So what happened in Kenosha was tragic, and I don't think the issue is as cut and dry as either side would have you believe.
But my concern is I felt like this was inevitable, and will continue. I know the BLM protests are politically charged, but the problem is that there are many people's whose livelihoods and business are being permanently put out of commission and communities that are being devastated by the the looting, rioting, and protesting.
Sure people use the "they have insurance" but imagine for a minute that your entire house burnt down, does your life just magically resume because you have homeowners insurance.
Ultimately I feel like this will become more and more common because individuals are feeling as though the government is failing to portect them and as a result are willing to take matters into their own hands.
Again I'm not trying to say I disagree with the movement or the concept of police reform but I am concerned about the fact we have been letting the rioting and looting continue unchecked for months now. The fundamental reason for the government to exist is to protect the life, liberty and property of an individual, if a government fails to do that then citizens will look to doing it themselves.
This is the kind of more controversial comment Id like to see upvoted to spur good discussion.
The Second Amendment says well regulated militia. Should a group of people be able to organize, with guns, to protect businesses from riots and looters?
This one is looking like a very complicated situation as it unfolds. Someone underage, carrying an illegal gun, probably doesn't fall into well regulated. (Furthermore, what happens if someone underage, carrying an illegal gun, crossed a boarder, is attacked and defends themself? It's food for thought. Is every party, protester, militia, police, simultaneously victim and perpetrator?) That in and of itself doesn't negate the constitutional right of others to do the same thing legally. Just like everything else, a small group of people breaking the law, shouldn't take away everyone elses rights. That goes for rioters not destroying peoples rights to protest. That goes for kids/murderers destroying peoples rights to a militia. If you want to say "protesters arent rioters" thats fine, then protesters and militia shouldnt clash, should both be free to exercise their rights, and if they do, that illegal clash should be prosecuted.
The other comments here are saying "cops should stop..." but that is irrelevant to the fact that it is legal (and the cops were encouraging it at the scene) for people to stand outside a building and protect it. Taking that a step further, and back to the point of the initial article, where does Facebook draw the line in allowing people to self organize to protect their property? Is defensive violence different than offensive violence? And then theres the idea that a militia is designed as a check and balance against an oppressive police/military force. Does suppressing the formation of militia play into the strengthening of unchecked government power?
There's a simple solution here- stop the police from murdering black people. If a house burns down it can be rebuilt, but you can't rebuild the lives ended by white supremacy in our police departments.
What is "slam" even supposed to mean? Sounds like a handful of employees just left some disapproving remarks on a company live stream, but that's it. There's only two quotes in the entire article.
It’s a buzzfeed article - which HN should seriously consider banning. For whatever reason it’s a source that seems to come up here often, but they lack even the most basic journalistic integrity.
I know you are posting an unpopular opinion, but I agree. Facebook has become a straw man for a lot of issues that we as a society are just too lazy to grapple with. So we just use outlets like Twitter, Facebook, etc as outlets. Meanwhile we seem to let traditional media completely off the hook. When in some cases (imo) they are quietly cheering for unrest because it makes for great TV/news.
> “At what point do we take responsibility for enabling hate filled bile to spread across our services?”
As long as there's so much money to be made, Facebook has no incentive to. As long as they know they can give you and other developers the generous salary/options/perks and you will complain at an all hands but not actually leave, they have even less incentive to. Talk is cheap, even from employees, and the executives at Facebook know that.
I don't like it anymore than anyone else, but hate filled bile is profitable. Hate filled bile can earn you money. It can earn you votes. It can earn you power.
While FB may not care about votes or power, they are in business to earn money. They have expenses, as HN User gavman alluded to. Until better ways to make money present themselves, we can expect most social media firms to flirt with controversy. Because things haven't changed much from the newspaper era with respect to the bleeding doing the majority of the lede-ing.
I’ve argued about flagging policy a couple times over at HN, but the comments in this thread during the first 5 minutes should provide a stellar example why to flag any political content.
Banning militia groups or similar groups or speech has upfront benefits but hidden costs.
Facebook taking responsibility for such activity will inevitably to other very difficult decisions down the road.
One mans terrorist is another's freedom fighter. There are many such conflicts all over the world, and at a certain point no objective criteria can be used to censure.
1. He was 17. It was illegal for him to possess that rifle. In his home state you have to be 21, in Wisconsin you have to be 18. This was crime 1
2. Crossing the State line with an illegally possessed weapon is a pretty big deal and a big fat #2 on crime list
3. Wisconsin totally allows for the use of deadly force in self defense, but the caveat is that you can't be committing a crime by possessing that rifle.
4. Wisconsin has a Castle Doctrine, but you can only deadly force if the perpetrators are in your dwelling or place of business. For a place of business, you have to owner be in charge of operations of said business. You can't just post up to protect a random business, also you can't chase people if they decide to retreat like this 17yo did. Wisconsin V. Charles L Chew is the case law if you want to have a look.
5. It is not self defense when you get in a car with a rifle and drive 15 miles to another town and walk the streets with a rifle.
He had every option to stay home, but he chose to get involved in this situation with the plan to be involved with the confrontation (hence the rifle). Also in Wisconsin self defense law, you can't be the instigator and claim self defense. He became the instigator once he pursued.
6. Wearing gloves but no mask is also gonna be hard to explain. He is not concerned about covid-19 infection because his respiratory system is exposed. The blue gloves were on to hide fingerprints and any gun powder residue often used to convict shooters. He had intent to murder.
No lawyer can defend these blatantly dumb mistakes. This wanna be future cop probably can't pass a psychological test to become one.
Wisconsin 948.60
Possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18.
(1) In this section, “dangerous weapon" means any firearm, loaded or unloaded; any electric weapon, as defined in s. 941.295 (1c) (a); metallic knuckles or knuckles of any substance which could be put to the same use with the same or similar effect as metallic knuckles; a nunchaku or any similar weapon consisting of 2 sticks of wood, plastic or metal connected at one end by a length of rope, chain, wire or leather; a cestus or similar material weighted with metal or other substance and worn on the hand; a shuriken or any similar pointed star-like object intended to injure a person when thrown; or a manrikigusari or similar length of chain having weighted ends.
(2)(a) Any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.
(b) Except as provided in par. (c), any person who intentionally sells, loans or gives a dangerous weapon to a person under 18 years of age is guilty of a Class I felony.
(c) Whoever violates par. (b) is guilty of a Class H felony if the person under 18 years of age under par. (b) discharges the firearm and the discharge causes death to himself, herself or another.
(d) A person under 17 years of age who has violated this subsection is subject to the provisions of ch. 938 unless jurisdiction is waived under s. 938.18 or the person is subject to the jurisdiction of a court of criminal jurisdiction under s. 938.183
A lot of people have come out and confidently said he was in possession of an illegal rifle. But I have a feeling none of them have actually read the statute.
Are you talking about the armed teenager who drove 12 miles across state lines and put his armed self in a dangerous situation willingly? Not sure you get to call it self-defense at that time
The media inverts everything, it's how they make money right now and it's awful. CNN anchors are literally one Baghdad Bob after another. The most hilarious memes right now are those with "mostly peaceful" protests where behind the anchor huge fires are raging.
Why does a 17 year old have an illegal fire arm? Do criminals who have shot someone get to use self defense as an excuse for shooting more people that are trying to stop them?
I'd like to see some evidence that BLM is the major driver for any criminal activities or "unrest." Instead it seems to be the continued extrajudicial killings and woundings of American citizens that always seems to proceed these protests and the frankly appalling reaction of American law enforcement to some criticism and democratic attempts to reform what is supposed to be a constructive and positive institution in American society.
BLM isn't the driver for unrest. On-going (For decades) criminal behaviour by police forces is the driver for unrest.
People don't go out to protest, to get shot by less-lethal bullets, to get gassed, to have flashbangs thrown at them because they are bored. They do it because they are tired and angry, and because their cause is just.
Yeah, this happens every time Facebook is involved in a murder or genocide (which is shockingly often), and so far it has resulted in basically no change at all. If they employees really cared about it they'd do more than complain.
Facebook employees seem to be very confused about what people want from Facebook. When I go to Facebook, I want to see what the people I follow have to say or share. I don't want any editorial interference from Facebook in that whatsoever.
[+] [-] hpoe|5 years ago|reply
But my concern is I felt like this was inevitable, and will continue. I know the BLM protests are politically charged, but the problem is that there are many people's whose livelihoods and business are being permanently put out of commission and communities that are being devastated by the the looting, rioting, and protesting.
Sure people use the "they have insurance" but imagine for a minute that your entire house burnt down, does your life just magically resume because you have homeowners insurance.
Ultimately I feel like this will become more and more common because individuals are feeling as though the government is failing to portect them and as a result are willing to take matters into their own hands.
Again I'm not trying to say I disagree with the movement or the concept of police reform but I am concerned about the fact we have been letting the rioting and looting continue unchecked for months now. The fundamental reason for the government to exist is to protect the life, liberty and property of an individual, if a government fails to do that then citizens will look to doing it themselves.
[+] [-] basch|5 years ago|reply
The Second Amendment says well regulated militia. Should a group of people be able to organize, with guns, to protect businesses from riots and looters?
This one is looking like a very complicated situation as it unfolds. Someone underage, carrying an illegal gun, probably doesn't fall into well regulated. (Furthermore, what happens if someone underage, carrying an illegal gun, crossed a boarder, is attacked and defends themself? It's food for thought. Is every party, protester, militia, police, simultaneously victim and perpetrator?) That in and of itself doesn't negate the constitutional right of others to do the same thing legally. Just like everything else, a small group of people breaking the law, shouldn't take away everyone elses rights. That goes for rioters not destroying peoples rights to protest. That goes for kids/murderers destroying peoples rights to a militia. If you want to say "protesters arent rioters" thats fine, then protesters and militia shouldnt clash, should both be free to exercise their rights, and if they do, that illegal clash should be prosecuted.
The other comments here are saying "cops should stop..." but that is irrelevant to the fact that it is legal (and the cops were encouraging it at the scene) for people to stand outside a building and protect it. Taking that a step further, and back to the point of the initial article, where does Facebook draw the line in allowing people to self organize to protect their property? Is defensive violence different than offensive violence? And then theres the idea that a militia is designed as a check and balance against an oppressive police/military force. Does suppressing the formation of militia play into the strengthening of unchecked government power?
[+] [-] tedivm|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Areibman|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ryanSrich|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] liability|5 years ago|reply
Sorry, these sort of headlines remind me of WWE wrestling ads.
[+] [-] z9e|5 years ago|reply
These words are so overused these days in headlines.
[+] [-] reuben_scratton|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] partiallypro|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] JamisonM|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] stransky|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] BadassFractal|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] vernie|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] andrethegiant|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gavman|5 years ago|reply
As long as there's so much money to be made, Facebook has no incentive to. As long as they know they can give you and other developers the generous salary/options/perks and you will complain at an all hands but not actually leave, they have even less incentive to. Talk is cheap, even from employees, and the executives at Facebook know that.
[+] [-] bilbo0s|5 years ago|reply
I don't like it anymore than anyone else, but hate filled bile is profitable. Hate filled bile can earn you money. It can earn you votes. It can earn you power.
While FB may not care about votes or power, they are in business to earn money. They have expenses, as HN User gavman alluded to. Until better ways to make money present themselves, we can expect most social media firms to flirt with controversy. Because things haven't changed much from the newspaper era with respect to the bleeding doing the majority of the lede-ing.
[+] [-] waihtis|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mshanowitz|5 years ago|reply
Facebook taking responsibility for such activity will inevitably to other very difficult decisions down the road.
One mans terrorist is another's freedom fighter. There are many such conflicts all over the world, and at a certain point no objective criteria can be used to censure.
[+] [-] hourislate|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] GaryNumanVevo|5 years ago|reply
W.r.t the Kenosha shooter.
1. He was 17. It was illegal for him to possess that rifle. In his home state you have to be 21, in Wisconsin you have to be 18. This was crime 1
2. Crossing the State line with an illegally possessed weapon is a pretty big deal and a big fat #2 on crime list
3. Wisconsin totally allows for the use of deadly force in self defense, but the caveat is that you can't be committing a crime by possessing that rifle.
4. Wisconsin has a Castle Doctrine, but you can only deadly force if the perpetrators are in your dwelling or place of business. For a place of business, you have to owner be in charge of operations of said business. You can't just post up to protect a random business, also you can't chase people if they decide to retreat like this 17yo did. Wisconsin V. Charles L Chew is the case law if you want to have a look.
5. It is not self defense when you get in a car with a rifle and drive 15 miles to another town and walk the streets with a rifle.
He had every option to stay home, but he chose to get involved in this situation with the plan to be involved with the confrontation (hence the rifle). Also in Wisconsin self defense law, you can't be the instigator and claim self defense. He became the instigator once he pursued.
6. Wearing gloves but no mask is also gonna be hard to explain. He is not concerned about covid-19 infection because his respiratory system is exposed. The blue gloves were on to hide fingerprints and any gun powder residue often used to convict shooters. He had intent to murder.
No lawyer can defend these blatantly dumb mistakes. This wanna be future cop probably can't pass a psychological test to become one.
Wisconsin 948.60
Possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18.
(1) In this section, “dangerous weapon" means any firearm, loaded or unloaded; any electric weapon, as defined in s. 941.295 (1c) (a); metallic knuckles or knuckles of any substance which could be put to the same use with the same or similar effect as metallic knuckles; a nunchaku or any similar weapon consisting of 2 sticks of wood, plastic or metal connected at one end by a length of rope, chain, wire or leather; a cestus or similar material weighted with metal or other substance and worn on the hand; a shuriken or any similar pointed star-like object intended to injure a person when thrown; or a manrikigusari or similar length of chain having weighted ends.
(2)(a) Any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.
(b) Except as provided in par. (c), any person who intentionally sells, loans or gives a dangerous weapon to a person under 18 years of age is guilty of a Class I felony.
(c) Whoever violates par. (b) is guilty of a Class H felony if the person under 18 years of age under par. (b) discharges the firearm and the discharge causes death to himself, herself or another.
(d) A person under 17 years of age who has violated this subsection is subject to the provisions of ch. 938 unless jurisdiction is waived under s. 938.18 or the person is subject to the jurisdiction of a court of criminal jurisdiction under s. 938.183
[+] [-] benmmurphy|5 years ago|reply
A lot of people have come out and confidently said he was in possession of an illegal rifle. But I have a feeling none of them have actually read the statute.
[+] [-] ArkVark|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] darkwizard42|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Covzire|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Larrikin|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] martythemaniak|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wavefunction|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] benmw333|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] DamnYuppie|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] vkou|5 years ago|reply
People don't go out to protest, to get shot by less-lethal bullets, to get gassed, to have flashbangs thrown at them because they are bored. They do it because they are tired and angry, and because their cause is just.
[+] [-] pstuart|5 years ago|reply
https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2016/07/21/a-rigorous-sci...
[+] [-] tedivm|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] baggy_trough|5 years ago|reply