Hacker News Reader

Comment by 99_00 | Hacker News Reader

"I cannot stand by Facebook’s continued refusal to act on the president’s bigoted messages aimed at radicalizing the American public."

What is this message and does anyone have a source?

View on HN

They are reacting to this message[1], which includes the phrase "when the looting starts, the shooting starts." It's a phrase that has been used as a pretext for violence against protests[2].

As mentioned in [2], Twitter reacted to the message on their platform. Facebook has the same policy against using their platform to incite or glorify violence[3], but have chosen not to enforce it (or disagree that it is an incitement to violence).

[1] https://www.facebook.com/DonaldTrump/posts/10164767134275725

[2] https://www.npr.org/2020/05/29/864818368/the-history-behind-...

[3] https://www.facebook.com/communitystandards/credible_violenc...

Trying to stop the President from inciting violence isn't the responsibility of Facebook. People have a right to know what the President is saying and his hostile intentions. If the President says a bunch of racist and violent things in the State of the Union address, would you also blame ABC for airing it?

>Trying to stop the President from inciting violence isn't the responsibility of Facebook.

I didn't say it was, nor is that my read of the issue at hand. Facebook choosing not to host a message does not stop the message from being said. It would just be said elsewhere.

>People have a right to know what the President is saying and his hostile intentions.

I am not under the impression that Facebook is the exclusive source of information for presentenial statements. I understand they are also frequently run in other media.

> If the President says a bunch of racist and violent things in the State of the Union address, would you also blame ABC for airing it?

I haven't said anything about blaming anyone. Someone asked what message was controversial and I linked the message along with an explanation of the controversy. If you think I'm taking a position I'd appreciate you speaking directly instead of imputing intent.

I also don't really understand your question. I would "blame" ABC in that I would expect them to account for how they chose to cover it (whatever that form took).

So, if one of those TV shows that ask people in the street about things (say, the old Candid Camera) come to me, and ask me something, and I start saying crap, fuck everyone, I'm going to kill whoever don't agree with me.

Do they have to put it in their program? Are they doing "censorship" when they cut out that part for their program? does the fact that "people have the right to know" what I am saying means that the TV program MUST keep my rant?

Of course not, that program (as twitter and facebook) is a private platform. They are free to put whatever they want. Their algorithms already heavily edit the conversation (like, I have 400 friends on facebook, and I usually only see from 10 of them at most when I load the page).

If someone working at Fox News suddenly does not agree with the content policies of the company, they will quit.

It's not about censorship. It's about allowing people to see the news. It's the same difference between a typical r/watchpeopledie video and the video of George Floyd. A regular person making a racist rant is just a racist rant. The president making a racist rant is the news.

"when the looting starts, the shooting starts." - When I read this phrase I honestly thought that it means the looters start shooting as the next step to looting, not the other way around where the looters will be shot.

I just don't get it. Are some people just incapable of doing basic research or reading an entire article?

Trump sought to clarify his comments Friday afternoon again on Twitter: "Looting leads to shooting, and that's why a man was shot and killed in Minneapolis on Wednesday night - or look at what just happened in Louisville with 7 people shot. I don't want this to happen, and that's what the expression put out last night means. It was spoken as a fact, not as a statement. It's very simple, nobody should have any problem with this other than the haters, and those looking to cause trouble on social media. Honor the memory of George Floyd!"

But, I will say this guy saw an opportunity and took it! Great self-promoter!

I'm guessing the context is Facebook's and Twitter's differing reactions to Trump's recent online postings. At a glance, this article seems like a thorough review of the situation: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/29/technology/twitter-facebo...

Watch CNN/MSNBC instead of the raw feed on The White House YouTube channel.

You must have missed when trump tweeted/fbed “when the looting starts, the shooting starts” late last week.

And it has, as people take the law into their own hands. Unfortunately in 2020 we’re still arguing whether violence is ok.

He clarified his comments and his explanation is not inflammatory.

"Looting leads to shooting, and that's why a man was shot and killed in Minneapolis on Wednesday night - or look at what just happened in Louisville with 7 people shot," Trump tweeted

https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-defends-his-when-the-l...

People should be given a chance to explain what they said if it is misinterpreted. Focusing on the misinterpretation after the explanation has been made is in-fact inflammatory and divisive.

It’s been way too many years to give trump the benefit of the doubt. His words are never misinterpreted.

... never?

People are always correct to choose the most inflammatory interpretation?

His explanation feels disingenuous in the context of his other tweets, his "you have to dominate" statements, and the use of the military the past few days. Trump has continued to escalate things, and while I hope that it doesn't lead to shooting, it feels plausible that Trump would threaten people with "thats where things are heading!"

(The origins of the of the "looting leads to shooting" statement should also speak for itself. I know Trump claims ignorance of that statement, but there are reasons to doubt that as well.)

Recent polling suggests a majority of Americans would like to see the military used, so this isn't exactly a fringe call to violence. And it doesn't split along many of the fault lines you might expect either; 48% of Democrats and 37% of African-Americans are on board.

(https://assets.morningconsult.com/wp-uploads/2020/06/0118162...)

That's the most frightening thing I've heard in this entire mess. The rule against the military intervening in domestic affairs is hugely important. We can't afford to lose that in the heat of the moment.

Do remember that the military was deployed to quell domestic riots as recently as 1992. It's a big failure if we end up having to do it, but it's not an unprecedented nor unrecoverable one.

If the state wants it, I have no problem with it. If the state doesn't want it, though, and Trump says "You're getting them anyway, because you're out of control", well, that's quite different.

Completely agreed.

Do you agree that public officals can clarify comments that are misinterpreted and that we should take that clarification at face value.

Or do you think that all public officials should be held to the first impression of their statement forever?

Neither--the binary proposition is ridiculous.

Public officials can clarify comments, but I reserve the right to consider them in the context of their wider statements and actions. It seems silly not to.

To me, it sounds like people are quitting their jobs because they think they can read other people's minds.

If so, they can make WAY more money doing other things. Professional poker player comes to mind but you still need the self control to act or not act accordingly. High stakes contract negotiation like working for professional athlete's agents could be good. Advisor for divorce attorneys is not glamorous but would pay well.

I think all the mind readers and people who "knew that was going to happen!" should take advantage of their skills and understanding.

Then maybe he should run his Tweets by his staff before posting, so things like this that might be easily misinterpreted could be caught and clarified before they go out?

Look at another recent Tweet of his: "STRENGTH!" in response to someone else's Tweet. That other Tweet was from some QAnon conspiracy theorist referencing a QAnon thing about how Trump and military will soon be arresting and imprisoning or executing Democrats. QAnon follows took Trump's Tweet as confirming that this was going to start soon.

Maybe Trump didn't know what that other Tweet was referencing, and he didn't mean to encourage it. But he's the freaking PRESIDENT. His words automatically have a huge impact, and so the responsible thing to do would be to take care with them.

>Look at another recent Tweet of his: "STRENGTH!" in response to someone else's Tweet. That other Tweet was from some QAnon conspiracy theorist referencing a QAnon thing about how Trump and military will soon be arresting and imprisoning or executing Democrats. QAnon follows took Trump's Tweet as confirming that this was going to start soon.

Can you clarify what you mean? Are you saying Trump retweeted a call to imprison and execute democrats, because I looked into this and it looks to me like that was not at all the case.

On the face of it, it looks to be an inspirational Ronald Regan quote.

https://twitter.com/joep1776/status/1267222813334663169/phot...

It's a SeanCordicon tweet that Trump is retreating. The content of that tweet is:

> We knew this moment would arrive.

> We are the calm before, during & after the storm.

followed by a Reagan quote.

Cordicon is a QAnon conspiracy theorist. "The Storm" is a prominent thing in QAnon stuff [1][2] about how Trump will impose martial law to quell unrest and then he and the military will use that for a quiet coup to purge the government of Democrats and others.

[1] https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/QAnon#.22The_Storm.22

[2] https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2017/12/qanon-4chan-the-stor...

Are you arguing that looting and rioting are free speech?

That would be an argument mostly without legal precedent or support.

I don't think anyone is seriously arguing that. But it would be nice if the President of the United States would act like a grown up and when tensions are running high try and calm the situation instead of adding fuel to the fire. It is actually possible to try and deal with situations in a measured, substantive way instead of going on Twitter and making incendiary statements.

I don't disagree with you there and have always hated the way the President uses Twitter, but in times of massive civil unrest (this isn't it, btw -- this is but a small bit of noise), there are times when ultimatums must be put down.

How is it bigoted to observe that people breaking into businesses with weapons, baseball bats, etc., in an attempt to try to steal from and destroy them, might get shot at by business owners in fear of their lives? I’m genuinely curious to hear an explanation from your perspective, because I don’t see it - I see it as a pretty logical conclusion that such a thing might happen, regardless of the race of anyone involved.

this is the very problem with censorship. messages aren't exact so on some level you have to be subjective.

the very fact that twitter interpreted it as bigoted enough to sensor, and you didn't points a red arrow to why any censorship is bad.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com