
| gameswithgo wrote:
| 1. less taxes I am not happy with 2. immigrant children in
| cages 3. easing of environmental rules 4. pulling out of
| climate deal 5. pulling out of iran deal 6. lying about the
| election being a fraud, and causing insurrection 7.
| pardoning his criminal cronies
| Chris2048 wrote:
| > 2. immigrant children in cages
|
| by which you mean in immigration holding cells, after
| being separated from their apparent guardians, as an
| anti-trafficking measure.
|
| so what would _you_ do?
| boogies wrote:
| > 2. immigrant children in cages
|
| Who built the cages? https://lmddgtfy.net/?q=who%20built%
| 20cages%20for%20children
|
| You're making
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25673162 's point.
| makomk wrote:
| Not just that, people who should've known better kept on
| using photos of kids in cages that were _literally taken
| under the Obama administration_ to insist that Trump was
| uniquely evil, including members of Congress and
| mainstream publications, even months (maybe years?) after
| the fact they were from the Obama era was firmly
| established. Not just that either. For example, the
| fricking _Associated Press_ ran an investigative piece
| about immigrant kids being handed over to forced labour
| traffickers that was 100% open about the fact its purpose
| was to attack Trump 's immigration policies, even though
| if you looked at the dates every incident it described
| happened under Obama. That didn't stop everyone on social
| media interpreting it in the intended fashion.
| tomp wrote:
| Do you have a link to AP story? Genuinely curious to read
| it
| boogies wrote:
| Ditto. I looked and found this short 2017 story by the AP
| about laborers hidden on property "since mid-2015", but
| it doesn't mention their age.
| https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-forced-
| labor-20... (disable JavaScript to disable paywall)
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > Who built the cages?
|
| Who cares?
|
| There's all kinds of less-objectionable potential uses of
| the cages than the ones to which the Trump Administration
| has put them. _Building_ them isn't the problem.
| boogies wrote:
| > There's all kinds of less-objectionable potential uses
| of the cages than the ones to which the Trump
| Administration has put them.
|
| They were built to keep children separate from each other
| (gender segregated) and from adults: https://www.usatoday
| .com/story/news/factcheck/2020/08/26/fac...
| dragonwriter wrote:
| Yes, and doing that for a smaller number of people that
| are transitionally detained after taking steps to
| minimize their use by minimizing detaining children in
| the first place (e.g., a policy of not doing custodial
| detainment of adults accompanying children whose only
| apparent offense is illegal crossing so that the court-
| mandated separate detention of children isn't an issue
| versus deliberately adopting a policy of maximum family
| separation with the overt motivation of using the
| associated suffering as a deterrent and punishment.)
| throwaways885 wrote:
| No, GP means, literally, who put the cage policy in
| place. It was not the Trump administration.
|
| People are only cross about this because it's Trump.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > No, GP means, literally, who put the cage policy in
| place. It was not the Trump administration.
|
| The policy of deliberately maximizing use of the cages by
| maximizing family separation and using the induced
| psychic harm as a deterrent is a policy adopted by the
| Trump Administration.
|
| The policy of requiring segregated detention of children,
| when actually detained, which caused the cages to be
| necessary was a judicially-imposed policy.
|
| The policy of minimizing detention of children so as to
| minimize the use of the cages, including _not_ detaining
| adults accompanying children without reason beyond
| illegal crossing, was a direct response to that
| judicially-imposed policy by the Obama Administration
| that was abandoned by the Trump Administration.
|
| So, if one is using "built the cages" with the peculiar
| meaning you suggest of "adopted the policy for their use
| that is the subject of the objections", Trump "built the
| cages".
| runarberg wrote:
| While I agree that any president of the USA is basically
| a baddie Trump really blows the scale. Yes we should be
| talking about the draconian immigration policies under
| Obama, and we should be talking about Biden's support for
| the war on drugs, and we should be talking about drone
| killings under the Democrats. But that doesn't mean Trump
| is not all that and worse.
|
| Yes it is bad that children were arrested under Obama.
| Obama should absolutely have to answer to those crimes.
| But so should Trump. In addition Trump also needs to
| answer for the child separation (not done under Obama).
| Yes, Obama needs to answer for war crimes and
| extrajudicial killings, but so should Trump, and in
| addition Trump needs to answer to toxic rhetoric,
| inciting racism, inciting racism, inciting people not to
| follow public health protocols, etc.
| chasd00 wrote:
| and btw, if the dividers were office cube dividers
| instead of chain link would you still call it a "cage" ?
| FireBeyond wrote:
| > no new wars
|
| but multiple foreign military "actions"
|
| > and leaving each state making their own decisions for
| covid-19
|
| Well, you know other than seizing PPE, and then having your
| son-in-law, a part of your administration, state -on the
| record-, that you would openly withhold PPE from states
| that "weren't friendly to the President".
|
| There's many, many more. But you're presenting a rather
| simplistic (and inaccurate) narrative here.
| tartoran wrote:
| Virtually all his tweets have a tendency to disinform. He
| caused a lot of damage to the country during the pandemic,
| remember that? Why keep on giving Trump carte blanche? His
| social messages cause a lot of harm to the US.
|
| I guess he's more welcome to GAB or any other radical
| social media. His followers will flock to him in a similar
| way as on Twitter or Facebook. Let him be relevant where
| people don't question him
| triceratops wrote:
| > Less taxes,
|
| My taxes went up.
|
| > leaving each state making their own decisions for
| covid-19
|
| This one especially.
| jayrot wrote:
| > leaving each state making their own decisions for
| covid-19
|
| It's so infuriating that this BS would pass for some sort
| of Trump accolade. The country is in full-blown crisis,
| the likes of which we haven't seen in a century. Why
| should the president do anything? He let the states
| handle it. What a great leader!
| triceratops wrote:
| I know right? It's like Bush telling the NYPD they can go
| arrest Bin Laden after 9/11.
| gedy wrote:
| Trump's as nasty and dishonest as any president. The media
| does pick and choose who they elevate or denigrate however.
|
| I grew up hearing and thinking JFK was basically like a
| Bodhisattva, and come to find out years later that, no, he
| was a sexual predator at times and a huge reason Vietnam was
| escalated.
| tshaddox wrote:
| It seems more interesting that a software platform like this
| would be expected to treat a president of a country different
| than a normal person. Should the queen of England get even more
| privileges to break rules on the platform? And the peerage
| somewhere below that (but still much higher than the common
| folk)?
| NE2z2T9qi wrote:
| And what rules exactly did Trump break? He explicitly did not
| call for violence.
|
| It seems like you want people silenced if they question the
| official narrative. That's precisely antithetical to free-
| speech ideals.
|
| Do you know how often I've seen Republicans called Nazis? Or
| evil? Or that they need to be eliminated? I don't go crying
| to Facebook to censor opinions I don't like.
| Voloskaya wrote:
| Insults are not actual call to immediate violence.
|
| Calling thousands of supporters to go to the capitol and
| telling them "you'll never take back our country with
| weakness. You have to show strength and you have to be
| strong." is a very precise call to violence.
| [deleted]
| al_chemist wrote:
| > Calling thousands of supporters to go to the capitol
| and telling them "you'll never take back our country with
| weakness. You have to show strength and you have to be
| strong." is a very precise call to violence.
|
| "Kill them", "Attack them", "Burn down that building" is
| a very precise call to violence. "You have to be strong"
| is not. "You have to show strength" is not.
|
| #KillAllMen on the other hand is a very precise call to
| violence, and yet nobody cares about banning that on
| social media.
| skulk wrote:
| It's a good thing our court system in the US doesn't play
| these games with semantics and instead tries to
| understand intent. You can use however many layers of
| coded language you want, but your intent still exists.
|
| This goes the other way too, with obviously satirical
| hashtags.
| Voloskaya wrote:
| > "You have to be strong" is not. "You have to show
| strength" is not.
|
| It is, in the context of the events from the past few
| weeks. Some of his supporters had been saying for weeks
| now that they were "standing by" and ready to do "what
| had to be done" when Trump would call to them. His speech
| yesterday was predicably heard as the call.
|
| I don't believe for 1 second that he didn't intended for
| his words to be interpreted that way.
|
| And for the record, #KillAllWhatever should be banned as
| well in my book, I'm not defending it.
| al_chemist wrote:
| > #KillAllWhatever should be banned as well in my book,
| I'm not defending it.
|
| Thank you.
|
| > It is, in the context of the events from the past few
| weeks
|
| If something is "very precise" in context, then it is not
| precise. If we have to interpret words, then we have
| multiple interpretations and everybody can have their own
| truth. You can't say something is "a very precise call to
| violence" because of some people may interpret it their
| way.
|
| His tweet (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/134
| 69127807005777...) is very precise. "I am asking for
| everyone at the U.S. Capitol to remain peaceful. No
| violence!"
| tshaddox wrote:
| I'm not familiar with #KillAllMen, but it sounds
| rhetorical, and even if it's not, it doesn't appear to
| meet the US standard of "imminent lawless action." Speech
| can only be limited if the speaker intends for it to
| incite violence, and that the violence is both imminent
| and likely. You can literally intend to incite violence
| at some unspecified future time and that speech is
| protected. You can also just tweet out incitement for
| violence at a specific time and it's probably protected
| if you're a random person with no following or influence
| that is likely to cause the violence to actually happen.
| archagon wrote:
| > _#KillAllMen on the other hand is a very precise call
| to violence, and yet nobody cares about banning that on
| social media._
|
| ...are you quite serious? Has a single person in the
| world taken this as an actual call to action?
| NE2z2T9qi wrote:
| Got it. Protesting should be illegal. Thanks for the
| lesson on free speech.
| zarkov99 wrote:
| Man, I am sympathetic to the free speech argument and I
| agree that the right has been getting shafted in that
| department, but this does seem pretty close to the "don't
| yell fire in a crowded theater" exception. This was not a
| protest in the democratic sense. It is a shameful day for
| the country.
| tshaddox wrote:
| This is way beyond "don't yell fire in a crowded
| theater," which was an action considered to be outside
| the protection of free speech because it presented a
| "clear and present danger." That standard was later
| restricted further, and is now "imminent lawless action."
| The President's actions appear to blow right past "clear
| and present danger" and explicitly call for "imminent
| lawless action."
| jgeada wrote:
| That was not a protest. It was a planned and coordinated
| terrorist mob attack on the US Capitol, and successfully
| breached it. The first such successful attack since 1814.
|
| Trump and allies have been communicating the date and
| requesting this behavior for weeks. Anybody surprised at
| the result should be deemed mentally incompetent.
| [deleted]
| briantakita wrote:
| Strength does not mean violence in this case. >99% of the
| gathering was peaceful. What if we applied the same
| standards we applied to the Black Lives Matter protests
| which also included elements of rioting, looting, arson,
| & even murder, yet were heralded as "mostly peaceful" (by
| the same people)?
| a_wild_dandan wrote:
| Using a platform to widely spread toxic disinformation
| about election fraud is probably against Facebook's ToS.
| mistermann wrote:
| I'm sorry but this is silly (and I'm a "Trump supporter").
|
| > He explicitly did not call for violence.
|
| Effective communication need not be specific. Surely you
| possess this knowledge, but might it have been in "cold
| storage" _at the time you wrote this comment_?
|
| > It seems like you want people silenced if they question
| the official narrative.
|
| Reality is often not as it seems. Often it is even the
| exact opposite of how it seems.
|
| > Do you know how often I've seen Republicans called Nazis?
| Or evil? Or that they need to be eliminated?
|
| "Truthy", but orthogonal. Two wrongs don't make a right (or
| so "they" say).
| thotsBgone wrote:
| Right before he was banned from Twitter, didn't several
| of his tweets specifically and emphatically urge
| protesters to avoid violence and respect the police
| presence?
| mistermann wrote:
| Perhaps. Were they received by all participants? How were
| they interpreted?
|
| These are humans, not robots.
| bra-ket wrote:
| exactly, but the lefties are lost cause at this point after
| years of brainwashing. I have never seen so many people so
| deep in 'alternate reality'.
| [deleted]
| irrational wrote:
| It would be more interesting if they did it years ago. Doing it
| less than 2 weeks before he leaves office seems uninteresting
| and cowardly to me.
| bl0b wrote:
| I learned on HN some time ago that:
|
| > "May you live in interesting times" is an English expression
| that is claimed to be a translation of a traditional Chinese
| curse. While seemingly a blessing, the expression is normally
| used ironically; life is better in "uninteresting times" of
| peace and tranquility than in "interesting" ones, which are
| usually times of trouble. [0]
|
| [0]
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/May_you_live_in_interesting_ti...
| techer wrote:
| "Despite being widely attributed as a Chinese curse, there is
| no known equivalent expression in Chinese.[2] The nearest
| related Chinese expression translates as "Better to be a dog
| in times of tranquility than a human in times of chaos." (Zhu
| Wei Tai Ping Quan ,Bu Zuo Luan Shi Ren )"
| soared wrote:
| I might argue it's always better to be a dog.
| CamperBob2 wrote:
| As a human, one should strive to be the owner of such a
| fortunate dog.
|
| I don't think I'd want to swap places with most dogs,
| personally.
| danbolt wrote:
| It looks like the symbols for dog (Quan ) and person (Ren )
| are at end of each verse. I can't speak Chinese, but I'd
| imagine the line rings well hearing the ordering of
| subject/object/verb like that.
| justinnhli wrote:
| There are more constraints than that - the corresponding
| words in each phrase are also the same parts of speech,
| and are often read with a specific cadence. See
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antithetical_couplet
| [deleted]
| laddng wrote:
| I heard this phrase in Shanghai and never knew it may be a
| curse - thanks for sharing this - I usually say this every
| once in a while but maybe shouldn't
| swordfish69 wrote:
| 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.
| king_magic wrote:
| Good. This was absolutely the right move from Facebook. Finally.
| djsumdog wrote:
| First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out--
| Because I was not a socialist. Then they came for
| the trade unionists, and I did not speak out--
| Because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came
| for the Jews, and I did not speak out-- Because I
| was not a Jew. Then they came for me--and there
| was no one left to speak for me.
| nchi3 wrote:
| How is this relevant in the least? They haven't "come for"
| anyone because of an opinion or race, but for actions.
|
| It's more like "First they came for the murderers".
| king_magic wrote:
| Trump - and his supporters - are the "they". They are the
| monsters here. They are the ones invading capitols. They are
| the ones emboldening white supremacists, racists and
| fascists. They are the one demanding to overturn the
| legitimate outcome of a democratic election.
|
| It's an insult to the millions and millions who died during
| WWII to corrupt the message behind this famous poem/statement
| and insinuate that Trump and his supporters are the victims
| here. They are not the victims. They are the problem. And
| they need to be crushed.
| djsumdog wrote:
| > Trump - and his supporters - are the "they"
|
| 70 million people. All of them are fascists?
|
| I'm pretty sure people in Germany though they were stopping
| the fascists by supporting the Nazis. You have no idea who
| the "they" is until it's too late.
|
| That's why the freedom of speech covers everybody. In
| America, we are not afraid of ideas. My dad survived a
| civil war, got his degree and immigrated here legally to be
| a part of that America. It's the America I grew up in, and
| that America is slowly falling from the grips of
| rationality and embracing real true fascism.
|
| You think Trump was fascist? Just wait for the next four
| years. You are about to see freedoms and civil rights
| disappear like never before.
| herbstein wrote:
| > I'm pretty sure people in Germany though they were
| stopping the fascists by supporting the Nazis.
|
| You'd be pretty wrong. At best they thought Hitler would
| soften greatly after he rose to power, at worst they
| agreed with everything he said and did.
|
| In '33 German non-Jewish shops started putting up "German
| Free" stickers. Einstein fled the country in that same
| year. His photo was widely published in newspapers with
| "not yet hanged" as the sub-heading. His friend, Theodor
| Lassing, was shot and killed, an act that was celebrated
| in Germany.
|
| Hitler had been imprisoned for his actions before his
| rise to power, and was a largely known entity before the
| Germans "turned to him". There wasn't a lot of confusion
| about what he thought, who he hated, or what he wanted to
| do with them. Mein Kampf was released in 2 parts across
| 1925 and 1926.
|
| An _actual_ criticism about the time just before Hitler
| 's rise to power, is that every other powerful party took
| him for a joke. They didn't expect him to be a viable
| rival. So instead, the Communist party (one of the major
| parties at the time) spend their squabbling with the
| Socialdemocrats instead of focusing their attention on
| the "real enemy".
|
| If you're _actually_ interested in this topic, you should
| read the book "They thought they were Free". It
| chronicles how normal people fell to support the fascists
| - the Nazi party.
| king_magic wrote:
| > 70 million people. All of them are fascists?
|
| Yes. They are de facto fascists.
|
| I'm not going to argue history with you beyond this
| comment, but I seriously, seriously doubt any serious
| historians would agree that Germans "thought they'd be
| defeating fascists" by supporting the Nazis - who were,
| you know, _actual fascists_.
| djsumdog wrote:
| > Yes. They are de facto fascists.
|
| Jesus that's insane. No, no they are not. Do you not see
| the danger we're about to enter into? You're saying 70
| million people are "de factor fascists" .. what the fuck
| does that even mean?!
|
| Have you been out to a farm in Tennessee? Have you ever
| walked with a group of friends through the blue watering
| holes of Georgia? Have you broke bread and had dinner
| with them? I grew up in Tennessee. I will no condemn the
| views of 70 million people I do not know because the TV
| tells me they are "fascists," which is pretty much
| Orwellian DoubleSpeak and means absolutely nothing today.
|
| You do not know these people. If you did, you would not
| say such things. You are trapped in a bubble where you
| are scared out of your mind, and that fear will help this
| republic fall and strip rights away from every human
| being in America and maybe even the world over the next
| four years.
| king_magic wrote:
| > You do not know these people.
|
| Sure I do. I know exactly who these people are. Yes,
| there is a spectrum of Trump support among them, and it's
| entirely your choice to try to weasel around the point
| here all you want, but at the end of the day, these
| people have willing supported (and many are continuing to
| support) a would-be nationalist, fascist dictator.
|
| There's simply no excuse for that, and I personally will
| not simply forgive and forget.
| krapp wrote:
| Anyone who continues to excuse or support Trump after
| yesterday's events willfully supports sedition and
| treason. The Rubicon has been crossed, they no longer get
| to prevaricate about him being strong on China or jobs or
| immigration, or being the least worst possible option on
| the table.
|
| If you're still willing to support Trump or excuse his
| actions, you're a fascist.
| djsumdog wrote:
| > If you're still willing to support Trump or excuse his
| actions, you're a fascist
|
| If you think this way, you're deranged. This is how
| religion starts. This is how wars start. If a war
| started, the righteous would not prevail. They rarely do.
| Wars almost always lead to autocracies. America was a
| rare exception. I guess that time may be coming to an end
| soon.
| krapp wrote:
| The war has already started, and Trump supporters were
| the ones who declared it. It started when white
| nationalist militia members in collaboration with the
| President and his party launched an insurrection to
| disrupt the government's certification of electoral votes
| in a futile attempt to invalidate the election of Trump's
| successor and the will of the people, and install him
| into power instead.
|
| And it's telling that you're blaming the people upset
| about that for any possible consequences rather than the
| Trump supporters who stormed the Capital with pipe bombs,
| guns, knives and zip-ties for taking hostages, believing
| in a fictitious conspiracy theory about a stolen
| election.
|
| Neo-nazis looted the Capital while some asshole dressed
| like a buffalo took selfies with the police who let them
| in like guests, and _i 'm_ deranged?
| djsumdog wrote:
| > And it's telling that you're blaming the people upset
| about that for any possible consequences rather than the
| Trump supporters who stormed the Capital with pipe bombs,
| guns, knives and zip-ties for taking hostages, believing
| in a fictitious conspiracy theory about a stolen election
|
| Pipe bombs were in the DNC/RNC headquarters and not done
| by this group.
|
| They didn't have "guns, knifes and zip-ties" .. I think
| there were 4 charged with guns? None of them used them.
| The only person shot and killed was a Capitol Officer
| shooting blindly into a crowd, hitting a white unarmed
| woman, nearly hitting another Federal Officer. I wonder
| if he'll face charges. I wonder if that woman will get
| memorials in her honor. Did you know she was an Air Force
| veteran?
|
| There are videos of the people in the capitol taking
| selfies with capitol police and walking around
| peacefully. Weird coup.
|
| > Neo-nazis
|
| I saw people who supported Tump. I didn't see any neo
| nazis. There was one man with a communist tattoo, and
| some fucking QAnon idiot with a racoon on his head who
| should go to federal prison.
|
| If you really think this was some kind of insurrection, I
| feel sorry for you. It was nothing of the sort. It was
| pittance compared to the burning down of a fucking police
| station by BLM rioters.
|
| "oh I'm so scared. The peasants in the village have made
| their way into the royal court and sat at our golden
| seats and found our candy desk!"
|
| Anyone who broke or stole anything will face federal
| charges and will go away (and should). But classifying
| that entire group the way you have is disingenuous.
| Especially compared to the rioting and looting that's
| been endorsed and encourages as being good and righteous
| by the left wing media.
|
| The media has told us setting things on fire by BLM is
| fine for months and now they're acting like 1/10th of
| that is the end of democracy.
|
| > "But it is not enough for me to stand before you
| tonight and condemn riots. It would be morally
| irresponsible for me to do that without, at the same
| time, condemning the contingent, intolerable conditions
| that exist in our society. These conditions are the
| things that cause individuals to feel that they have no
| other alternative than to engage in violent rebellions to
| get attention. And I must say tonight that a riot is the
| language of the unheard." -Dr. Martin Luther King Jr
| krapp wrote:
| >Pipe bombs were in the DNC/RNC headquarters and not done
| by this group.
|
| Unless you want to claim it's sheer coincidence, I'm
| pretty sure those were planted by extremist Trump
| supporters with the same goals as the group that broke
| into the Capital. That they were not _literally_ planted
| by any of those specific people isn 't really relevant to
| the greater point.
|
| Of course, you know that, you're just being pedantic.
|
| >They didn't have "guns, knifes and zip-ties" .. I think
| there were 4 charged with guns? None of them used them.
|
| So they didn't use them, but they did have them. I guess
| they just wore them to the insurrection for the cool
| factor?
|
| And as far as the zip ties go, here's a photo of them[0].
| Also Molotov cocktails, forgot to mention those.
|
| >I saw people who supported Tump. I didn't see any neo
| nazis. There was one man with a communist tattoo, and
| some fucking QAnon idiot with a racoon on his head who
| should go to federal prison.
|
| I'm willing to bet the guy parading the Confederate flag
| through the Capital[1], the guy with the Camp Auschwitz
| shirt[2] and the 6MWE shirt[3] (it stands for "Six
| Million (Jews) Weren't Enough", by the way) likely have
| some neo-nazi sympathies.
|
| And just speaking generally, if you're not aware of the
| strong white supremacist/antisemitic contingent within
| the MAGA and QAnon communities, and Trump's populist
| movement in general, I have to assume you've been living
| under a rock for the last four years, that maybe you just
| don't know who the Proud Boys actually are, have never
| been on any social media where Trump supporters hang out,
| or something.
|
| >If you really think this was some kind of insurrection,
| I feel sorry for you. It was nothing of the sort. It was
| pittance compared to the burning down of a fucking police
| station by BLM rioters.
|
| Dismiss the right wing, implicate BLM as the greater
| threat.. if I had to take a shot every time someone did
| that on HN since yesterday, I would have been dead in two
| hours.
|
| It was an insurrection. A piss-poor attempt at one, but
| that's still what it was. The Gunpowder Plot was a
| failure as well, but no one says Guy Fawkes and his
| cohort weren't trying to blow up Parliament just because
| they didn't succeed. Nobody says Richard Reid wasn't a
| terrorist because he didn't actually manage to set off
| his shoe bombs.
|
| >"oh I'm so scared. The peasants in the village have made
| their way into the royal court and sat at our golden
| seats and found our candy desk!"
|
| I don't even know what this is supposed to be, but it
| makes you seem infantile.
|
| >Anyone who broke or stole anything will face federal
| charges and will go away (and should). But classifying
| that entire group the way you have is disingenuous.
| Especially compared to the rioting and looting that's
| been endorsed and encourages as being good and righteous
| by the left wing media.
|
| BLM again....
|
| >The media has told us setting things on fire by BLM is
| fine for months and now they're acting like 1/10th of
| that is the end of democracy.
|
| BLM again, and the media. That's a double shot.
|
| >"But it is not enough for me to stand before you tonight
| and condemn riots. It would be morally irresponsible for
| me to do that without, at the same time, condemning the
| contingent, intolerable conditions that exist in our
| society. These conditions are the things that cause
| individuals to feel that they have no other alternative
| than to engage in violent rebellions to get attention.
| And I must say tonight that a riot is the language of the
| unheard." -Dr. Martin Luther King Jr
|
| And wow. You actually have the gall to invoke MLK in
| defense of a political ideology which has been primarily
| fueled by xenophobia, racism and intolerance, to use the
| voice of the oppressed to champion the oppressor?
|
| That degree of callous evil is actually impressive. Slow
| clap for you.
|
| Also I just want to point out that you've implicitly
| undermined your entire comment prior by essentially
| admitting here that what happened yesterday _was_ a
| violent rebellion after all.
|
| I'm so done here.
|
| [0]https://twitter.com/keith_rosson/status/13469939890570
| 93634
|
| [1]https://twitter.com/piersmorgan/status/134709221475372
| 6465
|
| [2]https://twitter.com/DrEricDing/status/1347136597934944
| 257/ph...
|
| [3]https://twitter.com/Jfh33/status/1347214428043935745/p
| hoto/1
| king_magic wrote:
| It's astonishing that you're walking away from yesterday
| with this point of view. It's not worth the time to
| continue arguing with you.
| esoterica wrote:
| > 70 million people.
|
| "There are a lot of them, they can't all be wrong and
| evil" is a dumb line of reasoning. The majority of
| Americans used to support slavery and the majority of
| Germany used to support Hitler.
| djsumdog wrote:
| And were all of those people evil, terrible people?
| Seriously?
|
| You need to go back and look at the Stanley Milgram
| experiments. It's impossible to really know if you or I
| would murder the person in the other room if the person
| in authority told us to, but I suspect you probably
| would.
| augustt wrote:
| First they came for the fascists, and I didn't give a fuck
| because I'm not a fascist.
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| > 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 wrote:
| -\\_(tsu)_/- 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).
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > more folks are familiar with my first analogy as it
| relates to the topic of free speech and imminent lawless
| acts.
|
| Your first example _doesn 't_ relate to imminent lawless
| acts _at all_ , that's the problem.
|
| While panicked flight is _dangerous_ (hence, its use to
| illustrate the "clear and present danger" test in
| _Schenk_ , that has since been replaced), it is not
| (unlike, e.g., armed insurrection) _lawless_.
| dboreham wrote:
| Zuckerberg redefines the word "indefinitely".
| JeffCyr wrote:
| 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.
| efdee wrote:
| Like gab.ai and Parler? LOL.
| AnimalMuppet wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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.
| gashad wrote:
| Anyone else not logged in to Facebook find the "See more of Mark
| Zuckerberg on Facebook" pop-up a bit disconcerting?
| mateus1 wrote:
| I don't like Zuckerberg but I agree with this action. Trump is
| inciting violence and Facebook is not obliged to be an
| accomplice.
| AlgorithmicTime wrote:
| 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!
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-01-07 23:02 UTC)