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

Facebook is 'silencing' Rohingya Muslim reports of 'ethnic cleansing'

independent.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 141 posts

Re: Facebook is 'silencing' Rohingya Muslim reports of 'ethnic cleansing'

#31

Post by Karunamon »

wmf wrote: post #24
otakucode wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That would be a problem if it wasn't trivially easy to block them. Otherwise, people being horrible really isn't your problem unless you train yourself to be very conscious of their opinions and to care deeply about them. That's the only way their opinion can get to you. Of course, that training doesn't have to be conscious and a great many people have inadvertently trained themselves to be sensitive to the opinions…

If you get hit by thousands of trolls at once it's not trivial to block them. Also, in some cases other people see the trolling about you even after you block it.

I find that "thousands of trolls" generally amounts to "thousands of members of the public who responded to the statement I shouted out into public". The character of those responses doesn't even enter into it.

Don't get me wrong, I see why it's a pain in the ass to wind up with a popular comment even if the comments are mostly positive (and especially if they're not not), but I think this is better handled by UI and rate limiting on notifications rather than the alternatives.

>in some cases other people see the trolling about you even after you block it.

Pardon my arrogance, but I don't believe it's your place to determine how other people are allowed to talk about you even if you've excused yourself from the conversation. Down that path lay dragons. For a quick example why, sub out "you" and "your" in the previous sentence for the name of any unpopular politician.

Re: Facebook is 'silencing' Rohingya Muslim reports of 'ethnic cleansing'

#32

Post by NTDF9 »

dogma1138 wrote: post #23
NTDF9 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Censorship is one of those really hard social problems. A completely open web will be inundated with spam, pornography and propaganda. A completely gated web will only serve the gatekeepers. What really solves the problem is a 3rd party gatekeeper composed of "Council of Wise People".(henceforth referred to as gatekeepers). Movie rating board is an example. This leads to the age old question, "Who will monitor the ga…

The web is now filled with spam, porn and propaganda... The problem here is that Facebook seems to be choosing sides. It worth noting that this might be propaganda to begin with and many of those so called "activists" posts could likely be violating TOS at the least if not actual laws. What is going on in Burma is terrible but there has been a lot of violence from all factions the Buddhists didn't woke up one day and…

>> The problem here is that Facebook seems to be choosing sides.

There is ALWAYS choosing sides. When FB decides to block pornography, they are choosing a side. When FB decides to mark some posts as spam, they are choosing a side.

Could they have a platform with ZERO choosing of sides? Technically, yes!

But, do you know what that would look like? My guess is more and more spam posts.

Re: Facebook is 'silencing' Rohingya Muslim reports of 'ethnic cleansing'

#33

Post by pjc50 »

otakucode wrote: post #22
NTDF9 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Censorship is one of those really hard social problems. A completely open web will be inundated with spam, pornography and propaganda. A completely gated web will only serve the gatekeepers. What really solves the problem is a 3rd party gatekeeper composed of "Council of Wise People".(henceforth referred to as gatekeepers). Movie rating board is an example. This leads to the age old question, "Who will monitor the ga…

Why is it you are alive? I mean, it would be trivially easy for anyone to kill you. You have to work to keep yourself alive. Some random person walking up to you on the street and pushing a little blade into your neck is all it would take to end you. Or start your house on fire while you're asleep. Or a million other things. But... you're alive. Laws don't stop crime, they can only punish it afterwards. Deterrence do…

The force multiplier arithmetic of the internet changes this. Almost all people are fine, but some are not. It was only last week that we had some idiots put another bomb on a tube train, for example. On the internet, if you can attack once you can attack everywhere. If you could put a bomb on every train at once with ctrl-c ctrl-v, we'd probably all be dead.

America has a mass shooting every week. If the real world was as reprisal-free as the internet, and people could just keep shooting, how many casualties would there be?

Re: Facebook is 'silencing' Rohingya Muslim reports of 'ethnic cleansing'

#34

Post by shallot_router »

tdb7893 wrote: post #25
frgtpsswrdlame wrote: post #9

I'm kind of split on our current gray area about free speech on the web. It seems like the only way to do good moderation is if it's powered by actual people sitting behind computers and following a well-written policy. But tech companies have proven themselves totally unwilling to pay for that. I'd rather FB just said "we'll never pony up the wages necessary to moderate well so we're just going to make facebook a co…

This seems like a classic catch 22. If they go completely free speech people will complain about all the propaganda on Facebook and some countries will just block it. On the other hand if they do moderation people complain about censorship. There is no actual way for them to win here

Yep. People complain about the "adpocalypse" and censorship from YouTube and Facebook, but they're really stuck between a rock and a hard place.

That said, I think they should always err on the side of free speech wherever possible.

Re: Facebook is 'silencing' Rohingya Muslim reports of 'ethnic cleansing'

#35

Post by zeveb »

NTDF9 wrote: post #15
frgtpsswrdlame wrote: post #9

I'm kind of split on our current gray area about free speech on the web. It seems like the only way to do good moderation is if it's powered by actual people sitting behind computers and following a well-written policy. But tech companies have proven themselves totally unwilling to pay for that. I'd rather FB just said "we'll never pony up the wages necessary to moderate well so we're just going to make facebook a co…

Censorship is one of those really hard social problems. A completely open web will be inundated with spam, pornography and propaganda. A completely gated web will only serve the gatekeepers. What really solves the problem is a 3rd party gatekeeper composed of "Council of Wise People".(henceforth referred to as gatekeepers). Movie rating board is an example. This leads to the age old question, "Who will monitor the ga…

Well, there's also the problem that it's very difficult to change your 3rd party gatekeeper to one you trust & agree with, and the gatekeeper function is tied up with a lot of unrelated stuff (maybe I like the policing of Dallas, Tx. but the community standards of New York City, the firearms law of Vermont, the health care of Canada, the food policy of France & the speed limits of Germany — there's no way to get all that in one bundle).

Re: Facebook is 'silencing' Rohingya Muslim reports of 'ethnic cleansing'

#36

Post by otakucode »

quuquuquu wrote: post #21
otakucode wrote: post #7

Who wants to advertise on top of such bummer news? Cheer up and post some family friendly content instead! Thanks, Facebook.

This is so, so true. What a surprise that this comment at the bottom of this thread. FB's, Twitter's, and YT's new policy is "if it goes beyond E for Everyone, demonetize and or censor." And these are supposed to be serious platforms for journalists and people who want to grapple with the realities of human life? No, this is just Digital Disneyland, where nothing goes wrong.

If forced to label myself as a human being, I would probably go to 'Pervert Philosopher'. I am a big believer in the utter critical importance of facing the "ugly" side of our human nature and dealing with it openly. It disgusts me, and I see it as immoral, that so many platforms wish to scrub the primary conduits through which modern human culture is both formed and transmitted of the 'human' element. Humans cuss and spit, they stink and fuck, and they do this alongside those who heal and build, who help and protect. Any attempt to eliminate one side will eliminate both in equal number, because people aren't immutable. They move across and among those groups throughout the course of their day, week, month, year, or life.

Eric Schmidt's book, 'A New Digital Age' is starkly terrifying. He openly says that Google, because its rich, should use its position to actively mold human culture. We've seen individuals or small cabals take outsized roles in culture many times throughout history and the result has always been the same - tragedy. I see no reason why this would be any different.

Internet access should be a public utility like water or electricity. It should be metered. The cost of it should be tied directly to the price of providing the actual service (and its tech so that means the price will rapidly go to zero). It should be regulated by municipalities just like water companies are. The amount of profit they earn should be capped, just like water companies are. And just like water companies aren't allowed to charge restaurants a higher fee just because they make soup from the water and sell it, muni ISPs should never be permitted to charge different rates to people just because they're doing business over it.

I'm not advocating for the idiotic 'muni owns the fiber, private corps get access to the fiber and share' model, I'm advocating for muni ISPs. So that when the feds come knocking on their door, they will get told to pound sand unless they have a warrant signed by a judge. Private companies just bend over, especially ISPs who largely depend upon the government for most of their business existence (how long would they make it if it was legal for anyone else to run a line next to theirs and compete?). Municipal govt employees love telling the feds to get lost. They'll have their neighbors backs.

Re: Facebook is 'silencing' Rohingya Muslim reports of 'ethnic cleansing'

#37

Post by shallot_router »

cholantesh wrote: post #6
sergiotapia wrote: post #3

Interesting, here's a first-hand account of what's happening: https://streamable.com/zota1

From the perspective of a monk on the vanguard of the ideological attacks on Muslims, just to be clear.

I never thought I'd see the day where a Buddhist monk in robes is calling for the genocide of "Muslim vermin". (I don't think he literally said "vermin", but that's basically the analogies he's using.)

Re: Facebook is 'silencing' Rohingya Muslim reports of 'ethnic cleansing'

#38

Post by pjc50 »

tdb7893 wrote: post #25
frgtpsswrdlame wrote: post #9

I'm kind of split on our current gray area about free speech on the web. It seems like the only way to do good moderation is if it's powered by actual people sitting behind computers and following a well-written policy. But tech companies have proven themselves totally unwilling to pay for that. I'd rather FB just said "we'll never pony up the wages necessary to moderate well so we're just going to make facebook a co…

This seems like a classic catch 22. If they go completely free speech people will complain about all the propaganda on Facebook and some countries will just block it. On the other hand if they do moderation people complain about censorship. There is no actual way for them to win here

If they go completely free speech then nobody will be able to read anything over all the spam, and the servers will be confiscated for possession of child porn in a few days.

Re: Facebook is 'silencing' Rohingya Muslim reports of 'ethnic cleansing'

#39

Post by watwut »

otakucode wrote: post #19
jackmott wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

because so many people are horrible

That would be a problem if it wasn't trivially easy to block them. Otherwise, people being horrible really isn't your problem unless you train yourself to be very conscious of their opinions and to care deeply about them. That's the only way their opinion can get to you. Of course, that training doesn't have to be conscious and a great many people have inadvertently trained themselves to be sensitive to the opinions…

People by default care about what others think. It starts before kindergarten and is normal human psychology. No training is necessary of that.

Neverthess, thinking the issue is just about insults is naive. The actual uncensored (especially anonymous) forum means hardcore bdsm porn posted for fun in the discussion about gardening or child raising. Or very disgusting pic of vivisection of animal. Or calls for another holocaust along with floorplan of your house.

It also means most 'normal' people leave elsewhere due to above. Cause most people dont need above in their lives.

Moreover, insults have meaning and it matters. If you ignore them, you are more likely to become target of bullying or mobbing. Because people parrot what they see and the more you allow it, the more people join on that to look like members of stringet group - to get popular. Or they simply feel it is socially ok.

In the work, it affects your ability to push for ideas, to get leadership position, to get raise, to be trusted and given a bit more autonomy. All of that matters.

Re: Facebook is 'silencing' Rohingya Muslim reports of 'ethnic cleansing'

#40

Post by pjc50 »

Karunamon wrote: post #31
wmf wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you get hit by thousands of trolls at once it's not trivial to block them. Also, in some cases other people see the trolling about you even after you block it.

I find that "thousands of trolls" generally amounts to "thousands of members of the public who responded to the statement I shouted out into public". The character of those responses doesn't even enter into it. Don't get me wrong, I see why it's a pain in the ass to wind up with a popular comment even if the comments are mostly positive (and especially if they're not not), but I think this is better handled by UI and…

> It's not your place to determine how other people are allowed to talk about you even if you've excused yourself from the conversation

Even if they're discussing whether you should be murdered?

Post reply on HN