Hacker News Reader

Comment by ergocoder | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

> 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.

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com