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

111–120 of 141 posts

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

#111

Post by quuquuquu »

otakucode wrote: post #104
quuquuquu wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Each utility fought a real battle when being initially established. It's very interesting history. For awhile I was researching it pretty deeply, interested in whether my ideas were total lunacy or what and possibly considering writing a book about it. I started off with the question: What criteria was used to say 'yes, water should be a utility, natural gas should be a utility, electricity should be a utility, telep…

I agree once more with everything you have said!

Sadly I am still worried about the "details of implementation", because they will need to occur within our lifetime, and are influenced by very very rich people who hold all the keys.

Do you think ISPs will become public utilities in the next 20 years? 40?

If so, how? It seems to me that corporations, their politicians, and their supporters have a pretty tight grip on everything.

I am not hopeful that any massive or meaningful changes will occur. The Washington Consensus seems to ensure corporate dominance will continue, to our detriment.

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

#112

Post by macrael »

skybrian wrote: post #96
macrael wrote: post #89

Metafilter remains one of my favorite places on the web and it has strong and serious moderation. I'm not sure how that would translate to Facebook, since I am not sure Metafilter's voice needs to be the same voice everywhere, but moderated discussions seem pretty strictly better than the alternative. For me this always goes back to the observation that corporations are fairly dictatorial constructions, and that espe…

A big social network is not a single community like a blog or forum. It's a collection of communities that do some of their own moderation (blocking people and deleting off-topic posts), with some moderation outsourced to the larger network. This is good; each community can have its own standards, to some extent. When there is good local moderation, there's no reason to bring the legal system into it most of the time…

Yeah, I think more hierarchy is probably necessary and at some point people in that hierarchy need to be paid.

Twitter is my main social network, and there the lines are very fuzzy. There aren't distinct subreddits based on topic, there is just your follow list and that is always changing. Harassment is bad on twitter, and I think that's partially because it isn't contained to little communities but is all in the big stream by default.

I don't know what the right solutions are for harassment, but there haven't been any effective ones tried so far.

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

#113

Post by macrael »

foobiekr wrote: post #90
macrael wrote: post #89

Metafilter remains one of my favorite places on the web and it has strong and serious moderation. I'm not sure how that would translate to Facebook, since I am not sure Metafilter's voice needs to be the same voice everywhere, but moderated discussions seem pretty strictly better than the alternative. For me this always goes back to the observation that corporations are fairly dictatorial constructions, and that espe…

the big issue with metafilter is that the moderation is both content quality and ideological; that does not really make for an open, neutral site and metafilter is not considered neutral.

That's what I meant by saying that I'm not sure Metafilter's voice is appropriate for everywhere.

And I think that you reveal yourself a bit when you say that it's ideological. I do think that most of the moderators on MF have a similar ideological bent, but my experience with their moderation is not so much that they shut down views that they disagree with but rather that they maintain civility, and stop conversations from repeating previous conversations.

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

#114

Post by synicalx »

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.

Genuine question here, unless you're some sort of controversial public figure, how would you wind up attracting the attention of thousands of trolls?

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

#115

Post by synicalx »

pjc50 wrote: post #40
Karunamon wrote: post #31

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?

In a lot of places, that would be illegal.

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

#116

Post by FooHentai »

3131s wrote: post #77
jackmott wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

because so many people are horrible

Censoring them doesn't make them go away. It only removes any hope of turning them into not-horrible people, and in the process many controversial but worthwhile ideas are filtered out. I think individuals should have the tools to disengage from trolls, harassment, spam, etc. (even if it's a catch-all "block everyone that my extended network has blocked" checkbox, or something similar) but I personally want the optio…

The pollution analogy might be useful. Specifically: "The solution to pollution is dilution".

Now, that mantra has been mostly rejected for environmental pollution because there's a far better option: Gather the pollutants, process/eliminate them, and work to eliminate the sources.

Back in our context, hopefully the elimination of people with unsavoury viewpoints is not on the table. We must fundamentally agree that humans being what they are, free thought being what it is, these ideas will never be 'gone'. So accepting that, perhaps "the solution to pollution is dilution" applies.

Apply it and we quickly see how censorship will be counter-productive - Those people, viewpoints and opinions don't go away and instead they concentrate in localized 'hot spots' (or cesspools), where they actually do far more intense and immediate damage. Obvious example: 4chan/8ch. Less obvious example: People's minds.

By avoiding chasing these things into the shadows they remain open to challenge. While the mind of the person you're challenging might not be changed, when its out in the open all others that come past and read that interaction get to judge it on it's merits and make their own judgement call.

Without that, folks end up in echo chambers. When newcomers get to those places, they are not exposed to a balance of viewpoints and the opinions they themselves form will tend to conform to the leanings of the echo chamber where they spend their time.

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

#117

Post by forapurpose »

oh_sigh wrote: post #86
forapurpose wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because the U.S. can afford it, being the wealthiest nation on earth, and should therefore take on its share of the burden. Also, because the U.S. can do good, and give these people liberty and safety; if they don't deserve it, why do you?

Do you apply the same standards to your own life? I bet from your presence on this site that your income or potential income is above the median. When a drunk husband across town starts getting abusive towards his wife, do you open your house to the wife? If no, why not? Are you shouldering your share of the burden?

> Do you apply the same standards to your own life?

Yes, absolutely. Most mature people do and most modern societies do. The U.S. has actively supported freedom and democracy around the world since it became a major power, and part of its ethos has been to take in the 'hungry, tired and poor'.

In fact, if you are an American, you are one of the major beneficiaries of this attitude: The entire society, it's freedom, safety, and prosperity, is build on sacrifices of others. Like everyone else alive today, it was given to you by the generations before you. What will we give to others? Recent generations won WWII, gave the nation civil rights for women and minorities, and did so much more. What will we give to the next generation? Hatred and greed?

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

#118

Post by forapurpose »

mudil wrote: post #84
forapurpose wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because the U.S. can afford it, being the wealthiest nation on earth, and should therefore take on its share of the burden. Also, because the U.S. can do good, and give these people liberty and safety; if they don't deserve it, why do you?

Thanks for your personal donation to the Rohingya Muslims fund! You are a very generous person.

Charitable giving is not an unusual or even noteworthy activity; it's done by many, many people throughout the U.S. and the world. Without it - and not just money, but time - society would collapse.

Charity is also provided by government via tax dollars, something else the U.S. has always done and will continue, even under Trump.

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

#119

Post by yongjik »

FooHentai wrote: post #116
3131s wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Censoring them doesn't make them go away. It only removes any hope of turning them into not-horrible people, and in the process many controversial but worthwhile ideas are filtered out. I think individuals should have the tools to disengage from trolls, harassment, spam, etc. (even if it's a catch-all "block everyone that my extended network has blocked" checkbox, or something similar) but I personally want the optio…

The pollution analogy might be useful. Specifically: "The solution to pollution is dilution". Now, that mantra has been mostly rejected for environmental pollution because there's a far better option: Gather the pollutants, process/eliminate them, and work to eliminate the sources. Back in our context, hopefully the elimination of people with unsavoury viewpoints is not on the table. We must fundamentally agree that…

> Apply it and we quickly see how censorship will be counter-productive - Those people, viewpoints and opinions don't go away and instead they concentrate in localized 'hot spots' (or cesspools), where they actually do far more intense and immediate damage.

This is an often-repeated theory, but I'm not sure it actually works that way. For example, consider the recent discussion about Reddit's "censorship" of hate subs:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15220305

When you openly engage some people, they decide that their idea is now "normal" and then demand the rest of the society to accommodate them. There's a reason why most scientists refrain from debating creationists.

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

#120

Post by eighthnate »

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

There are so many horrible people, so you want these horrible people to be moderators?

If there are so many horrible people, wouldn't you be against censorship and moderation?

Post reply on HN