Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

any decision can kill people, whether its motor traffic laws, junk food laws, or smoking laws, or quarantine laws. its all open for debate and should not be deplatformed for mere protest. There is a point where quarantine does more damage than good, especially when thinking big picture and government control.


[flagged]


[flagged]


Except when every ICU bed is taken and there are no ventilators available, the mortality rate is probably in the 3-5% rate.


Oh, this again. Most people that get on a ventilator don't make it off alive. So I think we can put this bullshit to bed.

https://newsroom.uw.edu/news/early-study-covid-19-patients-s...

That's the study with the BEST outcomes. Every other study shows an even higher mortality rate among those ventilated.


Heart disease is responsible for a quarter of all deaths in the US. Facebook distributing adds for Coke is going to cause for more deaths than all the worlds quarantine protest groups combined. Deplatforming groups for petitioning the government is a tremendously alarming decision from Facebook. Regardless of what you think about FB being a corporate platform, the worlds civil liberties have been switched off along side the economy. Governments have a terrible track record of abdicating the powers they seize during crises, and are all talking about a “new normal”, as if we shouldn’t expect freedom of movement or privacy to return once this is over. These people have every right to petition their government (in the US at least), and FB deplatforming them is a serious cause for concern, especially under the guise of “misinformation”.


I can't catch heart disease and die in 2 weeks because of someone's poor hygiene.

If the CocaCola Corporation were advertising "Coke Float" parties right now, would that be okay?

FB does not owe an person access to FB, they only do it for the Coke ad dollars...


The legal questions of what FB’s rights are to control their platform are irrelevant to a discussion on the merits of how they choose to do it (and I’d suggest aren’t as clear cut as your implying).

If you’re isolating, then you also can’t catch coronavirus from somebody attending a protest. If you’re out in public, then you could also be randomly struck by a car (unintentional injuries are the 3rd leading cause of death in the US). Do you have the same view on advertisements for Ford?

These people are exercising their constitutional right to petition their government. Facebook is trying to prevent them from doing it because they don’t want them to. No matter how justified you think that is, it is anti-civil liberties, and anti-democracy. They are also doing so (at least according to the reports I’ve read), under the guise of preventing misinformation. Again, no matter how justified you think it is, it has nothing to do with misinformation, and is a clear signal of how they intend to apply “misinformation” moderation.

The problem that underlines all of this is that no private organization should have the power to control citizens to this extent. Regardless of what you think of these protestors, Mark Zuckerberg should not be the final arbiter on whether or not they’re allowed to organise themselves. HN and many other communities like it are very vocal about what services people should have access to, things like housing, transport, healthcare... but for speech all of a sudden we need a central authority to determine who’s worthy of access.


Facebook is a corporation that can make decisions based on what they believe the shareholders would want.

To simply throw out their rights to control their platform is anti-civil liberties and anti-democracy as well.

If you and others do not want to visit Facebook that's your right and your right to publicize, they do not owe you or me, anything.

If it turns out more people agree with you, Facebook will feel it with their stock price and most likely make adjustments. To say that they owe the public a free-space, is a leap if not a huge jump..


As I said:

> The legal questions of what FB’s rights are to control their platform are irrelevant to a discussion on the merits of how they choose to do it

But nice attempt to derail the conversation.

It’s amazing how quickly this community turns into a bunch of free market libertarians the moment censorship is brought up.

Using your line of reasoning, Verizon is a corporation that can make decisions based on what they believe the shareholders would want.

To simply throw out their rights to control their network is anti-civil liberties and anti-democracy as well.

If you and others do not want to use Verizon that's your right and your right to publicize, they do not owe you or me, anything.

If it turns out more people agree with you, Verizon will feel it with their stock price and most likely make adjustments. To say that they owe the public a neutral-network, is a leap if not a huge jump..




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: