Instructions from Facebook not to touch the posts of the cabinet minister • Hacker News Board

Re: Instructions from Facebook not to touch the posts of the cabinet minister

#111

Post by DanielGee » Wed, Aug 15, 2018, 1:04 PM UTC

NegativeK wrote: post #74

DanielGee wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The whole concept of "community standards" for a worldwide communication channel strikes me as newspeak for centralized moral policing. This is a classic case of the race to the lowest common denominator. When the "community" is so large and diverse and often in opposition to each other, there can be no good standard other than free speech. This is why we had such strange issues of white supremacist content along w…

> what are these tech companies going to do when pressured Countries that wish to implement legal-based censorship don't care if an internet company has implemented moral-based censorship.

Sure they do. If FB stuck to legal-based censorship then they wouldn't need to ban atheist or gay rights content because those content are legal in the US. But if they swing to moral-based censorship, then those countries can appeal to morality ( their own ) and demand FB censor content in the US. Why? Because FB and tech companies have set a precedent.

What defense does FB or tech companies have against people who say they consider atheism or gay rights to be immoral or offensive? None.

What happens when criticizing a religion is considered hate speech? Wouldn't we have to ban atheism? What happens when people say they find content about gay marriage offensive?

Moral-based censorship opens the floodgates to unlimited censorship.

Re: Instructions from Facebook not to touch the posts of the cabinet minister

#112

Post by megous » Thu, Aug 16, 2018, 2:24 PM UTC

Viliam1234 wrote: post #108

ryandrake wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> “When asked, Facebook officials told us only immutable characteristics and traits that people are born with warrant special protection. Being a migrant is not such a trait, therefore freedom of speech takes priority." Oddly, to illustrate this, the article compared the words “Muslim” with “Migrant” noting one word is protected and one not. How is someone’s religious choice considered an immutable and “born with” tr…

> How is someone’s religious choice considered an immutable and “born with” trait? If the penalty for changing your religion is death, then it is almost immutable. And children usually don't have much choice about the religion, so it is almost as if they were born with it. Just playing a Devil's advocate.

Yes, the world is complicated. :) But it would still not be a born with trait. Perhaps some propensity to accept religious beliefs might be a born with trait.

People can also say something and think a differnt thing. Also while someone may identify with Islam, it could mean very differnt things in real terms, as you can see from various sects and interpretations, and real world behavior of believers. So what is really being protected?

Also, clearly if you are a ISIS member, your religion is not a protected trait despite many of the memebers being quite Islamist, idealistic and devoted to the ideas much more than many of the regular muslims. Your attitudes toward religion are suddenly also not viewed as unchangeable, if you look at various deradicalisation programs. Not by anyone, mind you, there are people who think that all ISIS memebers should just be killed, and that that's the only way.

Re: Instructions from Facebook not to touch the posts of the cabinet minister

#113

Post by megous » Thu, Aug 16, 2018, 2:56 PM UTC

tomp wrote: post #41

megous wrote: post #17

"When asked, Facebook officials told us only immutable characteristics and traits that people are born with warrant special protection. Being a migrant is not such a trait, therefore freedom of speech takes priority." What about forced displacement? There are 10s of milions of forcibly displaced people around the world. It's not a small group compared to some other mentioned protected groups. If the basic idea is tha…

Almost noone in Europe is “forced displaced” as they would need to cross many fairly safe countries to get to the EU. So that’s their choice (a logical one, of course, as they’re pursuing a better standard of living, but a choice nevertheless). The quote by Facebook is a big fat lie anyways. Protection of religion is a generally supported concept, even though it’s very much a choice, not fixed from birth.

> Almost noone in Europe is “forced displaced”

You are wrong.

http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/...

"538 000 asylum seekers were granted protection status in the Member States of the EU in 2017"

These have gained refugee status, which is a subset for the forcibly displaced persons category.

That's quite a bit more than noone.

Fairly safe "closer" countries may not accept you, or be much safer to the particular individual. It may still be too close so that people affiliated with your tormentor may be able tro track you down there and harm you.

So it may make sense to try to get as far as possible. Also "farther" countries may have offered to accept you, so while you're crossing many coutries you may be doing it on the offer of a remoter country.

Re: Instructions from Facebook not to touch the posts of the cabinet minister

#114

Post by megous » Thu, Aug 16, 2018, 2:57 PM UTC

lmm wrote: post #52

megous wrote: post #17

"When asked, Facebook officials told us only immutable characteristics and traits that people are born with warrant special protection. Being a migrant is not such a trait, therefore freedom of speech takes priority." What about forced displacement? There are 10s of milions of forcibly displaced people around the world. It's not a small group compared to some other mentioned protected groups. If the basic idea is tha…

> What about forced displacement? There are 10s of milions of forcibly displaced people around the world. It's not a small group compared to some other mentioned protected groups. People who were forcibly displaced apply for asylum and (if the system works right) eventually become refugees. AIUI the overwhelming majority of the migrants in question are not seeking asylum. > Anyway why it's ok to attack someone for so…

> Because that's most people's moral instinct, even across different cultures?

Yes, perhaps if the choice harms someone. But otherwise?