5 ms·

They didn't ban a former prime minister of Malaysia for stating "Muslims have the right to be angry and kill millions of French people for the massacres of the

by dc2k08 6y ago

They didn't ban a former prime minister of Malaysia for stating "Muslims have the right to be angry and kill millions of French people for the massacres of the past". They wouldn't even remove the tweet. This was his response to a French school teacher being beheaded in Paris by a Muslim parent, angry that he was teaching freedom of expression includes freedom to offend. They didn't ban Kathy Griffith for holding up Trump's decapitated head either. You wouldn't get away with doing that to Biden's head.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
hn_throwaway_99 6y ago
I think you are, deliberately or not, leaving out important context (e.g. Twitter did remove the tweet from the Malaysian ex-prime minister), but regardless, even if I fully accept your point that Twitter and FB don't apply their rules fairly, you're still left with the fact that the only people who really need a "free speech" social media platform are folks that are mad that they can't demand the killings of millions or that they can't display fake severed heads. And literally every one of these "free speech" platforms (Parler, Gab, Voat) was immediately turned into a cesspool of conspiratorial rantings, hatred and racism. Voat was probably my "favorite" of all. Literally the only reason it got any traffic were people were mad they could no longer post to r/fatpeoplehate.
- dc2k08 6y ago
  twitter didn't remove it initially and must have done so only after backlash pointing out their hypocrisy. Opponents of Trump have had free reign the last four years to incite violence against him and his supporters. Once you label your opponents nazis you can say what you like as far as the tech giants are concerned.
  - tsimionescu 6y ago
    But, IF your opponents ARE literal swastika-flashing nazis, isn't it a net good to have them harassed wherever they pop their heads?
    - esyir 6y ago
      This is precisely the sort of water muddying via association
    - esyir 6y ago
      This is the specific sort of muddying via association that's often used. Suddenly, trump is a literal swastika flashing nazi, and that's why twitter banned him. Associating people with the worst of whatever group you can lump them in, then following up with "they're that guy"
      - tsimionescu 6y ago
        No, Trump is not a literal swastika-flashing Nazi. BUT, there are literal groups of swastika-flashing Nazis that do support Trump. Targeting these people with harassment should be encouraged, NOT because they support Trump, but because they are Nazis. Trump and non-nazi Trump supporters MUST NOT be harassed by simple association, EXCEPT to the extent that they are themselves protecting the nazis, or trying to muddy the waters. Because a lot of people ARE muddying the waters from the "Trump" side as well: instead of recognizing that many attacks are against literal nazis who happen to support Trump, they act as if the attacks are against Trump supporters in general, or that people are calling a crowd nazis because they support Trump, not because they were chanting "jews will not replace us". Or claiming that Trump, who said about the crowd chanting "jews will not replace us" and the antifa counter-protest "there are fine people on both sides", was not literally defending nazis in this case.
        Veen 6y ago
        > Trump and non-nazi Trump supporters MUST NOT be harassed by simple association, EXCEPT to the extent that they are themselves protecting the nazis, or trying to muddy the waters. That's the thin end of the wedge though. - Muslims must not be harassed by simple association, except where they muddy the waters to protect Islamists. - Feminists must not be harassed by simple association, except where they muddy the waters to protect transphobes. - Conservatives must not be harassed by simple association, except where they muddy the waters to protect an anti-gay rights agenda. "Muddying the water" is dangerously vague. Who adjudicates between good-faith arguments and those intended to give cover for extremists?
  - KozmoNau7 6y ago
    Anarchists and socialists have been demonetized and banned in wide swathes for years. Crimeth!nc and others are banned from Facebook and Twitter etc. You just don't see it, because it's outside of your bubble of interest.
    - throwawayForMe2 6y ago
      Crimethinc and many Antifa groups are active on Twitter https://twitter.com/crimethinc https://twitter.com/crimethinc
      - simonh 6y ago
        So are many far right groups, individual examples don't prove anything.
- xupybd 6y ago
  There are some bans that do seem target at the right. https://www.newsweek.com/ron-paul-blocked-accessing-facebook-page-over-violating-community-standards-1560639 https://www.newsweek.com/ron-paul-blocked-accessing-facebook...
  - hn_throwaway_99 6y ago
    Again, keeping with the theme of every single time I hear of some example of conservative censorship, I dig in and find it's 99% BS: https://reason.com/2021/01/11/ron-paul-says-hes-been-locked-out-of-facebook/ https://reason.com/2021/01/11/ron-paul-says-hes-been-locked-... . Ron Paul's page was never banned, blocked or censored in any way for people viewing his content. Admin rights on his page were mistakenly blocked, and reopened a few hours later. I in know way see that targeting the right, especially since I hear plenty of bitching from people on the left who also think it's some sort of conspiracy whenever they get blocked (e.g. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2019/04/24/facebook-while-black-zucked-users-say-they-get-blocked-racism-discussion/2859593002/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2019/04/24/facebook-whil... )
    - sremani 6y ago
      The coincidences keep happening to certain variety of people, especially those who do not belong to 'Corporate Left'.
      - hn_throwaway_99 6y ago
        It's kind of a truism these days that whenever people are blocked or banned on social media, they blame it on some underlying conspiracy to ban their version of political thought. Another commenter put it best: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25818108 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25818108 "It only seems that way to you because you’re seeing only one side getting arbitrarily suspended."
        sremani 6y ago
        For organizations that donate 95% towards one political party, some how they have managed to be extra-ordinarily neutral. If that is your thesis - I disagree.
diehunde 6y ago
Mahathir's tweet was removed.
- esyir 6y ago
  Note that his account wasn't banned.
lostcolony 6y ago
Griffin also apologized for it. And was still investigated by the secret service.
- lenkite 6y ago
  Griffin posted the image again last week...
- throwaway333444 6y ago
  Griffin may have apologized but has since rescinded that apology and subsequently published the image again. And as of this writing it’s been up for 2 months. https://thehill.com/blogs/in-the-know/in-the-know/348388-kathy-griffin-says-she-is-no-longer-sorry-about-severed-trump https://thehill.com/blogs/in-the-know/in-the-know/348388-kat... https://thehill.com/blogs/in-the-know/in-the-know/524681-kathy-griffin-re-shares-beheaded-trump-photo-amid-delayed https://thehill.com/blogs/in-the-know/in-the-know/524681-kat...

by dc2k08 6y ago

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

hn_throwaway_99 6y ago

I think you are, deliberately or not, leaving out important context (e.g. Twitter did remove the tweet from the Malaysian ex-prime minister), but regardless, even if I fully accept your point that Twitter and FB don't apply their rules fairly, you're still left with the fact that the only people who really need a "free speech" social media platform are folks that are mad that they can't demand the killings of millions or that they can't display fake severed heads. And literally every one of these "free speech" platforms (Parler, Gab, Voat) was immediately turned into a cesspool of conspiratorial rantings, hatred and racism. Voat was probably my "favorite" of all. Literally the only reason it got any traffic were people were mad they could no longer post to r/fatpeoplehate.

dc2k08 6y ago
twitter didn't remove it initially and must have done so only after backlash pointing out their hypocrisy. Opponents of Trump have had free reign the last four years to incite violence against him and his supporters. Once you label your opponents nazis you can say what you like as far as the tech giants are concerned.
- tsimionescu 6y ago
  But, IF your opponents ARE literal swastika-flashing nazis, isn't it a net good to have them harassed wherever they pop their heads?
  - esyir 6y ago
    This is precisely the sort of water muddying via association
  - esyir 6y ago
    This is the specific sort of muddying via association that's often used. Suddenly, trump is a literal swastika flashing nazi, and that's why twitter banned him. Associating people with the worst of whatever group you can lump them in, then following up with "they're that guy"
    - tsimionescu 6y ago
      No, Trump is not a literal swastika-flashing Nazi. BUT, there are literal groups of swastika-flashing Nazis that do support Trump. Targeting these people with harassment should be encouraged, NOT because they support Trump, but because they are Nazis. Trump and non-nazi Trump supporters MUST NOT be harassed by simple association, EXCEPT to the extent that they are themselves protecting the nazis, or trying to muddy the waters. Because a lot of people ARE muddying the waters from the "Trump" side as well: instead of recognizing that many attacks are against literal nazis who happen to support Trump, they act as if the attacks are against Trump supporters in general, or that people are calling a crowd nazis because they support Trump, not because they were chanting "jews will not replace us". Or claiming that Trump, who said about the crowd chanting "jews will not replace us" and the antifa counter-protest "there are fine people on both sides", was not literally defending nazis in this case.
      - Veen 6y ago
        > Trump and non-nazi Trump supporters MUST NOT be harassed by simple association, EXCEPT to the extent that they are themselves protecting the nazis, or trying to muddy the waters. That's the thin end of the wedge though. - Muslims must not be harassed by simple association, except where they muddy the waters to protect Islamists. - Feminists must not be harassed by simple association, except where they muddy the waters to protect transphobes. - Conservatives must not be harassed by simple association, except where they muddy the waters to protect an anti-gay rights agenda. "Muddying the water" is dangerously vague. Who adjudicates between good-faith arguments and those intended to give cover for extremists?
- KozmoNau7 6y ago
  Anarchists and socialists have been demonetized and banned in wide swathes for years. Crimeth!nc and others are banned from Facebook and Twitter etc. You just don't see it, because it's outside of your bubble of interest.
  - throwawayForMe2 6y ago
    Crimethinc and many Antifa groups are active on Twitter https://twitter.com/crimethinc https://twitter.com/crimethinc
    - simonh 6y ago
      So are many far right groups, individual examples don't prove anything.
xupybd 6y ago
There are some bans that do seem target at the right. https://www.newsweek.com/ron-paul-blocked-accessing-facebook-page-over-violating-community-standards-1560639 https://www.newsweek.com/ron-paul-blocked-accessing-facebook...
- hn_throwaway_99 6y ago
  Again, keeping with the theme of every single time I hear of some example of conservative censorship, I dig in and find it's 99% BS: https://reason.com/2021/01/11/ron-paul-says-hes-been-locked-out-of-facebook/ https://reason.com/2021/01/11/ron-paul-says-hes-been-locked-... . Ron Paul's page was never banned, blocked or censored in any way for people viewing his content. Admin rights on his page were mistakenly blocked, and reopened a few hours later. I in know way see that targeting the right, especially since I hear plenty of bitching from people on the left who also think it's some sort of conspiracy whenever they get blocked (e.g. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2019/04/24/facebook-while-black-zucked-users-say-they-get-blocked-racism-discussion/2859593002/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2019/04/24/facebook-whil... )
  - sremani 6y ago
    The coincidences keep happening to certain variety of people, especially those who do not belong to 'Corporate Left'.
    - hn_throwaway_99 6y ago
      It's kind of a truism these days that whenever people are blocked or banned on social media, they blame it on some underlying conspiracy to ban their version of political thought. Another commenter put it best: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25818108 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25818108 "It only seems that way to you because you’re seeing only one side getting arbitrarily suspended."
      - sremani 6y ago
        For organizations that donate 95% towards one political party, some how they have managed to be extra-ordinarily neutral. If that is your thesis - I disagree.

diehunde 6y ago

Mahathir's tweet was removed.

esyir 6y ago
Note that his account wasn't banned.

lostcolony 6y ago

Griffin also apologized for it. And was still investigated by the secret service.

lenkite 6y ago
Griffin posted the image again last week...
throwaway333444 6y ago
Griffin may have apologized but has since rescinded that apology and subsequently published the image again. And as of this writing it’s been up for 2 months. https://thehill.com/blogs/in-the-know/in-the-know/348388-kathy-griffin-says-she-is-no-longer-sorry-about-severed-trump https://thehill.com/blogs/in-the-know/in-the-know/348388-kat... https://thehill.com/blogs/in-the-know/in-the-know/524681-kathy-griffin-re-shares-beheaded-trump-photo-amid-delayed https://thehill.com/blogs/in-the-know/in-the-know/524681-kat...