Facebook Bans Louis Farrakhan, Milo Yiannopoulos, InfoWars and Others - <AUTHOR> https://edition.cnn.com/2019/05/02/tech/facebook-ban-louis-farrakhan-infowars-alex-jones-milo-laura-loomer/index.html <comment><USER2> Every time this subject comes up, someone inevitably says something like "Facebook is a private corporation, the first amendment only applies to the government, and if you want to use Facebook you have to play by their rules. No one is owed a platform."

Platforms like Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter are basically monopolies. They are the only services in their class to take seriously if you're looking to gain a following. If they didn't exist, alternative services would spring up. But alternative services know they can't compete with FB/YouTube/Twitter, so none exist. When people say "if you don't like FB's rules, use another service" it ignores that Facebook is the reason there isn't another service and thus has some responsibility to uphold values we've collectively decided as a society are important.

The issue is not whether Facebook is breaking the law but whether philosophically the market leader in a category should get to decide who can use their product when their product category is fundamental to modern life. Saying "no one is owed a platform" brings us no closer to an answer.

<comment><USER3> > Platforms like Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter are basically monopolies

Monopolies of what, exactly? I admit to sometimes looking at entertaining videos on youtube. About an hour or maximum two hours a week worth. I'm not sure what you're suggesting that facebook and twitter are monopolizing. I haven't used the former in years and the latter just about ever -- aside from maybe five tweets over the course of twitter's existence.

Monopolies of online discourse? Attention? Entertainment? Clearly we're not using any of those platforms now.

<comment><USER4> > Monopolies of what, exactly?

Monopoly on platform reach. The reach of facebook, or the reach of youtube, twitter etc, is so high, that if you want to disseminate a message, those _must_ be the platforms you use. It's as if they own the radio spectrum, and you have to acquiesce to what they demand to use said spectrum.

Of course, i am free to use smoke signals to send my message, but who will receive it?

<comment><USER5> >The reach of facebook, or the reach of youtube, twitter etc, is so high, that if you want to disseminate a message, those _must_ be the platforms you use.

This isn't true though. Alex Jones can disseminate his message through countless other websites, which have their own users. This is really just advocating for equal exposure of opinions, which isn't a free speech issue.

<comment><USER6> Not free speech but open platforms.

<comment><USER7> There are plenty of places on the internet more lenient than the biggest websites. Check out voat and see what happens when people banned from other platforms go to the same place. It isn't pretty but at least they aren't a blight on other groups.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I don't know about Paul Joseph but I believe Milo has had cases of publicly naming, threatening to name, doxxing, and mocking trans women that study on the campuses that he's spoken at. I belive this is dangerous behavior due to statistic that trans people are especially vulnerable for being murdered compared to the rest of the American population.

<comment><USER9> If a group is marginally more likely to suffer violence, anyone mocking them should be denied access to widely used communications platforms? Doesn't really make sense, does it?

<comment><USER8> Trans people are not marginally more likely to suffer violence. They're significantly more likely to suffer violence, on the rate of several times more than the general population.

<comment><USER10> I tried to find statistics for this claim by looking at homicide risk but was unable to find anything supporting it. Possibly this is true in non-western countries. For example here is a look at the data that claims tran people are less at risk in the UK. [https://www.google.com/amp/s/fairplayforwomen.com/trans- murd...](https://www.google.com/amp/s/fairplayforwomen.com/trans-murder- rates/amp/)

I suspect there are lots of confounders if you wanted to isolate the risk that trans brings. For example apparently trans people have a higher rate of sex work which would increase the risk. On the other hand I wouldn't be surprised if trans were coming from higher socio-economic groups on average which would lower the risk.

<comment><USER8> I know this is late but from what I recall trans women are approximately 4.3x more likely to be murdered(Trans people of color coalition and human rights campaign), and 1 out of 2 trans people have experienced violence (I forget where I've seen this).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Funny how most of you doesn't seem to understand that it's not the banned people who are dangerous. It's Facebook.

Stay off the platform and encourage others to do the same.

Read news from respected news outlets and remember that there are always multiple sides to a story.

<comment><USER12> Why not both? They're dangerous in different ways, but just because Facebook has its set of issues doesn't mean those people should have a platform to spread their non-sense to the masses.

<comment><USER13> Can you explain to me how Milo is dangerous? I can see the case for Alex Jones, who spreads the kind of misinformation that leads certain individuals to "take action".

But Milo? He's basically a clown.

<comment><USER3> Speaking at universities with his clearly anti-trans message while projecting the photos and identities of trans students at those universities during his speeches is clearly dangerous.

<comment><USER13> I had to look up the context for this and as expected it's not quite the way you make it sound.

You use the word "trans students" in the plural, but it was only a single student. The photo shown was a screen grab from an interview that this person themself chose to give to local television, in which their name and university association is displayed. It's not like Milo "outed" anyone here.

The speech in question:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-t1ufzttyUM&feature=youtu.be...](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-t1ufzttyUM&feature=youtu.be&t=2959)

If this passes the threshold of "dangerous", that's a _very_ low threshold.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> And in Russia they ban instead this or that free speech advocate. And in China it is some other group of people that cannot speak. And in India, and in Brasil, Iran, Pakistan, UK, etc. There are always offensive people or sensitive subjects.

The only question is Facebook going to ban each group of people per country basis or globally. If globally, we are going to have a very limited, gray area of speech in Facebook.

<comment><USER15> We don't need free speech on Facebook, but we do on the Internet. That's the difference in Russia and China, etc.

<comment><USER16> Sorry to sound like I'm trying to gotcha you, but how on earth isn't Facebook a large subset of the Internet?

<comment><USER15> Of course it is, but it's not THE Internet and we don't want it to be. It's also a commercial emtity while the Internet May be considered more of a public good.

<comment><USER17> In many parts of the world it definitely is THE internet. Nearly every business on my street uses Facebook as their webpage. It's incredibly rare to see local businesses here with their own proper site.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Hilarious. With the exception of Farrakhan, Facebook (and youtube, twitter, etc) is largely responsible for these people having such large platforms in the first place. But of course now they'll unilaterally censor them to widespread acclaim, deflecting criticism from the left for their participation and profiting off such demagogues, and whipping the right into a further frenzy about censorship and giving credence to these people's claims that they're censored "for truth".

Everyone wins except the common man, who now must deal with the chilling effects of media and communication monopolies having the power of judge, jury, and executioner when it comes to speech. No need to censor people you don't like if you just capriciously censor people without warning or due process... people will censor themselves for you after that.

Remember the problem isn't that these people had platforms, the problem is those platforms accepted money to promote and advertise these people. I'm sure facebook loved having these people churning around their recommendation engines, they probably drove engagement like crazy. But now the backlash isn't worth the profit, so we all have to pay the consequences.

Remember that sunlight is the best disinfectant, and "deplatforming" these people might make them as personalities go away, but their ideas and propaganda will surely fester and grow in the darker corners of the internet. Milo is a joke even among the alt-right now, but his vitriol and invective continue to grow in popularity.

<comment><USER19> Sunlight has repeatedly shown to be counterproductive. Some people use any kind of platform they can get, any sort of media attention, to spread their views. They don't care that they get ridiculed, because their followers just see that as further proof of media conspiracies and bias. It just confirms and reinforces their prejudices.

Deplatforming works. Free speech does not mean you have a right to use any platform you choose, nor does it shield you from the consequences of your speech.

The deeper and darker the corners where they hide and the harder it is to stumble across by accident, the harder it is for them to spread their viewpoints.

See Voat and Gab for relevant examples. Only the really hardcore believers went there when Reddit and Twitter said "that's it, get off our platforms".

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> I am sure there will be many people cheering. However people don't seem to realise that just because it isn't you getting censored now, it may well be you in the future.

What is deemed acceptable and what isn't deemed acceptable are quite transient. It wasn't long ago it was unacceptable/illegal to be a homosexual, but now it is at least (in the Western world) readily accepted. I wonder if facebook was around in the 1950s would they be banning prominent homosexuals?

<comment><USER21> I think many people do realise it, and feel like it's a worthwhile risk. The cost of avoiding a hypothetical future in which I'm censored is accepting the real damage they're doing in the here and now. And also, I may end up censored anyway for other reasons. Tolerating Milo et al. isn't really a bulwark protecting me.

<comment><USER22> > The cost of avoiding a hypothetical future in which I'm censored is > accepting the real damage they're doing in the here and now.

What damage? Be specific. I think censoring people should require a considerable specificity as to their "crimes" before they're exiled.

<comment><USER21> Others have gotten into this with you about the specific damage, and my point was less "yay, censor them!" than the argument that not deplatforming them somehow protects me. It doesn't, even hypothetically.

<comment><USER22> Arguably censoring them does expose you to something worse: it establishes a bureaucracy and social norms that are perfectly fine with crushing unpopular and diverse opinions. It's a simple tyranny of the majority.

Sure, you consider this speech abhorrent, but switch the scenario around and consider how enforcing these types of norms stalled real social progress in the past: gay rights, women's rights, rights for visible minorities. You're dreaming if you don't think these new norms won't be applied against you.

So I disagree, not deplatforming does protect you.

<comment><USER21> We already have the bureaucracy and social norms and the tyranny of the majority. We don't now, and never have, existed in a pure state of nature with respect to freedom of expression.

What this banning does is move the border between acceptable and unacceptable. You're arguing it's a slippery slope, that the moving border will eventually steamroll right over me and I'll regret not stopping it earlier.

"Slippery slope" is a fallacy. Legalizing gay marriage doesn't mean we'll legalize polygamy. Alcohol was made illegal and then legalized again. It's not a ratchet. We make collective decisions and live with them, and maybe change our minds later.

And among the factors stalling social progress on issues like gay rights and women's rights, I don't believe censorship was the biggest or even a significant factor, compared to all the others.

<comment><USER22> > We don't now, and never have, existed in a pure state of nature with respect > to freedom of expression.

Agreed. But we've largely only supported censoring speech that's incitement to _violence_ , because anything beyond that seems to result in untenable legal duties.

Furthermore, one main point of protecting free speech rights is to protect the minority against the majority. Classifying that minority as ethically abhorrent is irrelevant. While democracy is a tyranny of the majority, we recognize fundamental, inalienable rights to check that tyranny.

> You're arguing it's a slippery slope, that the moving border will eventually > steamroll right over me and I'll regret not stopping it earlier.

That's one argument but not nearly the only one. Another is that there currently exists no rigourous criteria by which to classify the speech that people are looking to censor, so a) every case will be decided inconsistently by people who have no training in adjudicating what should be a philosophical or legal matter, and b) it will sweep up a lot of innocent people and stifle important political debate (which has already happened).

There are plenty more arguments, some of which I've elaborated on here: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19819584](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19819584)

> "Slippery slope" is a fallacy. Legalizing gay marriage doesn't mean we'll > legalize polygamy

Except there are non-fallacious slippery slopes. Gay marriage and polygamy have no _factual basis_ in common, so there is no slope down which we can slip. That's why invoking the slippery slope is a fallacy in this case.

Now consider instead legalizing bestiality specifically with, say, dogs. Why only dogs? There is no non-fallacious, factual basis for why bestiality with horses should not also be legal if you're going to allow dogs. This is a non- fallacious slippery slope.

So you're asserting that the arguments I've presented are fallacious without actually pointing out the absence of a factual basis. As for asserting my factual basis, I can point out how Twitter and Facebook have already banned controversial politicians, thus effectively meddling in elections. I can also point to recent Supreme Court precedent that established that social media is a public square, and thus that First Amendment protections apply against. I can also point out how that actual studies on online radicalization failed to find any basis for the idea that online echo chambers and hate speech alone actually led to radicalization and violence, so the entire premise for the push to censor this speech is itself fallacious.

So then what are we left with? What justification is there to censor these people? We're left only with mob rule and capitalist motives in appeasing advertisers. These are emphatically not compelling reasons to establish these new and dangerous norms.

> It's not a ratchet. We make collective decisions and live with them, and > maybe change our minds later.

Or we could apply a bit of foresight and understanding of history and avoid the problems altogether. The fact that censorship of this sort can and has influenced elections means that we quite literally may not be able to change our minds later.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Attitudes towards free speech have changed a lot in recent times. This is related to the rise of social media. The advent of social media had made it too easy to spread hate online. It started off innocently enough, with cat videos uploaded to youtube, but soon extremists were taking advantage of social media for radicalization purposes, and others even live-streaming mass murders. This has caused an upheaval in attitudes towards free speech. There needs to be limits. People started imposing limits to free speech. For example, consider that UC Berkeley, renowned for giving birth to the Free Speech Movement, is now making news for banning controversial/harmful speech, such as that by Ann Coulter. The people (as opposed to governments) have decided that some censorship is in order. This is a natural evolution of societal norms. This particular evolution was causated by the excesses seen in social media. It is befitting to see that a social media company, Facebook, is now in the news for censoring harmful speech. This type of censorship, as opposed to absolute free speech, will be the new normal.

<comment><USER24> I am very much in favor of Free Speech myself. But I think the annoying thing people forget is that it's the job of society to determine what is okay and what isn't. The government isn't supposed to decide our morals, we tell the government what those should be.

Society is deciding that this is not stuff we want. Society is rejecting these ideas, and Facebook or Cloudflare when they dropped the Daily Stormer, etc, are deciding that this isn't what they want as part of their society.

If a bulk of society does want these ideas, these people will move to a new platform that supports them, and people will use them and make the ideas mainstream.

Stop complaining that society is rejecting ideas they don't like. It's literally how it works.

<comment><USER25> Society isn't deciding, Facebook is deciding.

I personally think Facebook can do whatever the please with their website. However, if they remove the users they don't like then that implies they approve of the users that remain.

<comment><USER24> Facebook is deciding because society is pressuring them to decide.

Facebook doesn't care about shit, but their bottom line. They have proven that time and time again. This should highlight the social pressures, because they are not legally responsible as far as anyone can tell. Thus, society is deciding.

<comment><USER26> It's not pressure from society, it's pressure from specific activist groups like the SPLC.

<comment><USER27> Who themselves have been recently outed for internal rampant racism and sexism.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> I'm very familiar with all of these banned people and institutions, and I'm not at all convinced they're "dangerous". I'm not sure what the benefits are, and I'm much more concerned that their exact misdeeds never seem clearly articulate, even by people who seem extremely interested in having them silenced.

<comment><USER27> The rationale is they have stupid followers who commit the actual damage.

I fail to see why they aren't prosecuted. You're not anonymous on Facebook. And you shouldn't be on twitter, and youtube as well.

<comment><USER29> > they have stupid followers who commit the actual damage

Then shouldn't we ban/punish these followers?

<comment><USER27> Punished by the legal system absolutely. Banned by court order yes.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> It's only unfortunate that it took social networks this long to ban their toxic behavior and talk. These people did a lot of damage. A lot. All in the name of free speech. And to those saying, just because Facebook can, doesn't mean they should. These people had the same freedom. Just because they can, they shouldn't. But they chose hatred. And here we are. You reap what you sow.

Facebook doesn't owe them anything.

Edit: a couple of words.

<comment><USER22> > These people did a lot of damage. A lot.

Like what? If this damage is so prevalent then it should be easy to cite something specific.

<comment><USER31> Alex Jones popularized a propagated the myth of "Crisis Actors" and that Sandy Hook was a hoax. Trolls on the internet telling parents that their children aren't really dead, that they should exhume their bodies to prove that they really died, that they are being paid by the shadow government, that their grief looked too fake - all of this is real harm. We can talk about the doxing and the stalking and the harassment, but inflicting pain and suffering on people in a terrible situation is real harm too.

When you have a platform and you use it to abuse people, real damage is done.

<comment><USER22> > Trolls on the internet telling parents that their children aren't really > dead, that they should exhume their bodies to prove that they really died, > that they are being paid by the shadow government, that their grief looked > too fake - all of this is real harm.

Did Alex Jones specifically incite his fans or these trolls to do this? If so, then he's legally culpable. If not, then why place the blame on him? The legal system has a fairly robust and time-tested system for assigning blame.

The problem with assigning blame in "indirect influence" arguments such as yours, is that it can be used to blame almost anyone for almost anything. How indirect or how small does this influence need to be before you conclude that a person is not culpable for someone else's actions?

If you can't delineate some specific set of clear and reasonable conditions, then it will simply be abused to censor any unpopular views, including progressive agendas.

<comment><USER32> > Did Alex Jones specifically incite his fans or these trolls to do this? If > so, then he's legally culpable

Yes, and he's currently facing (multiple) lawsuits because of it. His defense appears to be that it was temporary hysteria. We'll see how that plays out.

<comment><USER22> Great, then everything is working as it should.

Still doesn't resolve the question of deplatforming and banning though. There's still considerable inconsistency at play here, with people like Dorsey saying social media is a human right, and then exiling people with no transparent "due process" or recourse for making amends. As deplorably as we treat our criminals, they eventually serve their term and regain (most) of their freedoms (and arguably, should regain them all).

<comment><USER33> Sorry, I don't understand. Currently, social media networks act independently of law enforcement. Someone can run afoul of the law while not getting banned from a service, and vice versa. Alex Jones has been banned because companies saw him violating their TOS — this is related but independent of the ongoing civil lawsuit he faces.

You're suggesting that online services have no sanctions whatsoever, because you have faith that the justice system will be enough of a deterrent? That should be obviously absurd when you consider that a social network's audience spans multiple countries' justice systems.

<comment><USER22> > You're suggesting that online services have no sanctions whatsoever, because > you have faith that the justice system will be enough of a deterrent?

I'm questioning the premise that "speech deterrence is needed at all, or that it's a good idea even in principle.

If you're not inciting violence, which is violence and so against the law, then what justification is there for censoring speech? These companies that provide free services are censoring for optics, with a purely profit-motive to placate advertisers. This motive will not discriminate solely against hate speech, but anything even remotely controversial will eventually be censored, and these services will become the same bland pablum we've had on cable TV for decades, reducing the rich and diverse tapestry of online content we've enjoyed for decades.

Furthermore, considering how influential social media is, by encouraging this type of censorship, we are creating new social norms whereby large corporations are now essentially permitted to overtly meddle in our elections. Where's the oversight for this? Already considerable evidence exists that conservative viewpoints are censored more widely.

The motive on the part of activists pushing this is that the internet is "spreading hate", that it's led to an increase in radicalization and violence, etc. Except there's precious little evidence this is the case.

Studies actually done on radicalization [1] show the internet increases opportunities for radicalization simply because you're exposed to so many diverse viewpoints, and it creates an echo chamber effect because you then follow only the sources that reinforce your bias, but they do _not_ find evidence for accelerating the process of radicalization, for radicalization without physical contact, and for self-radicalization.

The narrative spun is that right-wing terrorism is increasing in the US [2], therefore the echo chambers from these internet sites is at least partly responsible. Except that doesn't explain why the US's rates are rising while the rest of the world's rates are falling. This speaks to _local_ circumstances driving the increase in violence.

All in all, there seems to be considerable danger to encouraging these corporations to make up their own rules and censor without oversight, and there are few upsides that I can see. It might make some people feel like they've "done something", but there's precious little evidence that these measures are effective or even necessary.

[1] [https://www.rand.org/randeurope/research/projects/internet-a...](https://www.rand.org/randeurope/research/projects/internet- and-radicalisation.html)

[2] [https://qz.com/1355874/terrorism-is-surging-in-the-us- fueled...](https://qz.com/1355874/terrorism-is-surging-in-the-us-fueled-by- right-wing-extremists/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> >In some instances, when Facebook bans an individual or organization, it also restricts others from expressing praise or support for them on its platforms

Will it restrict people from saying these things in WhatsApp?

If they already have the infrastructure for wholesale censorship like this, perhaps a China re-launch is right around the corner. They might be able to give WeChat a run for their RMB.

<comment><USER35> Yes, Facebook is taking some steps in WhatsApp to reduce the speed at which misinformation travels.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_WhatsApp_lynchings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_WhatsApp_lynchings)

Specifically, making it a bit harder to rapidly forward large numbers of messages to large groups of people.

[https://www.vox.com/2019/1/25/18197002/whatsapp-message- limi...](https://www.vox.com/2019/1/25/18197002/whatsapp-message-limit-fake- news-facebook-twitter)

<comment><USER34> That sounds closer to anti-spam than target censorship. WeChat (and even the messaging feature in DiDi!) have keyword filters that block messages with certain words.

That sounds like the direction Facebook is headed with this banning of people and talking about them.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> Putting Louis Farrakhan first, when his relevance has faded a while ago, seems to be a way of trying to paint this as a "both sides" thing.

<comment><USER37> Farrakhan is a prominent leftist. He was at Aretha Franklin's funeral, seated next to Bill Clinton. The leaders of the Women's March are big fans of his.

<comment><USER38> For some context in case anyone is curious, here is a photo of part of the front row at Aretha Franklin's funeral, featuring (in order) Louis Farrakhan, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson and Bill Clinton: [https://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/aretha-franklin-funeral- ser...](https://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/aretha-franklin-funeral-service- today-2018-08-31/6/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> I think this is one of the more interesting and important debates of our time. As so much moves online, we realize that our speech belongs to these huge companies.

On one hand, it's great to see these toxic people kicked off, because deplatforming them works wonders in terms of stopping them from spreading their hate.

I think most of us have some doubts as to how it might play out in the future, though, and there are of course questions about how healthy it is for such huge corporations to have that much sway in the first place.

There are all kinds of other shenanigans going on with many of these companies too:

[https://popular.info/p/trump-ad-contagion-spreads-on- faceboo...](https://popular.info/p/trump-ad-contagion-spreads-on-facebook)

</comment><comment><USER40> This is what we get for letting these shady social media companies get into the center of our discourse. Just remember even if you dislike people who are banned, it could be your people next.

Social media should reflect the first amendment. Let's get with the times here...

<comment><USER5> Equal exposure of all opinions is not a First Amendment issue.

<comment><USER40> Thanks for the social media company shilling. We all appreciate the overlords sneaking propaganda in!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> Well done Facebook PR. You've successfully spun this to be about 'toxic' individuals, when the fact remains that it's the architecture of your platform that is tearing away at our social fabric.

How much longer will these money-printing giants remain unaccountable, unregulated, and a publlic health risk?

</comment><comment><USER33> Ignoring for now the larger debate over censorship, Facebook's implementation of this ban is suspect. All of these accounts have been alleged to be in violation for months, if not years, and some already had been partially banned (Alex Jones was banned from FB but not IG). Why now? Were there new violations? And/or is it a new policy change that affects how FB will be banning accounts moving forward? Is FB going to do bans for a specific user across all platforms, instead of a platform-by-platform basis?

<comment><USER42> They've announced a little over a month ago that they're going to ban white nationalist content: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19503094](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19503094)

<comment><USER43> The problem is what is white nationalism and who defines it?

A lot of the opposition is labeled as white nationalism.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> Still waiting on them to ban antivax pages which harm a vast amount more people

</comment><comment><USER45> So if some critical mass of the population find Mark Zuckerburg offensive can we get him banned?

</comment><comment><USER46> I dislike them just as much as anyone else but banning and censorship is wrong and actually dangerous in the long term.

</comment><comment><USER47> Facebook is not a public square. I love public spaces. Shouldn't we pay for one? I don't care if Facebook has a darling reputation; ought it run our public and private meeting spaces?

<comment><USER48> Are there any public spaces on the internet? I can't think of any. I'm not sure it would be possible to build one, legally, either.

<comment><USER47> I view government funded web presence as a digital public space, it's just not a meeting space. To me the difference in funding determines who has power.

<comment><USER48> Ahh yes! And every real public space has its by laws and regulations too. Thanks.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER49> It won't be long until we get this: [https://www.whatsonweibo.com/chinese- media-warn-wechat-group...](https://www.whatsonweibo.com/chinese-media-warn- wechat-group-admins-you-can-be-arrested-for-what-happens-in-your-group-chat/)

</comment><comment><USER50> "In some instances, when Facebook bans an individual or organization, it also restricts others from expressing praise or support for them on its platforms, the spokesperson said, adding that the company continues to view such action as the correct approach."

</comment><comment><USER51> Farrakhan? He's been around forever. He's 85. He's the guy who set up the Million Man March in 1995. Compared to other 1960s black activists, he's not that extreme. Also, no way is he "far right". Far left, maybe.

<comment><USER52> He's a rabid anti-semite and has been for most of his career. His hate for jews is on the same level as Alex Jones' hate for gay frogs

<comment><USER53> Yea, Farrakhan belongs on the censored list. He's absolutely a racist and show be disavowed by everyone everywhere.

In Jones's gay frog case... there are chemicals that turn frogs gay - that's the strangest thing about his critics... using that to point out how much of a lunatic he is, but... Atrazine [0]

IDK... Maybe I'm just bad at hating conservatives... but if I was trying to mock a personality for being crazy, I'd choose something a little less plausible.

[https://www.livescience.com/10957-pesticide-turns-male- frogs...](https://www.livescience.com/10957-pesticide-turns-male-frogs- females.html)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> Nobody is talking that it's not just the account that got banned but even sharing the content is not possible anymore. How is that not censorship?

</comment><comment><USER54> I used to be against this sort of thing, but now I think the faster Facebook, Twitter, and Google make themselves irrelevant for public discourse, the better. Their ad-based business model is just incompatible with free speech, and the more obvious that fact is to everyone, the better.

I still think it's bad when non-branded content carriers like web hosts, CDNs, payment processors and banks ban clients based on ideology though.

</comment><comment><USER55> If Facebook and Google are private companies and they can ban whomever they want, why can't they have a policy to not hire each other's employees? FYI, i don't like any of those stances.

</comment><comment><USER56> I suggest a machine should be taught how to identify conversations about the merit of "deplatforming", and then use the ML to autoban those conversations in order to teach a valuable lesson in civics

</comment><comment><USER57> Once again, I find it ironic to be holding an absolutist free speech view on a website that automatically deletes opinions the community doesn't like.

<comment><USER58> Free speech has nothing to do with the right to be listened to.

<comment><USER59> But did Facebook force you to read Farrakhan or Jones before they got kicked out?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER49> It won't be long until we get the following from Snaptubeface: [https://www.whatsonweibo.com/chinese-media-warn-wechat- group...](https://www.whatsonweibo.com/chinese-media-warn-wechat-group-admins- you-can-be-arrested-for-what-happens-in-your-group-chat/)

</comment><comment><USER60> There are some optical issues with a company that has widely recognized shortcomings in hiring African Americans banning the person who organized the Million Man March. (This is not an endorsement of Mr. Fartakhan's politics. But man, that's a hell of a sensitive subject for Facebook to wade into.)

</comment><comment><USER61> I don't even know who these people are, but I do think that this is censorship, specially if it's true (as the article quotes about Loomer) that they've never actually advocated harm or the like.

</comment><comment><USER62> It's always funny when these threads come up and people who ostensibly hold the progressive viewpoint that corporations have an inordinate amount of power and influence suddenly pull out their Ayn Rand books and Gadsden flags and argue that corporations should be able to do anything they want because they are a private entity.

<comment><USER63> It's also funny that people who ostensibly hold the conservative viewpoint that the government should not regulate corporations at all suddenly want the government to force companies and individuals to give away their property rights and host hateful speech.

</comment></comment><comment><USER64> There are people that believe this _isn 't_ censorship?

</comment><comment><USER65> Hmm, all Facebook is going to achieve is that they lose any influence on supporters/viewers of those they kicked out, instead of algorithmicaly managing them by some dark patterns. It's now trivial to set up an ActivityPub service on an own server that replaces 70% of FB/Instagram/YouTube functionality and that gap in useful services will be shrinking. So they will have a short-term win and long-term an ever larger group without any influence over as the window of acceptable discourse will be shifting further in its current trajectory, pushing more of previously accepted opinions over the edge, kicking out more users in the process.

<comment><USER66> They will achieve ensuring no ads appear next to a post from these guys.

</comment></comment><comment><USER67> Sounds fine to me. HN bans and threatens to ban people too and that's a good thing.

<comment><USER68> Exactly, nearly every online forum does the same thing. It's normal and healthy. Luckily, there's no shortage of forums to move on to.

</comment></comment><comment> village-idiot I have a very hard time getting worked up over deplatforming. Social media companies are private, if they want to ban odeous asshats that is their right. Those who dislike it can go to Gab.

</comment><comment><USER69> I'm not a fan of either of these people, but how exactly are Milo Yiannopolous and Paul Joseph Watson "dangerous"? Maybe it's not good material for people to be watching, but to call them "dangerous" comes off like the religious right of yore claiming that video games depicting violence are dangerous and need to be censored.

I wouldn't normally step in to defend these people, but this article by CNN is a prime example of why people don't trust the media. Note the use of the word "fringe" in reference to people like Paul Joseph Watson, despite the number of views and subscribers(1.6 million) he has on YouTube alone. The word "fringe" used to mean something a lot more, well... fringe, but it's obvious that CNN and other outlets believe that _they_ are official while everyone not sanctioned by Big Advertising is fringe.

Facebook used to be popular because it was, at one point, _fun_. If they're going to remove all the voices they think are "dangerous", what they're left with won't be fun or interesting. Just lukewarm, milquetoast, or worse... _lopsided_.

Sadly, I suspect that Facebook's stock will continue to climb despite how restrictive it is, how uninteresting it is, and how many people are leaving it.

EDIT: I do appreciate those who haven't taken my comment as a denial of wrongdoing by subjects I mentioned. My question was honest and I still stand by my comment on CNN.

<comment><USER70> You're being disingenuous! Paul Joseph Watson believes:

\- 9/11 was an inside job

\- The illuminati is controlling your mind with chemitrails

\- Soy beans are making men docile and feminine.

Sounds pretty fringe to me. Don't care how many views he has.

He also incites hate against muslims, which I'd say, makes him pretty dangerous.

My opinion of Facebook's actions is a separate matter. But the narrative you're pushing to justify your argument - it's complete BS.

<comment><USER71> Yeah and for Alex Jones:

The government has 'weather weapons'

Chemicals in the water are turning frogs gay

Robert Mueller is a demon, and also a pedophile

The Sandy Hook shooting was staged

Hillary Clinton is running a child sex ring out of a pizza parlor

Source: [https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/14/alex-jones-5-most- disturbing...](https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/14/alex-jones-5-most-disturbing- ridiculous-conspiracy-theories.html)

<comment><USER72> The government _has_ weather weapons.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_Modification_Con...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_Modification_Convention) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weather_warfare](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weather_warfare) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Popeye](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Popeye)

Chemicals in the water _are_ turning the frogs gay.

[https://www.reuters.com/article/us-environment- potomac/sex-c...](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-environment-potomac/sex- changing-chemicals-found-in-potomac-river-idUSN1738648320070118)

For Mueller, Sandy Hook, and Pizzagate, Alex Jones speculated and reported on these existing conspiracy theories. He did not invent them. He apologized for Pizzagate and Sandy Hook, and blames his rants on psychosis.

<comment><USER24> Good ol' insanity defense. Classic. Guess he doesn't invent anything that guy, besides a product line to make him money.

<comment><USER72> You think Alex Jones is a 100% sane? And no need to guess, all those conspiracy theories discussed on his show had already been talked about by others. The product line is a strawman.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER73> I'm wondering if a tipping point will be reached where so many people will be deplatformed that users will start to flock to uncensored sites (think of Gab, but it doesn't have to be Gab) en masse to be able to read what they want to read, to the point where those sites will have enough "normal" users that they won't be complete cesspools like Voat is.

<comment><USER74> What will come first is one of these companies (probably Twitter, Facebook, or Google) will overreach in some way (like nuking the President's account or something else equally outlandish) and force a legal fight on the matter.

The nature of free speech on the internet, when the internet is an interconnected series of other people's back yards, is not a fight that Silicon Valley would prefer to have. This idea carries some amount of legal precedent for physical locations [1].

They'd also rather not have their status as platforms vs publishers reevaluated - the more control they exert, the closer they come to that point of being a publisher, and therefore responsible for the content they host.

[1]: [https://law.justia.com/cases/california/supreme- court/3d/23/...](https://law.justia.com/cases/california/supreme- court/3d/23/899.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER75> This is awesome news. Deplatforming works and these guys are so blatantly harmful.

<comment><USER9> Deplatforming works to achieve what exactly?

<comment><USER76> Stemming the spread of hatred and violence.

<comment><USER22> 1\. Is there evidence that they've actually incited hatred and violence? If so, then they've violated the law. If there's no such evidence, then what justification would you use now?

2\. Where's the evidence that hatred and violence are spreading?

3\. Where's your evidence that censoring is successful in "stemming the spread of hatred and violence"?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER77> WHY THIS IS CENSORSHIP:

I am seeing numerous comments claiming this is not censorship when it most definitely is. From [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship)

> Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other > information, on the basis that such material is considered objectionable, > harmful, sensitive, or "inconvenient". Censorship can be conducted by a > government, private institutions, and corporations.

From Merriam-Webster ([https://www.merriam- webster.com/dictionary/censorship](https://www.merriam- webster.com/dictionary/censorship)), where there is no mention of 'censorship' being a government-specific concept:

> the institution, system, or practice of censoring

From Oxford ([https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/censorship](https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/censorship)), where again there is no mention of 'censorship' being a government-specific concept:

> The suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, films, news, etc. that > are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security.

We know Facebook is a private corporation. That's irrelevant, as such actions are censorship regardless. So please stop repeating the false claim that this isn't censorship because Facebook can do whatever it wants as a private entity.

WHY FREE SPEECH MATTERS:

Proponents of free speech are pro free speech as a general concept and principle, beyond what protections are afforded under American law today. The idea of free speech predates the existence of the United States. Free speech is hugely valuable to defend, because what society finds acceptable or unacceptable is very much subjective and changes with time/location/culture/setting/leadership/etc. Having an open exchange of ideas is good and necessary for the long-term health and stability of society. Furthermore, making available ideas that challenge current understanding is necessary if we care about being a collectively truth-seeking society.

Free societies are durable over the long term when they protect these rights at all times, for all people, for all ideologies. As a rule of thumb, if the speech in question is not advocating for _direct_ physical violence, it should be permitted. Getting into the business of censoring indirect or non-physical harm is a huge slippery slope. We could frame virtually any idea as having some downstream negative externality and suggest that it should be disallowed. For example, capitalism, socialism, and communism could all be attacked in this manner. Should books on those topic be dropped?

WHY PRIVATE PLATFORMS' CENSORSHIP IS CONCERNING:

Large privately-owned platforms carry so much discourse across today's society, that censorship and deplatforming in those spaces has the same impact as governmental censorship, for most intents and purposes. Even if these corporations do not constitute what we might traditionally call a "monopoly", they control a large-enough share of traffic to have significant impact when they take artificial actions. That is, they constitute a digital public square. That sizable impact is exactly why they are being targeted (not just on this topic but others) by activists or other agents pushing for deplatforming/censorship favorable to their causes.

The big risk is this: when only a few entities funnel so much societal discourse or control our communication infrastructure or process payments, those entities making arbitrary decisions about who they serve has similar impacts/risks to the government imposing similar restrictions through the law. These companies should not act as a thought police and should not impose their own personal governance above what is minimally required by the law. Nor should they rely on the judgment of an angry mob to make decisions.

<comment><USER78> Not giving a microphone to someone is not the same as censoring them.

<comment><USER79> Technically it's the taking away of said microphone, which I guess would be censorship

Edited if to of - typo!

<comment><USER80> It works both ways you know.

You can't say that these people have the right to say what they want on Facebook. And then turn around and say that Facebook has no right to determine what's on their website.

It's their website. They should have the right to determine what goes on it. And whoever doesn't like it can build their own Facebook.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER81> ...and nothing of value was lost. Facebook is not the government. They have no obligation to allow all speech.

<comment><USER82> I wish all users had your capacity for reason.

FB is private property. Play by their rules or GTFO. People who scream about censorship in instances such as these are being willfully dismissive of the property rights of others. And that's a dangerous road to start down.

<comment><USER83> Just because Facebook can do something doesn't mean Facebook should.

Freedom of speech is much more than a legal concept about governments and governed. It's also a guideline on how we should structure an open society going at least back to Ancient Greece.

<comment><USER84> There never has been a right to free speech on some private companies system.

<comment><USER85> That is true for content publishers. However, if those systems are claimed to be public squares, then there is a right to free speech for citizens of the USA there.

The tech companies cannot have it both ways. They want to be publishers, then take the responsibilities and liabilities of publishers.

[https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2018/09/05/jack-dorsey- says-t...](https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2018/09/05/jack-dorsey-says-twitter- is-a-public-square-more-than-5-times/)

<comment><USER86> This is a crucial point, IMO. Facebook et al need to decide (or we as a society need to decide) whether they're a public square - in which case they have no business censoring what people choose to say except in cases speech that is clearly illegal - or a content publisher making choices about what to publish and what not.

(In Facebook's case, at least, I'd say that ever since they moved on from the simple chronological "wall" showing posts as submitted, replacing it with a "timeline" where their algorithms - with plenty of input from "sponsors", etc - decide what you'll see, they have chosen to become a content publisher.)

Fine, in the content publisher role they can decide that certain content, or the speech of certain parties, will not be published through their platform.

But then they must also be held responsible for what they _do_ choose to publish - including liability for harmful content such as libel, false advertising, etc.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER87> I imagine the people who are happy about this event aren't very fun at parties.

<comment><USER58> I imagine people who say others aren't fun at parties, are themselves not very fun at parties.

<comment><USER87> I'm not the one advocating exclusivity.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER88> I don't agree with this at all. If they want to put a big warning on it, contain the posts, etc. that's fine, but banning is not cool. One person's radical fascist is another person's ardent hero. Facebook should support freedom of speech, not freedom from speech.

<comment><USER89> The only thing that the constitutional right to freedom of speech guarantees is that the government cannot arrest you for what you say.

It doesn't give you the right to continue using someone's platform as a megaphone if they decide you're an asshole.

Being banned from Facebook doesn't mean that these people no longer have the right or ability to spread their message. They can use another platform, or make (or host!) their own website, or print and distribute literature, or go stand on a street corner with an actual megaphone.

Facebook is not the government, and— agree with it or not— they can decide who uses their platform and how.

(For the record, I'm not a fan of Facebook.)

<comment><USER88> My apologies, perhaps I was not clear in my previous statement. I recognize that this is a private corporation, hence why I said in my last sentence that Facebook should support freedom of speech, not freedom from speech, which I meant as on their platform.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER90> The ignorance in these comments is astounding. Facebook has already banned many anti-war voices that can in no way be construed as "racist" or bigoted. Its one thing to claim that private companies have the right to silence and censor people, and quite another to cheer on the practice as somehow being desirable.

<comment><USER13> > "many anti-war voices"

Care to name some names?

<comment><USER90> Over 800 have been banned including Anti-media and Police the Police. Here is a list of only a few:

[https://thefreethoughtproject.com/social-media-purge-top- ten...](https://thefreethoughtproject.com/social-media-purge-top-ten-sites/)

<comment><USER13> It doesn't really say _why_ these where banned. From a cursory glance, some of these fall into the "anti-vaxxer" and "anti-trans" group. Also, some accounts that you may call "anti-war" or "anti-police" are posting very graphic images of war or "police work". Those bans are warranted on terms of service grounds.

As for the "over 800" you mention, here's what the source (RT) actually says:

 _" Facebook is again being called out for purging political accounts too far left and right of center, after it removed more than 800 pages just in time for the 2018 midterm elections. Some had millions of followers.

Many of the affected pages were supposedly sharing links between groups using fake accounts, which then clicked "Like" on the posts, artificially upping their engagement numbers. This "inauthentic behavior" violates Facebook's anti-spam policies and goes against "what people expect" from Facebook, the company said."_

That's basically platform abuse, so a ban is warranted as well.

To be clear, I'm not necessarily in favor of banning any of these "alternative media" outlets, but I can imagine _why_ those may have been banned.

<comment><USER90> You don't have to imagine - its because they are at odds with the official government narrative. Make no mistake, this has nothing to do with "right" or "left" or "hate speech" or "graphic imagery" and it has everything about regaining control of public discourse - a control that was lost with the explosion of the internet. Its a concerted effort, across every major tech platform, to use restrictive policies (that are selectively enforced) to ban alternative policies on "service grounds". You could try googling some more information about this, but Google has likewise deranked and delisted alternative voices. Everyone interested in freedom of speech and freedom of thought should be horrified by this assault on free discource - it leads to only one place.

[https://www.truthdig.com/articles/the-silencing-of- dissent/](https://www.truthdig.com/articles/the-silencing-of-dissent/)

<comment><USER13> I don't think your source supports your claims. Anyway, I don't think you should be downvoted.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER91> Now let's proceed to people who are _actually_ causing harm, such as, for example, anti-vaxxers, antifa, etc. Alex Jones, chemtrails, give me a break. He doesn't even believe in that shit himself. :-)

In fact, let's also ban CNN from there. It has been peddling fake conspiracy theories and divided the country for the past 2 years pretty much non-stop. That's kinda harmful innit?

<comment><USER82> So they should ban all the people you want banned, because, you've got a better handle on what's "dangerous"?

<comment><USER91> Isn't that what they're doing already? How is Alex Jones "dangerous"? He's a joke, he doesn't even take himself seriously. If the stated goal is to minimize harm, then CNN has caused far more harm to the American people than Alex Jones ever will.

<comment><USER82> So it is that you have a better handle on who is "dangerous" and who is not than FB does.

Why do you feel your analysis is any more valid than FB's?

Just as a matter of full disclosure, my position is, FB's private property, FB's rules. Just like my house, or yours I suspect, if you don't like the rules you have to leave. So that's my position on this whole thing. I'm just wondering why you think we should trust your word over FB's?

<comment><USER91> There was no "analysis" there, it's purely a political move, don't get confused.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER92> All you guys using freemarket/private enterprise excuses to support this have no justification supporting net neutrality or any antidiscrimination 'public accommodation' laws ie (forced SSM cake baking, government interference in private business's choice of customer/employee). Either government steps in for the greater good or it doesn't. You can't have it both ways.

</comment><comment><USER93> For years 'InfoWars' was promoted on YouTube, allegedly they now ban Alex Jones and his brand of media, along with - now - Facebook.

During the Bush years he did act as a 'gatekeeper' for people questioning the war. Rather than people get to useful facts they only got as far as Alex Jones rants. This had a useful effect of neutering anyone questioning the particulars of how the war started.

I would not say it is sad to see him banned from every platform but you have to wonder if he has outlived his usefulness.

The bigger problem is the recommendation algorithms, giving him the oxygen of publicity. People would never have discovered his content without these algorithms, unless a friend personally recommended 'Infowars' et al.

We should still have the option to read or watch content that does not agree with us in the realm of politics. I have not read 'Mein Kampf' myself, however I have listened to that one clip of Hitler actually talking rather than delivering a speech. I found it useful for understanding a little bit more about that war. There may be neo-nazis we need to protect from such hate speech but it is also at a cost to understanding history.

With Alex Jones there is that theory that he is the same person as Bill Hicks. That story does interest me and I would like the option to study some original Alex Jones content to see if that is a credible conspiracy story or just some entertaining hogwash. If every trace of Alex Jones is banned from the internet then I won't have that option.

</comment><comment><USER94> Regrettable. Are they banning radical left types? Of course not.

<comment><USER95> Who is a radical left type on Facebook that you feel have crossed boundaries?

<comment><USER96> My personal belief is that Facebook shouldn't be trying to censor speech this way, it's impossible to be (or appear to be) impartial. The people who are booted off just go to their own corner of the internet and never have their ideas challenged.

But to answer your question, [https://www.facebook.com/kathygriffin/](https://www.facebook.com/kathygriffin/) comes to mind (with the beheaded Trump photo).

<comment><USER95> The kathy griffin image was a twitter post, not a facebook post. And while that was not a good post, that was a single incident. I don't think it would be correct to put Kathy Griffin and Alex Jones in the same bucket.

<comment><USER96> > The kathy griffin image was a twitter post, not a facebook post.

The article didn't really say, but I assume the bans are considered based on all their activity, not just Facebook.

> And while that was not a good post, that was a single incident.

The Convington Catholic School thing was another issue. Probably worse in that it was kind of a call to action:

[https://twitter.com/kathygriffin/status/1086932616392011776](https://twitter.com/kathygriffin/status/1086932616392011776)

I think comedians especially should get a lot of slack, but I'd say this fits the bill for being "dangerous" based on the article.

My point is that this won't be viewed as being fair no matter what Facebook does, and rules like these allow you to easily target basically anyone. I don't know the answer, especially when you're an international company. I do think it's going to cause more political animosity though.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Dyslexia - <AUTHOR> http://geon.github.io/programming/2016/03/03/dsxyliea <comment><USER3> That's not what it's like for me.

I simply can't tell the difference between symbols that have been rotated or reversed. So I made it through an engineering degree with "the alligator eats the bigger number" mnemonics for > and <.

The first thing I do when I get a new dev machine is take a pen and write "\r\n" up above the delete key. I've never gotten the slashes in the right direction on that key sequence from memory even though I type them several times a day (I just had to edit my post after looking it up right now and realizing I'd typed it wrong on my new laptop).

Anything that can be reversed, I reverse roughly 50% of the time. Because to my brain, they're interchangeable.

<comment><USER4> I pretty sure that if someone stopped me away from a computer and asked me to draw a slash and a backslash I'd probably get it wrong.

<comment><USER5> The cue I learned for that was "the stick man is standing on the line | and leaning forward / or backward \ " (Which is of course western reading direction sensitive)

<comment><USER6> I always remembered it as, apparently they are both handwritten as an upwards stroke. Assuming western LTR reading direction, it means the slash forward goes forward, and the backslash goes backwards with respect to the reading direction.

I mean, I never really thought about it, but that's how I "know" which is slash forward and which is backslash.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> The reading task involves a number of subtasks. If any of these don't work well, it's "dyslexia". Different dyslexics have different symptoms and experiences depending on what part of the pipeline is affected how. I'm not surprised that a web page designed to simulate one person's experience doesn't match others'.

For an accessible but informative intro-level text, I recommend _Psychology of Reading_, by Rayner, Pollatsek, Ashby, and Clifton. (I took intro grad-level cognitive psychology from Rayner and Pollatsek.) One anecdote I remember from the first edition involved a subject who couldn't perform left-to-right saccades; she was dyslexic in English, but wouldn't have been in Hebrew or Arabic.

<comment> Method-X This is a good representation of what my dyslexia is like: [http://bin.ddai.us/dys/lib/textjumble.png](http://bin.ddai.us/dys/lib/textjumble.png)

I describe it like reading through a straw. I can only focus on one word at a time, while most people can take in more words at once. Consequently, my reading speed is much slower than most. Oddly, it hasn't affected my ability to code; I can "see" code just fine.

<comment><USER8> I'm sure you've come across it, but in case you haven't, have you seen Spritz? [http://spritzinc.com/](http://spritzinc.com/)

<comment><USER9> There is an open-source alternative that you can use as a bookmarklet [https://github.com/ds300/jetzt](https://github.com/ds300/jetzt)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> This is close to how it feels when I get a "migraine flash". 2 differences - letters you're not looking at directly (a line or 2 down the page) don't move or jump.

Often, key letters will just completely disappear. In their place is...a kind of grey blank that your mind jumps over. You could _swear_ there's something there, and you can see it when you move your eyes quickly across the word, or out of the corner of your eye when you read the previous or next word, but it disappears when you steady your eyes on that word.

<comment><USER11> This sounds like scintillating scotoma: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scintillating_scotoma](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scintillating_scotoma)

<comment><USER12> It doesn't: the GP didn't mention any scintillation.

My aura was similar to their description. I would be reading, and the words before or after the current one would be gone. I figured it was the migraine disrupting the visual processing parts of the brain so much so that the automatic filling in of the blind spot stopped working.

<comment><USER13> I thought the blind spot was out near the periphery of your vision , not near the center

<comment><USER12> The optic disc is quite close to the macula, which has the most cone-rich area of the retina (the fovea) & is where light is focused by the lens.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> While I agree with the other comments that it wasn't impossible to read these letters, I could feel a real strain on my eyes and thought process while reading the page.

I had to "concentrate" in-order to understand each letter, something I don't have to do with normal text. I can't imagine how difficult it would be to constantly have to read everything like that.

Also, while most words were easy to make out, the ones that I don't use in everyday life; like "Typoglycemia" were impossible to figure out. I had to check what it was linked to.

<comment><USER15> I have some mild dyslexia, and for me the biggest thing is that the letters don't "jump around", they are permanently out of place, or in some cases letters are consistently "added".

I play a videogame where there is a character named "Medivh" (pronounced ma- deev). Even knowing that, even having played that character for over a year, I still read it as med-va.

And a lot of words are like that, I'll be reading along and hit a word like constantly and read it as "consistently" even though it doesn't make sense, then get confused and need to re-read. Or like in your second sentence I read "concrete-trate" and had to reread it to make sense of the word.

<comment><USER16> Switching letters and words like what you described happens to me occasionally *but not consistently) when I'm really tired or not fully awake yet.

Just wondering - do fonts like [https://opendyslexic.org/](https://opendyslexic.org/) make it easier for you to read?

<comment><USER15> I don't know if openDyslexic works for me, I really don't like the look of the font and haven't really read it long enough to see if it makes a difference.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I have Dyslexia. It's not like this bullshit. I think this kind of crap propagates more misunderstanding.

<comment><USER18> What if it is like this, but for different people? A single case of Dyslexia isn't necessarily representative.

<comment><USER19> I honestly think that dyslexia is a range of undiagnosed conditions. It's nothing like the simulation for me, but it's not the first time I've heard of letters jumping around.

<comment><USER20> Dyslexia simply means having trouble learning to read. Being diagnosed with dyslexia does not give any indication as to the cause of the dyslexia. The formal definition in the DSM-5 is:

"a pattern of learning difficulties characterized by problems with accurate or fluent word recognition, poor decoding, and poor spelling abilities."

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> I assume I'm Dyslexic (never got tested for various reasons), but I experience what I have in a different way to this. When reading sentences I sometimes read the words in the wrong order, completely changing the meaning of the sentence at times.

The way to describe my experience is that when you read sentences, you are sometimes surprised by what you read because it seems wrong, re-read it and find out that's not what it said at all. The correction I might possibly make on this site would be to have webcam input and change only when your eyes are not looking at something and to make the change more subtle so you're not aware of it in your peripheral vision.

Day-to-day (not big) issues are:

* Having to re-read paragraphs because I read it wrong and therefore failed to understand it. * Coming unstuck in a point I'm making because I failed to read the text correctly. * Some fonts I really cannot read at any speed - basically if it differs too much from very standard computer fonts. * Given up writing lowercase in my own handwriting because I cannot easily read it - the workaround for me was to write completely in capitals. * Generally wanting to avoid reading because of the above issues.

Benefits:

* Able to spot mistakes in large bodies of text really quickly, but equally could be a result of just being a programmer. * Skim reading is easier because I have gotten used to getting words in the wrong order anyway, which almost the same as missing words.

Also, I find it funny that one test for whether you are dreaming is reading sentences in your dream doesn't make sense - I get this anyway :) Proof we are living in the matrix? ;)

Interested to hear if anybody else also experiences this and can even enlighten me a bit.

<comment><USER22> I also do this. Sometimes it feels like I can't slow myself down and I read too fast, grabbing words, but putting them in the wrong order in my head. Sometimes I also write words out of order, or skip words completely when trying to dictate onto paper.

As a child I had a pretty severe stutter which is not as pronounced now, and the feeling I got from that is the same feeling I get now as an adult with my reading.

I've not experienced the dream one, at least in any way that I can remember. I tend not to dream in general however.

And just like your second bullet point, on several occasions I've approved written material that was quite poor because my brain filled in the blanks with what I thought sounded nice :)

<comment><USER21> >As a child I had a pretty severe stutter which is not as pronounced now, and the feeling I got from that is the same feeling I get now as an adult with my reading.

I had a pretty bad stutter at one point, not mid-words but just repeating a word out of order over and over. For example, when trying to say "today", I used to say "Day day day today". People would find it funny, but actually I had no control at all. It took years to train myself out of this habit.

>I've not experienced the dream one, at least in any way that I can remember. I tend not to dream in general however.

The dream was a joke :) It's about telling whether you are dreaming or not, the joke being that because of the way I read sentences I couldn't tell anyway.

>And just like your second bullet point, on several occasions I've approved written material that was quite poor because my brain filled in the blanks with what I thought sounded nice :)

This sometimes works in my favour, I'm able to bridge gaps when people don't write enough information. Equally, sometimes when dictating my own ideas I sometimes miss words or entire sentences despite actually thinking them up and going to type them.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Had no problems reading this even as a non-native speaker. This is similar to the case when you mess around with "inner" letters of the word, but leave first and the last ones in their places (I've read about this experiment 10 years ago maybe). While the word changes - you still able to read it in text (other words are transformed too in this case obviously).

<comment><USER24> "Dyslexia is characterized by difficulty with _LEARNING_ to read fluently".

You may have read it, but you didn't understand it!

<comment><USER25> That's seriously not true for folks with mild dyslexia. That's why folks don't necessarily find out until adults: no actual difficulty learning to read, but sometimes it results in weird things that weren't picked up on when we were kids. Spelling, for example. Getting left and right mixed up. Certain behavioral traits. More trouble with reading as one gets older and has more to read and/or difficult texts.

<comment><USER26> Funny thing: I keep getting left and right mixed up since I moved from the UK to the US. It's as though my subconscious understanding of "left" was always "the side cars drive on". Flipping that also flipped the words in my head.

<comment><USER25> That is quite funny. I'm pretty glad I didn't suddenly get that when I switched countries. Of course, I switched up the two before I did so. I learned to feel for my heartbeat on my left side to tell them apart.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> I have no clue if this works (I have not been diagnosed as dyslexic) but it certainly makes things more readable for me: [https://opendyslexic.org/](https://opendyslexic.org/)

<comment><USER28> OpenDyslexic also has more space between letters and words, which makes reading easier for some. But for others, the increased space is too much, and it actually makes it harder.

One other benefit of OpenDyslexic is that it is a very "heavy" font. If you're struggling to read something in Helvetica Neue, switching to _any_ heavier font would make it easier to read.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> Hi, bit of a shameless plug, but I've been working with my dad and some dyslexia experts for the last 5 years and we have made [http://www.unitsofsound.com/](http://www.unitsofsound.com/)

If anyone wants to check it out that would be awesome.

On the subject, my dad and I are dyslexic, and this course (in a different form) has helped immeasurably. We also have a couple of experts on the subject area that I can put anyone in touch with if they have any questions, please reach out email@example.com

</comment><comment><USER30> As far as I know, I don't have dyslexia. I've always been a voracious reader and haven't had the challenges one normally associates with the label.

But now and then - maybe once a month, maybe a few days in a row, some normal, easy, word will look _wrong_.

The letters don't "jump around", but it looks wrong the way a missplelled word does...I end up staring at it and trying to imagine how it SHOULD be spelled. That'd be less weird for me if it was a word with lots of typical english weirdness, like "necessary", but this happens on really _simple_ words, and usually just one word at any moment. Then later, that particular word stops doing it.

In recent history I can recall this happening with: "tree", "the", "matter", and (ironically) "simple", but I've never noticed any pattern to which words do it, and these are words that only do this for a few minutes or hours, then stop. "the" just looked as wrong as "teh" normally looks wrong, and every instance on the page looks like a glaring error until it subsides.

Does anyone know what does this? It's not a notable problem for me - <USER2> these are simple words that I have a lot of familiarity with I can just logically override the emotional component, but it still weirds me out. What else can my brain do this with, making something normal and mundane wrong and alien for a brief period?

FWIW, English is my native language.

<comment><USER31> >and these are words that only do this for a few minutes or hours, then stop

Some neuron died, and it takes a while for the RAID 5 of the mind to rebuild the array.

I'm only half-joking. I know exactly the feeling you're talking about, and it's the just-so reason I came up with to amuse myself. Realistically, it probably a relative of semantic satiation.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_satiation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_satiation)

<comment><USER30> I should stop using these cheap parts...

But seriously, thanks. Just knowing my crazy isn't unique is comforting. Plus, any day that I get to see "See also: Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo" as a serious entry in Wikipedia is not a terrible day.

Between this and someone telling me about [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amygdala_hijack](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amygdala_hijack) I'm starting to feel almost normal.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> > _There are three proposed cognitive subtypes of dyslexia (auditory, visual > and attentional)_

In the US, unfortunately, many experts focus exclusively on the phonological aspects of dyslexia (which corresponds to the "auditory" description above). In other parts of the world, the understanding is broader and includes visual aspects also.

It seems that the narrower, U.S.-based conception of dyslexia goes back to some research done at Yale in 1996 [1], which is often summarized as "dyslexia is phonological, not visual". Because Americans have such a high opinion of Yale, educators/experts here like to parrot this sound bite, even if they don't fully understand the research or competing research conclusions. Researchers and experts outside the U.S. have a different view (and IMO are less influenced by a research report from Yale).

I have been especially curious about the visual impacts of dyslexia, because the technology I work [2] on is visual, and according to many people with dyslexia, it is extraordinarily helpful for them. Having heard repeatedly that "dyslexia is not visual", I was curious to know why a visual technology would have a materially beneficial effect for readers with dyslexia.

In conversations with dyslexia researchers, I have learned that there may be second-order effects of dyslexia that are visual — even if the root causes of dyslexia are not visual. Basically, people with dyslexia dislike reading and therefore do not read much. This causes them to lag on a number of reading- related skills, including visual tracking. Since visual aids can improve visual tracking, they can help readers with dyslexia, even if they don't have a type of dyslexia that was originally caused by visual differences.

1: [http://dyslexia.yale.edu/Scientific_American_1996.pdf](http://dyslexia.yale.edu/Scientific_American_1996.pdf)

2: [http://www.BeeLineReader.com](http://www.BeeLineReader.com)

<comment><USER32> That's interesting in the UK I was diagnosed early 70's with dyslexia by my optician - who had an interest in the subject.

<comment><USER28> Yeah, opticians here in the U.S. would just focus on glasses/contacts. Dyslexia diagnoses here generally comes from school psychologists or literacy specialists. The standards vary — in some places it is very difficult to be diagnosed, and in other places it is very easy.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> I had hard times reading this (about 10 times slower than normal text). What does that say about me?

<comment><USER34> That you tell the truth on the internet. Quite an oddity.

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> For me the "movement" part is basically my mind trying to process 2D object in 3D space. They "jump" because somewhere back there, my mind is trying to show me what the glyph would look like if it was in front of me floating. This is why b and d are hard, etc. Sufficed to say, mine is nothing like this website.

</comment><comment><USER36> Seeing this, I remember an Indian movie Tare Zameen Par ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taare_Zameen_Par](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taare_Zameen_Par)). The film explores the life and imagination of Ishaan, an 8-year-old dyslexic child.

</comment><comment><USER37> Seeing this helped me gain a real appreciation for the effects of dyslexia that being told how it is hasn't, even if it's not truly accurate to how everyone is affected by it. Seeing this has made me curious about how dyslexia affects non-English/Latin alphabet readers too, e.g. Chinese, Korean, Japanese, Arabic, Thai. Is there someone on here that has dyslexia and reads/writes in these scripts that can explain how it affects them? For example, in Korean do the pieces of each individual phoneme move around in ways that don't make sense, e.g. ㄷㅏㄴ normally is 단 but the ㄷ and ㅏ switch places? Or in Chinese, do the strokes within each character move around, or do the characters simply move positions within the phrase?

</comment><comment><USER38> I was a reading prodigy (full ability to read adult material before age 3), with astronomical IQ scores to match (higher than what Marilyn vos Savant had in Guinness). Even so, I think I was/am mildly dyslexic.

Clearly, if it's real it's mild, and not much of a disability. Still:

\-- It took me several years after I learned to read to stop mixing up letters and their reversed forms (e.g. lower-case b/d). \-- I still have to think hard to avoid mixing up east/west in many map-reading situations. \-- (Don't know if this is relevant) I always have had great difficulty identifying the direction a sound is coming from.

I also generally have difficulty memorizing visual details, recognizing faces, etc.

</comment><comment><USER39> Didn't see the point on this post. Then I realised I have JS off.

cf.: [https://twitter.com/1990sLinuxUser/status/97350916902105089](https://twitter.com/1990sLinuxUser/status/97350916902105089)

<comment><USER40> Seems like the cure for dyslexia is disabling JS.

</comment></comment><comment><USER41> This is like a written version of how I seem to hear other people. Even when actively listening, I frequently hear different words (whatever my brain wants to hear or is predicting it heard, perhaps) which I question and generally find I heard wrong.

<comment><USER42> Have you had your hearing checked? This can be a side effect of your brain attempting to make up for hearing loss.

<comment><USER41> I'm going to be doing that, yes, as I'm not getting any younger :-D

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> I have relatively mild symptoms of dyslexia, they obviously don't present like this. The real problems came when I tried to connect letters and words with sounds. Once that came it was easy to read, and has been ever since. I barely even remember struggling with reading, but spelling and pronunciation has always been a ordeal.

My symptoms only present themselves during production or consumption. I have no confusion between left and right in my head, I rarely get them mixed up. But it took me forever to be able to tell people which word connected to which side.

</comment><comment><USER44> I'm mildly dyslexic. I sometimes read words incorrectly - so for example a local hill is called "Butser", but I frequently will read "Buster" as I drive past. So I find I read slowly aloud, because I need to process the text before I can speak it. It doesn't happen frequently anymore, but I do still get it. It's amazingly frustrating.

Weirdest thing - I can read that website pretty easily. I can see the words. I think it's because I look for more markers than just the word shape when I read. I don't know. How do others find it?

</comment><comment><USER45> Previous discussion: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11218677](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11218677) (1.5 years ago, 200 comments)

</comment><comment><USER46> I'm dyslexic and built a tool to solve this issue for me: [https://getspeechify.com/](https://getspeechify.com/) basically it lets your computer read out any text to you super easily. Even if letters are hard to decode visually, they are easy to listen to. And it takes very little time to build up the ability to listen super fast so I listen between 500 and 600 words per minute.

</comment><comment><USER47> Pretty cool to see that the the scripts are no exception. If you look at the script tags within the inspect the code is also being reordered

</comment><comment><USER48> If you are Dyslexic and an Entrapunuer and live in the bay area, consider joining NED the Dyslexic Entrapunuer Network. See denlaunch.com

I really enjoyed meeting a bunch of other dyslexic folks and I'd never really met any others. Bets part of a NED meeting is no one will ask you to take notes :)

</comment><comment><USER49> After a few years of reading many people recognize words in their entirety, not as individual letters. They note the length, parts with upward extenders such as bdhk, descenders like gjp and rounded parts etc. This is akin to reading ideographs. I wonder how this interacts with dyslexia?

</comment><comment><USER50> I recently learned of a related condition, called dyscalculia, which is to mathematics as dyslexia is to reading: [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyscalculia](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyscalculia)

</comment><comment><USER51> This is not real or true.

I have dyslexia and have never seen text like that.

I have no trouble seeing letters or words, I just can't associate the sounds with the letters, so I can't spell or read new words (based on the sounds).

I've dealt with it by remembering tons of words.

</comment><comment><USER52> Lovely. I love to see how the brain can manage going through "hurdles". Gives insight in how our brains handle parsing. Very nice.

Also: it tames my pseudo ADHD and helps me focus a lot. I'm tempted to have this for all text.

<comment><USER26> What is "pseudo ADHD"?

<comment><USER52> Being overly impatient, but not to the point of being clinically diagnosed so, it's just a quick way to describe it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER53> Is there a standard test for dyslexia? Are there any proven methods by which to address these learning to read difficulties? As dyslexics, did you feel that having the label helped you or hurt you as a young person?

</comment><comment><USER54> I've got this book reading app with AI assistant. I wonder if it'll help with dyslexia. Would love to hear from others.

[http://book.vidalab.co/](http://book.vidalab.co/)

</comment><comment><USER55> this example is extremely over generalized. Dyslexia comes in different forms and can manifest through a varience in ability on a scale of things, including math ability, remembering a sequence of numbers backwards etc. not everyone who is dyslexic has impairments with regards to seeing symbols order reading. I'm diagnosed as dyslexic but don't experience any of what's described here.

</comment><comment><USER56> I'd be interested in seeing is how syllable splits (for ex·am·ple, with mid·dots like this) affect reading comprehension for dyslexics.

</comment><comment><USER57> It's actually quite easy to read such scrambled words, unless they are some uncommon technical term that I've never seen before.

<comment><USER58> Imagine as a child or if you were previously illiterate, every single one of those words will be an uncommon term - so it makes it much harder to learn to read words in this way.

<comment><USER24> Ding ding ding. Too many people quick to boast how they had no trouble reading this yet they completely missed the 1st (major!) point of the text: "Dyslexia is characterized by difficulty with _LEARNING_ to read fluently"

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER59> This really makes the point. Perhaps exploring different pathways would help. Braille? Audio? Different colors or fonts?

</comment><comment><USER60> The comments are GOLDEN!

Read the back-and-forth about the definition of bravery, from "Ben Tarr" and the rest of the commenters.

<comment><USER61> It just keeps going and going and everyone gets more and more abusive

</comment></comment><comment><USER62> Does dyslexia mean the letters are jumbled or is it just a difficulty reading fast and and poor comprehension?

</comment><comment><USER63> I have always imagined that dyslexia feels somewhat like mild dose of LSD. It's hard to describe, but the letters usually seem to move around (especially in peripheral vision) and one has to focus mostly on individual symbols making up a word instead of the usual words-magically-appearing-in-brain stuff.

</comment><comment><USER64> Not an accurate feeling of reading, but the general idea is about accurate.

</comment><comment><USER65> I wonder how dyslexia affects people from non-english speaking world.

<comment><USER26> I wonder how it affects people from China and other non-alphabet-using countries.

</comment></comment><comment><USER66> That was really good, can you please explain how did you do it?

<comment><USER67> Just use "View Source" (Ctrl/Cmd + U) in your browser, the source is clear and not minified. Look for "messUpWords".

<comment><USER68> It's pretty funny to use the dom inspector in Chrome, since the effect works on the script source code as well.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER69> lol, doesn't seem to hard. Words are still easily readable with the middle letters mixed up.

</comment><comment><USER70> didn't have too much difficultly, but now all the letters on every page are swimming.

</comment><comment><USER71> I wonder if that page looks normal to dyslexic

<comment><USER72> No, actually it's very different from my personal experience as dyslexic

</comment></comment><comment><USER73> It was not actually as hard as the author had probably thought. Relevant?[0]

[0][https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/8628/is-it- true-...](https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/8628/is-it-true-that- only-the-positions-of-the-first-and-last-letter-in-a-word-matter)

<comment><USER68> There is a link to the wikipedia article about the phenomenon. Unfortunately, it seems to be butchered to oblivion atm. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Typoglycemia&oldi...](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Typoglycemia&oldid=758271044)</comment></comment>


Golang Quirk: Number-strings starting with "0" are Octals - <AUTHOR> https://scripter.co/golang-quirk-number-strings-starting-with-0-are-octals/ <comment><USER2> The strconv function simply acts in the same manner as the language does, see [https://play.golang.org/p/rg0VwhCDVB_C](https://play.golang.org/p/rg0VwhCDVB_C)

The idea for strconv originates in c (see atoi etc), and c also has 0-octal notation.

Go is simply mimicing c in this regard.

> What was the Golang team thinking?!

They were helping you not misuse the function, as you are doing in your example (you are trying to parse strings containing invalid number representations as integers).

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for your comment. It kind of makes a little sense now. I just wished the octals needed a stricter prefix like "0o" as they are not very common compared to decimal and hex (in my experience at least). The way Python casts strings with leading zeros makes more sense to me. Later I'll update the post with your feedback. Thanks.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> > If base == 0, the base is implied by the string's prefix: base 16 for "0x", > base 8 for "0", and base 10 otherwise. For bases 1, below 0 or above 36 an > error is returned.

A better solution is to always provide the base (e.g. 10) rather than using 0 if you don't want special interpretation of '0x' and '0' prefixes. That should be in Hugo. The problem is not with the golang library which was well documented and always worked as such. By placing any blame on the golang library, there's less incentive to fix Hugo.

<comment><AUTHOR> That's a valid point. I have made that suggestion to the Hugo devs[1]. Someone on Reddit also suggested using strconv.Atoi() instead of ParseInt(). I have added to the suggestion too.

[1]: [https://github.com/gohugoio/hugo/issues/4628#issuecomment-38...](https://github.com/gohugoio/hugo/issues/4628#issuecomment-382595019)

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Follow-up post: [https://scripter.co/follow-up-golang-quirk-number-strings- st...](https://scripter.co/follow-up-golang-quirk-number-strings-starting- with-0-are-octals/)</comment>