41–50 of 141 posts
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-myanmar-rohingya/trump-ur...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
This problem does not require the extreme step of giving the subject of a conversation an unconditional veto on the conversation.
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…
This is a pretty ridiculous reading of events in Myanmar. Rakhine buddhists with the help of the military and police have been persecuting Rohingya since as far back as the end of WWII (the Rakhine and Rohingya fought on opposite sides). More recently since the junta took control in 1962 the Rohingya have been denied citizenship and harassed constantly by the junta. The Rohingya in the past 20 years have begun to push back and formed armed defense groups branded by the government as terrorists. Things came to a head in 2012 (after the 2011 transition to "democracy" began) when the government incited sectarian riots in Rakhine state. The government blamed the Rohingya and began driving them out of their villages in recent years to "fight terrorism". Some Rakhine buddhists have used this as an opportunity to burn those villages and attack fleeing Rohingya.
Yes there are armed Rohingya groups, but they were trapped between an encroaching military and until this year a border with Bangladesh they couldn't cross. The government and Rakhine are absolutely, unquestionably committing genocide. Basically everyone in the world other than the Burmese government and you agrees with this designation.
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…
Humans are social animals. We care about what others think by default. Maybe you're an outlier, that's nice for you, but please don't think your experience is normal.
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
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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?
Was the reduction to the extreme really necessary? But okay, in that particular case, we have the ToS and laws regarding threatening behavior to fall back on. (And if I've unsubscribed from the conversation, I can't even see it anymore to be threatened by it) This problem does not require the extreme step of giving the subject of a conversation an unconditional veto on the conversation.
Well, we started with discussion of genocide at the top of the thread, so it's kind of in context.
> giving the subject of a conversation an unconditional veto on the conversation.
Isn't this the other extreme?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Was the reduction to the extreme really necessary? But okay, in that particular case, we have the ToS and laws regarding threatening behavior to fall back on. (And if I've unsubscribed from the conversation, I can't even see it anymore to be threatened by it) This problem does not require the extreme step of giving the subject of a conversation an unconditional veto on the conversation.
> Was the reduction to the extreme really necessary? Well, we started with discussion of genocide at the top of the thread, so it's kind of in context. > giving the subject of a conversation an unconditional veto on the conversation. Isn't this the other extreme?
Also, in some cases other people see the trolling about you even after you block it.
..which implies it's a negative that you don't have control over the (valueJudgmentOf: comments) about you after you've blocked the conversation. Was this incorrect?
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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
They're already doing moderation, though: Rohingya media gets blocked, white-supremacy media is allowed.
This is a joke right?
Try making the following groups on Facebook and see which is removed:
White Power - Remove All Blacks
Black Power - Remove All Whites
There's a reason it's this way, mostly a valid one depending on how libertarian you lean re: freedom of speech, but your representation is just ridiculous. White people aren't evil, get over it.
Interesting, here's a first-hand account of what's happening: https://streamable.com/zota1
Watched for a few minutes. "Muslims are like African Carp. They breed rapidly [... yadda yadda yadda ...] Our entire race has been suffering under the burden of this minority..." That's grade-A genocidal rhetoric he's deploying. Good for observing that evil can wear any kind of face. Not good for much else.
For example, Americans enslaved Africans for hundreds of years. That is a claim of fact. I believe it is true. I believe slavery is bad, it should be stopped in all its forms (including as punishment for a crime), and I'm glad that the 13th Amendment was passed.
Hating what white people did to Africans does not make me evil, in fact it's a morally superior position.
To say that this guy is being evil, is like denying that slavery occurred because you're ignoring his claim of fact. You're effectively saying "No, Muslim populations in Myanmar are not attempting to take over the country by means of rapid reproduction. You are lying to gain support for genocide."
Just because you disagree with someone's proposed solution (assuming that's what he's proposing), doesn't mean there isn't a problem. It would have been one thing to be opposed to the Civil War - maybe the costs were too high - but it would be quite another to claim slavery is moral, or that slavery wasn't going on, or to just ignore the whole issue and pretend that anyone who's encouraging war is evil.
What if what he's saying is true? Would you support genocide? Would you be okay with large groups of people intentionally having as many kids as they can just to affect future demographics? Just because there's no good solutions, doesn't mean that there isn't a problem. At some point global warming may be beyond every solution, but that won't undo the facts or absolve humanity for its blame.