Live data from Hacker News

Facebook’s Secret Rulebook for Global Political Speech

nytimes.com

121–130 of 207 posts

Re: Facebook’s Secret Rulebook for Global Political Speech

#121
post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The pen is mightier than the sword! FB is not taking down web sites - they are managing public discourse on their own channels. Constitutional freedoms don't quite apply here. When the Feds take down web sites, I think a much higher standard needs to apply.

What if FB is performing censorship under various kinds of implicit pressure from the "Feds" (and other governments)? Then it's just state censorship, laundered to look like it's "only a private party's decision within their narrow domain".

Look, if the people posting racist hate-speech get banned from all the sites I use, my life is much better. They can go take their trash somewhere else.

You are defending some pretty awful excuses for humans....

Re: Facebook’s Secret Rulebook for Global Political Speech

#122
i'll save you the click, tldr: facebook is trying to solve an unsolvable problem, they've made some mistakes as 2 billion people have a lot of different ideas about what constitutes a good or bad decision, but no one has anything better to offer, including the author of the article.

Re: Facebook’s Secret Rulebook for Global Political Speech

#123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Words can not be violent. If you think one person being offended means speakers must be silenced, then you're on a dangerous pathway to fascism.

Check out what happened in Rwanda. This one random guy was going on the radio and spewing hate and lies, encouraging people to pick up machetes and kill their neighbors and family members based on this nuanced, arbitrary colonial racial construct. It went viral. Low key, I'm basically horrified of the hash tag version of this popping up. There's a poignant black mirror episode about this I believe. Although... I do b…

> Check out what happened in Rwanda. This one random guy was going on the radio and spewing hate and lies, encouraging people to pick up machetes and kill their neighbors and family members based on this nuanced, arbitrary colonial racial construct.

> It went viral.

What?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rwandan_genocide

> The genocide was planned by members of the core Hutu political elite, many of whom occupied positions at top levels of the national government. Perpetrators came from the Rwandan army, the Gendarmerie, and government-backed militias including the Interahamwe and Impuzamugambi.

[..]

> The RPF military campaign had resulted in some intensified support for the so-called "Hutu Power" ideology, which portrayed the RPF as an alien force. In radio programs and other news, the Tutsis were portrayed as non-Christian, intent on reinstating the Tutsi monarchy and enslaving the Hutus. Many Hutu reacted to this prospect with extreme opposition. In the lead-up to the genocide, the number of machetes imported into Rwanda increased.

> On 6 April 1994, an aeroplane carrying Habyarimana and Burundian President Cyprien Ntaryamira was shot down on its descent into Kigali. At the time, the plane was in the airspace above Habyarimana's house. The assassination of Habyarimana ended the peace accords.

> Genocidal killings began the following day. Soldiers, police, and militia quickly executed key Tutsi and moderate Hutu military and political leaders who could have assumed control in the ensuing power vacuum.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rwandan_Civil_War

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rwandan_Revolution

I didn't read all that right now, but just reading some it's very obvious that to just sum it up as "this one random guy on the radio going viral with racist rants" and the rest following from that -- instead of the radio broadcasts being part of something that was already underway -- is kinda stunning. Especially in this context, preparing the ground for shutting up random people, because what they say might go viral and lead to genocide. You called it "a hashtag version of this", after all, of what you claim caused the Rwandan genocide.

Who was this random guy? Who told you this story, or where do you have it from? How did this claim go viral, that one random guy on Rwanda ranted on the radio, and it ended in genocide?

> I do believe that the relative diversity of today's public internet forums is a safeguard against this

If anything, it's people on the ground, in real life, living together, that would innoculate them against people on the radio or on the web telling them how other people are and what they will do if not attacked first. FWIW, the internet seems less diverse in spirit than it was, we used to be small groups of totally random people who had to get along and get to know each other, because we couldn't just block everyone or drive them off.

Re: Facebook’s Secret Rulebook for Global Political Speech

#124
post #22

I commend Facebook for allocating more resources to enforce its community standards, what's the point in outlining standards if there is no enforcement? I'm not surprised that the initial implementation has had some rough patches. For this effort to be successful Facebook and other platforms are going to have to heavily invest in building relationships with cultural experts and stakeholders in hundreds of different c…

The problem is that nothing that Facebook does will actually solve the problem. The solution that will actually solve the problem, having different social networks, with different community standards for each, is antithetical to Facebook's existence. Facebook will continue to make more PowerPoint presentations and hire more outsourced content moderators in a desperate attempt to make the unworkable work... or at leas…

That doesn't solve the problem of what to do when a community's standards are beyond the pale.

Re: Facebook’s Secret Rulebook for Global Political Speech

#125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s not constitutionally protected in basically any other western country for example, what is so bad about the way those countries work? Is the USA an improved society because of this?

> It’s not constitutionally protected in basically any other western country for example, what is so bad about the way those countries work To give just one example, in France, it is currently illegal to wear a t-shirt that says "boycott Israel". https://forward.com/news/breaking-news/323207/france-court-u... So yes, USA is an improved society in that regard because of its strong freedom of speech protections. Hopefu…

I’m surprised political speech is not protected specifically as it is in the UK and Australia in France for example, but I still don’t agree the trade off for Nazis is worth it.

Re: Facebook’s Secret Rulebook for Global Political Speech

#126
post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The pen is mightier than the sword! FB is not taking down web sites - they are managing public discourse on their own channels. Constitutional freedoms don't quite apply here. When the Feds take down web sites, I think a much higher standard needs to apply.

What if FB is performing censorship under various kinds of implicit pressure from the "Feds" (and other governments)? Then it's just state censorship, laundered to look like it's "only a private party's decision within their narrow domain".

this. (and the article mentions some of the gov entwining)

And

It's often just not seen, which to me is worse then being "laundered to look like it's [private-party]'s fault"

When speech is erased, or otherwise hidden and downranked, many people assume, both the poster of the content and those people that have followed or liked believe that content they are expressing desire to get, never existed at all

- so there is no blame because so many do not realize the censorship in the first place - which is even worse imho.

Re: Facebook’s Secret Rulebook for Global Political Speech

#127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Words can not be violent. sure, sure. please explain how Facebook did not contribute to the Rohingya "situation" in [Myanmar]. please document how violence-inciting speech never helps spark actual violence (xenophobic violence everywhere since the dawn of speech). i know, i know... guns don't kill people, people kill people. the issue is: we're all latent murderers. civilization is a very thin veneer. if we were al…

The real support for violence is not hidden in the Facebook walls of morons, it's on broadcast news. Virtually every news channel came out against Trump ending our war in Syria. By comparison, I couldn't care less what some dumb racists say on Facebook.

HN is a big fan of pointless wars for our elites and supporting the lunatic state of israel. It's not hard to figure out why.

Re: Facebook’s Secret Rulebook for Global Political Speech

#128
post #24
post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you don't believe in censoring communications between a willing-speaker & willing-listener, anything they do has a 100% false-positive rate.

If only Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube were completely full of willing listeners for hate speech, then that might be applicable. Hate groups aren't sending private forum messages to each other, they're broadcasting Even John Stuart Mill, a founding philosopher of free speech, postulated that speech needs to be curtailed when the expression harms others.

It's impossible to get any piece of content on twitter or youtube to you against your will - you have to go to that site and look at that content. Facebook is a bit trickier since your default view is formed by "friends" actions and "suggestions", but it's pretty east to make it so no undesirable content gets through. Most complaints are not about somebody inadvertently seeing undesirable content, but from somebody who went looking for it, found it and then demanded to remove that content from the platform - despite many willing consumers of the content. So don't bring the shade of John Stuart Mill in here - the "harm" to others is only the feeling these "others" feel when they see somebody thinks differently from what they want them to think, and they are not willing to tolerate it, not on their platform.

Re: Facebook’s Secret Rulebook for Global Political Speech

#129
post #5

Having a bunch of likely millenial aged individuals with limited life experience based in Menlo Park to have a say in discourse that crosses so many boundaries? What could possibly go wrong?

> Having a bunch of likely millenial aged individuals with limited life experience A millennial is going to be around 30. They're not children. In fact they likely have children of their own.

Life experience isn't just a result of accumulated years, as one dictionary summarizes it: "experience and knowledge gained through living". If it rains a lot, but I don't catch any of it, I still have no water, yet if it rains just a tiny bit, and I hold out a cup, I do have some water. Of course, if I hold out a cup and it doesn't rain, I have no water either. You have to live to be able to gather life experience, but just living isn't enough. The same goes for having children, they are a great opportunity for learning and reflection, but they don't necessarily cause it in all people in the same degree.

Re: Facebook’s Secret Rulebook for Global Political Speech

#130
post #24
post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you don't believe in censoring communications between a willing-speaker & willing-listener, anything they do has a 100% false-positive rate.

If only Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube were completely full of willing listeners for hate speech, then that might be applicable. Hate groups aren't sending private forum messages to each other, they're broadcasting Even John Stuart Mill, a founding philosopher of free speech, postulated that speech needs to be curtailed when the expression harms others.

Why don't they create opt-out hate (or whatever) filters that all users are subscribed to by default?

This would probably satisfy just about everyone.

Post reply on HN