Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Hard Questions: How We Counter Terrorism

newsroom.fb.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 72 posts

Re: Hard Questions: How We Counter Terrorism

#11

Post by 19eightyfour »

avaer wrote: post #7

This post makes it seem like Facebook subscribes to the theory that hiding unpleasant content prevents terrorism, and that there is universal global agreement on what counts as terrorism. Is there any scientific literature that supports this? The post seems to treat it as a foregone conclusion and declares war on that basis, but I would love to see the research before deciding whether I agree with what they're doing.

Do you believe the propagation of narratives that try to justify illegal terrorist violence help support terrorists? I agree with that idea. And following from that basis, suppressing and/or countering such narratives is correct.

Re: Hard Questions: How We Counter Terrorism

#12

Post by 19eightyfour »

One criticism I have of this policy doc is this quote from the "Counterspeech" section.

> But counterspeech is only effective if it comes from credible speakers.

No it isn't. It's also effective if the background noise of conversation in your life is countering the "terrorism supporting narratives". Credible people are important. But not the only pillar. If you have a lot of voices countering the terrorists' narratives then you can get somewhere too.

Overall tho I'm a fan of this post as a step in the right direction, not just for FB realizing it can do something to counter t, but also awakening to its wider role in the world.

Re: Hard Questions: How We Counter Terrorism

#13

Post by csydas »

thinkingemote wrote: post #5

In the counter speech section, where the answer is to promote messages from credible people they say that terrorists live a "Hate filled violent life." Is this accurate or just another easy way of saying "these people are not human they are just evil" Is it both more accurate and more frightening to allow yourself to think that terrorists live a generally peaceful and happy life within a family? Aren't the worse mons…

Maybe I'm not understanding your objection clearly, but what they wrote was "...prevent people from pursuing a hate-filled, violent life or convincing them to abandon such a life"

I think this is pretty careful sentence structure on their part to suggest that it's normal people who enter into such a life, not that they are at their core hate filled and violent. The section seems to agree with what you're suggestion, and maybe it's just awkwardly worded, but as a native speaker, to me it sounds like the usual deescalation tactic of affirming the goodness in people. "Life" may be causing some misunderstanding or changing the scope slightly, but it still fits.

Re: Hard Questions: How We Counter Terrorism

#14

Post by rimliu »

nils-m-holm wrote: post #8

Communicate. Really, "terrorists" usually have the same goals as "we" do: peace, respect, safety, prosperity. If we stopped pretending that "we" are right and "they" are wrong, the problem might go away in the long run. Note that I do not approve of the terrorist approach to communication but, maybe, they just have no other way of making themselves heard, so if we listened, they might start talking instead of bombing…

Maybe you are right if you talk about "terrorists"—in quotes. However, if you talk about terrorists, or do be precises—jihadists, you are very far off base. Pretending that "they" and "we" share the same worldview won't cause the problem go away for sure. Because the problem is that they do think their way is the right way to live and what's worse—that all others, even those, who do not subscribe to their worldview still have to follow that way.

Re: Hard Questions: How We Counter Terrorism

#15

Post by im3w1l »

19eightyfour wrote: post #10
im3w1l wrote: post #4

Terrorism is better than a police state. That said, hopefully "extreme vetting" will make the choice unnecessary.

How can you even promote that? Even taken at face value...on the one hand, you have illegal violence carried out by non-state actors. On the other hand legal violence carried out by the state. Unless I totally misunderstood you, you are saying being subject to illegal violence carried out by non-state actors is better than police violence? No. Way. Societies worldwide would also disagree with you. The State has a mon…

I think we should try to stop terrorism, but not "at any cost".

Using AI model's to monitor all 1-1 conversations in the world is too dangerous of a power - it increases the risk for tyrany much more than it decreases the risk of terrorism.

Re: Hard Questions: How We Counter Terrorism

#16

Post by cbanek »

19eightyfour wrote: post #10
im3w1l wrote: post #4

Terrorism is better than a police state. That said, hopefully "extreme vetting" will make the choice unnecessary.

How can you even promote that? Even taken at face value...on the one hand, you have illegal violence carried out by non-state actors. On the other hand legal violence carried out by the state. Unless I totally misunderstood you, you are saying being subject to illegal violence carried out by non-state actors is better than police violence? No. Way. Societies worldwide would also disagree with you. The State has a mon…

I don't know if the comment was comparing state sanctioned violence vs non-state sanctioned violence, but a quote comes to mind:

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

Basically, if we wanted to eliminate terrorism, we would have severely curtail freedom. And there aren't nearly as many terrorists as people think. More people die from car crashes, drug overdoses, etc. But changes in the law, the way police and law enforcement do things, could cause a loss of the liberties and freedoms we currently enjoy.

Re: Hard Questions: How We Counter Terrorism

#17

Post by lanevorockz »

People are way off, terrorism is not caused or even depend on social media. The major point behind are the actual texts depicting a time of war when they were originated.

This time is now past and religious preaching it should make it clear that the values from a thousand years ago don't have place on modern society.

Many Islamic preachers recognize and openly criticize, they are just a minority usually refered as the uncle toms.

Re: Hard Questions: How We Counter Terrorism

#18

Post by xiaoma »

19eightyfour wrote: post #10
im3w1l wrote: post #4

Terrorism is better than a police state. That said, hopefully "extreme vetting" will make the choice unnecessary.

How can you even promote that? Even taken at face value...on the one hand, you have illegal violence carried out by non-state actors. On the other hand legal violence carried out by the state. Unless I totally misunderstood you, you are saying being subject to illegal violence carried out by non-state actors is better than police violence? No. Way. Societies worldwide would also disagree with you. The State has a mon…

Police states are pretty bad, too. Consider this:

Would you rather live in a European country where terrorist attacks happen on a semi-regular basis and are in the news, or would you prefer North Korea where the state is very strong and terrorism is unheard of?

Re: Hard Questions: How We Counter Terrorism

#19

Post by nils-m-holm »

rimliu wrote: post #14
nils-m-holm wrote: post #8

Communicate. Really, "terrorists" usually have the same goals as "we" do: peace, respect, safety, prosperity. If we stopped pretending that "we" are right and "they" are wrong, the problem might go away in the long run. Note that I do not approve of the terrorist approach to communication but, maybe, they just have no other way of making themselves heard, so if we listened, they might start talking instead of bombing…

Maybe you are right if you talk about "terrorists"—in quotes. However, if you talk about terrorists, or do be precises—jihadists, you are very far off base. Pretending that "they" and "we" share the same worldview won't cause the problem go away for sure. Because the problem is that they do think their way is the right way to live and what's worse—that all others, even those, who do not subscribe to their worldview s…

That's exactly what they may think about us. In fact I can read your statement from "their" point of view and it would still make sense.

Without communication we'll never find common ground. Without common ground, the problem will not go away.

Post reply on HN