Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why Facebook is losing the war on hate speech in Myanmar

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 112 posts

Re: Why Facebook is losing the war on hate speech in Myanmar

#61

Post by raverbashing »

tomc1985 wrote: post #23
seanmcdirmid wrote: post #5

I really don't see why Facebook is blamed for this. That ethnic tension was present way before Facebook even existed. It was kept in check by an authoritarian military dictatorship and then bubbled up in the transition to more democracy, which really shouldn't have been unexpected. Facebook was just there at the wrong time, and happened to be the way people were communicating at that time; Aung San Suu Kyi has also g…

Facebook is riding in on its royal horses trying to connect (read: own the primary means of communication) the world like all the classically imperialist westerners before them. The first thing they teach you in international business and/or marketing is that cultural considerations will destroy you if you do not devote effort to addressing them. If, in building a hyperlocal product (like facebook), you do not take t…

> The first thing they teach you in international business and/or marketing is that cultural considerations will destroy you

True, but I'm not sure it's the 1st thing they teach, given the multiple failures in this area

Or, put it more simply (and I love this phrase): Culture eats strategy for breakfast

Re: Why Facebook is losing the war on hate speech in Myanmar

#62

Post by nine_k »

beaconstudios wrote: post #57
Nasrudith wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds like the communist usage of imperialism where anything not part of the nation, them, or their fellow travelers is imperialist even if it is better for the people and noncoerceive because they disrupt the native one. Even if it is say actual honest nongouging medicinal care displacing hedge practitioners who were themselves exploitative. While outsiders looking to make money have a long unfortunate history of d…

> Brings to mind a related observation that the USSR and most 20th century nominal communisms were fascism in communism's skin in practice They were totalitarian, a property shared with fascism. Also, China and the Soviet Union both claimed to be socialist revolutions on the way to communism, not actual communists, and along the way the dictatorship of the proletariat/vanguard party became "corrupted". Real communism…

Both Soviet (and Chinese) parties in power were (and are) nominally "Communist", not "Socialist".

My favorite example of communism implemented in real life is a hermit / monastic retreat, a skete. People devote themselves to voluntarily living an ascetic life, aspiring to the absolute, caring about the common good, and eschewing things like money from daily life.

From the amount of hermits in a society you can estimate how popular this mindset might be, and how realistic is it to involve an entire population into it. Post-scarcity won't solve it, because it's not going to make people automatically care about the common good as a way of self-actualization. This is why the idealist Communist leaders of early Soviets spoke so much about "raising a new man", basically hoping to change the nature of humans.

Re: Why Facebook is losing the war on hate speech in Myanmar

#63

Post by imgabe »

jakelazaroff wrote: post #59
imgabe wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the lynch mobs were being organized over the telephone, would it be the telephone company's responsibility to intercept the communications and stop it? If not, what makes Facebook different? Do we want Facebook to be the arbiter of what we are allowed to say to each other, or do we want them to be a neutral carrier for communications?

> what makes Facebook different? The content in question isn't private messages, it's public (and shareable!) posts. We would absolutely expect, for example, the New York Times to disallow classified ads organizing lynch mobs.

Hmm, with a specific crime, like if someone wanted to print a classified ad that said "Hey everyone, let's go lynch Joe at 5:30pm this Thursday", yes I think we'd expect the NY Times to report it to the authorities. Who are the authorities in this case? The Myanmar government? Why aren't they doing anything? They obviously know the lynchings are happening. It's their responsibility to maintain order and prevent or punish crimes in their country, not Facebook's.

If it were just a general hateful statement like "I hate the Jews" that someone wanted post in a classified ad, I don't know that the NY Times would necessarily stop that, nor that they should if we're going to have free speech.

Re: Why Facebook is losing the war on hate speech in Myanmar

#64

Post by beaconstudios »

nine_k wrote: post #62
beaconstudios wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Brings to mind a related observation that the USSR and most 20th century nominal communisms were fascism in communism's skin in practice They were totalitarian, a property shared with fascism. Also, China and the Soviet Union both claimed to be socialist revolutions on the way to communism, not actual communists, and along the way the dictatorship of the proletariat/vanguard party became "corrupted". Real communism…

Both Soviet (and Chinese) parties in power were (and are) nominally "Communist", not "Socialist". My favorite example of communism implemented in real life is a hermit / monastic retreat, a skete. People devote themselves to voluntarily living an ascetic life, aspiring to the absolute, caring about the common good, and eschewing things like money from daily life. From the amount of hermits in a society you can estima…

> Both Soviet (and Chinese) parties in power were (and are) nominally "Communist", not "Socialist".

I have to disagree with this, especially given that the CPC claims that China is in the "primary stage" of socialism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_stage_of_socialism. Communism in its original Marxist form is classless and stateless, which the PRC and the USSR certainly are/were not. Both countries were/are run by communist parties, but said communists recognise/d that a conversion from an agrarian, nominally capitalist society to a communist one would take a long time and require transition through a socialist state, as Marx originally laid out.

> My favorite example of communism implemented in real life is a hermit / monastic retreat, a skete.

The benefit to small communities is that it is easier to police for attitude and morality. Even more so if it's a religious community, though I'm sure Marx is rolling in his grave that you would call a religious community communist given communism's materialist philosophy.

> From the amount of hermits in a society you can estimate how popular this mindset might be, and how realistic is it to involve an entire population into it.

That's putting the cart before the horse somewhat. I know of many people who retreat from society in a hermit-like fashion for reasons other than asceticism or self-actualisation.

> Post-scarcity won't solve it, because it's not going to make people automatically care about the common good as a way of self-actualization.

But it will remove the primary need for an economy: effective distribution of scarce resources. It would also reduce the need for political hierarchy because property rights would become largely unnecessary to enforce.

> This is why the idealist Communist leaders of early Soviets spoke so much about "raising a new man", basically hoping to change the nature of humans.

They spoke about a lot of things that are purely based in ideology and do not gel with how the world works. Lysenkoism and the Four Pests Campaign strike me as good examples.

Re: Why Facebook is losing the war on hate speech in Myanmar

#65

Post by badosu »

nine_k wrote: post #62
beaconstudios wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Brings to mind a related observation that the USSR and most 20th century nominal communisms were fascism in communism's skin in practice They were totalitarian, a property shared with fascism. Also, China and the Soviet Union both claimed to be socialist revolutions on the way to communism, not actual communists, and along the way the dictatorship of the proletariat/vanguard party became "corrupted". Real communism…

Both Soviet (and Chinese) parties in power were (and are) nominally "Communist", not "Socialist". My favorite example of communism implemented in real life is a hermit / monastic retreat, a skete. People devote themselves to voluntarily living an ascetic life, aspiring to the absolute, caring about the common good, and eschewing things like money from daily life. From the amount of hermits in a society you can estima…

> My favorite example of communism implemented in real life is a hermit / monastic retreat, a skete

There were allegedly lots of epicurean communities in the antiquities, many of those in Europe, which became monasteries.

Epicurean communes were, for all effects and purposes, communism.

Re: Why Facebook is losing the war on hate speech in Myanmar

#66

Post by 0x445442 »

beaconstudios wrote: post #57
Nasrudith wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds like the communist usage of imperialism where anything not part of the nation, them, or their fellow travelers is imperialist even if it is better for the people and noncoerceive because they disrupt the native one. Even if it is say actual honest nongouging medicinal care displacing hedge practitioners who were themselves exploitative. While outsiders looking to make money have a long unfortunate history of d…

> Brings to mind a related observation that the USSR and most 20th century nominal communisms were fascism in communism's skin in practice They were totalitarian, a property shared with fascism. Also, China and the Soviet Union both claimed to be socialist revolutions on the way to communism, not actual communists, and along the way the dictatorship of the proletariat/vanguard party became "corrupted". Real communism…

Post scarcity wouldn't matter anyway. You'd still have the problems of who watches the watchers and the idea that some of us are more equal than others... There is no Star Trek utopia.

Re: Why Facebook is losing the war on hate speech in Myanmar

#67

Post by beaconstudios »

0x445442 wrote: post #66
beaconstudios wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Brings to mind a related observation that the USSR and most 20th century nominal communisms were fascism in communism's skin in practice They were totalitarian, a property shared with fascism. Also, China and the Soviet Union both claimed to be socialist revolutions on the way to communism, not actual communists, and along the way the dictatorship of the proletariat/vanguard party became "corrupted". Real communism…

Post scarcity wouldn't matter anyway. You'd still have the problems of who watches the watchers and the idea that some of us are more equal than others... There is no Star Trek utopia.

> You'd still have the problems of who watches the watchers

Could you expand on what you mean by this? If you remove the concept of material wealth (as a distinction between individuals), the cause for conflict is greatly reduced.

> the idea that some of us are more equal than others

I don't see how this would continue to cause conflicts once people's material needs and wants are all met. People tend to hate on exceptional people because they have access to more things.

> There is no Star Trek utopia.

Certainly not now, but it's a good goal to aim for.

Re: Why Facebook is losing the war on hate speech in Myanmar

#68

Post by selimthegrim »

mirko22 wrote: post #33
CaptainZapp wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If a company is able to censor pictures of breast feeding mothers, or even worse, of iconic historical pictures[1] on an industrial scale, they should be damn well able to moderate speech, which leads to genocide and mass murder and of which they're warned multiple times by a number of organisations. Fucking hypocrites doesn't even start to describe such behavior. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phan_Thi_Kim_Phuc

It's not Facebook that leads to genocide, and you don't need Internet to commit ethnic cleansing... Otherwise Balkans would never happen.

Balkans used TV and newspapers.

Re: Why Facebook is losing the war on hate speech in Myanmar

#69

Post by badosu »

beaconstudios wrote: post #64
nine_k wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Both Soviet (and Chinese) parties in power were (and are) nominally "Communist", not "Socialist". My favorite example of communism implemented in real life is a hermit / monastic retreat, a skete. People devote themselves to voluntarily living an ascetic life, aspiring to the absolute, caring about the common good, and eschewing things like money from daily life. From the amount of hermits in a society you can estima…

> Both Soviet (and Chinese) parties in power were (and are) nominally "Communist", not "Socialist". I have to disagree with this, especially given that the CPC claims that China is in the "primary stage" of socialism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_stage_of_socialism . Communism in its original Marxist form is classless and stateless, which the PRC and the USSR certainly are/were not. Both countries were/are r…

> The benefit to small communities is that it is easier to police for attitude and morality. Even more so if it's a religious community, though I'm sure Marx is rolling in his grave that you would call a religious community communist given communism's materialist philosophy.

See my comment above on how monasteries came from epicurean communes.

See the title or Marx's PhD thesis: The Difference Between the Democritean and Epicurean Philosophy of Nature

Not so far-fetched.

It's true that communism as envisioned by Karl Marx had a materialistic sense, but so did Epicurus philosophy.

Communism is Karl Marx's scaling attempt at Epicurean communes. Not a very good idea IMO.

Re: Why Facebook is losing the war on hate speech in Myanmar

#70

Post by reuben_scratton »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #5

I really don't see why Facebook is blamed for this. That ethnic tension was present way before Facebook even existed. It was kept in check by an authoritarian military dictatorship and then bubbled up in the transition to more democracy, which really shouldn't have been unexpected. Facebook was just there at the wrong time, and happened to be the way people were communicating at that time; Aung San Suu Kyi has also g…

I completely agree. It's crazy to blame FB for shitty human behaviour, one might as well blame the computers and phone lines they use.

It's even crazier to use the issue to advocate for ever greater censorship, as all media companies and politicians now appear to be doing.

Post reply on HN