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

21–30 of 72 posts

Re: Hard Questions: How We Counter Terrorism

#21

Post by rl3 »

19eightyfour wrote: post #11
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.

>... the propagation of narratives that pretend to support illegal terrorist violence ...

As opposed to legal terrorist violence?

Re: Hard Questions: How We Counter Terrorism

#22

Post by gus77 »

19eightyfour wrote: post #11
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.

It's easy to paint this as a black and white issue. If you are Israeli you have one definition and Hamas another. Recently Kashmiri school girls were busying stone pelting the Indian Army. You think both sides are capable of sitting down and coming to consensus of what terrorist activity is? Facebook is going to be treading over all kinds of issues that even experienced socialogists find hard to deal with. It's good that they are addressing the issue and are sure to lead a lot.

But if you have ever watched a techie de-escalate a hostile situation you shouldn't have high hopes.

Re: Hard Questions: How We Counter Terrorism

#23

Post by [deleted] »

19eightyfour wrote: post #6
panic wrote: post #2

Here's a scenario: imagine China agrees to un-ban Facebook as long as they can provide their own "terrorist photos" and "terrorist text" as input to this software, giving them the power to censor Facebook worldwide. The fact that this capability even exists is a bit concerning!

Don't panic. This is unlikely. IF FB goes in China, yes it will partner with censors. But why would FB permit flagrant abuse of its anti-terror policies for censorship? Doesn't make sense. It already has other mechanisms to censor. Anyway, China takes terrorism as seriously as the US and has the same things to lose. China would likely not misues "terrorism" to censor. Unlike the West, China doesn't have to pretend so…

[deleted]

Re: Hard Questions: How We Counter Terrorism

#25

Post by saurik »

19eightyfour wrote: post #11
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.

> Do you disagree with the idea that the propagation of narratives that pretend to support illegal terrorist violence does not actually help support terrorists? I agree with that idea.

Either you added one too many negations or I am failing to understand your point... you are saying that the idea you agree with is that the propagation of narratives does not actually help support terrorists?

Re: Hard Questions: How We Counter Terrorism

#26

Post by averagewall »

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 an extremely narrow minded viewpoint. You're sure conventional warfare is right and terrorism is wrong? Perhaps the majority of Americans (based on votes) believe their way is right and they have to impose it on others who are wrong.

Re: Hard Questions: How We Counter Terrorism

#27

Post by lambdadmitry »

This is honestly terrifying. As a citizen of a state that increasingly tends to call "terrorism" any non-passive dissent I can't help but substitute the word "dissent" for the "terrorism" in the article. "If we previously removed a propaganda video from the doubters of The Great Leader, we can work to prevent other accounts from uploading the same video to our site" and such.

Or, to put it into terms closer to the demographic majority of HN, "we have also recently started to experiment with using AI to understand text that might be undermining the authority of the Oval office".

Given that Facebook collects data from a ton of sources besides facebook.com (even your CC data), it's literally a Big Brother scenario. Big "AI-powered" Brother without any oversight or responsibility.

Re: Hard Questions: How We Counter Terrorism

#28

Post by jannes » 

    [...] we have begun work on systems to enable us to take action against
    terrorist accounts across all our platforms, including WhatsApp and Instagram.
    Given the limited data some of our apps collect as part of their service,
    the ability to share data across the whole family is indispensable to our
    efforts to keep all our platforms safe.
Looks like they are indeed linking WhatsApp and Facebook accounts internally. Weren't they fined for failing to disclose this pre-acquisition a couple weeks ago?

Re: Hard Questions: How We Counter Terrorism

#29

Post by curiousgal »

al_chemist wrote: post #24

Harder question: Why should Facebook counter terrorism? Easy answer: Because terrorist may use it. Yes, but terrorists may use roads, buses, local grocery shops, cinemas. Should all of those places counter terrorism?

I'd argue that we should let them use Facebook, the more one uses it the less they are out there killing people.

Re: Hard Questions: How We Counter Terrorism

#30

Post by curiousgal »

al_chemist wrote: post #24

Harder question: Why should Facebook counter terrorism? Easy answer: Because terrorist may use it. Yes, but terrorists may use roads, buses, local grocery shops, cinemas. Should all of those places counter terrorism?

I'd argue that we should let them use Facebook, the more one uses it the less they are out there killing people.
Post reply on HN