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

51–60 of 141 posts

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

#51

Post by pjc50 »

Karunamon wrote: post #47
pjc50 wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

I may have misinterpreted your original comment. You said: 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?

Yes, but that's not the same as unconditional veto. This is basically the situation where you'd want to appeal to a third party human.

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

#52

Post by slamdance »

jackmott wrote: post #16
slamdance wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

why are you "split" on having a "complete free speech zone"?

because so many people are horrible

while horrible people do exist, is that a reason to strip them of their ability to express their ideas?

Take for example some of the worst - Vegan Cross-fitters. Now, while i see them as 'horrible' people, I also see them as misinformed. This does not stop me from eating bacon in front of them. There are a myriad of ways to avoid them and their ilk. Here's the rub - THEY probably think the same thing as me (ikr, man-bun cray-cray).

So while you and others here are correct in that there are ignorant and horrible people out there that post goatse and blue waffles, racism, etc... and yes, it may interrupt your viewing/reading/research, that doesn't mean they should be stripped of their expression any more than you are for looking up amino acids or small engine repair.

In my (admittedly low-tech experience) Generally, if you're looking for an answer or doing research or have a specific point to be online, you know what sites are legit, and which are not - and which ones allow anything-goes. That list ebbs and flows as you visit more or less often, just like you know what bars are too rowdy at night. you know because you went there, once. ONCE. .

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

#53

Post by quuquuquu »

otakucode wrote: post #36
quuquuquu wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 an…

Thank you for your interesting and raw thoughts :)

I too agree that the internet should be as free as water. Interestingly, there are movements that attempt to do that, but I think that government and corporation forces are quite good at driving a specific type of usage and penalizing another.

So I think that will continue to be a problem. If enough people wanted to rise up, build their own fiber, run their own mesh network, and or build tools like Tor and TPB to work within the system we have, then the free and open net would win.

Multiple times people have tried to do this, and they have been shut down by force, intimidation, expulsion, imprisonment, confiscation of assets, slander, blacklisting from jobs, you name it.

So to advocate for a free and open net these days is pretty much a social cue that 99.999% of people will say "ehhhh I don't want to associate with that guy."

That's why in 2004, TPB was king. Now in 2017, the internets is all walled gardens and censored platforms. And 99.999% of people are there by choice.

It is a complete and total shame. The herd of lambs carrying each other to slaughter.

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

#55

Post by Pulcinella »

slamdance wrote: post #52
jackmott wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

because so many people are horrible

while horrible people do exist, is that a reason to strip them of their ability to express their ideas? Take for example some of the worst - Vegan Cross-fitters. Now, while i see them as 'horrible' people, I also see them as misinformed. This does not stop me from eating bacon in front of them. There are a myriad of ways to avoid them and their ilk. Here's the rub - THEY probably think the same thing as me (ikr, man-…

“and yes, it may interrupt your viewing/reading/research,...”

My eyeballs are not a “free speech zone.” No one has any right to show me whatever they want.

Also, while I am not vegan, I would not describe vegans as horrible people on the level of bigots and nazis.

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

#56

Post by mschuster91 »

nkoren wrote: post #14
sergiotapia wrote: post #3

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.

> 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.

Sounds similar to what Björn Höcke, prominent German neo-Nazi dude, barked (http://daserste.ndr.de/panorama/aktuell/AfD-Hoeckes-Lehre-vo...). Only thing that Höcke did differently was to hide the true meaning behind the layer of science (r/K reproduction theories).

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

#57

Post by nnfy »

Pulcinella wrote: post #55
slamdance wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

while horrible people do exist, is that a reason to strip them of their ability to express their ideas? Take for example some of the worst - Vegan Cross-fitters. Now, while i see them as 'horrible' people, I also see them as misinformed. This does not stop me from eating bacon in front of them. There are a myriad of ways to avoid them and their ilk. Here's the rub - THEY probably think the same thing as me (ikr, man-…

“and yes, it may interrupt your viewing/reading/research,...” My eyeballs are not a “free speech zone.” No one has any right to show me whatever they want. Also, while I am not vegan, I would not describe vegans as horrible people on the level of bigots and nazis.

>No one has any right to show me whatever they want. Sure, but you have no right to look my way and then complain that I'm forcing you to view something you consider offensive, in case that's what you're insinuating.

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

#58

Post by fleitz »

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

There's lots of ways for them to win. For the most part people just complain, it's a couple cycles of bad PR and then a very large segment of the internet goes back to enjoying the walled garden.

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

#59

Post by ralmidani »

askdufuga wrote: post #50
nkoren wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

People are not evil simply for disliking aspects of other cultures or populations. 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…

> Would you be okay with large groups of people intentionally having as many kids as they can just to affect future demographics?

You are defending the rhetoric of a genocide perpetrator. It's like saying "what if Hitler was right about the Jews? I don't agree with his tactics, but that doesn't mean there wasn't a problem."

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

#60

Post by fleitz »

forgottenpass wrote: post #54

Even if you forget everything else about facebook deciding what can and can't be posted there, I'm still can't believe they have the balls to call it "community standards" with a straight face.

They also call it Facebook instead of AdBook, but meh.
Post reply on HN