Hacker News Reader

Comment by jmull | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

> only after it's too late to make a difference.

I think you underestimate how much damage he can still do

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.

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.

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.

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.

>... 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Why not? A private business banning people who believes in X, which happens to be gay's right.

Just to be clear: I'm on the side of, if we are gonna ban someone, let's use a proper legal route to do it.

Not "an exec thinks it's wrong. Let's ban them"

The established rule, as far as I know, is that a private business can do something, like banning people, unless there is a law against it, such as one protecting a specific class of people.

Is that not how it works? Is everything illegal until a regulation specifically allows it? Should it be?

It's convenient, I suppose.

A private business bans someone I hate. Oh yeah, private business can ban anybody.

A private business bans someone I like. Oh no that's morally wrong.

This system is stupid. It welcomes a screaming match or who can threaten the execs better.

You’re really comparing a homophobic ban of a gay couple trying to get married, to that of someone pushing an insurrection against the government? Would you also be against civil rights laws because they forced restaurants to allow black people to dine, and churches to marry interracial couples? Your attempts to make the two things equal is deeply disingenuous. This is an outright attack on the whole democratic system because one person is a sore loser.

> 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.

1. One of these things is not like the other.

2. “Screaming violently”?

Yeah, have you been on twitter? Not random Twitter accounts. These are FAANG employees.

They say Zuck and Dorsey support Nazis, white supremacists, and trump.

I worked at these companies, and that couldn't be further from the truth.

Just to be clear: I'm on the side of, if we are gonna ban someone, let's use a proper legal route to do it. But surprisingly nobody wants to go that route, huh?

Ban somebody. It’s totally legal. No additional steps required.

Normally I edit when I realize I forgot a point, but this one deserves another comment. When us leftists realize we’re being systematically excluded on a platform, yes we also make a stink. But then we go build new platforms and fucking get on with it. Because we’re not crybabies who expect to be amplified even though no one tolerates us.

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com