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

61–70 of 141 posts

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

#61

Post by Veelox »

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…

>Hating what white people did to Africans does not make me evil, in fact it's a morally superior position.

Interesting, specifically, the "morally superior position" part. Are you willing to explain how hating what white people did is a morally superior position? Also, morally superior position to what, not hating it?

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

#62

Post by musage »

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

We already have the complaints about censorship. What we don't have is sensible moderation.

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

#63

Post by frgtpsswrdlame »

slamdance wrote: post #13
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…

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

Because I find I prefer the places on the web which pay for good moderation to the places on the web which are complete free speech zones (or as close as they can legally be.)

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

#64

Post by wavefunction »

mudil wrote: post #41

It should also be emphasized that Trump administration, so easily labeled as racist by practically everyone on the left, has urged 'strong and swift' U.N. action to end Rohingya Muslims crisis. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-myanmar-rohingya/trump-ur...

You refuse to rent to black folks, you refuse to have black folks count your money, you claim a US citizen and judge is illegitimate because he's hispanic, you might be a racist...

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

#65

Post by watty »

pjc50 wrote: post #38
tdb7893 wrote: post #25

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

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.

I think it's safe to assume that they mean free "legal" speech.

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

#66

Post by snakeanus »

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

Which is why federated solutions like GNUSocial, NNTP or email win here as moderation can be applied per-node.

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

#67

Post by snakeanus »

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…

> A completely open web will be inundated with spam, pornography and propaganda

I doubt that. In fact, from my experience in a "completely open" I would say that this is false.

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

#68

Post by pjc50 »

watty wrote: post #65
pjc50 wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think it's safe to assume that they mean free "legal" speech.

I'm not sure, a lot of people seem to want speech free beyond even American norms. And "legal where?" is an important question.

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

#69

Post by Veelox »

ralmidani wrote: post #59
askdufuga wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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."

To try and be charitable to the poster, I think a better example would be "Would you be okay burning witches if they really did curse people?" than the Nazi example.

I think another way of saying phrasing the same idea. Let us assume that Muslims are intentionally having as many kids as they can to become a demographic majority in the future. How does that affect how we should act?

The above phrasing I count as very different from defending rhetoric of a genocide perpetrator because the answer to the above question is not "Kill all Muslims".

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

#70

Post by [deleted] »

rhizome wrote: post #45
tdb7893 wrote: post #25

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.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN