
Facebook Bans Louis Farrakhan, Milo Yiannopoulos, InfoWars and Others - aestetix
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/05/02/tech/facebook-ban-louis-farrakhan-infowars-alex-jones-milo-laura-loomer/index.html
======
badatshipping
Every time this subject comes up, someone inevitably says something like
"Facebook is a private corporation, the first amendment only applies to the
government, and if you want to use Facebook you have to play by their rules.
No one is owed a platform."

Platforms like Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter are basically monopolies. They
are the only services in their class to take seriously if you're looking to
gain a following. If they didn't exist, alternative services would spring up.
But alternative services know they can't compete with FB/YouTube/Twitter, so
none exist. When people say "if you don't like FB's rules, use another
service" it ignores that Facebook is the reason there isn't another service
and thus has some responsibility to uphold values we've collectively decided
as a society are important.

The issue is not whether Facebook is breaking the law but whether
philosophically the market leader in a category should get to decide who can
use their product when their product category is fundamental to modern life.
Saying "no one is owed a platform" brings us no closer to an answer.

~~~
ilikehurdles
> Platforms like Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter are basically monopolies

Monopolies of what, exactly? I admit to sometimes looking at entertaining
videos on youtube. About an hour or maximum two hours a week worth. I'm not
sure what you're suggesting that facebook and twitter are monopolizing. I
haven't used the former in years and the latter just about ever -- aside from
maybe five tweets over the course of twitter's existence.

Monopolies of online discourse? Attention? Entertainment? Clearly we're not
using any of those platforms now.

~~~
chii
> Monopolies of what, exactly?

Monopoly on platform reach. The reach of facebook, or the reach of youtube,
twitter etc, is so high, that if you want to disseminate a message, those
_must_ be the platforms you use. It's as if they own the radio spectrum, and
you have to acquiesce to what they demand to use said spectrum.

Of course, i am free to use smoke signals to send my message, but who will
receive it?

~~~
SantalBlush
>The reach of facebook, or the reach of youtube, twitter etc, is so high, that
if you want to disseminate a message, those _must_ be the platforms you use.

This isn't true though. Alex Jones can disseminate his message through
countless other websites, which have their own users. This is really just
advocating for equal exposure of opinions, which isn't a free speech issue.

~~~
wolco
Not free speech but open platforms.

~~~
BubRoss
There are plenty of places on the internet more lenient than the biggest
websites. Check out voat and see what happens when people banned from other
platforms go to the same place. It isn't pretty but at least they aren't a
blight on other groups.

------
SolaceQuantum
I don't know about Paul Joseph but I believe Milo has had cases of publicly
naming, threatening to name, doxxing, and mocking trans women that study on
the campuses that he's spoken at. I belive this is dangerous behavior due to
statistic that trans people are especially vulnerable for being murdered
compared to the rest of the American population.

~~~
Veen
If a group is marginally more likely to suffer violence, anyone mocking them
should be denied access to widely used communications platforms? Doesn’t
really make sense, does it?

~~~
SolaceQuantum
Trans people are not marginally more likely to suffer violence. They're
significantly more likely to suffer violence, on the rate of several times
more than the general population.

~~~
rthrowayay
I tried to find statistics for this claim by looking at homicide risk but was
unable to find anything supporting it. Possibly this is true in non-western
countries. For example here is a look at the data that claims tran people are
less at risk in the UK.
[https://www.google.com/amp/s/fairplayforwomen.com/trans-
murd...](https://www.google.com/amp/s/fairplayforwomen.com/trans-murder-
rates/amp/)

I suspect there are lots of confounders if you wanted to isolate the risk that
trans brings. For example apparently trans people have a higher rate of sex
work which would increase the risk. On the other hand I wouldn't be surprised
if trans were coming from higher socio-economic groups on average which would
lower the risk.

~~~
SolaceQuantum
I know this is late but from what I recall trans women are approximately 4.3x
more likely to be murdered(Trans people of color coalition and human rights
campaign), and 1 out of 2 trans people have experienced violence (I forget
where I've seen this).

------
danielovichdk
Funny how most of you doesn't seem to understand that it's not the banned
people who are dangerous. It's Facebook.

Stay off the platform and encourage others to do the same.

Read news from respected news outlets and remember that there are always
multiple sides to a story.

~~~
ehsankia
Why not both? They're dangerous in different ways, but just because Facebook
has its set of issues doesn't mean those people should have a platform to
spread their non-sense to the masses.

~~~
gridlockd
Can you explain to me how Milo is dangerous? I can see the case for Alex
Jones, who spreads the kind of misinformation that leads certain individuals
to "take action".

But Milo? He's basically a clown.

~~~
ilikehurdles
Speaking at universities with his clearly anti-trans message while projecting
the photos and identities of trans students at those universities during his
speeches is clearly dangerous.

~~~
gridlockd
I had to look up the context for this and as expected it's not quite the way
you make it sound.

You use the word "trans students" in the plural, but it was only a single
student. The photo shown was a screen grab from an interview that this person
themself chose to give to local television, in which their name and university
association is displayed. It's not like Milo "outed" anyone here.

The speech in question:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-t1ufzttyUM&feature=youtu.be...](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-t1ufzttyUM&feature=youtu.be&t=2959)

If this passes the threshold of "dangerous", that's a _very_ low threshold.

------
sasasassy
And in Russia they ban instead this or that free speech advocate. And in China
it is some other group of people that cannot speak. And in India, and in
Brasil, Iran, Pakistan, UK, etc. There are always offensive people or
sensitive subjects.

The only question is Facebook going to ban each group of people per country
basis or globally. If globally, we are going to have a very limited, gray area
of speech in Facebook.

~~~
aklemm
We don't need free speech on Facebook, but we do on the Internet. That's the
difference in Russia and China, etc.

~~~
mrmuagi
Sorry to sound like I'm trying to gotcha you, but how on earth isn't Facebook
a large subset of the Internet?

~~~
aklemm
Of course it is, but it’s not THE Internet and we don’t want it to be. It’s
also a commercial emtity while the Internet May be considered more of a public
good.

~~~
ShorsHammer
In many parts of the world it definitely is THE internet. Nearly every
business on my street uses Facebook as their webpage. It's incredibly rare to
see local businesses here with their own proper site.

------
pdeuchler
Hilarious. With the exception of Farrakhan, Facebook (and youtube, twitter,
etc) is largely responsible for these people having such large platforms in
the first place. But of course now they'll unilaterally censor them to
widespread acclaim, deflecting criticism from the left for their participation
and profiting off such demagogues, and whipping the right into a further
frenzy about censorship and giving credence to these people's claims that
they're censored "for truth".

Everyone wins except the common man, who now must deal with the chilling
effects of media and communication monopolies having the power of judge, jury,
and executioner when it comes to speech. No need to censor people you don't
like if you just capriciously censor people without warning or due process...
people will censor themselves for you after that.

Remember the problem isn't that these people had platforms, the problem is
those platforms accepted money to promote and advertise these people. I'm sure
facebook loved having these people churning around their recommendation
engines, they probably drove engagement like crazy. But now the backlash isn't
worth the profit, so we all have to pay the consequences.

Remember that sunlight is the best disinfectant, and "deplatforming" these
people might make them as personalities go away, but their ideas and
propaganda will surely fester and grow in the darker corners of the internet.
Milo is a joke even among the alt-right now, but his vitriol and invective
continue to grow in popularity.

~~~
KozmoNau7
Sunlight has repeatedly shown to be counterproductive. Some people use any
kind of platform they can get, any sort of media attention, to spread their
views. They don't care that they get ridiculed, because their followers just
see that as further proof of media conspiracies and bias. It just confirms and
reinforces their prejudices.

Deplatforming works. Free speech does not mean you have a right to use any
platform you choose, nor does it shield you from the consequences of your
speech.

The deeper and darker the corners where they hide and the harder it is to
stumble across by accident, the harder it is for them to spread their
viewpoints.

See Voat and Gab for relevant examples. Only the really hardcore believers
went there when Reddit and Twitter said "that's it, get off our platforms".

------
maximus1983
I am sure there will be many people cheering. However people don't seem to
realise that just because it isn't you getting censored now, it may well be
you in the future.

What is deemed acceptable and what isn't deemed acceptable are quite
transient. It wasn't long ago it was unacceptable/illegal to be a homosexual,
but now it is at least (in the Western world) readily accepted. I wonder if
facebook was around in the 1950s would they be banning prominent homosexuals?

~~~
fatbird
I think many people do realise it, and feel like it's a worthwhile risk. The
cost of avoiding a hypothetical future in which I'm censored is accepting the
real damage they're doing in the here and now. And also, I may end up censored
anyway for other reasons. Tolerating Milo et al. isn't really a bulwark
protecting me.

~~~
naasking
> The cost of avoiding a hypothetical future in which I'm censored is
> accepting the real damage they're doing in the here and now.

What damage? Be specific. I think censoring people should require a
considerable specificity as to their "crimes" before they're exiled.

~~~
fatbird
Others have gotten into this with you about the specific damage, and my point
was less "yay, censor them!" than the argument that not deplatforming them
somehow protects me. It doesn't, even hypothetically.

~~~
naasking
Arguably censoring them does expose you to something worse: it establishes a
bureaucracy and social norms that are perfectly fine with crushing unpopular
and diverse opinions. It's a simple tyranny of the majority.

Sure, you consider this speech abhorrent, but switch the scenario around and
consider how enforcing these types of norms stalled real social progress in
the past: gay rights, women's rights, rights for visible minorities. You're
dreaming if you don't think these new norms won't be applied against you.

So I disagree, not deplatforming does protect you.

~~~
fatbird
We already have the bureaucracy and social norms and the tyranny of the
majority. We don't now, and never have, existed in a pure state of nature with
respect to freedom of expression.

What this banning does is move the border between acceptable and unacceptable.
You're arguing it's a slippery slope, that the moving border will eventually
steamroll right over me and I'll regret not stopping it earlier.

"Slippery slope" is a fallacy. Legalizing gay marriage doesn't mean we'll
legalize polygamy. Alcohol was made illegal and then legalized again. It's not
a ratchet. We make collective decisions and live with them, and maybe change
our minds later.

And among the factors stalling social progress on issues like gay rights and
women's rights, I don't believe censorship was the biggest or even a
significant factor, compared to all the others.

~~~
naasking
> We don't now, and never have, existed in a pure state of nature with respect
> to freedom of expression.

Agreed. But we've largely only supported censoring speech that's incitement to
_violence_ , because anything beyond that seems to result in untenable legal
duties.

Furthermore, one main point of protecting free speech rights is to protect the
minority against the majority. Classifying that minority as ethically
abhorrent is irrelevant. While democracy is a tyranny of the majority, we
recognize fundamental, inalienable rights to check that tyranny.

> You're arguing it's a slippery slope, that the moving border will eventually
> steamroll right over me and I'll regret not stopping it earlier.

That's one argument but not nearly the only one. Another is that there
currently exists no rigourous criteria by which to classify the speech that
people are looking to censor, so a) every case will be decided inconsistently
by people who have no training in adjudicating what should be a philosophical
or legal matter, and b) it will sweep up a lot of innocent people and stifle
important political debate (which has already happened).

There are plenty more arguments, some of which I've elaborated on here:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19819584](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19819584)

> "Slippery slope" is a fallacy. Legalizing gay marriage doesn't mean we'll
> legalize polygamy

Except there are non-fallacious slippery slopes. Gay marriage and polygamy
have no _factual basis_ in common, so there is no slope down which we can
slip. That's why invoking the slippery slope is a fallacy in this case.

Now consider instead legalizing bestiality specifically with, say, dogs. Why
only dogs? There is no non-fallacious, factual basis for why bestiality with
horses should not also be legal if you're going to allow dogs. This is a non-
fallacious slippery slope.

So you're asserting that the arguments I've presented are fallacious without
actually pointing out the absence of a factual basis. As for asserting my
factual basis, I can point out how Twitter and Facebook have already banned
controversial politicians, thus effectively meddling in elections. I can also
point to recent Supreme Court precedent that established that social media is
a public square, and thus that First Amendment protections apply against. I
can also point out how that actual studies on online radicalization failed to
find any basis for the idea that online echo chambers and hate speech alone
actually led to radicalization and violence, so the entire premise for the
push to censor this speech is itself fallacious.

So then what are we left with? What justification is there to censor these
people? We're left only with mob rule and capitalist motives in appeasing
advertisers. These are emphatically not compelling reasons to establish these
new and dangerous norms.

> It's not a ratchet. We make collective decisions and live with them, and
> maybe change our minds later.

Or we could apply a bit of foresight and understanding of history and avoid
the problems altogether. The fact that censorship of this sort can and has
influenced elections means that we quite literally may not be able to change
our minds later.

------
interlocutor
Attitudes towards free speech have changed a lot in recent times. This is
related to the rise of social media. The advent of social media had made it
too easy to spread hate online. It started off innocently enough, with cat
videos uploaded to youtube, but soon extremists were taking advantage of
social media for radicalization purposes, and others even live-streaming mass
murders. This has caused an upheaval in attitudes towards free speech. There
needs to be limits. People started imposing limits to free speech. For
example, consider that UC Berkeley, renowned for giving birth to the Free
Speech Movement, is now making news for banning controversial/harmful speech,
such as that by Ann Coulter. The people (as opposed to governments) have
decided that some censorship is in order. This is a natural evolution of
societal norms. This particular evolution was causated by the excesses seen in
social media. It is befitting to see that a social media company, Facebook, is
now in the news for censoring harmful speech. This type of censorship, as
opposed to absolute free speech, will be the new normal.

~~~
JakeTheAndroid
I am very much in favor of Free Speech myself. But I think the annoying thing
people forget is that it's the job of society to determine what is okay and
what isn't. The government isn't supposed to decide our morals, we tell the
government what those should be.

Society is deciding that this is not stuff we want. Society is rejecting these
ideas, and Facebook or Cloudflare when they dropped the Daily Stormer, etc,
are deciding that this isn't what they want as part of their society.

If a bulk of society does want these ideas, these people will move to a new
platform that supports them, and people will use them and make the ideas
mainstream.

Stop complaining that society is rejecting ideas they don't like. It's
literally how it works.

~~~
chasd00
Society isn't deciding, Facebook is deciding.

I personally think Facebook can do whatever the please with their website.
However, if they remove the users they don't like then that implies they
approve of the users that remain.

~~~
JakeTheAndroid
Facebook is deciding because society is pressuring them to decide.

Facebook doesn't care about shit, but their bottom line. They have proven that
time and time again. This should highlight the social pressures, because they
are not legally responsible as far as anyone can tell. Thus, society is
deciding.

~~~
beasteurope
It's not pressure from society, it's pressure from specific activist groups
like the SPLC.

~~~
raarts
Who themselves have been recently outed for internal rampant racism and
sexism.

------
lazzlazzlazz
I'm very familiar with all of these banned people and institutions, and I'm
not at all convinced they're "dangerous". I'm not sure what the benefits are,
and I'm much more concerned that their exact misdeeds never seem clearly
articulate, even by people who seem extremely interested in having them
silenced.

~~~
raarts
The rationale is they have stupid followers who commit the actual damage.

I fail to see why they aren't prosecuted. You're not anonymous on Facebook.
And you shouldn't be on twitter, and youtube as well.

~~~
Vaskivo
> they have stupid followers who commit the actual damage

Then shouldn't we ban/punish these followers?

~~~
raarts
Punished by the legal system absolutely. Banned by court order yes.

------
iscrewyou
It’s only unfortunate that it took social networks this long to ban their
toxic behavior and talk. These people did a lot of damage. A lot. All in the
name of free speech. And to those saying, just because Facebook can, doesn’t
mean they should. These people had the same freedom. Just because they can,
they shouldn’t. But they chose hatred. And here we are. You reap what you sow.

Facebook doesn’t owe them anything.

Edit: a couple of words.

~~~
naasking
> These people did a lot of damage. A lot.

Like what? If this damage is so prevalent then it should be easy to cite
something specific.

~~~
latortuga
Alex Jones popularized a propagated the myth of "Crisis Actors" and that Sandy
Hook was a hoax. Trolls on the internet telling parents that their children
aren't really dead, that they should exhume their bodies to prove that they
really died, that they are being paid by the shadow government, that their
grief looked too fake - all of this is real harm. We can talk about the doxing
and the stalking and the harassment, but inflicting pain and suffering on
people in a terrible situation is real harm too.

When you have a platform and you use it to abuse people, real damage is done.

~~~
naasking
> Trolls on the internet telling parents that their children aren't really
> dead, that they should exhume their bodies to prove that they really died,
> that they are being paid by the shadow government, that their grief looked
> too fake - all of this is real harm.

Did Alex Jones specifically incite his fans or these trolls to do this? If so,
then he's legally culpable. If not, then why place the blame on him? The legal
system has a fairly robust and time-tested system for assigning blame.

The problem with assigning blame in "indirect influence" arguments such as
yours, is that it can be used to blame almost anyone for almost anything. How
indirect or how small does this influence need to be before you conclude that
a person is not culpable for someone else's actions?

If you can't delineate some specific set of clear and reasonable conditions,
then it will simply be abused to censor any unpopular views, including
progressive agendas.

~~~
joshuamorton
> Did Alex Jones specifically incite his fans or these trolls to do this? If
> so, then he's legally culpable

Yes, and he's currently facing (multiple) lawsuits because of it. His defense
appears to be that it was temporary hysteria. We'll see how that plays out.

~~~
naasking
Great, then everything is working as it should.

Still doesn't resolve the question of deplatforming and banning though.
There's still considerable inconsistency at play here, with people like Dorsey
saying social media is a human right, and then exiling people with no
transparent "due process" or recourse for making amends. As deplorably as we
treat our criminals, they eventually serve their term and regain (most) of
their freedoms (and arguably, should regain them all).

~~~
danso
Sorry, I don’t understand. Currently, social media networks act independently
of law enforcement. Someone can run afoul of the law while not getting banned
from a service, and vice versa. Alex Jones has been banned because companies
saw him violating their TOS — this is related but independent of the ongoing
civil lawsuit he faces.

You’re suggesting that online services have no sanctions whatsoever, because
you have faith that the justice system will be enough of a deterrent? That
should be obviously absurd when you consider that a social network’s audience
spans multiple countries’ justice systems.

~~~
naasking
> You’re suggesting that online services have no sanctions whatsoever, because
> you have faith that the justice system will be enough of a deterrent?

I'm questioning the premise that "speech deterrence is needed at all, or that
it's a good idea even in principle.

If you're not inciting violence, which is violence and so against the law,
then what justification is there for censoring speech? These companies that
provide free services are censoring for optics, with a purely profit-motive to
placate advertisers. This motive will not discriminate solely against hate
speech, but anything even remotely controversial will eventually be censored,
and these services will become the same bland pablum we've had on cable TV for
decades, reducing the rich and diverse tapestry of online content we've
enjoyed for decades.

Furthermore, considering how influential social media is, by encouraging this
type of censorship, we are creating new social norms whereby large
corporations are now essentially permitted to overtly meddle in our elections.
Where's the oversight for this? Already considerable evidence exists that
conservative viewpoints are censored more widely.

The motive on the part of activists pushing this is that the internet is
"spreading hate", that it's led to an increase in radicalization and violence,
etc. Except there's precious little evidence this is the case.

Studies actually done on radicalization [1] show the internet increases
opportunities for radicalization simply because you're exposed to so many
diverse viewpoints, and it creates an echo chamber effect because you then
follow only the sources that reinforce your bias, but they do _not_ find
evidence for accelerating the process of radicalization, for radicalization
without physical contact, and for self-radicalization.

The narrative spun is that right-wing terrorism is increasing in the US [2],
therefore the echo chambers from these internet sites is at least partly
responsible. Except that doesn't explain why the US's rates are rising while
the rest of the world's rates are falling. This speaks to _local_
circumstances driving the increase in violence.

All in all, there seems to be considerable danger to encouraging these
corporations to make up their own rules and censor without oversight, and
there are few upsides that I can see. It might make some people feel like
they've "done something", but there's precious little evidence that these
measures are effective or even necessary.

[1]
[https://www.rand.org/randeurope/research/projects/internet-a...](https://www.rand.org/randeurope/research/projects/internet-
and-radicalisation.html)

[2] [https://qz.com/1355874/terrorism-is-surging-in-the-us-
fueled...](https://qz.com/1355874/terrorism-is-surging-in-the-us-fueled-by-
right-wing-extremists/)

------
intopieces
>In some instances, when Facebook bans an individual or organization, it also
restricts others from expressing praise or support for them on its platforms

Will it restrict people from saying these things in WhatsApp?

If they already have the infrastructure for wholesale censorship like this,
perhaps a China re-launch is right around the corner. They might be able to
give WeChat a run for their RMB.

~~~
ceejayoz
Yes, Facebook is taking some steps in WhatsApp to reduce the speed at which
misinformation travels.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_WhatsApp_lynchings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_WhatsApp_lynchings)

Specifically, making it a bit harder to rapidly forward large numbers of
messages to large groups of people.

[https://www.vox.com/2019/1/25/18197002/whatsapp-message-
limi...](https://www.vox.com/2019/1/25/18197002/whatsapp-message-limit-fake-
news-facebook-twitter)

~~~
intopieces
That sounds closer to anti-spam than target censorship. WeChat (and even the
messaging feature in DiDi!) have keyword filters that block messages with
certain words.

That sounds like the direction Facebook is headed with this banning of people
and talking about them.

------
cwyers
Putting Louis Farrakhan first, when his relevance has faded a while ago, seems
to be a way of trying to paint this as a "both sides" thing.

~~~
WC3w6pXxgGd
Farrakhan is a prominent leftist. He was at Aretha Franklin's funeral, seated
next to Bill Clinton. The leaders of the Women's March are big fans of his.

~~~
somecontext
For some context in case anyone is curious, here is a photo of part of the
front row at Aretha Franklin's funeral, featuring (in order) Louis Farrakhan,
Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson and Bill Clinton:
[https://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/aretha-franklin-funeral-
ser...](https://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/aretha-franklin-funeral-service-
today-2018-08-31/6/)

------
davidw
I think this is one of the more interesting and important debates of our time.
As so much moves online, we realize that our speech belongs to these huge
companies.

On one hand, it's great to see these toxic people kicked off, because
deplatforming them works wonders in terms of stopping them from spreading
their hate.

I think most of us have some doubts as to how it might play out in the future,
though, and there are of course questions about how healthy it is for such
huge corporations to have that much sway in the first place.

There are all kinds of other shenanigans going on with many of these companies
too:

[https://popular.info/p/trump-ad-contagion-spreads-on-
faceboo...](https://popular.info/p/trump-ad-contagion-spreads-on-facebook)

------
thatoneuser
This is what we get for letting these shady social media companies get into
the center of our discourse. Just remember even if you dislike people who are
banned, it could be your people next.

Social media should reflect the first amendment. Let's get with the times
here...

~~~
SantalBlush
Equal exposure of all opinions is not a First Amendment issue.

~~~
thatoneuser
Thanks for the social media company shilling. We all appreciate the overlords
sneaking propaganda in!

------
l33tbro
Well done Facebook PR. You've successfully spun this to be about 'toxic'
individuals, when the fact remains that it's the architecture of your platform
that is tearing away at our social fabric.

How much longer will these money-printing giants remain unaccountable,
unregulated, and a publlic health risk?

------
danso
Ignoring for now the larger debate over censorship, Facebook's implementation
of this ban is suspect. All of these accounts have been alleged to be in
violation for months, if not years, and some already had been partially banned
(Alex Jones was banned from FB but not IG). Why now? Were there new
violations? And/or is it a new policy change that affects how FB will be
banning accounts moving forward? Is FB going to do bans for a specific user
across all platforms, instead of a platform-by-platform basis?

~~~
r3bl
They've announced a little over a month ago that they're going to ban white
nationalist content:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19503094](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19503094)

~~~
razius
The problem is what is white nationalism and who defines it?

A lot of the opposition is labeled as white nationalism.

------
partiallypro
Still waiting on them to ban antivax pages which harm a vast amount more
people

------
kodz4
So if some critical mass of the population find Mark Zuckerburg offensive can
we get him banned?

------
bashwizard
I dislike them just as much as anyone else but banning and censorship is wrong
and actually dangerous in the long term.

------
threatofrain
Facebook is not a public square. I love public spaces. Shouldn’t we pay for
one? I don’t care if Facebook has a darling reputation; ought it run our
public and private meeting spaces?

~~~
thinkingemote
Are there any public spaces on the internet? I can't think of any. I'm not
sure it would be possible to build one, legally, either.

~~~
threatofrain
I view government funded web presence as a digital public space, it’s just not
a meeting space. To me the difference in funding determines who has power.

~~~
thinkingemote
Ahh yes! And every real public space has its by laws and regulations too.
Thanks.

------
EricShun
It won't be long until we get this: [https://www.whatsonweibo.com/chinese-
media-warn-wechat-group...](https://www.whatsonweibo.com/chinese-media-warn-
wechat-group-admins-you-can-be-arrested-for-what-happens-in-your-group-chat/)

------
whiddershins
“In some instances, when Facebook bans an individual or organization, it also
restricts others from expressing praise or support for them on its platforms,
the spokesperson said, adding that the company continues to view such action
as the correct approach.”

------
Animats
Farrakhan? He's been around forever. He's 85. He's the guy who set up the
Million Man March in 1995. Compared to other 1960s black activists, he's not
that extreme. Also, no way is he "far right". Far left, maybe.

~~~
vxNsr
He's a rabid anti-semite and has been for most of his career. His hate for
jews is on the same level as Alex Jones' hate for gay frogs

~~~
SlowRobotAhead
Yea, Farrakhan belongs on the censored list. He's absolutely a racist and show
be disavowed by everyone everywhere.

In Jones's gay frog case... there are chemicals that turn frogs gay - that's
the strangest thing about his critics... using that to point out how much of a
lunatic he is, but... Atrazine [0]

IDK... Maybe I'm just bad at hating conservatives... but if I was trying to
mock a personality for being crazy, I'd choose something a little less
plausible.

[https://www.livescience.com/10957-pesticide-turns-male-
frogs...](https://www.livescience.com/10957-pesticide-turns-male-frogs-
females.html)

------
razius
Nobody is talking that it's not just the account that got banned but even
sharing the content is not possible anymore. How is that not censorship?

------
jerkstate
I used to be against this sort of thing, but now I think the faster Facebook,
Twitter, and Google make themselves irrelevant for public discourse, the
better. Their ad-based business model is just incompatible with free speech,
and the more obvious that fact is to everyone, the better.

I still think it's bad when non-branded content carriers like web hosts, CDNs,
payment processors and banks ban clients based on ideology though.

------
abstract7
If Facebook and Google are private companies and they can ban whomever they
want, why can't they have a policy to not hire each other's employees? FYI, i
don't like any of those stances.

------
pmarreck
I suggest a machine should be taught how to identify conversations about the
merit of "deplatforming", and then use the ML to autoban those conversations
in order to teach a valuable lesson in civics

------
qwsxyh
Once again, I find it ironic to be holding an absolutist free speech view on a
website that automatically deletes opinions the community doesn't like.

~~~
dblotsky
Free speech has nothing to do with the right to be listened to.

~~~
Fins
But did Facebook force you to read Farrakhan or Jones before they got kicked
out?

------
EricShun
It won't be long until we get the following from Snaptubeface:
[https://www.whatsonweibo.com/chinese-media-warn-wechat-
group...](https://www.whatsonweibo.com/chinese-media-warn-wechat-group-admins-
you-can-be-arrested-for-what-happens-in-your-group-chat/)

------
rayiner
There are some optical issues with a company that has widely recognized
shortcomings in hiring African Americans banning the person who organized the
Million Man March. (This is not an endorsement of Mr. Fartakhan’s politics.
But man, that’s a hell of a sensitive subject for Facebook to wade into.)

------
luord
I don't even know who these people are, but I do think that this is
censorship, specially if it's true (as the article quotes about Loomer) that
they've never actually advocated harm or the like.

------
shiado
It's always funny when these threads come up and people who ostensibly hold
the progressive viewpoint that corporations have an inordinate amount of power
and influence suddenly pull out their Ayn Rand books and Gadsden flags and
argue that corporations should be able to do anything they want because they
are a private entity.

~~~
belltaco
It's also funny that people who ostensibly hold the conservative viewpoint
that the government should not regulate corporations at all suddenly want the
government to force companies and individuals to give away their property
rights and host hateful speech.

------
graphememes
There are people that believe this _isn 't_ censorship?

------
bitL
Hmm, all Facebook is going to achieve is that they lose any influence on
supporters/viewers of those they kicked out, instead of algorithmicaly
managing them by some dark patterns. It's now trivial to set up an ActivityPub
service on an own server that replaces 70% of FB/Instagram/YouTube
functionality and that gap in useful services will be shrinking. So they will
have a short-term win and long-term an ever larger group without any influence
over as the window of acceptable discourse will be shifting further in its
current trajectory, pushing more of previously accepted opinions over the
edge, kicking out more users in the process.

~~~
fullshark
They will achieve ensuring no ads appear next to a post from these guys.

------
scarejunba
Sounds fine to me. HN bans and threatens to ban people too and that's a good
thing.

~~~
jonny_eh
Exactly, nearly every online forum does the same thing. It's normal and
healthy. Luckily, there's no shortage of forums to move on to.

------
village-idiot
I have a very hard time getting worked up over deplatforming. Social media
companies are private, if they want to ban odeous asshats that is their right.
Those who dislike it can go to Gab.

------
ravenstine
I'm not a fan of either of these people, but how exactly are Milo Yiannopolous
and Paul Joseph Watson "dangerous"? Maybe it's not good material for people to
be watching, but to call them "dangerous" comes off like the religious right
of yore claiming that video games depicting violence are dangerous and need to
be censored.

I wouldn't normally step in to defend these people, but this article by CNN is
a prime example of why people don't trust the media. Note the use of the word
"fringe" in reference to people like Paul Joseph Watson, despite the number of
views and subscribers(1.6 million) he has on YouTube alone. The word "fringe"
used to mean something a lot more, well... fringe, but it's obvious that CNN
and other outlets believe that _they_ are official while everyone not
sanctioned by Big Advertising is fringe.

Facebook used to be popular because it was, at one point, _fun_. If they're
going to remove all the voices they think are "dangerous", what they're left
with won't be fun or interesting. Just lukewarm, milquetoast, or worse...
_lopsided_.

Sadly, I suspect that Facebook's stock will continue to climb despite how
restrictive it is, how uninteresting it is, and how many people are leaving
it.

EDIT: I do appreciate those who haven't taken my comment as a denial of
wrongdoing by subjects I mentioned. My question was honest and I still stand
by my comment on CNN.

~~~
waer34tawer
You're being disingenuous! Paul Joseph Watson believes:

\- 9/11 was an inside job

\- The illuminati is controlling your mind with chemitrails

\- Soy beans are making men docile and feminine.

Sounds pretty fringe to me. Don't care how many views he has.

He also incites hate against muslims, which I'd say, makes him pretty
dangerous.

My opinion of Facebook's actions is a separate matter. But the narrative
you're pushing to justify your argument - it's complete BS.

~~~
astura
Yeah and for Alex Jones:

The government has ‘weather weapons’

Chemicals in the water are turning frogs gay

Robert Mueller is a demon, and also a pedophile

The Sandy Hook shooting was staged

Hillary Clinton is running a child sex ring out of a pizza parlor

Source: [https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/14/alex-jones-5-most-
disturbing...](https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/14/alex-jones-5-most-disturbing-
ridiculous-conspiracy-theories.html)

~~~
BickNowstrom
The government _has_ weather weapons.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_Modification_Con...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_Modification_Convention)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weather_warfare](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weather_warfare)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Popeye](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Popeye)

Chemicals in the water _are_ turning the frogs gay.

[https://www.reuters.com/article/us-environment-
potomac/sex-c...](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-environment-potomac/sex-
changing-chemicals-found-in-potomac-river-idUSN1738648320070118)

For Mueller, Sandy Hook, and Pizzagate, Alex Jones speculated and reported on
these existing conspiracy theories. He did not invent them. He apologized for
Pizzagate and Sandy Hook, and blames his rants on psychosis.

~~~
JakeTheAndroid
Good ol' insanity defense. Classic. Guess he doesn't invent anything that guy,
besides a product line to make him money.

~~~
BickNowstrom
You think Alex Jones is a 100% sane? And no need to guess, all those
conspiracy theories discussed on his show had already been talked about by
others. The product line is a strawman.

------
otvsh
I'm wondering if a tipping point will be reached where so many people will be
deplatformed that users will start to flock to uncensored sites (think of Gab,
but it doesn't have to be Gab) en masse to be able to read what they want to
read, to the point where those sites will have enough "normal" users that they
won't be complete cesspools like Voat is.

~~~
Karunamon
What will come first is one of these companies (probably Twitter, Facebook, or
Google) will overreach in some way (like nuking the President's account or
something else equally outlandish) and force a legal fight on the matter.

The nature of free speech on the internet, when the internet is an
interconnected series of other people's back yards, is not a fight that
Silicon Valley would prefer to have. This idea carries some amount of legal
precedent for physical locations [1].

They'd also rather not have their status as platforms vs publishers
reevaluated - the more control they exert, the closer they come to that point
of being a publisher, and therefore responsible for the content they host.

[1]: [https://law.justia.com/cases/california/supreme-
court/3d/23/...](https://law.justia.com/cases/california/supreme-
court/3d/23/899.html)

------
cm2012
This is awesome news. Deplatforming works and these guys are so blatantly
harmful.

~~~
Veen
Deplatforming works to achieve what exactly?

~~~
happytoexplain
Stemming the spread of hatred and violence.

~~~
naasking
1\. Is there evidence that they've actually incited hatred and violence? If
so, then they've violated the law. If there's no such evidence, then what
justification would you use now?

2\. Where's the evidence that hatred and violence are spreading?

3\. Where's your evidence that censoring is successful in "stemming the spread
of hatred and violence"?

------
throwawaysea
WHY THIS IS CENSORSHIP:

I am seeing numerous comments claiming this is not censorship when it most
definitely is. From
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship)

> Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other
> information, on the basis that such material is considered objectionable,
> harmful, sensitive, or "inconvenient". Censorship can be conducted by a
> government, private institutions, and corporations.

From Merriam-Webster ([https://www.merriam-
webster.com/dictionary/censorship](https://www.merriam-
webster.com/dictionary/censorship)), where there is no mention of 'censorship'
being a government-specific concept:

> the institution, system, or practice of censoring

From Oxford
([https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/censorship](https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/censorship)),
where again there is no mention of 'censorship' being a government-specific
concept:

> The suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, films, news, etc. that
> are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security.

We know Facebook is a private corporation. That's irrelevant, as such actions
are censorship regardless. So please stop repeating the false claim that this
isn't censorship because Facebook can do whatever it wants as a private
entity.

WHY FREE SPEECH MATTERS:

Proponents of free speech are pro free speech as a general concept and
principle, beyond what protections are afforded under American law today. The
idea of free speech predates the existence of the United States. Free speech
is hugely valuable to defend, because what society finds acceptable or
unacceptable is very much subjective and changes with
time/location/culture/setting/leadership/etc. Having an open exchange of ideas
is good and necessary for the long-term health and stability of society.
Furthermore, making available ideas that challenge current understanding is
necessary if we care about being a collectively truth-seeking society.

Free societies are durable over the long term when they protect these rights
at all times, for all people, for all ideologies. As a rule of thumb, if the
speech in question is not advocating for _direct_ physical violence, it should
be permitted. Getting into the business of censoring indirect or non-physical
harm is a huge slippery slope. We could frame virtually any idea as having
some downstream negative externality and suggest that it should be disallowed.
For example, capitalism, socialism, and communism could all be attacked in
this manner. Should books on those topic be dropped?

WHY PRIVATE PLATFORMS' CENSORSHIP IS CONCERNING:

Large privately-owned platforms carry so much discourse across today's
society, that censorship and deplatforming in those spaces has the same impact
as governmental censorship, for most intents and purposes. Even if these
corporations do not constitute what we might traditionally call a "monopoly",
they control a large-enough share of traffic to have significant impact when
they take artificial actions. That is, they constitute a digital public
square. That sizable impact is exactly why they are being targeted (not just
on this topic but others) by activists or other agents pushing for
deplatforming/censorship favorable to their causes.

The big risk is this: when only a few entities funnel so much societal
discourse or control our communication infrastructure or process payments,
those entities making arbitrary decisions about who they serve has similar
impacts/risks to the government imposing similar restrictions through the law.
These companies should not act as a thought police and should not impose their
own personal governance above what is minimally required by the law. Nor
should they rely on the judgment of an angry mob to make decisions.

~~~
dullgiulio
Not giving a microphone to someone is not the same as censoring them.

~~~
crispsquirrel
Technically it's the taking away of said microphone, which I guess would be
censorship

Edited if to of - typo!

~~~
threeseed
It works both ways you know.

You can't say that these people have the right to say what they want on
Facebook. And then turn around and say that Facebook has no right to determine
what's on their website.

It's their website. They should have the right to determine what goes on it.
And whoever doesn't like it can build their own Facebook.

------
psychometry
...and nothing of value was lost. Facebook is not the government. They have no
obligation to allow all speech.

~~~
bilbo0s
I wish all users had your capacity for reason.

FB is private property. Play by their rules or GTFO. People who scream about
censorship in instances such as these are being willfully dismissive of the
property rights of others. And that's a dangerous road to start down.

~~~
nostromo
Just because Facebook can do something doesn't mean Facebook should.

Freedom of speech is much more than a legal concept about governments and
governed. It's also a guideline on how we should structure an open society
going at least back to Ancient Greece.

~~~
res0nat0r
There never has been a right to free speech on some private companies system.

~~~
vibrato
That is true for content publishers. However, if those systems are claimed to
be public squares, then there is a right to free speech for citizens of the
USA there.

The tech companies cannot have it both ways. They want to be publishers, then
take the responsibilities and liabilities of publishers.

[https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2018/09/05/jack-dorsey-
says-t...](https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2018/09/05/jack-dorsey-says-twitter-
is-a-public-square-more-than-5-times/)

~~~
jfk13
This is a crucial point, IMO. Facebook et al need to decide (or we as a
society need to decide) whether they're a public square - in which case they
have no business censoring what people choose to say except in cases speech
that is clearly illegal - or a content publisher making choices about what to
publish and what not.

(In Facebook's case, at least, I'd say that ever since they moved on from the
simple chronological "wall" showing posts as submitted, replacing it with a
"timeline" where their algorithms - with plenty of input from "sponsors", etc
- decide what you'll see, they have chosen to become a content publisher.)

Fine, in the content publisher role they can decide that certain content, or
the speech of certain parties, will not be published through their platform.

But then they must also be held responsible for what they _do_ choose to
publish - including liability for harmful content such as libel, false
advertising, etc.

------
dgzl
I imagine the people who are happy about this event aren't very fun at
parties.

~~~
dblotsky
I imagine people who say others aren’t fun at parties, are themselves not very
fun at parties.

~~~
dgzl
I'm not the one advocating exclusivity.

------
Simulacra
I don't agree with this at all. If they want to put a big warning on it,
contain the posts, etc. that's fine, but banning is not cool. One person's
radical fascist is another person's ardent hero. Facebook should support
freedom of speech, not freedom from speech.

~~~
oliveshell
The only thing that the constitutional right to freedom of speech guarantees
is that the government cannot arrest you for what you say.

It doesn’t give you the right to continue using someone’s platform as a
megaphone if they decide you’re an asshole.

Being banned from Facebook doesn’t mean that these people no longer have the
right or ability to spread their message. They can use another platform, or
make (or host!) their own website, or print and distribute literature, or go
stand on a street corner with an actual megaphone.

Facebook is not the government, and— agree with it or not— they can decide who
uses their platform and how.

(For the record, I’m not a fan of Facebook.)

~~~
Simulacra
My apologies, perhaps I was not clear in my previous statement. I recognize
that this is a private corporation, hence why I said in my last sentence that
Facebook should support freedom of speech, not freedom from speech, which I
meant as on their platform.

------
StanislavPetrov
The ignorance in these comments is astounding. Facebook has already banned
many anti-war voices that can in no way be construed as "racist" or bigoted.
Its one thing to claim that private companies have the right to silence and
censor people, and quite another to cheer on the practice as somehow being
desirable.

~~~
gridlockd
> "many anti-war voices"

Care to name some names?

~~~
StanislavPetrov
Over 800 have been banned including Anti-media and Police the Police. Here is
a list of only a few:

[https://thefreethoughtproject.com/social-media-purge-top-
ten...](https://thefreethoughtproject.com/social-media-purge-top-ten-sites/)

~~~
gridlockd
It doesn't really say _why_ these where banned. From a cursory glance, some of
these fall into the "anti-vaxxer" and "anti-trans" group. Also, some accounts
that you may call "anti-war" or "anti-police" are posting very graphic images
of war or "police work". Those bans are warranted on terms of service grounds.

As for the "over 800" you mention, here's what the source (RT) actually says:

 _" Facebook is again being called out for purging political accounts too far
left and right of center, after it removed more than 800 pages just in time
for the 2018 midterm elections. Some had millions of followers.

Many of the affected pages were supposedly sharing links between groups using
fake accounts, which then clicked "Like" on the posts, artificially upping
their engagement numbers. This "inauthentic behavior" violates Facebook's
anti-spam policies and goes against "what people expect" from Facebook, the
company said."_

That's basically platform abuse, so a ban is warranted as well.

To be clear, I'm not necessarily in favor of banning any of these "alternative
media" outlets, but I can imagine _why_ those may have been banned.

~~~
StanislavPetrov
You don't have to imagine - its because they are at odds with the official
government narrative. Make no mistake, this has nothing to do with "right" or
"left" or "hate speech" or "graphic imagery" and it has everything about
regaining control of public discourse - a control that was lost with the
explosion of the internet. Its a concerted effort, across every major tech
platform, to use restrictive policies (that are selectively enforced) to ban
alternative policies on "service grounds". You could try googling some more
information about this, but Google has likewise deranked and delisted
alternative voices. Everyone interested in freedom of speech and freedom of
thought should be horrified by this assault on free discource - it leads to
only one place.

[https://www.truthdig.com/articles/the-silencing-of-
dissent/](https://www.truthdig.com/articles/the-silencing-of-dissent/)

~~~
gridlockd
I don't think your source supports your claims. Anyway, I don't think you
should be downvoted.

------
m0zg
Now let's proceed to people who are _actually_ causing harm, such as, for
example, anti-vaxxers, antifa, etc. Alex Jones, chemtrails, give me a break.
He doesn't even believe in that shit himself. :-)

In fact, let's also ban CNN from there. It has been peddling fake conspiracy
theories and divided the country for the past 2 years pretty much non-stop.
That's kinda harmful innit?

~~~
bilbo0s
So they should ban all the people you want banned, because, you've got a
better handle on what's "dangerous"?

~~~
m0zg
Isn't that what they're doing already? How is Alex Jones "dangerous"? He's a
joke, he doesn't even take himself seriously. If the stated goal is to
minimize harm, then CNN has caused far more harm to the American people than
Alex Jones ever will.

~~~
bilbo0s
So it is that you have a better handle on who is "dangerous" and who is not
than FB does.

Why do you feel your analysis is any more valid than FB's?

Just as a matter of full disclosure, my position is, FB's private property,
FB's rules. Just like my house, or yours I suspect, if you don't like the
rules you have to leave. So that's my position on this whole thing. I'm just
wondering why you think we should trust your word over FB's?

~~~
m0zg
There was no "analysis" there, it's purely a political move, don't get
confused.

------
cybersnowflake
All you guys using freemarket/private enterprise excuses to support this have
no justification supporting net neutrality or any antidiscrimination 'public
accommodation' laws ie (forced SSM cake baking, government interference in
private business's choice of customer/employee). Either government steps in
for the greater good or it doesn't. You can't have it both ways.

------
Theodores
For years 'InfoWars' was promoted on YouTube, allegedly they now ban Alex
Jones and his brand of media, along with - now - Facebook.

During the Bush years he did act as a 'gatekeeper' for people questioning the
war. Rather than people get to useful facts they only got as far as Alex Jones
rants. This had a useful effect of neutering anyone questioning the
particulars of how the war started.

I would not say it is sad to see him banned from every platform but you have
to wonder if he has outlived his usefulness.

The bigger problem is the recommendation algorithms, giving him the oxygen of
publicity. People would never have discovered his content without these
algorithms, unless a friend personally recommended 'Infowars' et al.

We should still have the option to read or watch content that does not agree
with us in the realm of politics. I have not read 'Mein Kampf' myself, however
I have listened to that one clip of Hitler actually talking rather than
delivering a speech. I found it useful for understanding a little bit more
about that war. There may be neo-nazis we need to protect from such hate
speech but it is also at a cost to understanding history.

With Alex Jones there is that theory that he is the same person as Bill Hicks.
That story does interest me and I would like the option to study some original
Alex Jones content to see if that is a credible conspiracy story or just some
entertaining hogwash. If every trace of Alex Jones is banned from the internet
then I won't have that option.

------
fopen64
Regrettable. Are they banning radical left types? Of course not.

~~~
nickthegreek
Who is a radical left type on Facebook that you feel have crossed boundaries?

~~~
rudedogg
My personal belief is that Facebook shouldn't be trying to censor speech this
way, it's impossible to be (or appear to be) impartial. The people who are
booted off just go to their own corner of the internet and never have their
ideas challenged.

But to answer your question,
[https://www.facebook.com/kathygriffin/](https://www.facebook.com/kathygriffin/)
comes to mind (with the beheaded Trump photo).

~~~
nickthegreek
The kathy griffin image was a twitter post, not a facebook post. And while
that was not a good post, that was a single incident. I don't think it would
be correct to put Kathy Griffin and Alex Jones in the same bucket.

~~~
rudedogg
> The kathy griffin image was a twitter post, not a facebook post.

The article didn't really say, but I assume the bans are considered based on
all their activity, not just Facebook.

> And while that was not a good post, that was a single incident.

The Convington Catholic School thing was another issue. Probably worse in that
it was kind of a call to action:

[https://twitter.com/kathygriffin/status/1086932616392011776](https://twitter.com/kathygriffin/status/1086932616392011776)

I think comedians especially should get a lot of slack, but I'd say this fits
the bill for being "dangerous" based on the article.

My point is that this won't be viewed as being fair no matter what Facebook
does, and rules like these allow you to easily target basically anyone. I
don't know the answer, especially when you're an international company. I do
think it's going to cause more political animosity though.

