Hacker News Reader

Comment by verall | Hacker News Reader

Milo had a book deal and was scheduled to speak at CPAC until someone uncovered a podcast of him defending the molestation of 13 year olds as a normal coming of age ritual.

I am not sure whether to assume you have not researched how he lost his platform or if you feel that defending molestation is "views that don't align with the left".

View on HN

Milo was not defending molestation, context matters. If anyone that has made stupid statements in the past should be removed from social media then it's time to just shut it all down.

"I am a gay man, and a child abuse victim. Between the ages of 13 and 16, two men touched me in ways they should not have," he began a news conference in Manhattan. "This isn’t how I wanted my parents to find out about this either.”

"My experiences as a victim led me to believe I could say almost anything on the subject, no matter how outrageous," he said. “I do not advocate for illegal behavior...I believe the age of consent is right.”

- Milo Yiannopoulos

No, Milo did defend molestation, and then he took it back and apologized for it.

Although I think Milo is rude, bigoted, and unapologetic, he is a victim, and I agree that he should have plenty of latitude to speak on the subject. What he said in the podcast was inappropriate, and based on his apology, Milo seems to agree.

"The law is probably about right. It's probably roughly the right age; it's probably about okay. But there are certainly people who are capable of giving consent at a younger age. I certainly consider myself to be one of them." - Milo Yiannopoulos

Seems like the example meets your criteria. There was nothing in his statements that were inherently illegal and so cancelling him for legal speech is an example of the Left's overreach among silicon valley decision-makers. This article[1] mentions more such far-right personalities that were banned for more traditional far-right views.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/may/02/facebook-...

Milo losing his book deal was not chosen by "the Left" or "silicon valley decision-makers" as they are not the publishing company. People have lost book deals for much less. Such is business. He lost his Twitter and Facebook for harassing people and his official Youtube is doing just fine.

> Traditional far-right views

Can you give an example of a traditional far-right view any of the 3 people in the article were banned for?

The article mentions Alex Jones and Laura Loomer. They were taken off of social media repeatedly encouraging followers to harass people (mobbing). Encouraging/organizing mobbing will even get you banned from 4chan. The number of sites that allow such behavior is exceedingly low, and Alex Jones got several chances to stop before being taken off of youtube and facebook.

I have no problem with losing a book deal when you say something that endangers your ability to sell books. Regarding social media, I was referring to him being banned from Facebook for unspecific reasons[1]

Regarding Laura Loomer, her twitter ban doesn't appear to constitute harassment by any reasonable definition[2]. Even if we grant she harassed Omar on twitter, that doesn't justify being banned from payment processors, uber, and food delivery services[3].

[1] https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/02/tech/facebook-ban-louis-farra...

[2] https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/security/laura-loomer-banned-tw...

[3] https://www.newsweek.com/paypal-bans-pro-trump-anti-muslim-f...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com