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

Facebook Admits It Was Used to Incite Violence in Myanmar (2018)

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 262 posts

Re: Facebook Admits It Was Used to Incite Violence in Myanmar (2018)

#31

Post by MrMan »

jeromegv wrote: post #10
fairity wrote: post #7

I'd love Facebook to do more to prevent misuse of its platform, but I don't see why I should blame Facebook for Myanmar violence. Facebook at its core is a tool that helps people spread information and opinions - not too different from the telephone or email. The blame for Myanmar violence should be placed squarely on the people that are spreading misinformation that incites violence. Even if Facebook does a better j…

Those arguments always forget 1 thing. Facebook recommend users to join groups, follow pages, and even shows content that is not from people you follow. So it isn't just a telephone company that allows you to make phone calls, it's a service that makes an editorial choice about what they show you. If they show you posts that incite violence in Myanmar and show you fake news that make you outraged about a certain ethn…

yes it seems like the same stochastic behavior that drives marketing conversions - as numbers increase, expected conversion is almost surely going to happen. but regulation and complaints about the service always focus on the micro, the anecdote, the qualitative.

Re: Facebook Admits It Was Used to Incite Violence in Myanmar (2018)

#33

Post by bedhead »

MrMan wrote: post #12
sschueller wrote: post #6

I guess you could argue Facebook should be shutdown as parlor was. Although parlor was only used for hate, Facebook didn't do anything to stop it either. I think a big issue is how facebooks algo (and others) are built for maximum profit which at the same time also radicalizes people in their filter bubble.

I think Facebook should be broken up but I havent heard any good ideas yet regarding how to somehow regulate social networks. Beyond hate speech, I dont see any reason to limit what people can say. Somehow limiting how the network connects people, or how content propagates, seems like the key. Only FB has done the social experiments at scale to know how to engineer this, which is faintly ironic.

"Beyond hate speech" lol. That's kinda the problem, isn't it? Who gets to define "hate"? And why ban speech that is actually legal (even if highly offensive) anyway? And if it's worthy of banning on a major platform, why not just make it explicitly illegal? These are serious and important questions (among others) that seem to get conveniently glossed over.

Re: Facebook Admits It Was Used to Incite Violence in Myanmar (2018)

#34

Post by MrMan »

fairity wrote: post #19
jeromegv wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those arguments always forget 1 thing. Facebook recommend users to join groups, follow pages, and even shows content that is not from people you follow. So it isn't just a telephone company that allows you to make phone calls, it's a service that makes an editorial choice about what they show you. If they show you posts that incite violence in Myanmar and show you fake news that make you outraged about a certain ethn…

> So it isn't just a telephone company that allows you to make phone calls, it's a service that makes an editorial choice about what they show you. Understood. Perhaps there's a more apt analogy. Let's say there exists a gun manufacturer who's developed a new type of gun that's particularly effective. The problem is the guns are in limited supply. The manufacturer ultimately cares about profit, so it decides to sell…

lets say the gun manufacturer sees a presentation given by executives at a social network. "we can create conditions that drive demand, because our social scientists have 1/4 the planet as guinea pigs." gun manufacturer takes out ads, and also gives money to "affiliates" like Ted Nugent to create viral content.

I am not saying that FB execs make such a presentation, nor that TN is directly funded by the NRA, but the relationships are all there - interested parties are aware that Facebook can create results.

Re: Facebook Admits It Was Used to Incite Violence in Myanmar (2018)

#35

Post by arrosenberg »

MrMan wrote: post #12
sschueller wrote: post #6

I guess you could argue Facebook should be shutdown as parlor was. Although parlor was only used for hate, Facebook didn't do anything to stop it either. I think a big issue is how facebooks algo (and others) are built for maximum profit which at the same time also radicalizes people in their filter bubble.

I think Facebook should be broken up but I havent heard any good ideas yet regarding how to somehow regulate social networks. Beyond hate speech, I dont see any reason to limit what people can say. Somehow limiting how the network connects people, or how content propagates, seems like the key. Only FB has done the social experiments at scale to know how to engineer this, which is faintly ironic.

> I havent heard any good ideas yet regarding how to somehow regulate social networks.

* Break them up, and keep them small enough so that no one site can do that much damage.

* Remove safe harbor provisions on algorithmic content feeds.

* Pass a transaction tax on ad auctions to discourage free-for-attention business models.

Re: Facebook Admits It Was Used to Incite Violence in Myanmar (2018)

#36

Post by MrMan »

jenwkejnwjkef wrote: post #18
jeromegv wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those arguments always forget 1 thing. Facebook recommend users to join groups, follow pages, and even shows content that is not from people you follow. So it isn't just a telephone company that allows you to make phone calls, it's a service that makes an editorial choice about what they show you. If they show you posts that incite violence in Myanmar and show you fake news that make you outraged about a certain ethn…

I'm not sure why anybody falls for the frankly absurd idea that social media sites are platforms and not publishers. They choose what to show you, just like the NYT or any other traditional publisher. The only difference is who does the choosing---algorithms or humans. But that, to me, is just a logistical detail and shouldn't have an effect on the distinction between publisher and platform. To think that Facebook an…

I agree with this. FB has succeeded in their marketing effort to be perceived, even by their detractors, as somehow separate from "mainstream media" when in fact they are one of the biggest media companies on the planet.

Re: Facebook Admits It Was Used to Incite Violence in Myanmar (2018)

#38

Post by spoonjim »

rvz wrote: post #20
sschueller wrote: post #6

I guess you could argue Facebook should be shutdown as parlor was. Although parlor was only used for hate, Facebook didn't do anything to stop it either. I think a big issue is how facebooks algo (and others) are built for maximum profit which at the same time also radicalizes people in their filter bubble.

Even if you wanted to, Facebook can't be de-platformed. They are entrenched in the internet and own their own data centres, are also themselves domain registrars and members part of the ICANN.

Ultimately if someone with guns and tanks decides to deplatform you, it’s happening unless you can get your own guys with guns and tanks to protect you.

Re: Facebook Admits It Was Used to Incite Violence in Myanmar (2018)

#39

Post by anadem »

flowerlad wrote: post #11

On the internet everything can appear equally legitimate. Breitbart looks as legit as the BBC. Sacha Baron Cohen https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymaWq5yZIYM Excerpts: Voltaire was right when he said "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." And social media lets authoritarians push absurdities to millions of people. President Trump using Twitter has spread conspiracy theories more t…

Thank you, I'd missed that and will share it

Re: Facebook Admits It Was Used to Incite Violence in Myanmar (2018)

#40

Post by mc32 »

bedhead wrote: post #33
MrMan wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think Facebook should be broken up but I havent heard any good ideas yet regarding how to somehow regulate social networks. Beyond hate speech, I dont see any reason to limit what people can say. Somehow limiting how the network connects people, or how content propagates, seems like the key. Only FB has done the social experiments at scale to know how to engineer this, which is faintly ironic.

"Beyond hate speech" lol. That's kinda the problem, isn't it? Who gets to define "hate"? And why ban speech that is actually legal (even if highly offensive) anyway? And if it's worthy of banning on a major platform, why not just make it explicitly illegal? These are serious and important questions (among others) that seem to get conveniently glossed over.

Yes it’s a very difficult problem and one with bad solutions (see fictitious chatter below):

I like Indian curry.

Yes, Indian curry is the best curry.

Yes, Indian curry in Japan is not the same. They don’t know how to make it.

Yes, Indians are better at making curry. After all it was invented in India and we have the local spices.

Definitely, I would not buy curry inJapan unless it’s made by an Indian who knows how to make it.

I mean you can see this potentially going in an unwanted direction. But is it hate?

To me hate is when you have immediate violent outcomes in mind.

Post reply on HN